But you didn't answer my question. Is the non-tyranny dependent on "the courts were working, representatives were seated, legislatures operated..."? If those are the sine qua non of tyranny, then wouldn't interfering with courts and legislatures, arresting representatives, blockading free travel, and breaking laws and contracts be tyrannical?
There need be no “explanation” for actions so protective of the sovereignty of the US as to prevent a Red Chinese military presence within the Union. It is indivisible by its nature as this illustrates.
Then there is likewise no need to explain why a seceding state would make arrangements to defend ITS sovereignty. It's the threat of your solution to the problem which necessitates the creation of the problem. And how did you illustrate with no explanation?
Taiwan and Tibet are different because it was the Revolting forces (like the secessionists) which took over China.
So if seceding states rejoined the British commonwealth, then their departure from a revolutionary regime would be somehow make their secession alright? Besides, Tibet was a separate country which the Chinese have brutally conquered. Does having been brutally conquered create an allowance?
Those places had no allegiance to them any more than an American would have had to the Secessionists had they been successful.
So, if the Confederacy had seceded in war, then it would have retroactively have had the right to secede?
Since court officers and State legislatures are required to swear to uphold the US Constitution before anything, I suppose you could argue that those courts and legislatures under Slaver control were not functioning.
State “sovereignty” under the Constitution cannot trump the sovereignty of the United States of America. That was PRECISELY why the Constitution was written in the first place since state sovereignty had almost destroyed the Union.
Colonies never chose to be part of Britain. They realized that they were nothing but appendages to the Empire to be used as the Crown and Parliament wished without the rights of Englishmen. So that attempt goes down in flames.
Presumably you meant “succeeded in war.” But revolting against a pretended tyranny and a Union you swore to uphold is far different than revolting against a political structure which denied you the basic rights of Englishmen. My guess is had representation been allowed in the Parliament there would have been no rebellion.