[Colt .45]

You want to know truth, here's a mouthful for you to choke on ... 'Lincoln through his secretary of state, called out the militia of twenty-four states using as authority a 1795 act of Congress that gave the president the authority to do so, providing that authority would cease thirty days after the beginning of the next session of Congress.

Under the Constitution it is the duty of the president to call the Congress into session during "extrordinary occasions." Ft. Sumter, like Pearl Harbor, was such an occasion. Why didn't Lincoln follow the commands of the Constitution and call the Congress forthwith? Why did he, on 15 April 1861, call Congress to meet almost three months later in July? And then only after he had driven the nation headlong into war? Obviously, he did not want Congress to get involved-did not want the Constitution to get involved. Lincoln was assuming all the powers of a dictator.

After calling forth the militia, within less than a week after Sumter, Lincoln ordered the blockade of Southern ports. A blockade is an act of war, requiring Congressional resolution. On April 21, he ordered the navy to buy five warships, an appropriations act requiring Congressional approval. On April 27th, he started suspending the priviledge of habeas corpus, in effect just about nullifying every civil liberty of every citizen. Soon thereafter he started shutting down newspapers that were not supportive of the war on the South. On May 3, he called for more troops, this time for three years, again a prerogative of the Congress.' - 'When In The Course of Human Events' - Charles Adams 1999

Yet you say that the South had no right to lawfully seceed. Please read what the Founding Fathers thought about rebellion!

It is a traditional American motto that: "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." That is, resistance against tyranny is a moral duty. This motto was suggested by Benjamin Franklin in mid-1776 in the Congress as being an appropriate one for the seal of the United States; and it was so truly expressive of traditional American thinking that Jefferson adopted it for use on his personal seal.

A major part of the American philosophy underlying the resistance to the tyranny of the king and parliament prior to the Declaration of Independence, and in support of that Declaration in 1776, was as follows. Public officials who exceed the limits of the powers delegated to them by the people under their fundamental law and thus violate, or endanger, the people's God-given, unalienable rights thereby and to this extent make of themselves defaulting trustees, usurpers, oppressors and tyrants. They thereby act outside of this supreme law, which defines these limits and the scope of their authority and office, and therefore act without authority from the people. By thus exceeding and violating the restrictions of law, they act outside the Law: lawlessly, as "out-laws." As Samuel Adams stated: "Let us remember, that 'if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others [Posterity] in our doom.'" (Emphasis added.) They thereby, in practice, replace Rule-by-Law with Rule-by-Man. These defaulting trustees-thus acting lawlessly-thereby free the people from any duty of obedience; because legally and morally, under Rule-by-Law, obedience by the self-governing people is required only to Law and not to law-defying public servants.

The reasoning supporting the above-quoted motto's concept of moral duty is this: Man, being given by his Creator unalienable rights which are accompanied by corresponding duties, has the moral duty - duty to God - to safeguard these rights for the benefit of self and others, including Posterity. Man is therefore obligated to oppose all violaters of these rights and to fail to do so is to defy duty to God as the giver of these rights; and such failure betrays Man's duty as the temporary trustee of Posterity's just heritage.- 'The Spirit of 1776 - Twelve Basic American Principles' by Hamilton Albert Long published 1976 (Emphasis is mine)

So as we see, the South had every right to secede and not obey the tyranny of Lincoln who had usurped his Constitutionally delegated powers.

[Non-Sequitur]

The problem is that actions are not illegal because you say so, nor are they unconstitutional.

Under the Constitution it is the duty of the president to call the Congress into session during "extrordinary occasions."

No, what Article II, Section 3 says is that the president may on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them. It does not say he is required to. But that doesn't mean anything because, as you pointed out, Lincoln did call Congress into session in the same proclamation that called out the militia to supress the rebellion. Regardless of whether it was three weeks or three months later, Lincoln was constitutionally limited to what he could do until Congress convened and he didn't cross the line.

A blockade is an act of war, requiring Congressional resolution.

Again, your definition. It was not an act of war, because one wages war against other countries, but an action for supressing the rebellion. Lincoln believed that the same legislation that allowed him to call out the militia to supress rebellion also gave him the authority to use the military for the same purpose. That is why his April proclamation limited the length of the blockade until such time as Congress had assembled and deliberated on the unlawful actions of the southern states.

On April 21, he ordered the navy to buy five warships, an appropriations act requiring Congressional approval...On May 3, he called for more troops, this time for three years, again a prerogative of the Congress.

You're both wrong on that, not surprising when dealing with Charles Adams. As Commander in Chief there is nothing in the Constitution that prevented Lincoln from ordering those ships. As Commander in Chief there was nothing preventing Lincoln from calling for 75,000 troops. There is nothing in the Constitution that says only congress can do either of those things, because the act of ordering ships and calling up men do not constitute an appropriations. Had congess declined to pay for those ships or fund those soldiers then there was nothing Lincoln could have done. And if you look at the history of the period you would find that all those soldiers were supported by states and cities and counties in the expectation that the federal government would reimburse them.

On April 27th, he started suspending the priviledge of habeas corpus, in effect just about nullifying every civil liberty of every citizen.

In the first place, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was limited to areas on Maryland around Baltimore so he wasn't "nullifying every civil liberty of every citizen". In the second place, the constitutionality of Lincoln's actions has never been decided, as no less authority as Chief Justice William Rehnquist pointed out in a recent book. Again, it is not illegal just because you said so.

So as we see, the South had every right to secede and not obey the tyranny of Lincoln who had usurped his Constitutionally delegated powers.

Again, the opinions of yourself and the gentlemen in question. Their opinions do not make secession legal any more than my opinion makes it illegal. The Supreme Court ruled the southern actions illegal and in violation of the Constitution and their opinions are the ones that count. But I realize that a Supreme Court decision on this subject carries no weight with you. Supreme Court decisions meand nothing to the southern leadership, either. But the court did speak, and until the Constitution is amended or the decision is overturned by a future court then unilateral secession as practiced by the southern states will remain illegal.