Not my fault.
Get a longer attention span.
Or try skimming.
When I see a paragraph like this one:
"On May 27, 1861, the army of the United States of America (the "Union")--a nation formed by consecutive secessions, first from Great Britain in 1776, and then from itself in 17881--invaded the State of Virginia, which had recently seceded from the Union, in an effort to negate that secession by violent force."
Then there isn't any reason to continue. He presents the legality of the southern actions as fact, not something open for debate. He also is trying to make the case that secession is legal. He doesn't need to make that case to me, I believe that secession is legal. It was not the fact that the south wanted out that was wrong, it was their method of doing it.
But looking further, and I know this because I've read this article in the past, you get to this gem:
"As settled as secession may be as a political or historical issue to many, it has never been settled as a legal one."
Well that is wrong. The illegality of the southern actions was settled in the case of Texas v White in 1868. I do not believe that unilateral secession as practiced by the southern states is sanctioned by the Constitution, and there is nothing in that article that gives me a reason to change that belief. So nice try. Better luck next time.