You've been reading Non-Sequitur; that's his theory. For which there is no historical or constitutional support. He also agrees with Adolf Hitler, that the States are mere creatures of the Congress, and in no way sovereign.
This, by the way, is a case of "you're just saying that!" Of people "making stuff up" and "changing the rules as they go along".
IF the South had "applied" to the other States for "permission" to leave the Union, it would not have been granted in any case (see below); so the argument about the South's secession being procedurally deficient is a smoke screen, and a fraudulent one at that.
The simple fact is that President Lincoln and Congress did not consider the Deep South's secession to be Constitutional, ......
No, of course not. They wanted the cotton trade, they wanted the South in the Union and paying their high tariffs and making them rich. No way in hell would they recognize any Southern attempt to leave the Union for any reason whatsoever, because Lincoln and the Northern business interests wanted the money.
.....and when the South began shooting at Federal Forces, Lincoln declared an insurrection.
"Insurrection" wasn't Lincoln's call. Read the Constitution: it falls to the States to certify insurrection to the Congress, or the President.
Lincoln tried to get Gov. Sam Houston of Texas to certify insurrection, and he promised him troops, if Houston would do it (Gov. Sam was a Union man). Houston refused to betray his people, notwithstanding that he disagreed profoundly with them on the secession question, and instead threw Lincoln's letter in the fire.
In the case of Virginia, it was Lincoln who acted first, ordering Irvin McDowell to invade the State with 40,000 men as soon as the secession convention voted, and before the State plebiscite ratified the secession act. Lincoln also blockaded the State -- an act of war, and unconstitutional under Lincoln's theory that the States were still in the Union (Article I forbids the federal government to imposed preferences on ocean traffic to American ports).
It's irrelevant what the FR-late Non-Sequitur may have believed.
What matters is, that's what historical figures such as James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, James Buchanan and Abraham Lincoln, amongst many others, all believed.
lentulusgracchus: "This, by the way, is a case of "you're just saying that!" Of people "making stuff up" and "changing the rules as they go along". "
I am not in the least confused about the difference between opinions and facts, but don't just assume that what may look like nothing more than my opinion is not also a fact.
Nearly everything I say as "opinion" I have in the past, and can again if requested, support by citing the facts they are based on.
You are, of course, free at any point to challenge my opinions, and ask me to show the facts.
Yes, it can be long work, and that's the reason I don't cite everything on every post.
But in all good faith, I will if you specifically ask.
lentulusgracchus: "IF the South had "applied" to the other States for "permission" to leave the Union, it would not have been granted in any case (see below); so the argument about the South's secession being procedurally deficient is a smoke screen, and a fraudulent one at that."
Not in the least.
I'll remind you again that the South effectively controlled the Federal Government from its founding all the way up until it walked out in secession in 1861.
So nothing the South adamantly opposed could pass.
And anything the South most wanted, it could eventually get.
A great example is tariffs, which at the South's insistence declined drastically from a peak of over 50% before 1830, to a low around 17% in the 1850s.
Yes, much is made of the new Morrill Tariff law of 1861, but the key point is: that could never have passed, had the South stood in united opposition to it.
And because Southern states effectively controlled Congress, those states could have seceded peacefully, with "mutual consent" had they wished to.
But they didn't.
lentusgracchus: "No, of course not. They wanted the cotton trade, they wanted the South in the Union and paying their high tariffs and making them rich."
In fact, tariffs in the 1850s were at historic low levels, precisely because that's what the South insisted on.
Nor could they have risen in 1861 had the South stood solid in opposition.
And I'll repeat: many defenders of the Southern Cause insist on these threads that the South was actually, on average, far more prosperous than the North.
I think that's debatable, but it does make it hard to claim the South was somehow being economically "oppressed", doesn't it?
lentulusgracchus: ""Insurrection" wasn't Lincoln's call. Read the Constitution: it falls to the States to certify insurrection to the Congress, or the President."
No it doesn't.
Article One, Section Eight, Congress shall have the power:
lentulusgracchus: "In the case of Virginia, it was Lincoln who acted first, ordering Irvin McDowell to invade the State with 40,000 men as soon as the secession convention voted, and before the State plebiscite ratified the secession act.
Lincoln also blockaded the State -- an act of war, and unconstitutional under Lincoln's theory that the States were still in the Union "
So far as I know of, except to defend Federal property (i.e., Fort Sumter), not a single Federal soldier crossed a single Confederate state border for any unfriendly purpose in the days, weeks and months prior to the South's Declaration of War on the United States, May 6, 1861.
At the same time, before their Declaration of War, the Confederacy was offering to send Confederate forces into Union states (i.e., Missouri) and holding Union military officers as prisoners of war (Texas).
lentulusgracchus: "unconstitutional under Lincoln's theory that the States were still in the Union (Article I forbids the federal government to imposed preferences on ocean traffic to American ports)."
The Constitution enumerates the Federal Government's power to suppress insurrections.