And the U.S. invaded Japan. Had Japan not started the war then the U.S. wouldn't have invaded anything.
No rational person gives a sh*t what a War court frighted of Lincoln claims, and most especially we do not give a sh*t when it clearly contradicts the actual wording of the Constitution itself.
Rationality seems to be in short supply in your posts. Every decision you disagree with is automatically wrong. Every justice you dislike is automatically biased.
My liking it has nothing to do with it. My being able to read is all it takes.
Only if we accept your opinion as fact, which given your track record is very, very hard to do.
As Chief Justice Salmon P Chase said, "Secession is not rebellion."
Legal secession is not rebellion. Rebellion is rebellion. The South engaged in the later.
Had we maintained a fortress overlooking Tokyo bay, and had we threatened their shipping with those cannons, and had they attacked this fortress on THEIR territory, then you might have an analogy.
What Japan did was come into *OUR* territory, kill 3,000 of our people, destroy many billions of dollars worth of equipment, and then attacked all our other ships at sea and our troops in other lands.
You apparently don't have the wit to grasp the difference between what Japan did and what the Confederates did. The Confederates spent three months asking us to leave, and even said they would refrain from attacking if the commander would give his word not to fire on them in the event that the *WAR FLEET* which Lincoln sent to attack them, fired cannons at them.
Major Anderson refused, and so he left them no choice but to either neutralize the fort, or be attacked from two sides at once.
Of course there is really no point in appealing to your sense of reason on this matter, because you consciously reject any information that doesn't fit into your preferred world view.
Every decision you disagree with is automatically wrong.
You keep trying to make this about me. You have your cause and effect reverse. I disagree with it because it's clearly wrong with an objective reading of what the constitution actually says. Were it correct, I would admit that it was correct, but since it clearly violates Article IV, Section 2, I cannot agree with it.
I feel the same way about Abortion (14th amendment.) Gay marriage. (14th Amendment) Banning Prayer in Schools. (14th Amendment.) Anchor babies. (14th Amendment.) and a whole host of other clearly incorrect decisions by the Supreme Court, such as Wickard, and Kelo.
Legal secession is not rebellion. Rebellion is rebellion. The South engaged in the later.
Now who is disagreeing with the opinion of a Supreme Court Justice? Justice Chase was clearly referring to the Southern secession. He even went so far as to advise Federal Prosecutors that bringing Jefferson Davis to trial would be a serious mistake.
He told them they would lose in court, everything they had won on the battle field, and so they wisely took his advice, and dropped the charges against Davis.
Lincoln asserted that the South was in "rebellion", but this was a blatant lie, and he put this forth for propaganda purposes. An entire state cannot be in rebellion. Only a portion thereof can rebel. If an entire state approves of it, it's "consent of the governed."
Lincoln was fond of manipulating the language to suit his preferences, like calling a fleet of mostly warships a "Supply mission."
Yes, it was going to supply mostly cannon balls. If he wanted a "supply" mission, he would have sent cargo ships. Sending troops and warships makes it a Combat mission.