Because Virginia initiated an attack on the USA before even pretending to secede? Because by the stringent definition in the US constition this constitutes treason?
I think there is a valid distinction to be made here between secession de facto and de jure.
It it quite obvious that for a period of 4 years or so a number of American states seceded from the Union de facto. I doubt even Lincoln would argue this point.
The question is thus one of whether this secession was valid de jure. In my opinion, and that of the US Supreme Court in Texas v White, secession was never valid de jure.
The CSA obviously existed. I don’t know of anybody who challenges that. The question is whether a US state can legally take itself out of the Union by secession. The states that seceded very stupidly chose not to argue their right to do so before the Supremes, who were dominated by southerners at the time. Had they done so and won their case, it would have put a serious dent in the Union war effort.
They chose to use bullets rather than legal briefs to argue their case. This turned out to be a Bad Idea.
Virginia, vacillating on the secession, decided to secede because of northern military attacks on the South.
It it quite obvious that for a period of 4 years or so a number of American states seceded from the Union de facto.
Precisely what 'period' are you referring to?
In my opinion, and that of the US Supreme Court in Texas v White, secession was never valid de jure.
The War of Northern Aggression produced 3 constitutional amendments. None of them dealt with secession.
It was a Lincoln packed SCOTUS, led by Chief Justice Salmon Chase (Lincoln's Treasury Secretary and long time hater of Southerners, who should have recused himself) that legislated from the bench, a method that conservatives usually abhor.
From Texas-vs-White (bold added): "The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States."
The above would suggest that the court allowed the possibility of divisibility of the union.
The question is whether a US state can legally take itself out of the Union by secession.
"revolution, or through consent of the States."
If the Supreme Court is the final word in the matter, then there is, and was, a legal path to secession.
Like Roe-v-Wade, Texas-v-White is a highly controversial case.
Had they done so and won their case, it would have put a serious dent in the Union war effort.
disHonest Abe would have used whatever means he deemed necessary to 'preserve the union'.
He ordered the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of soldiers and the waging of war on noncombatants (Shermans march) so, I have to agree that if the South had presented and won their case, it would have just been a 'dent' in Lincoln's plans.
He may have played the slavery card earlier or schemed for a legislative overturn of the Courts decision. It just wouldn't have mattered.
They chose to use bullets rather than legal briefs to argue their case.
By 'they', of course, you mean the yankees.