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.
So...you're saying that Sumter attacked the confederate fortifications in Charleston and not the other way around?
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.
Yes, yes, yes, the grand old Southron whine "It was a packed court..." Well the same member of that court who wrote the majority opinion in Texas v. White also advocated the opinion that led to your boy Jeff Davis avoiding trial for treason. How can he be right in one area not in the other?
The above would suggest that the court allowed the possibility of divisibility of the union.
I read the same thing into the decision that you do, and that Madison stated. Secession is not illegal if done in a constitutional manner. And that manner is with the consent of the other states, or at least a majority of them. The Southern states did not follow this course, they walked out without discussion.
He ordered the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of soldiers and the waging of war on noncombatants (Shermans march)...
ROTFLMAO!!!!