USC Art I-8:15 - Congress shall have power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions
The secession of those states were an insurrection against Federal and Constitutional authority. Each State was signatory to USC, and bound by that condition.
Further we see USC Art I-10:1 in part No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;
Again, violation of Federal and Consitutional authority to which they were signatory.
On to USC Art I-10:3, which is No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
The secession states called up their own militias, built vessels of war, seized armories, and entered into extra-Constitutional agreements - all when there was no extra-national threat, and no Federal call-up or threat of invasion. They also entered into diplomatic agreements with foreign powers, without Federal authority.
A case for secession using the Declaration as source, attempting to cite it as legal precedent, is something I'll have to research. My unit's legal guys cited Constitutional law, but I can't recall if the Declaration was cited. Wait, out.
"Six governors rejected Lincoln’s call as illegal. The governor of North Carolina, John Ellis, responded,
'I regard the levy of troops made by the administration for the purpose of subjugating the states of the South as in violation of the Constitution, and a usurpation of power. I can be no party to this wicked violation of the laws of the country, and to this war upon the liberties of a free people. You can get no troops from North Carolina. 'The other five governors answered in the same vein. "
But what you still miss is that once seceded (which was recognized by everyone then as legal), they were NO LONGER SIGNATORIES of the Constitution.
Yours is the WORST and most unfounded defense of Lincoln I've ever seen on this topic.
Again, violation of Federal and Consitutional authority to which they were signatory.
Not true. The seceeding states withdrew from the Union by virtue of the Ordiance of Secession THEN joined the CSA. In fact, several states withdrew and remained independent for weeks until they decided.
Appreciate the "block of instruction," just don't agree.
"The secession of those states were an insurrection against Federal and Constitutional authority. Each State was signatory to USC, and bound by that condition."
Secession and insurrection are two entirely different things., and it should be remembered, that folks back then were closer to the front edge of America than we are. I believe that being a bit more than a generation away from the revolution more folks had the DoI in the center of their forehead than most folks do now.
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;
Again, violation of Federal and Consitutional authority to which they were signatory."
All of which pertain to commerce. The south was looking to get right prices for goods provided without being taxed to death by fed. Another good reason to "...sever the ties"
"On to USC Art I-10:3, which is No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
The secession states called up their own militias, built vessels of war, seized armories, and entered into extra-Constitutional agreements - all when there was no extra-national threat, and no Federal call-up or threat of invasion. They also entered into diplomatic agreements with foreign powers, without Federal authority."
The actions at Sumpter occurred after what can only be judged as the "rightful secession" of the confederate states so USC Art I-10:3 didn't apply (just as the "proclamation" didn't apply to the sovereign confederacy)
"A case for secession using the Declaration as source, attempting to cite it as legal precedent, is something I'll have to research. My unit's legal guys cited Constitutional law, but I can't recall if the Declaration was cited. Wait, out"
Your legal guys probably won't be able to find it. I said earlier that the right to seceed was "believed" on the basis of the DoI, remember there were old folks alive who remembered the times right after the revolution. If we could cite that document in court, I am betting Texas would have exercised its state constitutional right of secession a long time ago.......just to be onery!
QRT