I agree with these sentiments, mostly. The only question then becomes: If the States were merely removing their membership in the Confederation, and were acting fully within civil governments, WERE they in revolution? In other words, if the States seceeding were acting through their Constitutions in lawful manners to remove their membership from the federal Union, could the actions of those lawfully-elected civil governments, acting completely in support of their citizens, be considered revolt? (For comparison, consider the Whiskey Rebellion, which was not the action of civil governments, but of individuals acting without the authority of their State.)
The United States was intended to be a confederation created by sovereign States, who give up portions of their sovereignty to the central government in order to allow it (not the other way around) to serve them towards the greater good of each and every other State. When the general government is no longer doing so, do these States, acting as sovereigns, not have the right to withdraw from the Compact which created the confederation and re-assume 100% of their sovereignty? Based on my studies of the origins of our federal Government, I would definintely answer that question in the affirmative.
(Considering that the Federal government proceeded to use massive military force to overthrow the lawful civil governments of these same States, and to re-design the State governments as sub-entities of itself, I would say that Washington, D.C. is now our sovereign, and we, as Federal citizens, are Washington's subjects, no better off than peasants in a monarchy. If the outcome of the Civil War had been different, this may not have been the case, but your notion that you have to win a war for independence is definitely applicable under our new Federal structure.)
That indeed is the crux of the matter.
In other words, if the States seceeding were acting through their Constitutions in lawful manners to remove their membership from the federal Union, could the actions of those lawfully-elected civil governments, acting completely in support of their citizens, be considered revolt?
Ah, here's where we part company. I don't think that the actions of the seceding states were done in a "lawful manner." Sure, there were resolutions and conventions and elections, but all of it was done at a state level. I'm not aware of any attempt by any of the southern states to ask congress to leave the union in the same way they'd asked to be admitted. And the funny thing is, there was probably a good chance that between the bloc of southern states wanting to go and the northern states who would have been happy to be rid of them, they could have gotten such a resolution passed.
could the actions of those lawfully-elected civil governments, acting completely in support of their citizens, be considered revolt?
There mere presence of an elected body acting on the wishes of the electorate doesn't magically absolve allegiance. By that logic, a county could secede from its state, as long as the county board decided to.
When the general government is no longer doing so, do these States, acting as sovereigns, not have the right to withdraw from the Compact which created the confederation and re-assume 100% of their sovereignty?
I'd first say that, by suppressing the rebellion, the US government did serve the greater good of the states. But again we come to the question of unilateralism. Let me ask you this: If it's possible for a state to leave the union without consulting congress, is it possible for congress to expell a state from the union without their approval? In other words, if the contract can be broken by one side, why not the other?
I would say that Washington, D.C. is now our sovereign, and we, as Federal citizens, are Washington's subjects, no better off than peasants in a monarchy?
And how would it be different under your scheme, except to substitute your state capital for Washington DC?
free dixie,sw