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?
You are channeling Daniel Webster, I see. From 1851:
If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically, and persist in so doing, year after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be any longer bound by the rest of it? And if the North were deliberately, habitually, and of fixed purpose to disregard one part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its other obligations? I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side.
I agree with you that, had these states sought to exit the Union through Congress, this may potentially have avoided some of the unpleasantness of the War. But once again, did the States owe allegiance to the Federal government, or did the Federal government owe its allegiance to the States? Remember, the Federal government is the creation of the States! (Well, the original States, in the least. The relationship between the Federal government and states which were created from Territories is a more complex argument.)
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.
The answer to that is that it depends. In the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State government is still Sovereign over the Counties, which are corporate entities created by the State. To take matters further, under the structure of the Virginia government, the County only has limited powers it is allowed to exercise; anything over those powers can only be exercised with the permission of the full Legislature. For a County to attempt to secede from a State, because of this relationship, would be completely illegal unless done with the consent of the lawfully elected Legislature of the State.
For a State to perform any action through the auspices of its lawfully-elected civil government is the ultimate foundation of American governance, up until 1865. These precedents antedate the Constitution by well over 100 years, if you care to look closely enough at the historic record.
States are Republican in form. The Federal government is a Confederacy. These are not the same, and the source of power in each system is different. (Well, it was before 1865. In modern times, I don't think this same statement would still apply.)
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?
The first part of this argument hinges on defining whether or not the states in question were truly "in rebellion" or not, but ignoring that for now, I think it's clear that the Founders included no provision in the Constitution which caused the states to either (a) be bound by force to it, or (b) to allow States to eject other States.
I can clearly say (a) due to a fact that the founders DID consider allowing the Federal government to enforce its laws using military force, and explicitly struck that grant of power from the Constitution. By doing so, they denied the Federal government permission to use military force to bring States into compliance with its rules. (This, of course, was ignored by the Federal government of 1861, which was under pressure from radicals in Congress to "do something" about the so-called rebellion.)
(b) is a little bit less obvious, but if you think about it hard enough it becomes abundantly clear. The Federal government cannot vote to remove a State from the Union due to the fact that the States are all admitted on equal terms. The only two factors in dealing with State-to-Federal relations are the State and the Federal government itself. Other States have no say in the relationship between an individual State and the general government, other than to set norms which would apply to all of the States in conjunction. (This, of course, brings us back to the "rebellion" question once again, I'm afraid to say.)
And how would it be different under your scheme, except to substitute your state capital for Washington DC?
My State was first populated by the Royal sovereign in 1609. Our first elected government seated itself, under permission of the Crown, in 1619. We have 400 years of experience in civil governance, and I put considerably more faith in my locally-elected legislators than I do in any representative currently seated in Washington.
Furthermore, I would say that I have far more direct control over my State government, due to the way it is designed, than I could ever hope to exert over the Federal. If you don't believe that's the case, compare the response you'll receive to a query sent to your Federal congressman (a form letter followed by no action) to the one you'll receive from your State delegate (a personally-signed, personally-written reply). It's clear to me that my State government more clearly protects my interests than the Federal does.
I believe enough in my Commonwealth to trust it to stand on its own merits. Obviously, I can't say the same for all 50 states in the confederation, but the relationship between these other states and their populace are really not of any concern of mine.
Does that answer the question to your satisfaction?
Most respectfully yours,
~dt~