Replies

Because King George was the legitimate authority over the states prior to independence. It was the American states that demanded independence from King George and subsequently won it by warring against him. The treaty of Paris, in turn, recognizes a negotiated peace with thirteen independent states.

Then we're back to logical outcome of this odd train of thought. Since the federal government had legitimate authority over the southern states then there was no way they could become a sovereign nation until Lincoln said so. How lame is that?

These folks refuse to accept the fact that the United States was a nation much less a sovereign nation and that the American people even existed. They cling to the pretense that the Constitution was a contract between the States (while ignoring the legal meaning of such) while utterly ignoring the FACT that it was DESIGNED to personally operate upon individual citizens. It was SPECIFICALLY designed that way to destroy any illusions of state sovereignty.

They must ignore 99% of history and grasp at such absurdities as a treaty naming the states is proof that there was no nation called the United States of America. When it should be obvious that the naming of those states was merely a means of identifying the territories so as to protect English and French imperial claims on the North American continent. And it was a subtle means of undermining the concept of the USA as a Nation.

In similiar fashion they are prone to inflating the importance of dated grammatic construction and case into major issues rather than examples of archaic ways of expression. No triviality is too trivial to have them grasping desperately at it in support of an invalid claim.

Then we're back to logical outcome of this odd train of thought. Since the federal government had legitimate authority over the southern states then there was no way they could become a sovereign nation until Lincoln said so. How lame is that?

I think that's the right question to be asking, at least.