[Non, now] Then don't muddy the waters. I quoted Rawle with accuracy, and pointed out that in several of the cases the southern states seceded in a manner in which Rawle himself would consider illegal. But in the grand scheme of things it really doesn't matter anyway because Rawle was incorrect when he claimed states could secede unilaterally to begin with.
It appears as though I have helped, since you're now refuting your own authority, and back to the argument that "It's wrong because Non says so."
[Non] The are you admitting that by Rawle's definition several of the southern secessions weren't legal?
Yes, unfortunately, when invaded, things like that happen. Many of Lincoln's actions were not legal, but were later approved by the legislature. Many were not legal, and were never approved - it took decades worth of historians and chest-thumping for people to accept it as necessary, and only around a hundred years later did people start making the argument that because it was necessary, it was inherently legal.
Of course, it's necessity depends entirely on your agreement with Lincoln's goals.
It is getting deep in here...again. One does not invade one's own country, so your justification for ignoring the law doesn't apply. But say, for the sake of arguement, that your claim is correct. Who had invaded South Carolina when the legislature seceded? Who had invaded North Carolina? What justified their actions which, by Rawle's guidelines, was illegal?
Many of Lincoln's actions were not legal, but were later approved by the legislature.
How fortunate we are that we have you here with us, to rule on what is legal and what is not. Now I realize that the Davis regime saw no need for a judiciary, but personally I would prefer to rely on the courts to rule on the legality of Lincoln's actions. And in the overwhelming majority of the cases that they have ruled on, they seem to think Lincoln acted legally.
Many were not legal, and were never approved - it took decades worth of historians and chest-thumping for people to accept it as necessary, and only around a hundred years later did people start making the argument that because it was necessary, it was inherently legal.
When it comes to chest thumping and myth spreading the southron contingent takes second place to no one.