No one questioned the legitimacy of the state legislatures.
Your argument against the 14th Amendment seemed to be its illegitimacy because the states of the former Confederacy had no representatives in Congress at the time it passed, and that those states’ legislatures were somehow compelled against their wills to pass it.
My reply is that the Confederate states voluntarily consented to their lack of representation by announcing their secession—whether or not such secession was legal, and that once representation was forfeited it was the prerogative of the remaining representatives to determine when or whether to readmit those states’ Representatives.
The legitimacy of the “votes of the Southern States” was not at issue in either case; the southern states were not represented in Congress for the passage of either the 13th of 14th Amendments, and the passage of legislation by Congress to provide incentives for those states to ratify the 14th Amendment does not amount to compulsion, since the military occupation of those states and lack of representation were both the direct consequences of insurrection and war against the U.S. within those states.
The fact that the Reconstruction Acts provided incentives for the state legislatures to ratify the amendments does not amount to compulsion to do so. Even if, or especially if, the Reconstruction Acts themselves were unconstitutional that would not invalidate the actions of the state legislatures.
The fact that two states attempted to rescind their approval would only affect the date the 14th Amendment became effective, since two more state legislatures ratified the Amendment by the end of July 1868.
No, that argument is yours.
My argument is that the federal government had NO authority to suddenly make the Southern States military provinces after the legitimate passage of the 13th. The war was over, the elected Southern representatives were legitimate at that point.
-----
The legitimacy of the “votes of the Southern States” was not at issue in either case; the southern states were not represented in Congress for the passage of either the 13th of 14th Amendments,
The 14th is in contention. By the end of 1865, eight of the eleven Confederate states had ratified the 13th, so your information is flawed.
-----
and the passage of legislation by Congress to provide incentives for those states to ratify the 14th Amendment does not amount to compulsion, since the military occupation of those states and lack of representation were both the direct consequences of insurrection and war against the U.S. within those states.
At the refusal of the Southern States on the occasion of the on the 14th, the federal government suddenly said "No soup for YOU!", tossed out the duly elected reps, turned the South into military provinces, and threatened the South with a perpetual state of federal rule.
How is that not compulsion?
-----
The fact that the Reconstruction Acts provided incentives for the state legislatures to ratify the amendments does not amount to compulsion to do so.
Apparently, ones person's incentive is another person's blackmail.
-----
Even if, or especially if, the Reconstruction Acts themselves were unconstitutional that would not invalidate the actions of the state legislatures.
Are you actually saying that any State should agree to an act they believe to be unconstitutional?
-----
Again, once the 13th passed, the Southern States had the same full authority they enjoyed prior to their Declaration of Secession, and at that point, there was NO lawful authority of the federal government to remove the States from that position and make 'conditions' for their return.
From this view of the powers delegated to the federal government, it will clearly appear, that those exclusively granted to it have no relation to the domestic economy of the state. The right of property, with all it's train of incidents, except in the case of authors, and inventors, seems to have been left exclusively to the state regulations; and the rights of persons appear to be no further subject to the control of the federal government, than may he necessary to support the dignity and faith of the nation in it's federal or foreign engagements, and obligations; or it's existence and unity as the depositary and administrator of the political councils and measures of the united republics.... Crimes and misdemeanors, if they affect not the existence of the federal government; or those objects to which it's jurisdiction expressly extends, however heinous in a moral light, are not cognizable by the federal courts; unless committed within certain fixed and determinate territorial limits, to which the exclusive legislative power granted to congress, expressly extends.
View of the Constitution of the United States Note D, Section 3.
Please provide an informational source showing where any conditions, provisions, or incentives were submitted to the Southern States for their approval along with any repercussions that might have ensued upon their failure to comply.