His argument is one of might makes right - not government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed.
The main difference between 1776 and 1861 is that in 1861 there wasn’t a rival superpower willing to shovel money and supplies and guns at the secessionists and lend them troops and lend them their navy. The other main difference is that the states were sovereign and had the right to secede while the colonies were not and did not have a legal right to secede.
There is no "legal right" to secede. Never has been one.
Oh please, Chief Justice Chase dealt with what was permissible under the Constitution.
The main difference between 1776 and 1861 is that in 1861 there wasn’t a rival superpower willing to shovel money and supplies and guns at the secessionists and lend them troops and lend them their navy.
The main difference is that in 1776 the Founding Fathers wanted their independence enough to win their rebellion while in 1861 the Confederates did not.
The other main difference is that the states were sovereign and had the right to secede while the colonies were not and did not have a legal right to secede.
Please do not confuse a right to secede with rebellion. States in the U.S. do have a right to secede, we just disagree on the method. You would have us believe that the Constitution only provides protections for those states leaving while I believe the Constitution protects both those wishing to leave and those wanting to stay.