Nothing 'improper' about it, but it isn't 'legal' and isn’t supported by the Constitution. It's called a rebellion, and the Founders would have approved in the case of oppression but they would not try to worm some lame Johnny Cochran legalism around it. It was rebellion and that is an honorable course if there is an honorable cause. The South did not have an honorable cause.
Now tell us: exactly what 'intolerable oppression' the Federal government imposed on the south in 1860 that justified rebellion? Seems to me that the Feds did everything but kiss their ass. The arrogant slave holding aristocrats couldn't be appeased regardless of what the Federal government did short of dictating slavery nation-wide. That, after all, is what the radical south slavocracy wanted --- slavery from sea to shining sea. Great role models you have --- nothing honorable about them or their cause.
You seem to be suggesting that even unconstitutional federal action is somehow “’legal’ and...supported by the Constitution,” simply because it is undertaken by the federal government. And that State action taken in direct support of the Constitution, “isn't 'legal' and isn’t supported by the Constitution” if it is opposed by the federal government. Yes - no? Perhaps you can address an example: please explain how State militia protecting Jewish Americans (or gun owners, or homosexuals) from extermination by federal troops would be violating the law. Be specific: what law, exactly, would the States be violating? Does the Constitution permit genocide? (Don't bother with the Nuremberg defense - it won't fly... ;>)
The South did not have an honorable cause.
Now tell us: exactly what 'intolerable oppression' the Federal government imposed on the south in 1860 that justified rebellion?
Actually, it is not up to you (or I) to judge regarding the tolerability (or lack thereof ) of federal oppression faced by the citizens of the Southern States. As Mr. Jefferson noted:
”...(T)he several States composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes... that to this compact each State acceded as a State...[and] each [State as a] party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress. “
Unless you qualify as a “State,” your opinion would seem to be irrelevant. It was a matter for the citizens of the Southern States to decide.
That, after all, is what the radical south slavocracy wanted --- slavery from sea to shining sea.
Please enlighten us – when, precisely, did the union amend the Constitution to abolish slavery? Was it before the war, during the war, or after the war? Perhaps you can tell us which government, in the spring of 1861, proposed an amendment to the Constitution, which would have permanently prohibited national abolition legislation? Hmm? While you’re at it, tell us all which nation’s President, in December 1862 (if I remember correctly), proposed a constitutional amendment that would have permitted slavery to exist through the end of the century? And which nation’s President emancipated the slaves – but only in the other nation’s States, and specifically not in those States over which he held any constitutional authority? And finally, which nation’s House of Representatives overwhelmingly defeated an abolition amendment in the summer of 1864 – an action directly comparable to Congress refusing to condemn National Socialism on the eve of the Normandy invasion?
A word of advice: when folks play the ‘slavery card’ in these debates, they tend to get trumped by historical fact.
Great role models you have --- nothing honorable about them or their cause.
Gosh - sorry you don’t approve of Mr. Jefferson or Mr. Madison. But pardon me if I don’t lose any sleep over your disapproval...
;>)