[Non-Sequitur]

The North's legal case is astonishingly thin being based on the then novel legal theory of a pre-existing Union creating sovereign states.

The Union case was very strong in light of the way the south chose to secede. A state may have the right to secede but not unilaterally. It should have been done with the approval of all affected parties and I believe that a strong case could be made that the Constitution would support that.

It is important to remember that in 1860 Slavery was not illegal and state right of secssion was the more well established legal principle.

Secession was never an established legal principle since it had never been tried before and had never been taken before the courts. The closest was probably during the nullification crisis and the president of the time, Andrew Jackson, made it clear how he felt on the subject.

I think it is very informative that Nothern authorities refused to allow Jefferson Davis to defend himself based upon the theory of the sovereign State's right to secede after the war. If Davis had been given his day in court before a reasonably impartial magistrate I think he might have won.

Davis never had his day in court because Chief Justice Chase made it clear that because of the adoption of the 14th Amendment, he believed that a trial and conviction would be a violation of Davis' Constitutional protections under the 5th Amendment. The government would have gone ahead with the trial given the opportunity and they would have won. The impartial jury you say would have convicted Davis would have been impossible to find so the government would no doubt have found one that would have supported their views.

Is Lincoln's repeated infringement of Constutional liberties (suspension of habeus corpus, summary imprisonment of political critics, supression of critical press outlets, the ordering of attacks against unarmed civilian populations) justified by by the eradication of the evil of Slavery?

You could just as easily ask if the Davis' repeated infringement of constitutional liberties in all the areas you mentioned, and more, were justified by his desire to form his own country? I think that it is telling that upon assuming office the president was not required to swear to preserve, protect, and defend the constitutiton. And throughout his term Davis seems to have treated the constitution as something to be followed if convenient. What future was there for a country founded in tyranny with a contempt for the law?

...the peaceful alternatives such as compensated emmancipation had not even been attempted before the onset of the War.

The south never gave President Lincoln a chance to propose any such alternatives. They began their rebellion literally the day after the election. But there is also a more basic question of whether compensated emancipation would have worked. It would have required the cooperation of the slave owners themselves and there is simply no evidence at all that they had any interest in ending the institution. Without there buy in the whole idea of compensated emancipation was dead on arrival.

The progessivist, neo-marxist fog is starting to disapate around Lincoln's wartime conduct and it is not a pretty picture.

And yet the neo-marxist fog around the confederate leadership remains. Go figure.

[ggekko]

"The Union case was very strong in light of the way the south chose to secede..."

The State right of secession is an extra-constitutional question. The issue is not addressed directly in the Constitution. Nevertheless there remains a substantial body of writings and historic state government acts that argue for the legitimacy of the State right of secession.

The United States of America was founded on a secessionist act. The philosophical underpinnings of this act was the Natural Law doctrine which condemmed the tyrannical acts of the British government. The Natural Law doctrine avers that rights, including governmental rights are derived from principles based on the moral sanction of Divine authority not the authority of a particular govenmental instutition.

The principles of justified secession are described in the Declaration of Independence. The first principle is that the causes impelling separation must not be trivial:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long
established should not be changed for light and
transient Causes;"

A second principle annunciates the moral oblibgation of those suffering despotic rule to throw off such rule:

"evinces a Design to reduce them under Absolute
Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty,
to throw off such Government,"

A third principle obligates those considering separation to first seek redress within the mechanisms of the existing Government:

"In every stage of these Opressions we have petitioned
for Redress in the most Humble terms;" .

The Founding Fathers clearly felt that separation-secession was a Natural Right derived from God which should be exersizd if the conditions described above had been met.

There were a series of safeguards built into the Constitution (Separation of Powers, 2nd ammendment) as a check against executive tyranny. It is clear that the Founding Fathers considered separation-secession as another intregal check against tyranny.

There were a series of events and state government actions that attest to fact that secession was thought to be a natural right accruing to States. In 1848 Abraham Lincoln stated the following:

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having
the power, have the right to shake off the existing
government, and form a new one that suits them
better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred
right--a right which we we hope and believe is to
liberate the world."

In view of Lincoln's later political career this statement may seem surprising; and yet he was merely articulating a commonly held foundational conviction of American politicians of that era.

After the 1814 secession crisis orchestrated by the New England Federalists Jefferson said the following:

"If any state in the Union will declare it prefers
separation to a continuance in Union, I have no
hesitation in saying 'Let us separate'" .

In the Fedealist Papers ( no. 81) Hamilton addressed the issue of whether it was permissible for the Federal Government to compell by force a State government to pay its debts:

" It is inherent in the nature of Sovereignty to
be amenable to the suit of any individual without
its consent.....the attributes of sovereignty is
now enjoyed by the government of every State in
the Union...To authorize suits against States for
the debts they owe could not be done without waging
war against the contracting State...a power which
would involve such a consequence,would be
altogether forced and unwarranted."

Clearly Hamilton, the Federalist par excellence, considered the use of force by the Federal government against a State to be beyond the pale. According to Madison, in Federalist Papers (no. 39) the ratification of the Constitution was ratified "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and indpendent States to which they respectively belonged." To Madison, Hamilton, and Jefferson the Federal Government was a creation of the sovereign states , the Federal government did not create the states as Lincoln would later assert.

Not only was the right of secession asserted a number of times prior to the onset of the Civil War there was also an important secession movement in the North prior to the start of the conflict. These Northern secession movement existed in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland. The politicians leading these movements favored a peaceful separation from the South. These politicians were challenged on pragmatic grounds but not on Constitutional grounds. Senator Pearce of Maryland gave voice to these sentiments:

"I have no idea that the Union can be maintained
or restored by force. Nor do I believe in the
value of a Union which can only be kept together
by dint of military force."

Politicians in several middle states advocated joining the Conferderate states in a peaceful separation.

As Whig and later Republican politicians began to realize that they would not be able to implement the American mercantile system under the existing US constitution they invented a leagl doctrine that sought to undermine the concept of the sovereign State. This doctrine posited the existence of a "metaphysical Union" that created the sovereign states.

This doctrine, which began to circulate in Whig circles after Andrew Jackson refused to recharter the National Bank (a key objective for advocates of the American Mercantile System), was a brazen and audacious legal fiction. It was specically designed to allow a more powerful Federal to implement, by force if ncessary, the American Mercantile System.

The contrast between Licoln's avowal of the right of secession in 1848 and his adoption of Webster's concept of the "metaphysical Union" could not be more stark. What had changed in the intervening years was not a moral aversion to slavery but the rather a lust for power. Philosophically Lincoln had moved closer to a political philosophy of national greatness akin to the power politics of Europe and away from the philosophical ideas that informed Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison.