That's absurd. Secession was declared. It did happen. This is historical fact.
To deny this, is tantamount to claiming that in 1776 the independent United States of America was naught but a legal fiction existing solely in the minds of George Washington, Patrick Henry, and a few other malcontents.
It's simply absurd.
The most accurate term would be the one used originally, "War of Southern Rebellion".
(Shrugs). As you like it. The British termed the American Revolution "The Presbyterian Rebellion".
None of which changes the fact that any Individual may, at any time, freely Secede from his Government for any reason whatsoever -- or even for no reason at all (I have the Right to renounce my United States citizenship at any time, if I so desire).
What is true of any Individual is therefore, necessarily, logically true of any Group of Individuals (and therefore of any of the several States).
Ergo, unless you believe that the Federal Government, in response to an Individual's renunciation of his United States Citizenship, should immediately bring military force to bear against that Individual in order to compel him to remain subject to the US Federal Government, there can be logical argument against the absolute and unqualified Right of Secession for any reason whatsoever -- or no reason at all.
Indeed. The South did issue their unconstitutional secession declarations and proclaim themselves an independent nation. That is historical fact. Unfortunately the rest of the world looked at their statements and proclamations and yawned. Nobody considered them a sovereign nation, nobody treated with them as such, in the eyes of the world community they were a rebellious part of the U.S. That, too, is historical fact.
To deny this, is tantamount to claiming that in 1776 the independent United States of America was naught but a legal fiction existing solely in the minds of George Washington, Patrick Henry, and a few other malcontents.
In the world community it was, up until the point where France and Spain agreed with them and recognized the U.S. as a free and sovereign nation.
None of which changes the fact that any Individual may, at any time, freely Secede from his Government for any reason whatsoever -- or even for no reason at all (I have the Right to renounce my United States citizenship at any time, if I so desire).
So long as you go about it legally, yes.
Ergo, unless you believe that the Federal Government, in response to an Individual's renunciation of his United States Citizenship, should immediately bring military force to bear against that Individual in order to compel him to remain subject to the US Federal Government, there can be logical argument against the absolute and unqualified Right of Secession for any reason whatsoever -- or no reason at all.
Do you believe that an individual is within their rights to steal another's property, repudiate debts that they owe, threaten another individual, and then renounce their U.S. citizenship and expect to escape the consequences of their action? If so, then you are a supporter of the Southern actions. If, however, you believe that a person cannot do those things and expect to hide behind the law then you can't support the Southern actions of unilateral secession.
What is true of any Individual is therefore, necessarily, logically true of any Group of Individuals (and therefore of any of the several States).
I wish the rebs had followed that principle when the 1861 Greeneville convention of East Tennessee expressed the desire for the region to secede from the rest of the state and remain in the Union.
Of course when Confederate lip service to noble ideals conflicted with power lust, principles lost. The CSA was nothing but a power grab for slavery which was only sometimes obscured with appeal to the higher American principles.
Lincoln’s administration took the position of George III during the Revolution. A claim of political independence is Rebellion needing to be crushed by force. This wasn’t lost on the British Prime Minister of the time, who corresponded with Lee after the War, and who sympathized with the Confederacy.
It’s interesting to note that during the Revolution the Crown offered freedom to slaves who would support Britain against the Rebels. If freeing slaves and putting down rebellion justifies Lincoln’s war on the South, then it also justifies the Crown’s war against the American rebels.
Let’s see if one of our yankee apologists can weave a consistent argument for defending the first rebellion while opposing the second.