Preface: yes, I realize the response this will generate and no, I'm not from California.
1. The Articles of Confederstion created an intentionally weak central government that had very little coercive power over member states (no taxes, etc.). This was by design after waging an improbably successful revolt against a tyrannical government.
2. The original Constitution of 1789 -- which had no 10th amendment -- specifically states that it continued the AOC with noted changes/upgrades. The continuation language is critically important because the full title of the AOC was actually "The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union."
3. You know what perpetual means, and so did the Founders. Patrick Henry specifically argues against ratification -- as did other prominent anti-Federalists (Warren, etc.) *because* once in, a state could not legally leave the Union. The Bill of Rights was added later to get ratification over the hump, but the 9th and 10th amendments did not supersede the original frame of the Union itself or its central government. Again: anti-Federalists knew this and didn't like it.
4. The American Revolution constituted high treason and its leaders knew that. What do you think "give me liberty or give me death" means? Win = freedom. Lose = gallows. All rebellions from a mother country are treasonous until they're successful, then to the rebels, their history is written as a revolution. The Brits teach the Am Rev as a *civil war* to this day.
5. If you go back and actually read secessionist sources and responses to it from the 1830s, 40s, and 50s, you'll see that the vast majority of southerners reject secession specifically because it meant violating the Constitution, which they viewed as a sacred legacy passes down from other *southerners* like GW, Madison, etc. And then when the war begins, Confederate authors put out tons of material justifying the rebellion as the Am Rev 2.0 and cloaking themselves in Revolutionary era rhetoric, but in that writing, they recognize that the Declaration amounted to high treason -- and simply believed that some treason was justified.
6. If you genuinely think Lincoln wanted the war, you've never actually read a word he wrote and there's nothing I can do for you. After federal property was occupied, he sat still to let things fizzle out as they always had since 1832 (Nullification issues).
7. You can make the case that rank and file men enlisted in the CSA army to protect home and hearth but it's much harder to extend that to CSA brass when virtually all of them had previously taken a federal oath and then went back on it. Lee *agonized* over what to do when offered command from Scott because he understood this in real-time. Many of the other West Pointers wrote about similar dilemmas.
8.Long story short: *after* the war a lot of work was done to remove treaaon from the act secession, but at the time, men undersrood what they were doing and did it anyway because they believed that such a course was justified. So, it's pretty ironic how many of you are lauding the creation of the Confederacy as a justified rebellion but don't believe it justified enough to be worth risking treason.
I've got my fire-proof suit on now...
Most accurate factual and legal analysis of the issue posted on this thread...and I agree with it. Treason can is justified against an unjust government.
