Should the States be Freed?

[BrianMcCandliss]

It seems that all arguments about the legality of secession, seem to be purely academic in nature, i.e. their authors only seek to establish historical fact, rather than modern implications. It seems that while they argue state sovereignty prior to the war, they disclaim any possibility to regain such today.

However, I cannot help but ask the legal implications of the seceding states being legally vindicated in their actions, and proven to have been supremely sovereign under the Constitution. As stated in my somewhat-famous paper "Were the States Sovereign Nations?", this would revise Lincoln to be a ruthless imperialist and dictator of the highest order, as well as a great traitor whose lies destroyed untold freedoms.

Therefore, the question remains:
If it can be legally proven, that the states were indeed originally sovereign from each other-- ala England or Spain-- and thus had the supreme right to secede from the Union by virtue of such (rather than "needing permission" from the Constitution or anything else), then I believe that, legally, they must remain so in spite of the "War Against Northern Treachery" (for such would be the only accurate definition of an act to rescind recognized legal rights and sovereign boundaries).

In this capacity, I would like to address the various arguments against such. Below is my latest article on the subject:

Should the States be Freed?

Various authors, including myself, have forwarded-- and supported-- the claim, that secession by the states was completely legitimate and legal, and that the American Civil War-- which was essentially an act by the federal government to forbid the secession, and the seceding states merely defending themselves in response-- was in gross violation of US and international law (including the legal rights of the seceding states in question, as recognized all states concerned).

Because of the eventual success of this federal effort in 1865-- and the related "surrender" at Appomattox, current US policy forbids secession by any state from the Union. This policy was officially premised the American Civil War-- specifically via Union victory in that conflict.

However, the question of the legal validity of that effort, has never been either resolved or even considered by Congress or the states. Rather, in order to authorize the Civil War, the federal government-- i.e. President Lincoln-- simply claimed that consolidated soveriegnty of "the Union" had always been the original intent of the states-- i.e. that no state would be legally allowed to secede from the constitutional Union; in his own words, Lincoln stated that "the intent of the lawgiver, is the law."
As such, by prohibiting secession, he claimed to have been enforcing the law and Constitution-- and this simple dogmatic claim of intent (and ensuing military action) was made the basis of our current policy, rather than proper establishment of legal proof.

This then brings up the question: if it is legally proven that the Confederacy was right-- i.e. that the states were indeed sovereign, and legally entitled to secede from the Union at will in 1861-- then should the states be freed today?

It would seem, that current US policy would, even after time, depend on the legal accuracy of the original US claim upon which it was based; i.e. if it was to be discovered and proven that the states actually did retain the sovereign right to secede from the Union at will, then this policy must in turn be dissolved, and states be declared free to go their own separate ways. Indeed, legally speaking, this is the only acceptable outcome of such a scenario.

However, modern pro-Union pundits seem to want to have it both ways: i.e. they first defend Lincoln's actions on the basis of his claims being legally accurate; however, when this claim is undermined, they claim legality to be irrelevant, claiming that "the Civil War settled the matter--" i.e. that since a "war" was fought over the issue-- and an official "surrender" made-- then the accuracy of Lincoln's claims becomes irrelevant, since current policy was "made valid by virtue of the war itself."

In other words, they hold that by fighting back against the almighty Union, the seceding states implicitly accepted voluntarily whatever outcome transpired in arms; and thus by surrendering at Appomattox then they supposedly accepted Union-policy as legitimate and legally binding. (Poppycock, I know).

Finally, such "blind pro-Unionists" claim that, regardless of all else, the passage of time itself has "made the policy valid," on the basis that "it's been accepted as valid for so long, and practiced as such, that it's become part of the fabric of American society" etc. etc.  (They likewise accuse the pro-secessionists" of "living in the past" instead of "letting bygones be bygones"-- as well as being "sore losers" etc.)

All of the above reasoning is-- legally at least-- false for several reasons:

Claim 1: "The seceding states gave up their rights by fighting back."

Response:

If the states did have the right to secede, then they were sovereign; and sovereign states have the inherent right to defend themselves against unlawful aggression-- and this includes the seizure of federal forts, or even any other legitimate attempt to secure a proper tactical advantage against such an illegal denial of their proper and legal sovereignty.
 As such, the Civil War would be a treasonous and treacherous act by the Union-officials who ordered it, via unlawful and wrongful suppression of the states' legal sovereignty; therefore, these states would have had every right in the world to fight back-- and would be legally surrendering nothing to outcome or "fate" by doing so, if they were acting within the scope of their sovereign powers as recognized by both sides prior to the conflict.

Unlike the Founders, who appealed only to Natural Law and Divine Providence for their justification, the seceding states appealed only to the written law and understanding, as acknowledged by all states prior, in recognition of their supreme sovereignty. Therefore, if their claim was legally valid, then the Union's act to prevent secession would be a high crime of treason against them by the Union perpetrators-- even as defined under US law; hence, any harm done to the Union in the process, would be entirely justified by the seceding states, as acts of self-defense against an illegal aggressor by a sovereign state.
Consequently, no state legal claims of sovereignty could be afterward denied as "settled in war," since the military act in question was entirely a legal action by the Union-- not a war; and thus, such claims are wholly dependent on the facts regarding the legal validity of each side's claim. These facts would involve both the circumstances, as well as the understanding between the states at the time of ratifying the Constitution regarding the meaning of the law.

Claim 2: "Union-victory 'settled' the issue of state sovereignty."

Response:
Illegal use of force by the federal government, cannot be made "valid," simply by virtue of such being successful-- with "success" applying not only in the perpetration, but the cover-up as well; this is not only well-outside the bounds of the law and Constitution, but is in fact quite Machiavellian in concept, i.e. it forwards the notion that any victory is self-justifying, and therefore the victor-- even if he is one entrusted to uphold the law, and is acting illegally under false pretense of such-- can do no wrong... just as long as he is successful in doing it.

Clearly, one can imagine no concept more abhorrent or antithetical to the concept of freedom; truly, in fact, such ruthless tyranny is the direct opposite of the intentions of the Founders, the Framers of the Constitution, and the states-- all of whom were wholly opposed the prior notion that the People are beholden to the state (or nation)-- which can, in turn, do no wrong; rather, it is made clear in the Declaration of Independence, that the state(s) derive all powers-- and only just powers-- from consent of the individual people, and only for the security of their rights-- never the destruction of such.
Likewise, there can be no appeal to "the dictates of war," since war was not only never declared by the United States against the Confederacy or states thereof-- but in fact, such was explicitly denied, along with the sovereign nationhood of any of such. Rather, the secession was simply termed a "rebellion;" hence, no laws or articles of "war" can ever apply, without first recognizing that very sovereignty which was denied as the very premise of the action against them!

As such, if the states were, indeed, sovereign, voluntary members of the Union, then the federal government thus became destructive to the rights of the People of the states, by forbidding the right secession, which was recognized by both sides prior-- and hence, the Union would have had no just power to do so.

Therefore, the federal invasion of the southern states would be indeed a violation of US law and promises; and hence, the ensuing policy against secession would be wholly corrupt and false. Indeed, to uphold such a policy, would be the ultimate perversion of the law-- establishing a doctrine of "legislation by treason," whereby a successful act of unconscionable abuse of power, in sheer violation of the law, is, even when accompanied my mass-murder, horrors of war, and dictatorial coup, held to be legally valid... simply by being successful. This is indeed a bizarre perversion of the law-- perhaps the most bizarre imaginable.

Claim 3: "It happened so long ago, that it's become part of the fabric of American society, and it's too late to change it."

Response:

There can be no "statute of limitations" for such gross abuse of legal pretense, to claim that the treasonous invasion, rape and conquest of sovereign states-- along with the slaughter and pillage against not only those who properly defend against such, but also non-combatants as well-- can be "validated," simply because said traitors and dictators (and their successors) succeeded in committing totalitarian suppression of the truth for a sufficient period of time! Certainly not under any system of laws pretending to represent "individual freedom;" such simply defies all intellectual honesty. Rather, this would mimic the famous aphorism: "I never pay old debts-- and I let new ones get old."


Even under criminal law, "statutes of limitations" do not accrue in instances of deliberate suppression of evidence or due process by the criminal; rather, they apply only when the victim "sleeps on his rights--" which naturally cannot apply when evidence is actively and deliberately suppressed, since the victim had no just opportunity to due process; for like reasons, no "statute of limitations" ever applies to murder. Similarly in the case of international law, no such statute exists against the liberation of sovereign statehood from under violent-- and illegal-- occupation: and the occupation of the states, has always been under continually-increasing threat of violence against secession-- indeed, such is the very policy which is the topic of this paper.

As to the argument of free states being "in the fabric of American society," this is neither a legal argument-- nor necessarily a good thing;" current American society hampers individual freedoms against the Founding intents, even to the extent of sacrificing individual life, liberty and property for the benefit of the "nation," while likewise denying all recourse against such, by making the federal government the supreme judge of its own powers. If it is proven that the states ratified the Constitution as sovereign powers, then this would simply expand freedom against acts to diminish it. Individuals would still enjoy the protection of the federal government against abuses by any state; however they would likewise enjoy state-protections against the federal encroachments-- which were the primary target of the "American Civil War."

Thus, the original concept of "dual sovereignty" would be regained; for this term originally defined the manner by which individuals delegated some of their inalienable sovereignty as human beings to the state government, and some to the federal government, such that they would enjoy the protections of both against the other, in keeping with the fundamental precepts of liberty by which the states were founded; however, this meaning of "dual sovereignty" was perverted via the "Civil War" to suggest that state sovereignty was merely exclusive privilege to rule individuals-- and existed solely under the greater sovereignty of the overall Union, which thus wielded absolute national authority over the individual. Thus the individual human being fell from being the source of all sovereignty, to being entirely subject to state and federal mercy (again even to the point of life, liberty and property becoming arbitrarily subject to state and federal discretion).

In conclusion: if it is indeed established that the states intended to remain sovereign-- in the sense of being free to quit the Union at any time-- then legally, they must remain free, the "American Civil War" notwithstanding. Likewise, this question of state sovereignty remains, and thus requires proper and official resolution of the legal question of the Civil War-- which the law requires. As such, it is without question that this matter be addressed immediately-- both by the states individually, and by Congress (which is unlikely to limit its own power, however must be held to account for its conduct in contrast with original intent).


Simply put: either the states intended to surrender their sovereignty-- or they did not. There was no "Constitutional ambiguity resolved by force of arms," as some have claimed; for neither side made such a pretext, but rather, that there was clear intent; thus, such must have been violated by one side or the other. Current law and policy, holds that this intent was violated by the Confederacy, and that the Union was thus therefore legally in the right; however this must be verified-- and determined according to fact, not the arbitrary dogma by which the Union currently claims the right of supreme national authority over all states and individuals.

Note: in discussing the above, I deliberately abstain from addressing the issue of the 14th amendment or other post-war acts, since such cannot invalidate, ex post facto, any pre-existing sovereignty-- for the same reason that the Civil War could not do so, i.e. the validity of such rests entirely on the presumption of legal accuracy in their denial of sovereignty. Hence, if sovereignty is proven-- i.e. if it is conclusively established that the states intended to remain sovereign, rather than cede their sovereignty to the greater Union-- then neither "Civil War" nor amendment can rescind such sovereignty, since such was never the claimed purpose of either one; on the contrary, both were premised entirely on the absence of legal sovereignty. Indeed, anything less than a unanimous amendment, could not rescind the supreme sovereignty of any non-ratifying state(s).

Therefore, I believe that "Civil War" discussion is more than simply academic curiosity, but has definite modern legal implications-- i.e. the states must be as free and sovereign as they ever were.

[ironfoot]

Well, let's figure out a way to make you a slave. Legally of course, and then we can argue how to keep you in that state. Legally of course. That is what the south fought to do.

[rock-steady]

Yeah, thanks to Lincoln and the treacherous yankees, we are all now slaves on the Imperial federal plantation. :shock:

[ironfoot]

Yeah, thanks to Lincoln and the treacherous yankees, we are all now slaves on the Imperial federal plantation. :shock:

What planet are you living on?
What country on earth is more free than this one?
Maybe you should join all the liberals who bad mouth our country.

[BrianMcCandliss]

Well, let's figure out a way to make you a slave. Legally of course, and then we can argue how to keep you in that state. Legally of course. That is what the south fought to do.

Ok, this is wrong on so many levels, I'm not even sure where to begin.

First, are you implying that the Civil War was fought over slavery? FYI, it was solely over the issue of state sovereignty-- with the federal Union denying that such existed; as Lincoln himself claimed, "no state can lawfully get out of the Union by its own mere motion."

If this was wrong, then it's about time we put things right.

Second, since when do domestic policy disputes, justify imperialist invasion and conquest of sovereign nations?  Just because one nation disapproves of another's practice of chattel slavery-- of which only 5% of the slavery of the Western Hemisphere alone, existed in the states (and not only the CONFEDERATE states), doesn't EVER give it the right to take over those other nations.

Finally, thanks to the Civil War, we now ARE slaves of the federal Union;   we now have no "rights--" simply revocable privileges. The fact that the federal government can arbitrarily "draft" people into military service to fight and die for the state-- as well as attach their work-product via income-based taxation, while controlling it via various trade-regulations and licensing-laws-- is characteristic of enslavement; otherwise, no truly FREE person can be thus treated or disposed of, but rather is his sole self-owner, of both himself and his work-product.

Finally, human interactions are likewise now heavily regulated, in ways that are truly nobody's business but the parties to such interaction; freedoms are quite heavily infringed, however the federal government is judge of its own powers-- and this likewise flows to the states, which have become likewise infested with corrupt officials, who seek to exploit freedoms rather than defend them.

Even such incidents as the Nazi Holocaust was not subject to outside intervention due to national sovereignty; however to do so in the name of "freedom," is an outright LIE-- since US citizens have far LESS freedom now than before the Civil War; in fact the states seceded soley in the name of freedom. The 13th amendment only pertains to involuntary servitude under private contract-- while the STATE became the grand uber-master, which could rule people as it pleased. The federal government didn't hate slavery: just COMPETITION.

So not only does the "slavery" argument completely ignore the legal issue of state sovereignty: it's also bass-ackwards with regard to freedom.

This is even true with regard to race-relations: compare the United States today, to the nations which held the OTHER 95% of the slaves which came to the Western Hemisphere; race-relations in these countries are far less tense than in the United States, which probably surpasses every other country in the WORLD in terms of racial animosity. This is undeniably DUE to the Civil War, via the fact that Lincoln put the slaves in the middle of HIS conflict via abolitionist agitation-- on the one hand decrying slavery, while on the other DENYING integration, and promising to ship all slaves back to Africa in order to appease YANKEE hatred of blacks. This resulted in modern racial animosity, as the Civil War so economically and politically devastated the South, that it's never since recovered.

In contrast, if the Civil War had never been aggressed against the seceding states, then slavery in the Confederacy, would have simply ended the same way it did in the nations holding the OTHER 95% of slaves in the Western Hemisphere-- if not sooner, particularly since 1) the Mason-Dixon line would have suddenly spelled freedom for runaway slaves, thus causing the increased security-costs to exceed any economic benefit from holding slaves, while 2) any serious abolitionist-sentiment in the Union, would have resulted in boycotts of slave-made goods.

Therefore not only was the Civil War both an illegal and inhuman atrocity, its supposed "benefits" are completely false as well-- on the contrary, we're ALL slaves now.


Nice going!

[BrianMcCandliss]

Well, let's figure out a way to make you a slave. Legally of course, and then we can argue how to keep you in that state. Legally of course. That is what the south fought to do.

Ok, this is wrong on so many levels, I'm not even sure where to begin.

First, are you implying that the Civil War was fought over slavery? FYI, it was solely over the issue of state sovereignty-- with the federal Union denying that such existed; as Lincoln himself claimed, "no state can lawfully get out of the Union by its own mere motion."

If this was wrong, then it's about time we put things right.

Second, since when do domestic policy disputes, justify imperialist invasion and conquest of sovereign nations?  Just because one nation disapproves of another's practice of chattel slavery-- of which only 5% of the slavery of the Western Hemisphere alone, existed in the states (and not only the CONFEDERATE states), doesn't EVER give it the right to take over those other nations.

Finally, thanks to the Civil War, we now ARE slaves of the federal Union;   we now have no "rights--" simply revocable privileges. The fact that the federal government can arbitrarily "draft" people into military service to fight and die for the state-- as well as attach their work-product via income-based taxation, while controlling it via various trade-regulations and licensing-laws-- is characteristic of enslavement; otherwise, no truly FREE person can be thus treated or disposed of, but rather is his sole self-owner, of both himself and his work-product.

Finally, human interactions are likewise now heavily regulated, in ways that are truly nobody's business but the parties to such interaction; freedoms are quite heavily infringed, however the federal government is judge of its own powers-- and this likewise flows to the states, which have become likewise infested with corrupt officials, who seek to exploit freedoms rather than defend them.

Even such incidents as the Nazi Holocaust was not subject to outside intervention due to national sovereignty; however to do so in the name of "freedom," is an outright LIE-- since US citizens have far LESS freedom now than before the Civil War; in fact the states seceded soley in the name of freedom. The 13th amendment only pertains to involuntary servitude under private contract-- while the STATE became the grand uber-master, which could rule people as it pleased. The federal government didn't hate slavery: just COMPETITION.

So not only does the "slavery" argument completely ignore the legal issue of state sovereignty: it's also bass-ackwards with regard to freedom.

This is even true with regard to race-relations: compare the United States today, to the nations which held the OTHER 95% of the slaves which came to the Western Hemisphere; race-relations in these countries are far less tense than in the United States, which probably surpasses every other country in the WORLD in terms of racial animosity. This is undeniably DUE to the Civil War, via the fact that Lincoln put the slaves in the middle of HIS conflict via abolitionist agitation-- on the one hand decrying slavery, while on the other DENYING integration, and promising to ship all slaves back to Africa in order to appease YANKEE hatred of blacks. This resulted in modern racial animosity, as the Civil War so economically and politically devastated the South, that it's never since recovered.

In contrast, if the Civil War had never been aggressed against the seceding states, then slavery in the Confederacy, would have simply ended the same way it did in the nations holding the OTHER 95% of slaves in the Western Hemisphere-- if not sooner, particularly since 1) the Mason-Dixon line would have suddenly spelled freedom for runaway slaves, thus causing the increased security-costs to exceed any economic benefit from holding slaves, while 2) any serious abolitionist-sentiment in the Union, would have resulted in boycotts of slave-made goods.

Therefore not only was the Civil War both an illegal and inhuman atrocity, its supposed "benefits" are completely false as well-- on the contrary, we're ALL slaves now.  Nice going!

Finally: the US isn't a "country;" the Constitution never once mentions the phrase "nation" or "country," but only uses the term "union."
Rather, it was Lincoln etc. who first presupposed that the US was a "nation," in order to support their own consolidationist views. The states, however, had other ideas, reserving their supreme right to resume self-government whenever they chose.

[rock-steady]

[BrianMcCandliss]

Legally, the South was DEFINITELY right.

[ironfoot]

It was a rebellion to preserve slavery.

http://www.washtimes.com/civilwar/20030822-085758-4689r.htm

http://www.neh.gov/whoweare/mcpherson/interview.html

[Bush Master]

Again looking to government to back up its own story, an exercise in futility! If you really want to find out the real story you must read through several different sources and not rely on a proven liar to back up his own story.

[threepdr]

For those of you who refuse to believe that preservation of slavery was the primary focus of seccession, please read what those who did the seceeding had to say.  All the southern apologetics regarding "soverignty" and "States Rights" all boild down to the Souths sovergn right to keep slaves!

The History and Debates of the Convention of the People of Alabama,
Begun and held in the City of Montgomery, on the Seventh Day of January, 1861

From: http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/smithwr/smith.html#p129

Here are few excerpt as a primer:

Part of a letter by Gov. A.B. Moore summaning delegates to the Secession Convention
"Who is Mr. Lincoln, whose election is now beyond question? He is the head of a great sectional party calling itself Republican: a party whose leading object is the destruction of the institution of SLAVERY as it exists in the SLAVEholding States. Their most distinguished leaders, in and out of Congress, have publicly and boldly proclaimed this to be their intention and unalterable determination. Their newspapers are filled with similar declarations. Are they in earnest? Let their past acts speak for them.
        Nearly every one of the non-SLAVEholding States have been for years under the control of the Black Republicans. A large majority of these States have nullified the fugitive SLAVE law, and have successfully resisted its execution. They have enacted penal statutes, punishing, by fine and imprisonment in the penitentiary, persons who may pursue and arrest fugitive SLAVES in said State. They have by law, under heavy penalties, prohibited any person from aiding the owner to arrest his fugitive SLAVE, and have denied us the use of their prisons to secure our SLAVES until they can be removed from the State. They have robbed the South of SLAVES worth millions of dollars, and have rendered utterly ineffectual the only law passed by Congress to protect this species of property"

From a "Resolution of Resistance" issued on the first day of the Secession Convention:

        And WHEREAS, a sectional party, known as the Black Republican Party, has, in the recent election, elected Abraham Lincoln to the office of President, and Hannibal Hamlin to the office of Vice-President of these United States, upon the avowed principle that the Constitution of the United States does not recognise properly in SLAVES and that the Government should prevent its extension into the common Territories of the United States, and that the power of the Government should be so exercised that SLAVERY, in time, should be exterminated....

Here is a listing of the grevences that the Convention had with Northern States which would have to be resolved before sucession could be avoided.  Seven greivences and five are directly related to SLAVERY.  The other two are indirectly related to slavery:

        "Be it further resolved, That our delegates selected shall be instructed to submit to the general Convention the following basis of a settlement of the existing difficulties between the Northern and the Southern States, to wit:
·   1. A faithful execution of the Fugitive SLAVE Law, and a repeal of all State laws calculated to impair its efficacy.
·   2. A more stringent and explicit provision for the surrender of criminals charged with offences against the laws of one State and escaping into another.
·   3. A guarantee that SLAVERY shall not be abolished in the District of Columbia, or in any other place over which Congress has exclusive jurisdiction.
·   4. A guarantee that the inter-State SLAVE trade shall not be interferred with.
·   5. A protection to SLAVERY in the Territories, while they are Territories, and a guarantee that when they ask for admission as States they shall be admitted into the Union with or without slavery as their Constitutions may prescribe.
·   6. The right of transit through free States with SLAVE property.
·   7. The foregoing clauses to be irrepealable by amendments to the Constitution."

The records of the convention are over 400 pages long and are rife with discussion of the preservation of slavery.  One whole section deals with debate regarding reopening the AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE!

Go to the web site and read for yourself.  Very eye-opening.

[Graybeard]

Bringing the second one of this same subject back to top for you Brian.

[BrianMcCandliss]

Bringing the second one of this same subject back to top for you Brian.

Thank you very much!  

[BrianMcCandliss]

It was a rebellion to preserve slavery.

How was it a rebellion? Sovereign nations, by definition, cannot rebel. I've already explained how Lincoln's claims were legal poppycock.

[ironfoot]

How do you have time for all those posts? Do you have a job, or do you spend all day whining on the internet?

[Graybeard]

Play nice ironfoot, the man in charge is watching. I will have a zero tolerance for personal attacks and name calling among a few others listed in the Terms of Use Statement.

[BrianMcCandliss]

How do you have time for all those posts? Do you have a job, or do you spend all day whining on the internet?

Slavery may be over, but I can STILL buy and sell you  

[ironfoot]

Play nice ironfoot, the man in charge is watching. I will have a zero tolerance for personal attacks and name calling among a few others listed in the Terms of Use Statement.

Is Brian going to get a warning?
Are his statements, like:

"Logical error: appeal to popularity. I've PROVEN you wrong-- so if you keep believing you're right, you must be insane."

It is OK to call posters who disagree with your position "insane", but to say somebody is "whining" can lead to censure?

How about his demeaning statement:

"Slavery may be over, but I can STILL buy and sell you"

That OK?

Or how about his statement:

"Maybe if you studied law in a manure-pile-"

How about the repeated statements that I am "ignorant" because I state an opinion different from Brian and another poster?

Please apply the "play nice" rules uninformly.

[ironfoot]

How do you have time for all those posts? Do you have a job, or do you spend all day whining on the internet?

Slavery may be over, but I can STILL buy and sell you  

Let me guess...inherited wealth?

[Graybeard]

All of you are going to get a warning. Play nice. No more personal attacks, no name calling, no foul language. If you can't stick to the discussion without reference to personal attacks we'll just end it.

[ironfoot]

Graybeard
You are a fair man.
Will do as you instruct.
Ironfoot

[ironfoot]

If the states did have the right to secede, then they were sovereign; and sovereign states have the inherent right to defend themselves against unlawful aggression--

That is a big "if".  
You have cited opinions claiming to support this.
You have not cited any language in the Constitution that the states  remained sovereigns before the civil war.
The 14th amendment should have settled the issue after the civil war.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html

The "right" of the states to secede has been debated ad nauseum for over 140 years. The concepts were well known to Lincoln, who addressed them in his first inaugural address. Just because you disagree with Lincoln, doesn't mean you have proven anything. Nothing you are saying is new.

But as a practical matter, with the threat of the rise of other empires hostile to our interests and safety looming on the horizon, the prospect of Balkanising America seems a rash and irrational response to perceived slights which occurred in the 1800s.

[BrianMcCandliss]

If the states did have the right to secede, then they were sovereign; and sovereign states have the inherent right to defend themselves against unlawful aggression--

That is a big "if".  
You have cited opinions claiming to support this.
You have not cited any language in the Constitution that the states  remained sovereigns before the civil war.

Specific language is not necessary: it's like Newton's law-- a nation at sovereignty, remains at soveriegnty. Witness Amendment IX:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

 In contrast, the constitution doesn't say that the states CEDED their soveriengnty-- rather the reverse:

"Amendment X -
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Hence, powers are simply DELEGATED to the US by the states RESPECTIVELY.

Compare this to Article II of the prior union's Articles of Confederation:

The 14th amendment should have settled the issue after the civil war.

If the states were free, then the war would be illegal-- and if the war was illegal, then so was the amendment. We're talking about ORIGINAL INTENT-- hello?

The "right" of the states to secede has been debated ad nauseum for over 140 years.

False-- it's  been SUPRESSED for 140 years. NOT debated. In fact, no one DARED question the almighty republic, and the reign of terror under which it operated. This is the greatest "code of silence" in history; it's simply ACCEPTED that it was legal.
Likewise, you're arguing from assumption-- saying "it's already been debated, so it's settled."
If so, then PROVE it. I've already PROVEN the original intent-- but as usual, you just ignore every point of proof, and lapse into shift.

The concepts were well known to Lincoln, who addressed them in his first inaugural address. Just because you disagree with Lincoln, doesn't mean you have proven anything. Nothing you are saying is new.

 
And I've proven EVERYTHING-- you simply IGNORE the proofs, and call it "disagreement;" this is a logical error called "arguing from opinion."
When you get to addressing my arguments point-by-point, THEN talk-- otherwise, stop. Please-- you're making a spectacle of yourself.

But as a practical matter, with the threat of the rise of other empires hostile to our interests and safety looming on the horizon, the prospect of Balkanising America seems a rash and irrational response to perceived slights which occurred in the 1800s.[/color]

OH, this is rich-- what are you, a walking WWII cartoon?
In reality, the US was never attacked without provocation since 1776. This is typical paranoid-propaganda, creating enemies in order to get people trade their liberty for security. This line about "empires looming on the horizon, so we better forget about our rights" is classic-- I'm honestly laughing as I see you trying to paint some silly image of crocodiles "looming on the horizon" and zooming in on us for the kill.
Sorry, I can't believe you think I'm stupid enough to fall for that walking charicature of baseless, insecure jingoism.

And if you're talking about the USSR: that was CREATED by US intervention in WWI and WWII-- and AGAINST the will of the individual states. So you may put that in your hat and eat it.

Likewise if you're talking about terrorism: THAT was created by Cold-War US oil-greed, which created in turn by post-Civil War industrial favoritism in destruction of free-market competition. Carnegie, Morgan, Rockefeller-- these names suddenly existed in the private sector, where none of such power ever had before. Likewise the banking and labor-empires-- all courtesy of US consolidation.

Seriously, are you in high school? I really get the idea that you don't have enough knowledge to discuss this subject with any intelligence whatseover, other than a few indoctrinated fantasies-- and that's not meant as an insult. It's just that any neophyte can argue-- just not with any credibility.