Decent article.

When Davis died, he was a very successful Secretary Of War and the only former Secretary of War to not have the flag lowered upoon his death. For obvious reason. It is said that Davis’ tenure as SofW was key to the future deffeat of the South.

Secession is not expressly denied to a member State in the law/Constitution in either document. A State may enter a compact, empowered by its citizens through the State’s Constitution. A State cannot give the power to exit such a compact because that means taking thet power/authority away from the State’s people.

Secession in these uSA. 1-5 were threats but the right of a State to secede was understood.
1) The Federalist against the unconsitutional Louisianna Purchase.
2) Hartford Convention (New England States Federalists) against contintuatin of the war.
3) The North against the annexation of Texas.
4) Against the Mexican-American war – none other than Mr. lincoln himself
5) The South over the Tariff Of Abominatoin and nullification.
6) The South over Lincoln’s (Lincoln’s 1st Inaugural) and the North’s threat to force the collection of federal taxes.

The CSA’s Consitution is a superior document in thaat it incorporates some of the lessons learned from th uSA’s. To me, an important difference: it explicitly grants the authority to its Federal government to acquire territories. Something that the uSA Connstitution does not. Another important difference is that the CSA’s Constitution removed the “general welfare” from Article 1, section 8. In this way removing words that today still plagues us in these uSA. If general welfare means whatever Congress and politicians can fit into it, why then list specific powers?

When the uSA’s Constitution was ratified in June 21, 1788 (real birth of these uSA) there were no Bill Of Rights (the first 10 amendments). Did that mean that the Federal government of these uSA could do those things addressid in the Bill Of Rights? CSA’s Constitution incorporated the Bill Of Rights into Article 1.

As to which side started the war? Fort Sumter’s commanding officer Anderson, upon getting word of the Star Of The West resupply with armed escort wrote: “I ought to have been informed that this expedition was to come. Colonel Lamon’s remark convinced me that the idea, merely hinted at to me by Captain Fox, would not be carried out. We shall strive to do our duty, though I frankly say that my heart is not in the was (sic) which I see is to be thus commenced. That God will still avert it, and cause us to resort to pacific measures to maintain our rights, is my ardent prayer.”

In case you think that the resupply was not intended to start the war, here Mr. Lincoln responding to Gustgavus Fox:
“You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort-Sumpter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. Very truly your friend A. LINCOLN”
(https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=lincoln;rgn=div1;view=text;idno=lincoln4;node=lincoln4:573)

Some resources that I have used and still reference:

Great repository of historical and legal documents
The Avalon Project
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/

Digitized copies of Harper’s Weekly during the War For Southern Independence
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/

The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/

The War of the Rebellion: Official Records of the Civil War
https://ehistory.osu.edu/books/official-records

Criticism of Davis is only ever motivated by Transphobia.

Fundamentally disagree with the State’s rights interpretation of Davis.

That could be considered a valid interpretation if, and only if, it had been carried out peacefully, with the potential for political forces inside the individual states to reverse the succession attempt while it is in progress.

As a practical matter, succession combined with violence combined with a culture like American culture means that a ‘successful’ succession faction will not be able to bind anyone to peace. It absence of peace, a nation-state of American culture is justified in waging war against neighbors as against the indians. This may not end well with neighbors stronger than indian tribes.

Essentially, if the CSA had been successful, there would no moral case for commonality or brotherhood between North and South. I understand that many think that this was already the case during Reconstruction, etc. I would invite these people to study more closely the cases of the Indian tribes.

Do you follow a contract, or do you always retain the right to onesidedly renegotiate later, on the theory that you cannot give up the later right? This is one of the differences between small r republics, and small d democracies.

Constitution gives the President the executive power, including to suppress insurrections. Once violence came into play, there was a plausible case that the President’s executive power applied.

Lincoln had 40% of the vote, and a majority of the electoral college. Was that binding? By a strict, small r republican reading, it was binding, Lincoln was President, deal with it. By a small d democrat reading, it was not.

Thus, we had succession, which could be understood as a hissy fit over having screwed up the Democrat convention enough to lose with /three/ candidates.

There are people know who may be tempted by the apparent expediency of the small d democrat position, fearing that the small r republican position favors too much the communist would be mass murderers. This is incorrect.

BLM, the covid lockdown, etc., paint a very clear pattern. 2020 was subversion by violent conspiracy.

Federal congress and the federal judiciary were party to that insurrection. There is no contesting that Trump held the executive power. Ergo, by strict small r republican reading, Trump would have had a right to recognize the civil war, and call the armed forces or the unorganized militia to restore order. So, lack of support by the armed forces could be mutiny.

In theory, Trump could have chosen not to exercise that right, that authority under the executive power. But, the treason by the armed forces raises the possibility that his official communications were tampered with, or that his official security was preventing him from issuing those orders. With Big Tech interdicting his private communications, even if his security now is entirely loyal to him (which his survival indicates may be a possibility), we cannot trust any ‘confirmation’ allegedly from him that suggests that he has not exercised that authority under the executive power.

There may be some more generous explanations for these strange and bizarre proposals I keep hearing for succession or for embracing small d democrat values. (Under small d democrat values, if the Democrats fraud up enough votes, that itself justifies any fraud or tyranny.) Are they glowies, trying to make the violence start on terms favorable to the regime? Are they feds pushing ‘doomer’ ideas, so that we meekly go along to the camps? Are they normies, with their heads in the sand? These are the questions that come to my mind.