CNN: 4 Ways we are still fighting the Civil War:

[JCLibertarian]

*Yawn* BS. Lincoln supported emancipation by compensation which was the only constitutional way out of the impasse. He actually signed the D.C. compensated emancipation before the "emancipation proclamation" and the D.C. bill actually freed slaves. He made the same offer to the border states and that offer was rejected. Yes I'm familiar with the supposed constitutional amendment that had zero chance of passage or ratification and was thrown up as a hail Mary pass. But the slave owners weren't that stupid. The key to the civil war was the westward expansion of the U.S. and whether slavery was going to be allowed to expand with it or not. Should "free" states ever reach more than a two thirds majority, slavery was doomed regardless of what the constitution said. With a solid two thirds majority you could scrap the entire document and start over.

Oh, and just because I know history enough to be able to knock down neo-confederate revisionist history doesn't make me a "Lincolnite" or whatever other derogatory name you want to come up with. Lincoln clearly violated the constitution with his suspension of habeas corpus. That said he, he didn't set that precedence for the use of force or the threat of the use of force to put down rebellion. George Washington used force to put down the "whiskey rebellion" (and there cause was much more just than the confederacy) and Andrew Jackson used the threat of force against South Carolina in the nullification crisis. Interestingly enough, South Carolina won that fight, despite the fact that they had to stand alone. You see then the fight was only about tariffs (Jackson was a slaveowner himself and had no intention in restricting the growth of slavery), and hence it didn't arouse the same passions as the civil war ultimately did.

Of course Andrew Jackson gets the praise for killing the 2nd BOTUS and Lincoln gets all the blame for doing what Jackson threatened to do.

I don't doubt that Lincoln supported Emancipation to dissuade foreign involvement on the side of the Confederates. But none of what you state disproves the fact that he supported an amendment, actually signed an Amendment, the original 13th Amendment, which would have forever legally protected slavery in the southern states as a way to entice the southern states into remaining in the Union.
http://www.w3f.com/patriots/13/13th-13.html

It didn't work, the southern states seceded, because the war wasn't about slavery, for either party. The South opposed the large transfer of wealth from southern consumers to northern industrialists through high tariffs, as most of the tariffs were financed by the consumption of southern states and invested into public works and private industry in the North. It also negatively impacted southern exporters who suffered losses as foreigners had less money to consume their goods because american markets restricted the sale of their goods.
http://www.ashevilletribune.com/archives/censored-truths/Morrill Tariff.html

Lincoln had no Constitutional precedent to wage undeclared war on the South, his war against voluntary secession is against the spirit of the founding of America. There is no disputing that, America was founded out of secession. The right of secession, that is, separation from a government that no longer derives it's authority from the consent of the governed, which is enshrined in the DOI, is derived from the self-ownership principle.

You make appeals to the unconstitutional acts of other presidents, as though it negates the illegality of Lincoln's actions. I don't think that is a valid argument.

 

[jmdrake]

I don't doubt that Lincoln supported Emancipation to dissuade foreign involvement on the side of the Confederates. But none of what you state disproves the fact that he supported an amendment, actually signed an Amendment, the original 13th Amendment, which would have forever legally protected slavery in the southern states as a way to entice the southern states into remaining in the Union.
http://www.w3f.com/patriots/13/13th-13.html

Uh-huh. I mentioned that. And I also pointed out that if slavery wasn't allowed to expand into the new territories that new amendment would be meaningless because there free states would have a super majority and could scrap the entire constitution if they so desired!

Now what part of "super majority" do you not understand? What part of playing politics do you not understand? During his senate campaign Rand Paul said he was for Gitmo and military tribunals. He said he supported military tribunals because, and I quote "In a civilian court torture testimony is not allowed and that could be a problem". Well in a military tribunal torture testimony isn't allowed either! Now do I think Rand supports torture? Of course not. Rand was smart enough to make a meaningless gesture. Same thing with Lincoln.

It didn't work, the southern states seceded, because the war wasn't about slavery, for either party.

While slavery wasn't the entire issue it was certainly a big part. Just read the southern declarations of secession. They declare slavery was a major issue in secession. Specifically the lack of enforcement of fugitive slave laws and the restriction of the expansion of slavery.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=southern+declarations+secession

The South opposed the large transfer of wealth from southern consumers to northern industrialists through high tariffs, as most of the tariffs were financed by the consumption of southern states and invested into public works and private industry in the North. It also negatively impacted southern exporters who suffered losses as foreigners had less money to consume their goods because american markets restricted the sale of their goods.
http://www.ashevilletribune.com/archives/censored-truths/Morrill Tariff.html

You realize that the Morrill Tariff was not passed until AFTER secession and that it COULD NOT HAVE PASSED IF THE SOUTH HAD NOT SECEDED? Really, the Morrill Tariff argument is the stupidest one ever put forward. That would be like red states deciding to secede now to prevent cap and trade from passing.

Here's something funny. Walter Williams used the lame "Morrill Tariff" argument in his article "The Civil War Wasn't About Slavery". But he got busted by the editor.

http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/walter-williams.html
[Editor's note: In 1860, when the Southern states were moving toward secession, the Tariff of 1857 had reduced tariffs to the lowest level since 1812. The Morrill Tariff Act of 1861 was not passed until after several states had seceded, thus reducing the number of anti-tariff representatives in Congress. No Southern state even mentioned the tariff in its act of secession. In short, the claim that secession occurred because of high tariffs is a historical fiction.—TGW]

Lincoln had no Constitutional precedent to wage undeclared war on the South, his war against voluntary secession is against the spirit of the founding of America. There is no disputing that, America was founded out of secession.

Poppycock. The constitution gives the president the power to quell insurrections and rebellions. And the only reason the revolutionary war was "legal" is because the United States won. Had the U.S. lost, the founding fathers would not have been able to appeal to the British court system and say "I know we lost this war, but we really should have won, so can you give us our independence now"? Had the south won the civil war their secession would have been legal. (Right by conquest). They lost. And now trying to re-fight that war is just plain stupid. Especially since South Carolina won the tariff fight.

The right of secession, that is, separation from a government that no longer derives it's authority from the consent of the governed, which is enshrined in the DOI, is derived from the self-ownership principle.

You make appeals to the unconstitutional acts of other presidents, as though it negates the illegality of Lincoln's actions. I don't think that is a valid argument.

Fine. We disagree. I don't think any of your argument is legit. And I think it just discredits this movement. Every positive point that you seek to make can more accurately be made with respect to the nullification crisis.

Of course you missed the real point why I mentioned the precedent. It shows not only the hypocrisy of the states who didn't stand with South Carolina in 1832 when tariffs were high, but seceded in 1860 when tariffs were low, but it also begs the question "Why do certain people only harp on Lincoln?" Oh yeah, I know. The war happened on his watch. But anyone who thinks Andrew Jackson would have backed down if congress hadn't given South Carolina an out doesn't know "Old Hickory".

 

[TheeJoeGlass]

"Once you commit to war, you don't have any control over how it ends," Thomas says. "It's amazing how that sounds like Libya now. We may blunder into success, but we don't know who these guys (Libyan rebels) are."

Awesome.

 

[JCLibertarian]

Uh-huh. I mentioned that. And I also pointed out that if slavery wasn't allowed to expand into the new territories that new amendment would be meaningless because there free states would have a super majority and could scrap the entire constitution if they so desired!

Now what part of "super majority" do you not understand? What part of playing politics do you not understand? During his senate campaign Rand Paul said he was for Gitmo and military tribunals. He said he supported military tribunals because, and I quote "In a civilian court torture testimony is not allowed and that could be a problem". Well in a military tribunal torture testimony isn't allowed either! Now do I think Rand supports torture? Of course not. Rand was smart enough to make a meaningless gesture. Same thing with Lincoln.




While slavery wasn't the entire issue it was certainly a big part. Just read the southern declarations of secession. They declare slavery was a major issue in secession. Specifically the lack of enforcement of fugitive slave laws and the restriction of the expansion of slavery.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=southern+declarations+secession



You realize that the Morrill Tariff was not passed until AFTER secession and that it COULD NOT HAVE PASSED IF THE SOUTH HAD NOT SECEDED? Really, the Morrill Tariff argument is the stupidest one ever put forward. That would be like red states deciding to secede now to prevent cap and trade from passing.

Here's something funny. Walter Williams used the lame "Morrill Tariff" argument in his article "The Civil War Wasn't About Slavery". But he got busted by the editor.

http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/walter-williams.html
[Editor's note: In 1860, when the Southern states were moving toward secession, the Tariff of 1857 had reduced tariffs to the lowest level since 1812. The Morrill Tariff Act of 1861 was not passed until after several states had seceded, thus reducing the number of anti-tariff representatives in Congress. No Southern state even mentioned the tariff in its act of secession. In short, the claim that secession occurred because of high tariffs is a historical fiction.—TGW]



Poppycock. The constitution gives the president the power to quell insurrections and rebellions. And the only reason the revolutionary war was "legal" is because the United States won. Had the U.S. lost, the founding fathers would not have been able to appeal to the British court system and say "I know we lost this war, but we really should have won, so can you give us our independence now"? Had the south won the civil war their secession would have been legal. (Right by conquest). They lost. And now trying to re-fight that war is just plain stupid. Especially since South Carolina won the tariff fight.



Fine. We disagree. I don't think any of your argument is legit. And I think it just discredits this movement. Every positive point that you seek to make can more accurately be made with respect to the nullification crisis.

Of course you missed the real point why I mentioned the precedent. It shows not only the hypocrisy of the states who didn't stand with South Carolina in 1832 when tariffs were high, but seceded in 1860 when tariffs were low, but it also begs the question "Why do certain people only harp on Lincoln?" Oh yeah, I know. The war happened on his watch. But anyone who thinks Andrew Jackson would have backed down if congress hadn't given South Carolina an out doesn't know "Old Hickory".

You don't even bother reading my links, why do you ignore the language of the amendment by spewing some made-up tripe about the "free" states being able to abolish slavery through a Congressional majority. The language is very clear, it would guarantee slavery in perpetuity.

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

I never mentioned military tribunals, all I have talked about is how Lincoln washed an illegal war without declaration. But if Rand believes you can hold people indefinitely without trials by a civilian jury, than he can believe whatever he wants, but that is not the Constitutional position. Military Tribunals, holding "pows" indefinitely in camps without jury trial, is only permissable in war time, that is, when their is a declared war, see amendment five. And the Union was not under invasion or experiencing a rebellion or overthrow of their government, thus elimination of habeas corpus is not constitutionally applicable. Even Chief Justice Taney at the time recognized Lincoln's actions were unconstitutional and that Lincoln was suppressing first amendment rights.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/historicdocuments/a/lincolnhabeas.htm

I have no doubt that elements in the Confederacy wanted to preserve slavery, but they would have been guaranteed slavery in perpetuity if they had remained, so it is obvious they left for other reasons. Where is your evidence the Morrill Tariff wouldn't have passed if the South had remained? And regardless of the fact it was passed after southern secession, prior to the peaceful secession of the southern states, the southern states paid 87% of the tariffs and the north received 80% of the revenue.

******
Writing in December of 1861 in a London weekly publication, the famous English author, Charles Dickens, who was a strong opponent of slavery, said these things about the war going on in America:

“The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to
conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.”

“Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means loss of the same millions to
the North. The love of money is the root of this as many, many other evils. The quarrel between the
North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.”

Karl Marx, like most European socialists of the time favored the North. In an 1861 article published in England, he articulated very well what the major British newspapers, the Times, the Economist, and Saturday Review, had been saying:

“The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war, is further, not for any principle, does
not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for power.”
***********

Actually, the President is given no executive power in the Constitution to raise an army in an insurrection, that is a congressional power. The Insurrection Act of 1807 only gives the President this power to raise an army if it is requested by the governor of the state in question. But the Civil War was not an insurrection or rebellion, and congress never raised a militia. And no southern governor asked for united states troops to quell an insurrection within the state government, because no such thing was occurring. The states seceded voluntarily and the North was the one who declared the War.

I believe in individual freedom, self-ownership, free markets, and unlimited secession. I would be a hypocrite if I opposed southern secession. That is not to say I support slavery, but I will definitely support the right of any group of people to secede from a government they don't consent to, particularly a nation like the United States that at the time endorsed slavery, corporatism, and redistribution of wealth. If you are "pro-american"(I hate having to use that word, but if you believe in American principles, than you believe in the principle of secession, regardless of wheter it is illegal or not or whether it can be impeded by military force like it was in the civil war by the North. You still haven't sown how secession was unconstitutional btw.

 

[jmdrake]

You don't even bother reading my links, why do you ignore the language of the amendment by spewing some made-up tripe about the "free" states being able to abolish slavery through a Congressional majority. The language is very clear, it would guarantee slavery in perpetuity.

Unless you have read my computer history you don't know what links I have read.

Anyway, I'm very familiar with 13th amendment argument. But I'm intelligent enough to know it was nothing more than a political ploy. The southern states who in their own declarations of secession SAID SLAVERY WAS ONE THE MAIN ISSUES knew it was a political ploy too. Now, do you think these southern legislators were stupid? Why would they complain about the north seeking to destroy slavery if there was a legitimate offer on the table that would have forever protected slavery?

I never mentioned military tribunals, all I have talked about is how Lincoln washed an illegal war without declaration.

I know you didn't. I never said you did. I gave that as an example of a political ploy/b]. Quit being obtuse.

I have no doubt that elements in the Confederacy wanted to preserve slavery, but they would have been guaranteed slavery in perpetuity if they had remained, so it is obvious they left for other reasons.

That's just it. There was no such guarantee.

1) Lincoln never could have gotten such an amendment ratified. He knew that and the southern states knew that.
2) Once the free states were in a 2/3rds majority they would have had the power to call a constitutional convention, scrap the entire document and start over.
3) I've already explained that to you.

Where is your evidence the Morrill Tariff wouldn't have passed if the South had remained?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff

The second session of the 36th Congress began in December 1860. At first it appeared that Hunter would keep the Morrill bill tabled until the end of the term in March.

However, in December 1860 and January 1861, seven southern states declared secession, and their low-tariff Senators withdrew. Republicans took control of the Senate in February, and Hunter lost his hold on the Finance Committee.


This isn't debatable by any honest and informed student of history. The Morrill Tariff didn't pass the senate until enough southern senators left the senate for the republicans to take over.

And regardless of the fact it was passed after southern secession, prior to the peaceful secession of the southern states, the southern states paid 87% of the tariffs and the north received 80% of the revenue.

Peaceful secession my eye! Remember Ft. Sumpter. And the south initially invaded the north because McClellen was sitting on his kiester doing nothing. Do you have an actual reference for your tariff percentages? They're irrelevant anyway. Tariffs at the beginning of the civil war were at historic lows. South Carolina won the nullification crisis.

Karl Marx, like most European socialists of the time favored the North. In an 1861 article published in England, he articulated very well what the major British newspapers, the Times, the Economist, and Saturday Review, had been saying:

“The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war, is further, not for any principle, does
not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for power.”

Also from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff
Communist philosopher Karl Marx was among the few writers in Britain who saw slavery as the major cause of the war. Marx wrote extensively in the British press and served as a London correspondent for several North American newspapers including Horace Greeley's New York Tribune. Marx reacted to those who blamed the war on Morrill's bill, arguing instead that slavery had induced secession and that the tariff was just a pretext. Marx wrote, in October 1861:

Naturally, in America everyone knew that from 1846 to 1861 a free trade system prevailed, and that Representative Morrill carried his protectionist tariff through Congress only in 1861, after the rebellion had already broken out. Secession, therefore, did not take place because the Morrill tariff had gone through Congress, but, at most, the Morrill tariff went through Congress because secession had taken place.[15]


More from Marx, since you decided to quote him.

http://www.aotc.net/Marxen.htm
The war between North and South -- so runs the first excuse -- is a mere tariff war, a war between a protectionist system and a free trade system, and Britain naturally stands on the side of free trade. Shall the slave-owner enjoy the fruits of slave labour in their entirety or shall he be cheated of a portion of these by the protectionists of the North? That is the question which is at issue in this war. It was reserved for The Times to make this brilliant discovery. The Economist, The Examiner, The Saturday Review and tutti quanti expounded the theme further. It is characteristic of this discovery that it was made, not in Charleston, but in London. Naturally, in America everyone knew that from 1846 to 1861 a free trade system prevailed, and that Representative Morrill carried his protectionist tariff through Congress only in 1861, after the rebellion had already broken out. Secession, therefore, did not take place because the Morrill tariff had gone through Congress, but, at most, the Morrill tariff went through Congress because secession had taken place. When South Carolina had its first attack of secession in 1831, the protectionist tariff of 1828 served it, to be sure, as a pretext, but only as a pretext, as is known from a statement of General Jackson. This time, however, the old pretext has in fact not been repeated. In the Secession Congress at Montgomery all reference to the tariff question was avoided, because the cultivation of sugar in Louisiana, one of the most influential Southern states, depends entirely on protection.

But, the London press pleads further, the war of the United States is nothing but a war for the forcible maintenance of the Union. The Yankees cannot make up their minds to strike fifteen stars from their standard. They want to cut a colossal figure on the world stage. Yes, it would be different if the war was waged for the abolition of slavery! The question of slavery, however, as The Saturday Review categorically declares among other things, has absolutely nothing to do with this war.

It is above all to be remembered that the war did not originate with the North, but with the South. The North finds itself on the defensive. For months it had quietly looked on while the secessionists appropriated the Union's forts, arsenals, shipyards, customs houses, pay offices, ships and supplies of arms, insulted its flag and took prisoner bodies of its troops. Finally the secessionists resolved to force the Union government out of its passive attitude by a blatant act of war, and solely for this reason proceeded to the bombardment of Fort Sumter near Charleston. On April 11 (1861) their General Beauregard had learnt in a meeting with Major Anderson, the commander of Fort Sumter, that the fort was only supplied with provisions for three days more and accordingly must be peacefully surrendered after this period. In order to forestall this peaceful surrender, the secessionists opened the bombardment early on the following morning (April 12), which brought about the fall of the fort in a few hours. News of this had hardly been telegraphed to Montgomery, the seat of the Secession Congress, when War Minister Walker publicly declared in the name of the new Confederacy: No man can say where the war opened today will end. At the same time he prophesied that before the first of May the flag of the Southern Confederacy will wave from the dome of the old Capitol in Washington and within a short time perhaps also from the Faneuil Hall in Boston. Only now ensued the proclamation in which Lincoln called for 75,000 men to defend the Union. The bombardment of Fort Sumter cut off the only possible constitutional way out, namely the convocation of a general convention of the American people, as Lincoln had proposed in his inaugural address. For Lincoln there now remained only the choice of fleeing from Washington, evacuating Maryland and Delaware and surrendering Kentucky, Missouri and Virginia, or of answering war with war.

The question of the principle of the American Civil War is answered by the battle slogan with which the South broke the peace. Stephens, the Vice-President of the Southern Confederacy, declared in the Secession Congress that what essentially distinguished the Constitution newly hatched at Montgomery from the Constitution of Washington and Jefferson was that now for the first time slavery was recognised as an institution good in itself, and as the foundation of the whole state edifice, whereas the revolutionary fathers, men steeped in the prejudices of the eighteenth century, had treated slavery as an evil imported from England and to be eliminated in the course of time. Another matador of the South, Mr. Spratt, cried out: "For us it is a question of founding a great slave republic." If, therefore, it was indeed only in defence of the Union that the North drew the sword, had not the South already declared that the continuance of slavery was no longer compatible with the continuance of the Union?

Actually, the President is given no executive power in the Constitution to raise an army in an insurrection, that is a congressional power. The Insurrection Act of 1807 only gives the President this power to raise an army if it is requested by the governor of the state in question.

Yes congress has the power to raise the army, but the president has the power to use the army. So you really haven't said anything via your first sentence. As for the second sentence, once the states seceded the insurrection act no longer applied. They were no longer U.S. states. They were a foreign country. Congress has the power to declare war against a foreign country. Neo-confederates try to have it both ways. They want the confederacy seen as "states" from the point of view of being afforded constitutional protection and "independent" in all other regards.

I believe in individual freedom, self-ownership, free markets, and unlimited secession. I would be a hypocrite if I opposed southern secession.

So then you support John Brown's attempt to create a slave rebellion and secede as well?

That is not to say I support slavery, but I will definitely support the right of any group of people to secede from a government they don't consent to, particularly a nation like the United States that at the time endorsed slavery, corporatism, and redistribution of wealth. If you are "pro-american"(I hate having to use that word, but if you believe in American principles, than you believe in the principle of secession, regardless of wheter it is illegal or not or whether it can be impeded by military force like it was in the civil war by the North. You still haven't sown how secession was unconstitutional btw.

I never said secession was "unconstitutional". That's a backwards question. That's like asking if murder is "unconstitutional". The constitution was designed to limit the power of the federal government, not the people. So the constitution does not forbid murder or secession or prostitution or drugs anything else that might be illegal. The only legitimate question is if the constitution forbids the federal government from suppressing any of those things.

 

[TNforPaul45]

The irony is that Rick Perry, Mr. Globalist himself, gets praise from some parts of the tea party for using the word "secession". So both sides play to emotion in order to squelch reason. South Carolina won it's nullification battle and they won it against a slave holding president in a fight not even closely related to slavery. For the life of me I don't understand why people ignore the nullification crises (a case where state power won, there was no loss of life and the waters are not muddied by slavery) and focus on the civil war (a case were state power lost there was massive loss life, and you have to torture reality to take slavery out of the picture).

JM, you answered your own question in your response: because the civil war is much easier to use in order to whip up people's emotions than the SC nullification crises was. A war is much easier to apply a false emotional heroic effort than a legislative squabble is.

 

[fisharmor]

The only legitimate question is if the constitution forbids the federal government from suppressing any of those things.

Ok, let's apply that to modern times.
Does the constitution specifically forbid the federal gov'ts suppressing drug use? Nope.
Does the constitution specifically forbid the federal gov't suppressing the use of 5 gallon toilets? Nope.
Does the constitution specifically forbid the federal gov't suppressing the killing of birds of prey? Nope.

Your constitution sure looks like one of unlimited powers. You are the reason I don't support the constitution. It would be nice if I could: I think it's a great idea. But time and again its supposed defenders end up "interpreting" it.
It needs no interpretation: the meaning is clear. The federal government doesn't have the power to stop secession spelled out. The 10th Amendment applies.

Also, I'll point out again that whether or not secession is illegal is moot. West Virginia seceded from Virginia in clear contradiction to Virginia's constitution - yet there remains a West Virginia. There was no clear law forbidding the south's secession, yet it was stopped.
You can't have it both ways. Either secession is legal or it isn't.
If it was legal for the Union and illegal for the Confederacy, then might truly does make right, and we therefore all ought to just shut the fuck up and accept our fate in modern times.

 

[jmdrake]

Ok, let's apply that to modern times.
Does the constitution specifically forbid the federal gov'ts suppressing drug use? Nope.
Does the constitution specifically forbid the federal gov't suppressing the use of 5 gallon toilets? Nope.

Actually it does. The only commerce the federal government has a right to regulate is interstate commerce. Now we can debate whether that means the federal government can suppress interstate sale of drugs or toliets over 5 gallons, but there is no question to any honest reader of the constitution that the interstate commerce clause does not truly give the federal government the power to suppress intrastate commerce of drugs and toilets. In other words weed grown in California and sold in California is not within the legitimate scope of the federal government's power.

Does the constitution specifically forbid the federal gov't suppressing the killing of birds of prey? Nope.

Hmmmm....I'm not sure if killing birds of prey is commerce. If it is, and the birds are sold within the same state, then the federal government is precluded from intervening. Of course it's tricky because most birds don't stay within the same state. So no single state can by itself fully protect it's own migratory natural resource.

Anyway, you're missing the point of what I was saying. I wasn't saying that everything the federal government has the power to do everything. Quite the contrary. I brought up the question of illegal drugs because I don't think the federal government has the authority to suppress intrastate commerce of drugs. Suppressing secession is different. Suppressing insurrection is specifically in the constitution. But even if you count secession different from insurrection, once a state has seceded it is no longer under the protection of the constitution. Look at it another way. Say if the "reconquistadores" were successful, through immigration and changing demographics, to reach a critical mass to force a vote on rejoining California to Mexico. Does that mean the constitution precluded ever declaring war on Mexico because a former state had joined it after seceding? Of course not.

The "right" of secession is a "right by conquest", nothing more, nothing less. The 13 colonies had a "right" to secede from England because they won. Had they lost their "rights" would be irrelevant.

Your constitution sure looks like one of unlimited powers. You are the reason I don't support the constitution. It would be nice if I could: I think it's a great idea. But time and again its supposed defenders end up "interpreting" it.
It needs no interpretation: the meaning is clear. The federal government doesn't have the power to stop secession spelled out. The 10th Amendment applies.

And your irrational defense of secession is the reason this movement is still relatively tiny. South Carolina successfully used the 10th Amendment to defeat high tariffs despite bellicose threats by Andrew Jackson. Nullification is the true and proper use of the 10th amendment. Session talk is just grandstanding. It's been tried and it didn't work. Rich Hamblen, a friend of mine and (to my knowledge) a member of the Sons of the Confederacy, always has this to say when someone brings up secession. "You and who's army? The south already tried that and it didn't work out too good".

Also, I'll point out again that whether or not secession is illegal is moot. West Virginia seceded from Virginia in clear contradiction to Virginia's constitution - yet there remains a West Virginia. There was no clear law forbidding the south's secession, yet it was stopped.

Again secession is a right by conquest. The citizens of West Virginia picked the winning side. It's neo-confederates who are trying to have it both ways on West Virginia's secession, complaining that it happened all the while saying "But everyone has a right to secede".

You can't have it both ways. Either secession is legal or it isn't.
If it was legal for the Union and illegal for the Confederacy, then might truly does make right, and we therefore all ought to just shut the fuck up and accept our fate in modern times.

On a certain level, might does indeed make right. Why was John Brown's actions illegal? Certainly you would agree that seeking to free slaves was a noble cause. And since you're so "pro secession", do you realize that John Brown was simultaneously an abolitionist and a secessionist? He wanted to create an independent state for freed slaves. He had his own constitution drawn up and everything. But his actions were illegal because he lost. He got a bunch of good people killed. Had he won and set up his independent state his actions would have been legal because he could have deemed him legal.

Last point. You say if "might makes right" we should "shut up and accept our fate"? No. We need to work to be more mighty. Really, what are you going to do the reality comes crashing down on your secessionist fantasy? Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court? Appeal to the world court? Really? Is that your plan? Or will you sit around a campfire out in the wilderness and talk about how righteous and glorious your cause is/was?

South Carolina had shown in the nullification crisis how to effectively stand up to the federal government. As a result tariffs were at historical lows up until after secession. If southern states had wanted tariffs even lower they should have nullified again. If South Carolina had chosen preemptive secession, as opposed to nullification and working through the legislature, President Andrew Jackson would have crushed them like bugs. We can debate the "right" of secession until the cows come home. But history shows it to be a dubious tactic.