Those were the facts, inconvenient as they may be. You seem to be making the argument that only state government is truly valid and that federal government is voluntary to some degree, and I believe you are maintaining that the CSA was correct in asserting same. (I may be wrong; your thesis is somewhat oblique.) If the CSA’s president was willing to send troops to keep one state in the CSA, then the CSA did not subscribe to your thesis, insofar as it can be discerned.
The seceding states published the reasons for their secession. The facts are not in question for those who are not epistemologically perverse.
I’m saying that there wasn’t a significant difference in notions of sovereignty in northern states and southern states, and the idea that the CSA held state sovereignty in higher regard than the US is not supported by the facts.
In fact, I’d argue that if you look at actual governance during the Civil War, there weren’t many differences in the powers that Lincoln and Davis claimed and the way they exercised their authority.
And I’m again saying the fact that you’re wholly misinformed, since the CSA states seceded from the USA as a matter of right, not of revolution: i.e. they maintained that each state was a sovereign nation-state unto itself, and never expressly denied it-- and there was no question about this, since each state was a sovereign nation-state unto itself, by law. Individually, not collectively.
You simply* think* you know, what isn’t true, based on false readings of events, and false history.
In fact, many Unionist-hagiographers have critiqued the South as losing because of their refusal to centralize national authority in a single state.
If you have facts, present them specifically, not vague innuendo.
This would be a good time to note that the Confederacy did send troops to occupy and retain Eastern Tennessee when they were not showing sufficient loyalty to the Confederacy.
They could not keep Western Virginia, however, not that they wouldn’t have tried were they able.
What we need is for you to back up any and/or all of your facts, figures and claims, and to tell us what makes you a “premier” expert in anything. Until you make an honest effort to do that, why should we consider your words above those of any other poster?
I know what you’re saying, but the problem is, you’re focusing on rhetoric, not action. I know what the states that seceded said when they seceded. What I’m saying is, if you look at their actions, the CSA didn’t really act in ways that supported that rhetoric. If you’re saying they did, then how did they? In what ways did the CSA support state sovereignty that the USA didn’t? What was actually done differently?
And in terms of actions, I gave you actions, and so did some other people.
The CSA instituted conscription before the USA
The Davis administration was willing to take military action to prevent Georgia from seceding from the CSA.
When states challenged the CSA government on questions of state vs federal power, CSA courts routinely ruled for the federal government.
The founders of the CSA had publicly praised Dred Scott v Sanford, which stated that the federal government could prevent a state from outlawing slavery in its own territory, in spite of the fact that the Constitution never gave the federal government the power to legislate on the legality of slavery in a state.
You can argue that all day, but it’s simply irrelevant. Only written national sovereignty is fact, the rest is your opinion.
Just stick to the official law, not your personal take on it.
I’m sorry. I’m not entirely sure what you mean here. I’m relying on actual lawsand actual policies, specifically the Conscription Act of 1862, the decision Dred Scott v Sanford, and various decisions made by state supreme courts over the lifetime of the Confederacy. I admit, although it’s not official law, one of Governor Brown’s complaints to Davis during the question of control over Georgia troops accusing him of a “spirit of insubordination to state authority” (Telegraph from Gov. Brown to Davis, June 7, 1861.)
When you say “written national sovereignty” do you mean the preamble to the Confederate Constitution?
Again, just because you don’t understand something, doesn’t mean it’s false. It just means you don’t understand it, and are arguing from ignorance.
You seem to believe – as with the US Constitution-- that this united the states as a single nation-state; however you keep saying this word, but I think it does not mean what you think it means.
They do not say that: YOU say that.
And that’s what you misunderstand, i.e. the difference between those two parties.
Wouldn’t bother me in the slightest. There’s no use in quibbling over it, since each state seceded from the Constitutional union, individually and separately as a signle nation-state unto itself-- just as it acceded to the Constitution in the first place, particularly the five states of Texas, Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia which were recognized as individual nation-states before doing so.
They also never united as a single-nation-state under the CSA Constitution, so their respective national sovereignty remained intact.
Meanwhile if you want to claim that the US Constitution united the states as a single nation-state, we can go there too.
But if you aren’t claiming this, there’s no need to do the other.
Except that the SCA Constitution had no way to secede from the CSA, no provision to do so.
Dixie Betrayed: How The South Really Lost The Civil War, by David J. Eicher On February 5 [1863], the Senate heard a proposed amendment to the Confederate Constitution that would allow an aggrieved state to secede from the Confederacy. “It shall do so in peace,” read the proposal, “but shall be entitled to its pro rata share of property and be liable for its pro rata share of public debt to be determined by negotiation.” The idea was referred to the Judicial Committee. Two days later senators failed to recommend the amendment, and the whole thing was dropped as a dangerous idea."
In addition, no CSA State had the right to ban slavery ""The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States, and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in such slaves shall not be impaired."