I guess its in the news as there was a piece of nonsense from Politico about avoiding the US Civil War through negotiation.
Just one problem:
there was nothing to negotiate, due to an irreconcilable difference:
- The Union claimed that the American Revolution formed a national union of 13 federated member-states in 1776:
While:
- the Confederate states held that the American Revolution formed thirteen fully-sovereign nations in a voluntary international union in 1776:
I've written elsewhere, how the Confederate states stood on legal
fact in this matter; specifically, how the states always intended to form an international union of 13 sovereign nations, from the Declaration of Independence: July 4, 1776:
And this was distinguished from what the Law of Nations defined in Book I, Chapter I, §11: “Of a state that has passed under the dominion of another:”
But a people that has passed under the dominion of another is no longer a state, and can no longer avail itself directly of the law of nations. Such were the nations and kingdoms which the Romans rendered subject to their empire; the generality even of those whom they honoured with the name of friends and allies no longer formed real states. Within themselves, they were governed by their own laws and magistrates; but without, they were in every thing obliged to follow the orders of Rome; they dared not of themselves either to make war or contract alliances; and could not treat with nations.
Therefore, since the states
could “make war, contract alliances, treat with other nations,“ and “do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do;” the states were
not under the dominion of another, and thus were an
international union among 13 separate fully-sovereign nations:
Which the states indeed expressly asserted
as such:
Meanwhile The Declaration of Independence (and other American Revolution documents) was
framed in the
language of the "Law of Nations," to justify the American colonies' separation from Great Britain to the world, and to gain international recognition and support.
This established the new United States as independent actors with the power to engage in diplomacy, war, and commerce, just like any other sovereign nations. And the states were individually
recognized as sovereign nations in the Treaty of Paris:
So this legally recognized the states as 13 sovereign nations in an international union.
Thus while some believe that the US government claimed that the Constitution unified these 13 sovereign nations under a national union; in reality the US government never claimed this; but only claimed that it
continued the supposed "1776 national union" that Lincoln claimed (above).
(In reality, the Constitution was an act of
secession from the Confederation, by 12 of the 13 states:
And thus these twelve states were bound by the unanimity requirement, only from amending the Articles of Confederation: not from leaving the Confederation
entirely to form their own new and separate union under the Constitution (and which the US government would later claim was "treason" and "rebellion" against what it claimed to be the
same union formed in 1776-- when some of the states simply did it
again in 1861).
So any talk of "negotiating with secessionists," would be comparable to the EU negotiating with the UK over Brexit, under threat of Total War-- i.e.
out of the question-- while any invasion and occupation under claim of "national union" by the internal factions therein, would be properly titled a
totalitarian coup.
