Legality:
You most certainly have not addressed the issues. First, you havn't explained what the 10th Amendment means. Second, you havn't really given a reason why the clauses in the State ratifying conventions don't matter. Third, you seem to be relying on an assumption that people, during the Constitutional convention did not want states to have the power to seceede. Yet, as I pointed out, the Father of the Constituion, himself seems to have no problem with states leaving the union. Just read the Virginia Resolutions of 1798.

Who started the war:
South Carolina had several agreements with the Union. The Union broke those agreements and this was an act of agression. So, South Carolina simply repelled the invasion.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

You are the one who claims 10 authorizes secession. It's you who has some splainin to do not me. 10 does not say any state may invalidate the constitution.
Whatever clauses you refer to do not appear in the contract (the constitution) so they are irrelevant.
One man "seems" not to have a problem? That's your justification? Show me where any of the founders says the constitution is null and void and I will agree secession was intended to be legal.
You cannot cite one single "agreement" which bound the United States to endure the existance of a hostile insurrection or a hostile sovereign nation on its borders. Multiple acts of war were committed against the US in multiple southern states before any union soldier fired a weapon in anger.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

Guys, this is all interesting stuff, but could we gently steer the conversation back into the area of the thread starter, that is: why do citizens of the USA feel the need to display the flag of a foreign power ie the CSA which actually fought a bitter war against the country of which they are citizens ?

__________________
England has no eternal friends and no eternal enemies, only eternal interests - Palmerston

The people who fired the first shot started the war, a dispute is no excuse for violence, if there was a legitimate argument for secession, it should have been brought before the court system.
Once you decide to use force of arms instead of pursuing legal methods of dispute resolution, legality goes out the window.

Once the war had commenced, the legal question is moot, and the Confederacy was doomed to defeat from the beginning, due to the delusional plans of it's founders. The only thing the Confederate forces could do was prolong the conflict, they were never in a position where victory was even remotely possible.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

WHAT?!?! Have you READ anything I wrote regarding the 10th Amendment! I did explain why the 10th Amendment authorized secession. In a fair ammount of detail! What else do you want, man? I never said that a state coulc invalidate the Constitution, whatever that means. I said that NO WHERE does the Constitution prohibit states from leaving the union. This, combined with the 10th means that the states CAN leave. You have done NOTHING to prove otherwise. YOu have not explained to me what the 10th Amendment means. You have simply said over and over and over that I am wrong and you are right.

You seem to completly misunderstand the concept the the United States. The states came together and created the United States government. In doing this, they all gave up some powers. Those powers are the powers listed in the Constitution. If the power is not granted to the federal government, the states did not give up the power. If the power is not denied the states, the states did not give up the power.

This is an extremely simple concept. The Constitution does not disallow states to leave the union, the 10th says that any power that the Constitution does not take from the states is a power that the states have. Therefore, the states have the power to leave the union.

Ok, that feels like the 20th time i have explained that. Yet, you continue to claim that the state's actions somehow invalidates the Constitution with out ever citing what part of the COnstitution it "invalidates." You have not given me any point in the Constiitution in which the states are prohibited from leaving the union.

This was in response to when you said:
Do you know what the VA Resolution of 1798 is? In short, they say that states have the authority to declare ANY federal law null and void. This was written by James Madison, not just "one man" but the Father of the Constitution. It makes sense to see what he has to say about the Constiution, considering he had a pretty big part in writting it. So, here is a founder declaring that states have the power to declare any federal law null and void.

I don't have my research here with me at work, but let me answer this when I get home.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

If a state can unilaterally secede at any time they like or for whatever reason they choose, then none of the provisions of the constitution are enforceable. No law is ever enforceable if the subjects of that law are free to form their own country as soon as they run up against a rule they don't like.

In other words, legal secession is equivalent to declaring the constitution null and void. That is why I said 10 does not give a state the right to invalidate teh constitution. This concept is so patently obvious that I'm baffled that you keep acting like you don't understand it.
I didn't know the VA Resolution of 1798 had been incorporated into the constitution. Show me where it is and I'll believe it authorizes secession.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

Like I said above, the Flag that most southerns use, including South Carolina was never technically a flag attached to the CSA. It has many meanings as many symbols do. The reason your perhaps having trouble understanding is because you see the flag as one exclusively attached to the CSA. Which I've mention it technically isn't, and more so new modern meanings have attached themselves to the variation.

OK, so PLEASE tell me what the 10th Amendment does mean. Please tell me how it does not mean what it clearly says.

And now, you are backing out of you what you said. Let me remind you that you said:
James Madison is a founder. James Madison wrote that states are allowed to make any federal law null and void. Accordinto to you, this would mean that the US government has no power, and the Constitution is null and void.

So, now add dishonsety to your list of "wrongness."

EDIT: By the way, you are most certainly correct in your assertion that allowing states to have the power to leave the union leaves the union with little power. This is the exact purpose. The US government was made to be VERY small. Just read the limited amount of powers delegated to it. I mean, it isn't even supposed to have a standing army. The US Government was created by the states, not the other way around. The states, then, are the masters of the US government, not it servant.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

I don't know if the conversation is too far off-topic, though. The Confederate flag represents different things to different groups. To many southerners (I've only lived in Texas for a bit, but Texas is unique in that it takes more pride in being Texas than fighting for the Confederacy), the symbol is that of Southern pride/States' rights. The arguement about being in the Union or not has a lot to do with states' rights.

I never got an emotional feeling toward the symbol of the Confederate flag. But, as Goober said, all have to consider what that symbol represents. As much as it represents racism to one group, it represents states' rights to another.

And, if SC wants to fly it, then it is pretty much their business, not the business of an Arizonan, New Yorker, or Illini, for example.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Well it appears Madison at one time thought it was OK for Virginia. So you have shown me where one founder once thought it was alright for one state. But he never put it in the constitution.

Now maybe you can finally address my point. Please explain how you can reconcile legal secession with the consequent invalidation of the constitution - the document you claim encodes its own irrelevance.

Edit
Wait a minute I take it back. It turns out you haven't shown anything at all. The virginia resolution does not say the constitution is null and void at all. Nor does it say "states are allowed to make any federal law null and void".

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

No, the VA Resolution of 1798 does not say that the Constitution is null and void, and it does not say "states are allowed to make any federal law null and void." However, you will note that I never actually quoted the resolution. Instead, I was simply paraphrasing. I thogught that putting it in 21st Century terms would be a lot better than putting it in 18th Century terms because clearly, if you read the document, you cannot comprehend 18th Century writting.. So, I am going to quote directly from the resolution, now, and you will see that you are wrong.
Pay special attention to this:
Now, let's define a few words. First, what "evil" is this document talking about? Well, the rest of the paragraph was talking about intentional abuses of power by Congress, so this must be the evil. Now, what does arresting mean? Well, in this case, it means to stop or to halt, etc. And lastly, what does "interpose" mean? Well simply, "to come between things." In short, this is saying that when the US government abuses its powers, it is the duty and the right of the states to stop the government's abuses. That is, to declare a law null and void.

It goes on to say:
These necessary and proper measures are to nullify federal law.

Now, if this does not convince you, let's take a look at the Kenturcky Resolutions of 1798, which were written on the same topic, and by Jefferson.
Ok, so here, Jefferson is CLEARLY saying that the states have a right to declare laws which they deem to be unconstitutonal void and of no force.

Again, Jefferson is cleary saying that states can nullify federal laws.

Thomas Jefferson also agrees with me on the fact that the Congress is the servant of the state's not the master
And, here is a quote from the Virginia Ratifying document:
And here is one from the New York document:
Now, I know that your next response is going to something like "tell me when the VA and KY resolutions were incorporated into the Constitution." Well, I never said they were. However, let's look at what you have said:

Here, you are saying that if states are allowed to leave the union whenever they want, the Constitution is null and void. Further, it seems that you imply that allowing the states to have the power to leave the union is the same as declaring the Constitution null and void. Though, you never said that expressly, I am just assuming as that would be the logical assumption.

Next, you said this:
Then you said this:
Who were at the two ratifying conventions that ratified the Constitution? Founders! James Madison, Patrick Henry, George Clinton, George Mason, John Marshall, Alexander Hamilton and a litany of other founders. In addition to being founders of the country by definition, many of these people are people that any average American would consider to be a "founder." By all definitions, they are founders.

So, these founders think that it is ok for the states to be able to leave the union. According to you, this makes the Constitution null and void. So, by way of hypothetical sylogism (which is made of you premises) these founders said that the Constitution is null and void. And you said that if I could show you one founder who thought that the Constitution was null and void, then you would agree that seccession is legal.

Well, guess what? I have shown you a whole bunch of them! Are you going to make good on what you said?

And may be you can finally tell me what in the world the 10th Amendment means! You have still not done this. I have explained this several times. Let me break my argument down. To make things simple, why don't you just tell me with which point you disagree:

P1. The 10th Amendment says if a power is not denied the states, then the states retain that power.

P2. The ratifying conventions and other documents of several states indicate that they have only given the US government the powers expressly mentioned in the Constitution, and those powers expressly deined the states.

P3. Nowhere does the Constitution prohibit states from leaving the Union.

/ Therefore, by way of modus ponens, states have the right to seceede from the union.

P3 serves as the antecedant for the hypothetical sylogism in P1. Thus, the consequent must be true.

Now, with which of my premises do you disagree? P1, P2, or P3? You cannot hold these premises to be true, and the conclusion false.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

So you admit the resolutions do not in fact say what you claimed they did. And you accuse me of dishonesty?

There is nothing in any of your quotes that is legally binding on the United States. These are not even legally binding on the states where they were written. Nor are they approvals of secession. They are merely expressions of opinion regarding "whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers". Since there is no instance of any such thing occurring before the secession none of this applies to the civil war.

Now to the point you continue to ignore. If a state can unilaterally secede at any time they like and for whatever reason they choose, then none of the provisions of the constitution are enforceable. No law is ever enforceable if the subjects of that law are free to form their own country as soon as they run up against a rule they don't like. Please explain how it makes any sense that the constitution allows the specific behavior which makes it null and void.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

What? Again I did NOT quote the resolutions for a REASON! I simply paraphrased them. Tell me, what exactly do the resolutions mean when they say that "acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force?" What do they mean if not what I paraphrased?
Ha! You did EXACTLY what I said you would do! And, you still ignore the fact that you would recant if I could show you a founder that says secession is ok.
And what is the consequent of that statement? The states can take back their powers. This most certainly is an approval of secession. They are approvals of seccesion BY founders. So, tell me that I am right like you said you would.
I am at home now, I am going to start a thread covering this in History.

However, we are not only discussing the Civil War, we are now discussing whether or not states have the power to seceede.
Ok, I will do this on the condition that you respond to this argument. Given the nature of online discusisons, I will simply trust you.

The Constitution was an agreement entered into by the states. They all thought that it would be beneficial to pool their resources for various prouposes. The national government was supposed to be very weak. While we like to talk about being "one nation" and other things of the like, we were far from that in 1789. Different people lived in different states, and the did not want other people of different religious backgrounds telling them what to do. This is why the national government is supposed to be so weak.

To keep the national government weak, states wanted to retain the right to seceede. If the national government was threatened with secession and nullifaction of its laws, it would be much more likely to stay in line. Remember, the Congress is the servant of the states. It was created by the states.

This is why it was included in ratifying conventions, this is why the founders wrote things arguing that states had the power to nullify laws.

Ok, now I would like for you to respond to this:
Let me break my argument down. To make things simple, why don't you just tell me with which point you disagree:

P1. The 10th Amendment says if a power is not denied the states, then the states retain that power.

P2. The ratifying conventions and other documents of several states indicate that they have only given the US government the powers expressly mentioned in the Constitution, and those powers expressly deined the states.

P3. Nowhere does the Constitution prohibit states from leaving the Union.

/ C1. Therefore, by way of modus ponens, states have the right to seceede from the union.

P3 serves as the antecedant for the hypothetical sylogism in P1. Thus, the consequent must be true.

Now, with which of my premises do you disagree? P1, P2, or P3? You cannot hold these premises to be true, and the conclusion false.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address