Force, and the Rule of Law

I've heard many times that the Civil War answered the question of slavery, or states' rights, or something, which is exceedingly strange, because one would think the entire premise of the rule of law was that force, of which a war is just the most egregious example, doesn't answer anything. It may have results, but why would they be the correct ones, legalistically or morally? Did the answer as to the validity of secession under the United States Constitution really hinge upon, not the Tenth Amendment or substantive due process, but rather on whether or not a detailed copy of Lee's battle plans made its way into McClellan's hands?

If I force somebody to give me a piece of land, at gunpoint, I am not the proper owner, because I forcefully obtained it. But if an army of colonists forces the British crown, at gunpoint, to relinquish the sovereignty of thirteen of its colonies, then in this instance it seems pure power does result in a transfer of rights. Now, of course, colonists might have grievances that justify the revolt, but then again, so might I -- but the answer to the question of whether my grievances are justified will not depend on whether I can win a war, but rather, on whether I can win a legal argument. One imagines, at least.

Nearly all nations start with a violent bang. They revolt against a crown, or overthrow a government, etc. Then the revolutionaries begin implementing their own laws, laws that must be followed. Some of these laws prohibit theft, for example, because of course might doesn't make right, and the fact that you have the power to take something does not mean you are entitled to it. Yet the new nation did not follow the laws of its predecessor state, which surely prohibited the revolution just undertaken.

So it seems that might doesn't make right, except for really big issues. Therefore, legally, you're entirely in the right refusing to pay a parking ticket -- if you've got a big enough army to back you up.