Simply yes, if you want to claim that the land and fort no longer belong to the federal government so an attack on the property was not illegal, then you have to admit that the troops inside the fort were no members of the state, their loyalties didn’t change with proposed ownership. They were federal soldiers being fired on, an aggressive act of war.

This is off topic to the issues, but insulting me, as someone who I thought was at least an e-buddy is rather disconcerting. It has nothing to do with the intensity of the topic.

You were the one that brought up that issue, I have shown your statement to be factually incorrect. A concession is in order.

You make the claim that the firing on Sumter was a pre-emptive maneuver but can’t cite a single source to support that.

These issues are not issues that I’ve brought into the argument, they are issues that you did.

And like I’ve said, the Federal government owned the property and the fort.

The state doesn’t have legal authority to steal land that I have the title to and not defaulted payment on.

Only if you think that the state has the right to steal land from its legal owner. Can you find one credible source that supports such an understanding? I believe I’ve ask you to support this claim with something other than your singular understanding. You have not done this.

Would you agree then that Maryland had jurisdiction over Washington DC? Maryland could have kicked out the federal government anytime it wanted had this idea of yours been true. Such a conjecture has never been true.

Why would SC offer to buy back the Fort form the US Government if SC had already left the Union? If SC retains full jurisdiction over it once it leave the union it is no obligated to pay for anything.

This is what fort Sumter looked like c. 1860



There were no other buildings; there were no civilian homes or state offices. SC stole US property, violating the original sales agreement, as no “conditions” of sale have been shown to have been violated by the US.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.”

Right there. SC ended any future claim anyone could ever have to the land. The land was fully Federal property.

Again I will ask you why Lincoln, Davis, and Stephens all refer to the issue of slavery as the root cause. What you are citing is later reasoning used by past and present apologists.

Actually, I have, and no, it also applies to any future United States territory inasmuch as the language of the agreement require it. They create logical implications. I will simplify it for you so you can understand, since you have difficulty with this:

1.The Northwest ordinance was important because it set the standard for admitting new states into the Union. This system was maintained all throughout the 19th and 20th centuries and never repealed. Given that the states agreed to it, it became binding law. According to the Northwest Ordinance, after a period of territoryship, a unit may organize and apply for statehood. The agreement explicitly asserts that no old state would have any right that a new state thus formed would not have. This means that new states would enter as equals in legal right.

2.Given that the Northwest Ordinance explicitly claims that states which enter the union do not have the right to leave it, because the union is permanent and forever, it logically follows that, to be consistent with the equality principle agreed upon, the old states could not therefore have the right to leave it either. If the old states had the right to leave, that would therefore imply they had a right that new territories did not. If it were true that the old states had the right to secede, it would therefore follow that old states had a right states formed from new territories would not have. Ergo, secession is illegal.

You're mistaken about the Northwest Ordinance and obviously need to study it more, much like the entire concept of “ownership.”

The Northwest Ordinance was never repealed, and it didn't magically disappear because the Constitution became the new structure of government. You're under the mistaken belief that because the agreement was set under the Articles of Confederation, the agreement no longer applies. That's wrong. A change in government structure does not invalidate treaties and agreements. In fact, the Northwest Ordinance continued to be used, in effect legally, well into the 19th century. You're simply wrong, as usual. This is a pattern with you. As is not admitting when you're wrong. Instead, you continue to dig yourself deeper into the hole of denial, thinking endless repetition of "states are sovereign, therefore, they can attack the government!" will make it true.

And no, there is no concession from me, because you've already lost and have failed to support your argument. I have no reason to concede, given I am correct and have substantiated my argument. You continue to blather and bleat, but amazingly fail to provide anything but repetition of your personal opinion to back it up, son.

__________________