The principle remains that the Sovereign power can assert their claim on property within their dominion.
It applies to private property only.
Tell that to the Cherokees.
And even if it did allow for the seizure of federal property there is that little matter of 'without just compensation' that you're ignoring.
Not so much. Presumably the people of the Confederacy paid those Federal taxes which were used to build that fort. Whatever share of the Federal assets which were paid for by their contributions to the treasury, ought by rights be returned to them.
I don't know it for a fact, (not yet anyway) but I wouldn't be surprised if we discovered that the Southern contributions to the treasury far exceed the value of any property they were contesting. Just a thought.
I can't really argue with you on that one. A rebellion over slavery?
Slavery was conceded by the Union, so it couldn't have been a war fought over slavery. It was fought for territorial integrity, especially after the Union army invaded.
I can't think of another instance where a section rebelled over something that trivial.
Once again, you are being intellectually dishonest. It wasn't a rebellion. Even the North pretty much agreed that the South had a right to secede. Seven States seceded before Fort Sumter with no mobilization of Union troops.
If you were being honest, you would admit that no efforts to stop them were made until AFTER ft. Sumter. Were your theory correct, the announcement of secession should have brought an immediate reaction from the Union Army. It. Did. Not.
Any theory you advance is going to have to deal with that huge time delay between secession and action by the North.
That long delay puts the lie to any claims of "unlawful secession" and "Slavery" as the reason for a war.
The fact remains that per the 5th Amendment private property cannot be taken without just compensation. States cannot take federal property nor can the federal government take state property.
Tell that to the Cherokees.
Whatever.
Not so much. Presumably the people of the Confederacy paid those Federal taxes which were used to build that fort. Whatever share of the Federal assets which were paid for by their contributions to the treasury, ought by rights be returned to them.
A case might be made for that. But such a matter would be a subject of discussion between both sides of the issue. The South wasn't interested in that. They took everything they could get their hands on and repudiated any responsibility for debt and other obligations. Why should the other states go along with that?
I don't know it for a fact, (not yet anyway) but I wouldn't be surprised if we discovered that the Southern contributions to the treasury far exceed the value of any property they were contesting. Just a thought.
Possible, but irrelevant. Sumter was the property of the federal government. Or, if you prefer, the property of all the states not just the Southern ones. Legally the South had no right to claim it.
Slavery was conceded by the Union, so it couldn't have been a war fought over slavery. It was fought for territorial integrity, especially after the Union army invaded.
Slavery was the motivation for the Southern secession. War was the means they chose to further their attempts at secession. So it is accurate to state that the Confederacy launched their war to defend slavery. And had they not launched their war then there would have been no invasion.
Once again, you are being intellectually dishonest. It wasn't a rebellion.
Sure it was.
Even the North pretty much agreed that the South had a right to secede. Seven States seceded before Fort Sumter with no mobilization of Union troops.
Failure to resort to violence right off the bat was not an admission by the North that the South had a right to secede.
If you were being honest, you would admit that no efforts to stop them were made until AFTER ft. Sumter.
No attempts were made to force the issue until after the Confederacy started the war. But at no time did Lincoln or Congress recognize the Southern secession as legitimate or view them as an independent country. Neither did any other country for that matter.
Were your theory correct, the announcement of secession should have brought an immediate reaction from the Union Army.
Why? Did Andrew Jackson immediately send the troops to South Carolina when they tried nullification in 1832? The South was eager for war, the North was not.
That long delay puts the lie to any claims of "unlawful secession" and "Slavery" as the reason for a war.
Nonsense.
There was still hope that the situation could be resolved peacefully -- if both sides could avoid violence or overly provocative acts.
You are faulting the US for not doing things (calling up troops, using force) that you would definitely have blamed them for if they did do them.