>seven states illegally declared their “independence” from the United States before Lincoln was sworn in as President.
US COnstitution, Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Given that the power of succession [withdrawing from the agreement of the Constitution, ‘independence’] is not given to the United States by the Constitution it stands to reason that such powers are either the State’s or the People’s; therefore I cannot in good conscience agree with terming their declaration of independence from the federal government as ‘illegal.’
>After South Carolina fired the first shot at Fort Sumter, four additional states declared independence...
Let’s look at the history & facts here:
1 — SC declared its independence on 20 Dec 1860
2 — The ‘first shot’ was fired at approx. 0430 on 12 Apr 1861
3 — Prior to this ‘first shot’ repeated requests/demands for the evacuation of Fort Sumter were made by SC
Given that SC was/is supposed to be a sovereign state and there were foreign troops were occupying a portion of SC, was SC justified in using force to remove them?
The Fort was clearly US property ceded by the State to the National government decades before.
If you want to declare war start shooting at federal property.
Actually, the first shots were fired in January of 1861.
On January 9, 1861, before the Confederacy was formed, the Star of the West was fired upon by cadets from The Citadel stationed at the Morris Island battery as the ship entered Charleston Harbor.[2] This prevented the Star of the West from resupplying Major Robert Anderson's garrison at Fort Sumter. The Star of the West was given a warning shot across the bow and turned about to leave the harbor mouth. She was then fired on from Fort Moultrie and hit twice.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_the_West
But the power to admit states and to approve any change in status once allowed to join was granted to the other states. Shouldn't that include leaving as well?
Given that SC was/is supposed to be a sovereign state and there were foreign troops were occupying a portion of SC, was SC justified in using force to remove them?
Considering the property in question did not belong to SC then I would say "No".