But it was their fort. How can that be a provocation?
Being that there is no provision in the Constitution for secession that leaves it in the purview of the tenth amendment as a right reserved to the state.
No. It's clear from Article I and Article IV that approving the admission of states and approving any change in status once they have been allowed to join are powers reserved to Congress. By implication that includes leaving entirely.
The North would have been better to seek redress for their grievances concerning the debt and property after abandoning the forts.
How? Through a war? The South walked away from the debt and stolen everything they could get their hands on. What redress did the North have to compel them to pay up?
That is not an argument
But is an accurate description.
I can see where Article 4 Section 3 could apply.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
But that presupposes that the state in question is a member of the union. If that state has seceded then it will no longer apply.
I see nothing in Articles 1 or 4 that restricts unilateral secession. I can only understand State Sovereignty in the context of voluntary membership in the union. Anything less is not statehood.
That is not an argument
But is an accurate description.
I assumed we were having a friendly debate. I believe I am making factual arguments. If I am wrong I will admit it if you show me factual rebuttal.
But it was their fort. How can that be a provocation?
Where territory or other property within the states boarders had been ceded to the Federal government by the state for its use it could be assumed that that territory or other property would revert to the state upon that state leaving the union.
This only makes sense because to assume otherwise would be to have an outpost potentially hostile foreign entity within your boarders.