Loyalists in the Colonies were still part of the fundamental makeup of the whole colony. They were outvoted.
Like the Democrats in 1860. Majority rule. If it's right to override it in one case, it's not wrong to override it in another, if you can make an argument that what the majority wants is oppressive.
There is a great difference in terms of both investment and of necessity. Nothing about Ft Sumter was valuable to the larger government.
So if a fort is useful to you it's all right to retain it, but if it's not it has to be surrendered.
You make all these pseudo-moralistic condemnations of Lincoln, but you would have behaved in the same way if you thought the stakes were high enough. You might even have gone much further.
If your wrong-headed economics didn't lose you all credibility years ago, you've lost it now.
Like the Democrats in 1860. Majority rule. If it's right to override it in one case, it's not wrong to override it in another, if you can make an argument that what the majority wants is oppressive. Just trying to follow the foundation principle of this country. The Declaration referred to States, or more accurately individual "colonies" because they had not yet become "states."
But the principle remains, so far as the founders were concerned, parts of "states" didn't work. Actual states could leave.
So if a fort is useful to you it's all right to retain it, but if it's not it has to be surrendered.
The equation is more complex than that. You have to weigh a number of factors against each other and then look at the sum.
In both these cases, the residents have a claim on the land, but in one case the land is absolutely essential to the security of the central government, and in the other case it is absolutely useless.
If your wrong-headed economics didn't lose you all credibility years ago, you've lost it now.
And i'm sure you'll inform me in the future that something else i've said has once again lost me all credibility.
Meh.