A big issue in Alaska's statehood was which property transferred to the "state" and which remained "federal".
I really do think that considerations of secession must necessarily reflect prior ownership. Land which belonged to the United States must continue to be part of the United States. land which belonged to some other country that freely associated with the United States is a different issue to be addressed separately.
Your original 13 colonies and their land claims give rise to different issues than the rights of states created subsequent to the Treaty of Paris ~ such states necessarily being erected in/on property OWNED by those states as a group, or independently.
Recall the history of the State of Franklin. The locals felt it useful to have their own state. They elected a legislature and governor. The federal government (and North Carolina, the original property owner) said "na, na, na, na" and rejected the whole scheme.
No, the locals didn't have the right to create a state. However, the Constitution provides a mechanism for creating states, and when that process was followed Tennessee was created in virtually the same place the former state of Franklin had been created.
The only real difference between Franklin and Tennessee was the question of WHO OWNED THE PLACE! Apparently private ownership of small lots didn't qualify folks to create states on their own.
Secession necessarily involves the process of creating a state ~ independent or otherwise.
Making it all much more complex we have the case of the State of Northern Virginia and the State of West Virginia.
Northern Virginia had a legislature and a wartime "governor". However, it was not considered a state ~ more like a territorial government for that part of Virginia along the Potomac that was not otherwise occupied by the Confederate Army. That is, it was a rump government erected for the sole purpose of collecting taxes and running criminal courts.
West Virginia was different. With the rest of the state of Virginia in rebellion, Congress acted to accept West Virginia as a state on its own. In effect, West Virginia is really Virginia, and modern Virginia is a new creation made AFTER the Civil War, and then separately admitted ~ presumably with the permission of the state of West Virginia.
Other strange deals include the Union making good on the salaries of Postmasters in Southern states ~ ........ ~
” In effect, West Virginia is really Virginia, and modern Virginia is a new creation made AFTER the Civil War, and then separately admitted ~ presumably with the permission of the state of West Virginia.”
As I pointed out, WV units prior to 1863 fought as Virginia units. While the whole process of West Virginia statehood is admittedly a little murky, I think it is inarguable that West Virginia was “Unionist Virginia.”
And I agree that West Virginia should have been called “Virginia” after the war and Virginia should have been called “Southern Virginia” or “East Virginia” or something. The name West Virginia has always struck me as the greatest cause of this argument.
If we must relate the events of today to past events for the sake of a clearer understanding then we should be centered on the British subjects who had residence in the British colonies of the north American continent and their ultimate secession from the British crown.
Feel free to amuse yourself with the obfuscations generated by mental masturbation... LOL If everyone on your side is too dense to see what this is about then so much the better for us I guess. heh.. I never expected to have the "element of surprise" but when your adversary is too preoccupied with an intellectual circle jerk to accurately gauge REALITY I guess anything is possible...
lol.. your right... Prior ownership... civil war settled everything... yadda yadda...state of franklin... Postmasters pay....yadda yadda... Jesus, this may actually be EASIER than I thought it would be.