You should know all about lost causes since you've never won a single debate on any of the WBTS threads and you never will as long as you keep trying to defend The Big Lie.
Here we go again, Chase was corrupt blah, blah, blah. Lincoln started the war, yadda, yadda, yadda. It's like a broken record. The pathetic one in the picture is you.
Was the Union Army's Invasion of The Confederate States a Lawful Act?
Obiter dictum. Another legal term you apparently can't define.
Sigh...........
dicta - Plural of "obiter dictum." A remark made in a legal opinion that is irrelevant to the decision and does not establish a a precedent.
The plural was used for obvious reasons but this is another legal term that you obviously don't know the definition of.
You should know all about lost causes since you've never won a single debate on any of the WBTS threads and you never will as long as you keep trying to defend The Big Lie.
Running away and declaring victory on your part does not constitute defeat on my part.
Was the Union Army's Invasion of The Confederate States a Lawful Act?
Oh Jeez, is that Ostrowski POS still floating around? Nothing like unbiased sources and reputable essays, is there? An Ostrowski's work is nothing like an unbiased source and is nowhere near a reputable essay.
If South Carolina illegally seceded from the Union, then both the Union’s initial refusal to surrender Fort Sumter and its subsequent invasion were lawful and constitutional. Conversely, if South Carolina had the right to secede from the Union, then indeed the Union soldiers in the Fort were trespassers and also a potential military threat to South Carolina.
See? It falls apart right here, because regardless of whether the South Carolina act of secession was legal or illegal it didn't impact the ownership of Sumter. Fort Sumter was the property of the federal government, built on land deeded to the U.S. free and clear by an act of the South Carolina legislature. The state had absolutely no legal claims to the property, even if their secession had been legal, so for Ostrowski to call the troops there 'tresspassers' is factually wrong. How do you tresspass on your own property? So if the troops were not tresspassing then the confederacy was completely in the wrong to demand Sumters surrender and bombarding it was indeed an act of war.
His whole site is built on falsehood after falsehood, myth after myth.