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.
I see that you're another Saul Alinsky student.
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,
"South Carolina had ceded property in Charleston Harbor to the federal Government in 1805, upon the condition that “the United States... repair the fortifications now existing thereon or build such other forts or fortifications as may be deemed most expedient by the Executive of the United States on the same, and keep a garrison or garrisons therein” (The Statutes at Large of South Carolina [Columbia, South Carolina: A.S. Johnston, 1836], Volume V, page 501).
Work on Fort Sumter had begun in 1829 and had still not been completed by 1860. Unfinished and unoccupied for over thirty years, the terms of the cession were clearly violated and it was thus “void and of no effect.”
Consequently, the fort was never the property of the United States Government, as Lincoln claimed in his first Inaugural Address, and, upon secession from the Union, the only duty which South Carolina owed, either legally or morally, to the other States was “adequate compensation... for the value of the works and for any other advantage obtained by the one party, or loss incurred by the other” (Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume I, page 211). "
Oops. You've done it again.
His whole site is built on falsehood after falsehood, myth after myth.
Your entire life is built on lies and myths.