If it isn't stated in the Constitution, then it doesn't count.
There is NO perpetual Union clause. And Texas had the right of secession from the time it joined the Union (by treaty).
If indeed the right of secession exists, then from the time South Carolina seceded, Ft. Sumter was no longer Federal property, and if so, then keeping a garrison in it was an illegal act, which would justify an attack.
Because property rights immediately became null and void? When did the deed transfer back to South Carolina?
Assuming for the sake of arguement that South Carolina's secession was legal, what rule of law miraculously transferred ownership of Sumter to South Carolina? Without congesssional approval. Without compensation. Without the owner of the property having any say whatsoever in the transaction.
Nonsense. There is more in the Constitution than just the few things mentioned. It doesn't mention an Air Force so it must be unconstitutional.
Texas is a special case but likely it could not secede either. Most of the assertions you guys make are easily shown not to be supported by fact.
Even if there were a right to secede that did not mean the Fort stopped being federal property. South Carolina gave up any right to the island when it handed the deed to the feds.
Should Virginia get back all the lands it gave the feds in the 1780s?