One wasn't necessary. Fort Sumter was the property of the federal government and even had the southern acts of secession been legal that does not automatically transfer ownership to the Davis regime. Sumter would remained U.S. property until Congress voted to dispose of it.
The 10th Amendment is the seperation between the federal government and the state government. Most liberals tend to believe, as you, that the states have no individual rights. So you understand, there is NO right in the Constitution that prohibits a state from leaving the USA, therefore, the 10th Amendment takes over and gives the States the authority to make those decisions on their own. This also goes for Abortion, state right to permit/disallow religion in public facilities, and even speed limits. Unfortunately, liberal jurists interpret the Constitution however they wish and continue to "read into" the Constitution rather than take the document literally as the signers intended.
That is complete idiocy. The states are guaranteed considerable amount of freedom under the Constitution, but only those not reserved to Congress or forbidden under the Constitution. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to admit states and approve any change in their status. That includes leaving. Had the southern states tried to leave in the same manner as most of them joined, with the approval of a majority of the other states through a vote in Congress, then the south would be a separate country today.
On the war/slavery issue. Prior to Lincoln's election (1857, 1858) he stated he had no intention to emancipate the slaves. His intention with attacking th south was to stop the seperation of the states. Additionally, he illegally arrested Maryland legislators who were on their way to vote on secession and also arrested the governor of Delaware who was ready to approve secession.
Complete nonsense. Lincoln's aim was to preserve the Union and prevent the southern rebellion. Your claims about the Maryland legislature and the governor of Delaware are 9 parts myth and only one part truth. Like most southron arguements.
The states had a right to leave, and did so. They were brought back in by force and NEVER reapproved for statehood, thereby making them still seperated from the USA.
In theory there is absolutely no reason why a state cannot leave the Union. But logically it should be done in the same manner as states are admitted. And that is through a majority vote in both houses of Congress.
Amen.
Whatever.
That's not exactly true. The Constitution speaks to statehood as follows (Art. IV, Sec. 3):
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
This says nothing about states leaving the union. Of course states had the right to leave the Union--it goes without question. The United States had done it less than one hundred years previously and even kicked off the Declaration of Independence with the statement, "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..."
At the end of the day, our Republic was an experiment. Nothing more, nothing less. Each state is sovereign, and as such, it has the right of self-government. If it chooses to no longer be a part of the confederacy of states that we know as the United States, so be it. That is that state's right. There can be no view of self-government that does not allow for secession. Otherwise, the states are mere colonies of the ultimate ruler, which is the Federal Government. Whether that government is based in Washington D.C. or based in London, it makes no matter.
Liberalism tends to rot the mind.
That is absolutely wrong, and manufactured buncombe on your part.
Read Article IV for comprehension, and the dispositive consent to any change in States' status or borders is the States'. Their approval is the sine qua non of the transaction.
And leaving the Union has no relation to the transactions described in Article IV. States leave the Union the same way the original 13 States entered it -- by a sovereign act of the People in convention assembled, or in their precincts. When the citizens assemble and take on their aspect of the sovereign People, there is literally no power on earth between them and Almighty God. They answer to no Congress, no King, no General Assembly, to no mortal -- to nobody, as I have repeatedly told you, who does not call Himself Who Am.