[Non-Sequitur]

The South legally seceded from the Washington government by acts of their respective legislatures.

Their actions were illegal, as the Supreme Court ruled in 1869.

The federals would not leave Sumpter which was in a separate and soverign Nation, the Confederate States of America.

Even had the southern acts of secession been legal, Sumter was the property of the United States and South Carolina had no legal claim to it.

The Southern forces justifiably fired upon the fort to end the occupation of their territory.

Why was their acts justified? Cuba has demanded that the U.S leave Guantanamo Bay. The U.S. refuses. Would you support Cuba's bombarding the base into surrender?

[PistolPaknMama]

Sumter was the property of the United States and South Carolina had no legal claim to it.

According to who? The government of the united States? The mother of all imminent domain issues which you obviously fully support.

[PeaRidge]

You said: The South legally seceded from the Washington government by acts of their respective legislatures.

Non-sequitur said: Their actions were illegal, as the Supreme Court ruled in 1869.

Remembering that the Constitution prohibits legislation after the occurrence of an act that alters the legal consequences of that act. (Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 states that "No...ex post facto Law shall be passed."), he is thus making a false statement.

He knows it, too.

And by relying on that false statement to support a claim that the South's actions were "illegal" is primary evidence that he has no factual claim to support his contention.

He knows that too.