Yes, it was justified. That fort was a loaded gun pointing at South Carolina.
“If both had a claim to it why was South Carolina justified in seizing it without compensating New York for their share?”
New York wasn’t under that fort’s guns.
“Based on what rule of law?”
The State was no longer under the Constitution.
” So it had a foreign owner. It was still the property of someone else. What gave South Carolina any legal claim to it?”
What gave us a legal claim to British forts on our territory? That fort was not private property. It was a military base in the territorial waters of South Carolina.
“Because it didn’t belong to South Carolina and the rightful owner wasn’t interested in just giving it away. That’s why not.”
It belonged to all the States until South Carolina seceded.
All the other forts were vacated, why not that one? Lincoln wanted a trigger.
“Still trying to change the subject? Ok. The reason was the 14th Amendment. Now it’s your turn to actually answer some of my questions.”
I prefaced that with “on another note”, sonny. The reason wasn’t the 14th Amendment. He was imprisoned without trial for 2 years. Why was he released? Oh, the 14th is a wrong answer, by the way.
We already know your claim on that. The question is by your criteria wouldn't Castro be justified in bombarding Guantanamo Bay into surrender. And if he did, again by your criteria, then shouldn't the U.S. just sit back and let him?
New York wasn’t under that fort’s guns.
But New York was co-owner.
The State was no longer under the Constitution.
That's not the question. What rule of law transferred Sumter from its legal owner to the South Carolina without compensation? If you can't come up with one just say so.
What gave us a legal claim to British forts on our territory? That fort was not private property. It was a military base in the territorial waters of South Carolina.
Following the war that would have been the Treaty of Paris, signed by both sides. Now what gave South Carolina legal claim to Sumter?
All the other forts were vacated, why not that one? Lincoln wanted a trigger.
No, all the other forts were seized without permission or the agreement of their rightful owner, the government of the United States. They were stolen.
I prefaced that with “on another note”, sonny.
You're trying to be condescending again, aren't you?
The reason wasn’t the 14th Amendment. He was imprisoned without trial for 2 years. Why was he released? Oh, the 14th is a wrong answer, by the way.
Actually it was the correct answer. Chief Justice Chase, who would have been one of the two judges trying Davis, made it clear that he would not vote to convict because the passage of the 14th Amendment stripped Davis from holding any office or any position of trust in the government. Having been punished for his role in leading the rebellion by Section 3 of the amendment, Chase was of the opinion that further trial and punishment would be a violation of Davis's 5th Amendment right against double jeopardy.
But I'll bite, laddie. What's your version?