Article 4.
As I said, Congress already prescribed the manner in which acts of state are proved, and it can only prescibe that in general laws, according to the Constitution. It cannot make a new, specific law governing secessions separate from the rest of the acts to be proved. If the Acts of Secession were passed lawfully, and published to the rest of the States and the Federal Government by the same process as any other law, then they fully satisfied this condition.
Not when there is federal property involved. Congress needed the opportunity to prescribe the manner in which that act would be proven.
That’s probably nobody ever cites this as some kind of barrier to secession, because it just isn’t.
The conversation never gets that far. Rebs say a state can, patriots say a state can't. That's as far as it gets.
I have an honesty test for you: The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941. There was a concern in California that it would be next. According to you it was OK for the South to do what it did, declare the Union dissolved and seize federal assets within the borders of the southern states. Could California have done that on Dec 8, 1941? Could California have held a meeting, sent a letter to Congress saying the union is dissolved, seized all ships at the San Diego, San Fransisco, and Los Angeles naval bases, and seized all the buildings at all the naval bases in order raze all buildings and scrap all the ships to show Japan it was neutral so as to not have Japan attack them? You say it was OK for the South...would it have been OK for California?
“Article 4.”
Article 4 says nothing about secession or the dispossesion of Federal property in such an event, so it is just your speculation.
“Not when there is federal property involved. Congress needed the opportunity to prescribe the manner in which that act would be proven.”
Where does the Constitution state this, specifically? Not a clause that you interpret to mean that, but in specific language?
“Could California have done that on Dec 8, 1941? Could California have held a meeting, sent a letter to Congress saying the union is dissolved, seized all ships at the San Diego, San Fransisco, and Los Angeles naval bases, and seized all the buildings at all the naval bases in order raze all buildings and scrap all the ships to show Japan it was neutral so as to not have Japan attack them?”
California would have every right to secede, and by doing so, they would necessarily have to seize any immovable military assets held by foreign governments within their borders. It’s not a matter of “OK” or not, it’s just a fact of life, you can’t ship a fort or military base back to its builder. The question is really, will the original owner decide to try to arrange for compensation through legal, diplomatic, or military channels. The US chose the military channel in the Civil War, it seems to me.