You now claim that Virginia could claim to secede, but it would have no effect on the actual contract with the USA.
Your original point was that Virginia had the right to actually secede, under certain conditions.
Just silliness on your part now, from what was an originally thoughtful, albeit heavily slanted, position.
Your “rotflol” usage is a clear signal of your de-evolution. (You did not have any of that in your original post.)
Your original point was that Virginia had the right to actually secede, under certain conditions.
The difference being that the first case involved secession by mutual consent with the remaining states and the second case involves a unilateral declaration of secession, which has no bearing as long as existing laws aren't broken.
Anyone would expect that lawful efforts at secession would be preceded and accompanied by many months or years of negotiations to establish dispositions of property, laws and financial obligations.
But Virginia's declaration of secession included none of that.
On the one hand Virginia refused Lincoln's offer to hand over Fort Sumter in exchange for Virginia's promise not to secede.
On the other hand, they used the occasion of the Confederacy's assault on Fort Sumter as their excuse to claim, somehow, "oppression" had occurred, enough to constitutionally justify their secession.
That's why I say it wasn't really lawful, and no serious court would buy it.
Triple: "Your original point was that Virginia had the right to actually secede, under certain conditions."
My original point follows Madison, whose language on "rights" is as follows:
Madison said lawful secession required conditions of mutual consent or, in effect, a material breach of contract.
And, for sake of argument, I can grant that Virginia at least made a pretense of constitutional legality, which is more than the original seceding states did.
So I'm pointing out that: whatever alleged legality Virginia claimed in declaring unilateral secession, it utterly lost, in effect, by simultaneously declaring war on the United States!
So Virginia's secession (legal or not) was doomed from the moment they declared it.
Therefore the legalities of Virginia's secession, in your word, are "moot".
Triple: "Just silliness on your part now..."
More serious than any defense of Confederate declarations of secession I've seen.