Argument in support? You really do like totalitarianism, don't you? In fact, if you like it that much, I'm sure you'd prefer to dispense with further discussion and just roll the Black Marias.
States have their sovereignty, portions of which are lent to the federal government to exercise as the States' agent.
Agents, like seneschals and butlers, are not masters.
"...and later granted by George III...to the States severally and individually, South Carolina being specifically named and enumerated among the States thus created Sovereigns in law as well as fact?" If South Carolina is a sovereign entity free of the United States then who from that state signed the Treaty of Paris? Being a sovereign entity then they would have had to have signed in order to be bound by it, wouldn't they?
"Their resumption of their unified Sovereign powers by secession gave the Carolinians all the authority they needed to demand anything of anyone on their soil, under the terms of their own state constitution..." and the legal owners be damned, right? Forget that pesky Constitution and that ridiculous rule of law, y'all made it up as you went along.
If you think a sovereign government does not have powers of taking in cases in dispute, just try your argument out on the Enforcement Division of the IRS and DoT.
And what you ignore is that there are legal processes behind all that, with guarantees of just compensation. Hardly the case in 1861.
You really do like totalitarianism, don't you? In fact, if you like it that much, I'm sure you'd prefer to dispense with further discussion and just roll the Black Marias.
Your idiocy knows no bounds doesn't it? And you have no respect for legal protections of any kind if it gets in your way.