Absolute balderdash. THe siezure of Harpers Ferry, the creation of an Army and appointment of commanders was done by order of the governor of Virginia.
The issue is his extension of the blockade to Virginia at a time prior to Virginia's secession from the union. He did that and, in doing so, committed an act of war against the state of Virginia.
Virginia had committed acts against the government prior to that and was in rebellion since the day after the legislature voted secession. Lincoln's acts were proper.
I suppose this is a fairly obscure detail to verify, but if you know of a source that does that or of information that contradicts what I have found after a limited search, please post it.
My source was a timeline in 'Battles & Leaders of the Civil War, Vol. 1" page 4. They notes a difference between Tennessee and Virginia, saying that Tennessee entered into military league with the confederacy on May 7 and was admitted to the confederacy as a state on May 17th. This, BTW, is a second case where the state was admitted before the referendum since Tennessee didn't vote until June 8. In any case, there is no qualifier with Virginia, stating that the state was admitted as a state on May 7th, well before the referendum. Again, Virginia did not agree with your interpretation of the matter. They considered themselves out of the Union as of April 17th.
As a point of clarification, I ask your answer to the following question: If a band of militiamen within Virginia and acting with the support of some Virginians seizes an arsenal, does that mean that the state of Virginia itself seized that arsenal for itself?
It does if the men were militia acting under authority granted by the governor of the state and in accordance with his orders. And according to the account of the action written by a participant, John D. Imboden, that is what happened. The action at Sumter was not spontaneous, it was ordered. Again, my reference is "Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, Vol.1", Imboden's account is entitled 'Jackson at Harpers Ferry in 1861'.
It says that all previous associations of union under the "United States of America" have become, by way of the ordinance, "hereby dissolved." The agreement to build Fort Sumter was conducted as part of their previous association with the union. Thus, as an agreement, it was dissolved with all ties by the act of secession.
It doesn't say that all agreements made were automatically dissolved. And it doesn't say that prior agreements were voided. When South Carolina gave the United States the land it gave it free and clear, no restrictions other than the right to serve civil papers. The secession document doesn't reverse that since the land was no longer South Carolina's.
Coming back to Guantanamo Bay for a moment, when Castro became the head of Cuba he too cancelled all treaties and agreements with the United States concerning the base at Gitmo and demanded the United States turn it over. We refused and have been there ever since. But had he shelled it into submission then you would believe that he was acting within his powers and we would be in the wrong?
Do you have documentation of the events? I admit it is a possibility, and I have not researched it. But I would like to see documentation before simply accepting your version.
Virginia had committed acts against the government prior to that
...but had not seceded.
and was in rebellion since the day after the legislature voted secession.
The legislature did not vote secession. They voted to send a secession ordinance to the people of Virginia which would take effect upon passage on the specified date of May 23rd.
Lincoln's acts were proper.
That is a matter of opinion, but again it is not the issue at hand. The fact remains that Lincoln committed an act of war specifically targetted against the state of Virginia before the state of Virginia seceded. Do you dispute that or not?
My source was a timeline in 'Battles & Leaders of the Civil War, Vol. 1" page 4. They notes a difference between Tennessee and Virginia, saying that Tennessee entered into military league with the confederacy on May 7 and was admitted to the confederacy as a state on May 17th.
So in other words, we have competing timelines. Without access to a library holding further records on the matter, I don't see how this can be determined any further. Needless to say though, May 7 comes after the April extension of the blockade so whether it be May 7 or May 23, Lincoln extended the blockade to Virginia by name before the state seceded.
They considered themselves out of the Union as of April 17th.
If they did, then why did they state otherwise in the very act that brought about secession? Like it or not, Non-Seq, that secession ordinance still says May 23rd as the bottom line legally binding date on which the ordinance, pending passage, became law. My "interpretation" of the events follows the letter of that document. Yours completely disregards it, asserts secession to have been so at some unnamed and unverified previous date, and then, of all things, accuses me of holding an "interpretation" at odds with the very same people who authored and passed the document upon which my "interpretation" is DIRECTLY based.
It does if the men were militia acting under authority granted by the governor of the state and in accordance with his orders.
What if that governor's orders are not sanctioned by the law or are not consistent with the secession ordinance? Is it still Virginia acting? Or in other words, is the governor the same thing as Virginia, the state?
The action at Sumter was not spontaneous, it was ordered.
Yeah. In response to another action that was not spontaneous but rather ordered - the arrival of The Lincoln's warships.
It doesn't say that all agreements made were automatically dissolved.
Sure it does. It dissolves the "union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the "United States of America." Surely you are not maintaining that the previous agreement over Sumter wasn't part of that union "now subsisting" prior to the secession ordinance. Are you? Or are you suggesting, perhaps, that by voidng everything connecting them to the United States, they "really" meant everything except for Fort Sumter?
And it doesn't say that prior agreements were voided.
It dissolves everything "now subsisting" between SC and the USA. That seems to cover prior agreements between SC and the USA pretty thoroughly.