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?
He could try.
” But New York was co-owner. “
It helped pay for the land?
“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.”
The rule of “it’s in my territory now”.
“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.”
Their rightful owner was the States, as THEY were the rightful owner of the government. The government was considered in material breach of the contract.
“You’re trying to be condescending again, aren’t you?”
Just responding in kind.
“ctually 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.”
No, that’s not the right answer. The reason given by Chase does not mean the 14th pardoned Davis of a charge of treason. If secession was treason, why no trial? Why hold him at Fort Liberty in solitary and then just let him go?
“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.”
They’d already violated his rights by holding him without trial or even indictment for two years. Double jeopardy only applies if he had first been tried for the crime.
What actually happened is the government was wary of actually addressing the legality of secession. This provided an out. The one, later, case that actually addressed it (White, as I recall) just declared it “illegal” with no basis in law.
“But I’ll bite, laddie. What’s your version?”
The above, sonny.