Then you have to answer the question of what it is that gives a state the right to declare itself to be a different country and seize property that is denied to a county, a township, a city block, the Elks Club or you and your neighbor.
On this I refer you to the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps you've heard of it?
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The 13 Colonies never for a moment pretended that their actions were legal or claimed that the British had no right to oppose their rebellion. They new they were fighting a war of rebellion
Ah but they did. They absolutely thought that what they were doing was legal and in accordance with the Highest authority. Again, I give you the Declaration of Independence.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
It's an absurd argument. If you spend 34 hours shooting 4000 guns at someone's house, setting it on fire with incendiary rounds, and they survive because they were hiding in the basement until they surrender, it's pretty disingenuous to claim that you really weren't trying to hurt anyone and just wanted them to leave.
It's a more unserious argument to believe you could do that and not kill anyone unless that is precisely what you were attempting to do. Walls can take a lot of bombardment. People can't.
Nor will you find, in all of the confederate correspondence, orders and reports, even the remotest indication that they were making an effort not to hurt anyone.
You may not have read the correspondence between Major Anderson and General Beauregard. It seemed quite civil to me. None of that childish "sturm and drang" like you bring to a discussion.
Which doesn't remotely answer the question of why a state is permitted to do declare itself to be a country and seize property while a county, a township, a city block, the Elks Club or you and your neighbor can not. In fact, it would seem to argue that you and neighbor can do just that, being People and all.
Ah but they did. They absolutely thought that what they were doing was legal and in accordance with the Highest authority.
Okay, I'll be more specific, since you're being willfully obtuse. The Founding Fathers never pretended what they were doing was legal under British law or that they wouldn't have been hanged for treason had they lost. They resorted to the Natural Right of Rebellion.
You may not have read the correspondence between Major Anderson and General Beauregard. It seemed quite civil to me. None of that childish "sturm and drang" like you bring to a discussion.
I have read all of the correspondence between Anderson and Beauregard, and I've read all the correspondence between Beauregard and the confederate government, and among all the orders I've found nothing to Beauregard from the government or by Beauregard to his batteries that they try to avoid actually hurting anyone. On the contrary, I find Beauregard warning Anderson of the "effusion of blood" that will result when he is forced to "batter you to pieces" if Anderson refuses to surrender. That these threats are dressed up in the genteel language of the day makes them no less a threat of violence.
Even at this late date Spank~Yur~Monkey doesn’t understand the difference between peaceful negotiation and violent revolution. Maybe that’s why he calls it wack-a-mole instead of, well, you know... ;’)