Replies

But sovereignty I would debate. Such would depend on whether secession was legal :-) Kuwaitis and Japanese own property in the US, but as for applying Kuwaiti or Japanese law over it, thats another matter.

There is, I think, a difference between property owned by foreign private individuals. Embassys, on the other hand, are a different matter. Those are considered foreign soil and those countries can exercise their laws over it.

Look at a similar matter, that of the naval base at Guantanamo Bay. We hold that through a treaty signed with the government of Cuba over a hundred years ago. When Castro seized power he unilaterally voided the treaty and demanded the U.S. leave. The U.S. has refused for over 40 years and has continued to pay the required nominal rent into an government account in Europe. If the Davis regime was within its rights to demand Fort Sumter and to shell it when the Lincoln Administration refused to leave then wouldn't the Castro regime be within its rights to shell Guantanamo Bay?

If the Davis regime was within its rights to demand Fort Sumter and to shell it when the Lincoln Administration refused to leave then wouldn't the Castro regime be within its rights to shell Guantanamo Bay?

I actually don't think it was within its rights. The Fort was owned by the US as you said. But, with secession (assuming it was legal), sovereignty would have transferred back to South Carolina. Unless there was some agreement between South Carolina and the US for it to maintain sovereignty even after a withdrawal from the Union. I am not particularly familiar with the details of the paperwork on Fort Sumter so I don't know if that is the case or not and could be persuaded either way depending on the evidence. There is such an agreement between the US and Cuba re: Guantanamo that details all that though.

As for you final comment. My position throughout the thread has been the defense of secession as a legitimate power and an effective tool for ensuring that the central government is the servant rather than master. If your argument is not with secession as a generic concept, and is instead just with the South's use of it, then we are clear. But I perceived you pointing out the South's use of it as evidence of its illegitimacy. If that perception is wrong just say so.