Now you’re finally getting it. If the Confederates were a soverign nation (and they considered themselves one. The north disagreed, but that was what they fought the war about), than having nation B maintain and resupply a force within the borders of their nation clearly constitutes an attack. That wasn’t that hard, was it?
Again, totally correct, because Sovereign nation A was the one doing the attacking. Damn, it’s finally sinking in! It’s a freakin miracle!
Amen brother.
[hijack victim]
So is Lincoln Jesus or Judas?
[/hijack victim]
Weirddave, is there any contemporaneous tradition that addresses the question of whether the former parent nation retains ownership of any of its property upon secession of the new nation? For instance, could any British warships in Continental ports on 07-05-1776 have become subject to a claim that they were now a part of the United States Navy?
Is there any justification that the Confederacy could have used in the court of world opinion, that Fort Sumter was [then] the property of the CSA? Jackmanni is clearly asserting that Fort Sumter and its equipment and materiel were the property of the United States Government. You seem to be asserting that the CSA was claiming ownership of said Fort, equipment, and materiel. Is there any principle of international law and/or custom under which the CSA’s claim might be considered legitimate?
Well see, thats what they fought the war for. If the U.S. had tried to impound any British ships in 1776 they would have had to do so by force-but in '83 when the war was over, Britain abandoned any claim to properties it held in the US as a part of the peace settlement. By the same token, the Confederacy claimed that since they were now a separate sovereign nation that they owned all properties that the US had previously owned. They went and lost the war, however, so these claims were moot. If they had won, however, what I have been arguing would be exactly the historical perspective we would hold. Look at what happened in Portsmith where the US abandoned Norfolk Naval Yard. They left because it was smack dab in the middle of Virgina and Virginia troops were coming to occupy it. One could argue that by abandoning the post, they were giving de facto recognition to Virginia’s claims of ownership. Again, this is an argument that could go either way depending on the outcome of the war. If Virginia has successfully seceded, thats likely how it would have been seen, but they failed so it’s seen in a different light(as a temporary strategic retreat).
Do what you want with it and no credits. Nobody’d believe it was me anyways. 
Thanks.
But you were supposed to ask me which part, and I was going to say “All of it,” and then we’d laaauuugh and laaauuugh, while people wondered if I was really going to try to get away with an eight-inch .sig.
Oh, well. It was a good post, anyway.
I’m wrong…I’m right…whatever. I’m glad you agree.
In your current state it might be better if you’d didn’t drive for awhile, though.
But if they fought the war to establish that, it tends to suggest that firing on the fort was a legitimate causus belli, does it not, for which retaliation would not fall under the heading of “false pretenses”?
I am an idiot.
You could probably squeeze most of that 8-inch sig in there if you used wee font.
Stop! Stop all this, will you people?!
Now, look! No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle! Do you understand?! Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say ‘Hitler’–
: *Z I N G * :
: whop! :