Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.
James Madison's Essay on Property (1792)
-----
And I've already mentioned that your source was in the crosshairs and would be under constant attack from the Lincoln administration in the courts. I doubt it would have survived very long.
The finding is fact. Postulating about what might have happened is not fact. Something I've already mentioned.
-----
Fort Sumter didn't belong to them.
Once legal Notice was received as the Law requires, South Carolina was no longer a 'State' as far as the federal government was concerned.
There are decades of Constitutional history prior to the War, surely you can find something in there to support your position.
-----
Rebellion is defined as open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistence to an established government.
No, rebellion is an open, armed, defiance of a lawful authority. As the States were a lawful authority and no one was defying it. There was no rebellion.
I've already showed where the States MUST request the assistance before the federal government can enter it.
You refute my claim, yet offer no proof.
-----
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions..."
Again, no Rebellion.
-----
Yet the seceding states, as they may be not improperly termed, did not hesitate, as soon as nine states had ratified the new constitution, to supersede the former federal government, and establish a new form, more consonant to their opinion of what was necessary to the preservation and prosperity of the federal union. But although by this act the seceding states subverted the former federal government, yet the obligations of the articles of confederacy as a treaty of perpetual alliance, offensive and defensive, between all the parties thereto, no doubt remained; and if North Carolina and Rhode Island had never acceded to the new form of government, that circumstance, I conceive, could never have lessened the obligation upon the other states to perform those stipulations on their parts which the states, who were unwilling to change the form of the federal government, had by virtue of those articles a right to demand and insist upon. For the inadequacy of the form of government established by those articles could not be charged upon one state more than another, nor had North Carolina or Rhode Island committed any breach of them; the seceding states therefore had no cause of complaint against them. On the contrary, these states being still willing to adhere to the terms of the confederacy, had the right of complaining, if there could be any right to complain of the conduct of states endeavouring to meliorate their own condition, by establishing a different form of government. But the seceding states were certainly justified upon that principle; and from the duty which every state is acknowledged to owe to itself, and its own citizens, by doing whatsoever may best contribute to advance its own happiness and prosperity; and much more, what may be necessary to the preservation of its existence as a state.
NOTE B, SECTION XIII.
So you're saying that for the states to outlaw slavery was illegal?
The finding is fact. Postulating about what might have happened is not fact. Something I've already mentioned.
What have we been doing all along but postulating? Obviously the Southern leadership viewed it as more than postulating on Lincoln's part, but as a very real threat. One worth rebelling over.
Once legal Notice was received as the Law requires, South Carolina was no longer a 'State' as far as the federal government was concerned.
Irrelevant. Sumter continued to be the property of the federal government. Nothing in law magically changed ownership from one to the other without the government's permission.
There are decades of Constitutional history prior to the War, surely you can find something in there to support your position.
How about something to support your position?
As the States were a lawful authority and no one was defying it. There was no rebellion.
The federal government was the lawful authority under the Constitution. The defiance was to them.
I've already showed where the States MUST request the assistance before the federal government can enter it.
And I've shown you where Congress has the authority to call up the milita to enforece the laws and suppress insurrection. And that doesn't require the request from the states. Precedent goes back to 1794 when Washington called up the militia to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion without the request of governor.
Proof enough? Again, no Rebellion.
Again, there was.