What people believed was immaterial. Again, you have conjecture, but no facts.
-----
Not according to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 which grants Congress exclusive control over property acquired by the government for such purposes.
No, it is an area of exclusive legislation, not exclusive control.
§ 1220. A great variety of cessions have been made by the states under this power. And generally there has been a reservation of the right to serve all state process, civil and criminal, upon persons found therein.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
-----
The attack on Sumter was a deliberate act of war, and turned the Southern cause from a peaceful attempt to leave into armed rebellion. All the death and destruction that was to rain down upon the South in the next four years were self inflicted.
No, it was an act of defense.I've already given a legally acknowledged source that said the States could leave at will.
-----
It had everything to do with the Constituiton and the rights of all the states, not just the rebelling ones.
If it has to do with the Constitution, please quote the Article, Section and clause that deals with secession, mentions a perpetual union, or speaks of any obligation concerning 'the rights of all the Stataes'.
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
James Madison, Federalist #45
-----
He certainly did. He took 13,000 militia from several states into Pennsylvania and marched all over the state attempting to find the ringleaders. At least two men were tried and convicted for treason
and sentenced to hang, and Washington pardoned them.
-----
But that's not what your source says.
That's exactly what is says-Rebuffed by Pennsylvania’s governor, Washington drafted a proclamation requesting that the states of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia place a force of 12,950 men into federal service.
You didn't even bother to read it, did you?
We have the words of Lincoln and other Republicans of the time. To say that the Scott decision would be challenged is no conjecture. And assuming no rebellion and all else being equal then Lincoln would have had his majority in the court by 1864.
No, it is an area of exclusive legislation, not exclusive control.
And how does any governmental body - federal, state, or local - exercise control if not through legislation? Regardless, the operative word in the clause is 'exclusive'. The federal government did not share control over federal property with the states. Neither South Carolina nor any other Southern state had any legal control or claim to Sumter at all, and would have none unless Congress granted it.
A great variety of cessions have been made by the states under this power. And generally there has been a reservation of the right to serve all state process, civil and criminal, upon persons found therein.
As was the case with Sumter for the legislation deeding hte property free and clear contained the clause that ", That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law..." All this means is that the fort could not harbor fugitives from local justice, and this clause had to be agreed to by Congress. There is no doubt that it was, but this fact is irrelevant to the issue of ownership.
No, it was an act of defense.I've already given a legally acknowledged source that said the States could leave at will.
You've given opinions, and I've posted quotes from Madison which indicated his belief that states could not leave at will. I'll be glad to post quotes from others of the time indicating that secession of any type was illegal.
As for 'act of defense', the only hostile actions taken by either side up to the final bombardment were taken by the rebels and not the federal government. The attack on Sumter was an act of war, nothing more or less.
If it has to do with the Constitution, please quote the Article, Section and clause that deals with secession, mentions a perpetual union, or speaks of any obligation concerning 'the rights of all the Stataes'.
(*yawn*) What again? If you haven't read enough of my posts to know that I don't think the Union was perpetual or that secession under any conditions wasn't illegal then why should I think you'd actually read it now?
But what the heck, short answer is that I believe secession with the consent of all parties is allowed. And that Article I, Section 10 and Article IV make it clear that the power to admit states and to approve changes in their status once allowed to join is a power reserved to the United States by the Constitution.
...and sentenced to hang, and Washington pardoned them.
But he did call up the militia and take it into Pennsylvania to suppress insurrection.
That's exactly what is says-Rebuffed by Pennsylvania’s governor, Washington drafted a proclamation requesting that the states of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia place a force of 12,950 men into federal service.
Said proclamation makes no reference to permission from the state authorities and the call up was successful. The troops mustered and Washington led them through Pennsylvania to put down the rebellion.