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.
To get any use out of the Declaration of Independence, you have to actually read it.
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.
That's funny. I've been hammering the distinction between natural law and British law going on six years now. (with you being one of the stubborn opposition) I very much know the difference, and i've been working pretty hard to get other people to understand the difference and which one we were following back in 1776-1787.
But here's a question for you. Does the United States follow natural law when it suits its interests, but reject it when it doesn't?
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.
And yet nobody got hurt. Funny that. :)