It was a federal fort. How could federal troops have been invaders? Just as Harpers ferry was a federal arsenal, Untill invaded by CSA troops.

---

[/quote]

Old James

And as far as the 'took up arms' thing, I think you will find that the Union under Lincoln initiated hostilities. 6 days after the secession of South Carolina, a couple of companies of Union artillery occupied (without orders to do so) Fort Sumter on Dec. 26, 1860. Ignoring peaceful requests from the Government of South Carolina that Union army leave, on Jan. 9, 1861 the Union attempted to resupply them with men and war materials. THAT was the act of war that started the Civil War. The CSA did not take up arms against the USA. The USA militarily invaded the CSA.

Interesting revision. I think you will find the troops were in South Carolina on the day it voted secession. The moved from several locations to a single location, yes without orders from Lincoln. If you wish to call an operation to supply a diplomatic outpost an invasion ... Then again you may think all the diplomatic missions, counsels, compounds etc. as invasions of US soil.

---

the only state that actually had the right to secede was Texas. Texas did so during the Civil war.

THe problem with Texas's Secession is that they took up arms against their former country. This IIRC negates any treaty Texas had with the Union and therefore, disallows any notion that Texas could ever secede from the union after the civil war.

Uhh... I don't think you are correct on that one.

On April 15th, 1869, the US Supreme Court ruled in the case Texas vs. White that no state ever had a right of secession, therefore Texas never seceded.

Among other things, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote in the majority opinion:

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

I do not agree with this, BUT... here in the USA, it does not matter what the Constitution says. It does not matter what a treaty says. It does not matter what a law says. The only thing that matters is what the Supreme Court says the Constitution/Treaty/Law says, the last time the Supreme Court said anything about it.

Call me a little funny in the head if you want to do so, but I happen to believe in the right of self-determination. That is to say that a group of people have the right to organize and live under any government they wish. A right the US Government is very keen to support and demand... As long as it is in another nation. They seem to think it doesn't apply here.

And as far as the 'took up arms' thing, I think you will find that the Union under Lincoln initiated hostilities. 6 days after the secession of South Carolina, a couple of companies of Union artillery occupied (without orders to do so) Fort Sumter on Dec. 26, 1860. Ignoring peaceful requests from the Government of South Carolina that Union army leave, on Jan. 9, 1861 the Union attempted to resupply them with men and war materials. THAT was the act of war that started the Civil War. The CSA did not take up arms against the USA. The USA militarily invaded the CSA.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

the only state that actually had the right to secede was Texas. Texas did so during the Civil war.

THe problem with Texas's Secession is that they took up arms against their former country. This IIRC negates any treaty Texas had with the Union and therefore, disallows any notion that Texas could ever secede from the union after the civil war.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

That was tried once before here. Didnt work out so hot. Over 600,000 dead, Untold wounded, Devastated economy, And hatred that still festers today on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line.

The hotheads wont get far, One thing to sign a pettion, Another to get it done.

---

[/quote]

Old James

I see from several news sites that quite a few of mainly Republican states have requested to secede. What a wonderful way for Obama to balance the books, below is the latest info I could get on the per capita contribution to the Federal coffers.

Alabama,	$-5,130
Arkansas, 	$1,723
Colorado,	$2,176
Florida, 	$-581
Georgia, 	$433
Indiana, 	$-723
Kentucky, 	$-3,012
Louisiana, 	$-2,180
Michigan, 	$-171
Mississippi, 	$-6,765
Missouri, 	$-1,190
Montana, 	$-4,149
North Carolina,	$1,108
North Dakota,	$-4,856
Oregon,		$-474
South Carolina,	$-3,756
Tennessee,	$-603
Texas		$2,243

As you can see most of the States listed are net takers and therefore for the rest, Federal income would go up and then there could be more Federal spending or tax cuts.

On some lists I did see New York and New Jersey list and they are big net payers, but maybe he can pick and choose which ones to go or stay.