Re: Civil War arguments
 

Federal property is nothing other than the common property of states, although usually of course considered indivisible. So South Carolina could reasonably think that by appropriating all prerviously federal property in its state borders, it was merely getting its fair share of what it should receive upon leaving the union, same as if you and your girlfriend divided up common property that you had both paid for. Of course the question is whether the federal property in South Carolina was more or less than its fair share, and there were supposed to be negotiations regarding this, that were cancelled by a Federal officer's actions which brought about the attack on Ft. Sumter (read my earlier post).

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
I still don't buy that. How did what was federal property turn into state property merely because the South seceeded?

[/ QUOTE ]

Eminent domain. The Federal US government may have owned that property, but once South Carolina seceded from the union, the Federal US Government has no special status above any other private landowner.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I still don't buy that. How did what was federal property turn into state property merely because the South seceeded?

[/ QUOTE ]

Eminent domain. The Federal US government may have owned that property, but once South Carolina seceded from the union, the Federal US Government has no special status above any other private landowner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, eminent domain is an illegitimate way of acquiring property, but the Federal US government didn't have *legitimate* ownership of the property in the first place (see my previous posts on why governments can never legitimately own property), so turnabout seems fair play in this case.