re: #301 DaddyG

It wasn’t all so clear cut in the 1860s and the Union was the first to amass an army (vs the isolated actions of state militias) and cross over into the other side’s territory (making it a general war and not an isolated skirmish.

You miss the point. To concede that there was a boundary between two side’s territory is to concede the right of succession. For there to be a meaningful “boundary”, there would have had to be two nations. There weren’t. There was just one nation, and within that nation, the forces of its lawful government had the right to go anywhere they wanted.