Sumter Provocation

[Glorybound]

If somebody can show me the part of the US Constitution that allows for the fragmentation or dissolution of the US, I'll eat my Marlboros.


Lee

 

[Battalion]

La
...unilateral secession, according to historical precedent...

The historical precedent is the Declaration of Independence of the American Colonies.

 

[Battalion]

If somebody can show me the part of the US Constitution that allows for the fragmentation or dissolution of the US, I'll eat my Marlboros.


Lee

Go ahead...there's no law against eating your Marlboros.

 

[Ellsworth avenger]

Anyone so designated by that government. Remember, the states of the South believed (rightly) that under the Constitution they had the right to withdraw from the existing union and create a union or confederation of their own. Ergo, in doing so, they would treat with the government of the union to which they previously belonged as the government of a foreign nation. They would not choose those who would represent that government any more than they would do so if they were to parlay with Mexico or Canada or any other sovereign nation. You are making the mistake of continuing to see these States as members of the Union from which they had seceded - again, as was their right. Frankly, it is this particular viewpoint that is the crux of the entire matter. The Southern states believed - just as the New England states before them - that they had every right to leave the Union. They did, but unfortunately that right was denied them illegally, immorally and unconstitutionally by force of arms. Yet any legal issue which is determined by armed might is not solved, just resolved until such time (as Jefferson Davis foretold) it should arise again.

I sorry but i'll referance my earlier remark about respect , and also state there's a better chance that Mexico will readdress the US. Border than the south rising again.

"When I look for noble characters in the war, men whom death has surrounded with romance, I see them in characters like McPherson, and not alone in southern armies....While I would do nothing to revive unhappy memories in the south,I do not like to see our soldiers apologize for the war." Grant

 

[Tin cup]

"The historical precedent is the Declaration of Independence of the American Colonies."

I don't think the Declaration of Independence was written into the Constitution as a law.

Kevin Dally

 

[Glorybound]

I maintain that the document called the Constitution, does not contain any clause allowing for the demise of itself. Show me where there is such a provision.


Lee

 

[unionblue]

Laws are usually made against something.

Not always.

Amendment XXVI

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Unionblue

 

[unionblue]

The historical precedent is the Declaration of Independence of the American Colonies.

Bunk.

Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence does one find anything that references secession.

Our Founding Fathers were much more honest about what they were attempting to do via the means of Revolution.

You've been told before, Battalion, the Revolutionary War is what it is known by, not the Secession War.

Unionblue

 

[Dred]

They were no longer under that Constitution.

They never left the jurasdiction of the US government so yea.. they WERE under the constitution still. Thyenever stopped being part of the U.S.

Hold on a minute. Fort Sumter was not a Federal District. It was still part of the territory of the State of South Carolina...and in that deed you speak of reserved legal jurisdiction over the property.

I'm gong to serach for that old thread froma while back about Ft Sumter before I can respond to this better. But I was pretty sure it was written that any claim S.C. had to that land was ceded to the federal government, including any claim by a private citizen.

 

[Glorybound]

In April, 1861 if you wanted to open up a "Nathan's" kosher hot dog stand at Ft. Sumter, you would have to apply for a permit from the federal government, not the state of South Carolina. Ft. Sumter was federal property on April 12, 1861.


Lee

 

[K Hale]

I bet those would have sold really well.

 

[Freddy]

They were no longer under that Constitution.


Hold on a minute. Fort Sumter was not a Federal District. It was still part of the territory of the State of South Carolina...and in that deed you speak of reserved legal jurisdiction over the property.

This is getting old. The South Carolina legislature ceded Fort Sumter to the federal government. The actual document has been posted on this forum several times. I will have to post it again.

Committee on Federal Relations

In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836
"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, 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; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:
"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."

"In Senate, December 21st, 1836
"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:
Jacob Warly, C. S."

 

[Battalion]

This is getting old. The South Carolina legislature ceded Fort Sumter to the federal government. The actual document has been posted on this forum several times. I will have to post it again.

Committee on Federal Relations

In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836
"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, 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; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:
"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."

"In Senate, December 21st, 1836
"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:
Jacob Warly, C. S."

Fort Sumter as many other Federal installations did not become a Federal District (like the District of Columbia). It was still part of the territory of the State of South Carolina.

 

[OpnCoronet]

Dred, is correct, no state was Ever out of the Union. The southern states were in a state of rebellion against the legal and constituded gov't and its people. A state, from which they eventually were rescued from by the legal authorities of All the United States.

 

[Battalion]

Very cogent and very much appreciated comments, M.E. The "northern invasion" has always churned my bowels....Them are subjects of discussion; "northern invasion" is far too silly to contemplate....

Ole

It was Lincoln who called for 75,000 troops for the express purpose of invasion.

The action described in his call for troops he defines as "invasion" in his own Inaugural Address.

 

[Battalion]

Bunk.

Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence does one find anything that references secession.

Our Founding Fathers were much more honest about what they were attempting to do via the means of Revolution.

You've been told before, Battalion, the Revolutionary War is what it is known by, not the Secession War.

Unionblue

Whether they declare their independence or apply the theory of secession they accomplish the same thing, but not every Southern state referred to their leaving the Federal gov't as 'Secession.'

 

[OpnCoronet]

Wrong! Battalion, the south Did Not accomplish anything, either by declaring their independence or applying the theory of secession, except to guarantee the destruction of its 'peculiar institution'..

 

[wilber6150]

It was Lincoln who called for 75,000 troops for the express purpose of invasion.

The action described in his call for troops he defines as "invasion" in his own Inaugural Address.

He called for 75,000 troops in his inaugral address? Did I miss something

 

[Savez]

Unionblue wrote:

'South Carolina's Sovereign Soil' did not exculde itself from the Union of States, the Constitution's Supreme Law of the Land, nor the right to negotiate or forcibly take the nation's property, like a schoolyard bully demanding the rest of the student body's lunch money.

Like I said when I started this thread, It would come down to the argument of secession being right/wrong, moral, legal, and the like. I personally don't think either administration is innocent in all of this. At the same time I don't think there is anything either side could do to stop the war and I don't think many of them wanted to stop it, including Lincoln and Davis. Also I still haven't heard which "history books" I'm suppose to be reading ???

 

[wilber6150]

It was Lincoln who called for 75,000 troops for the express purpose of invasion.

The action described in his call for troops he defines as "invasion" in his own Inaugural Address.

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."
I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

Yeah this sounds like the speech of a man who wants a war... Why is it that there are virtually no speeches by Southern leaders that talk of bonds of affection between the two sides and how war must be advoided.. The man that everyone calls a war monger seems to be one of the few political leaders that was pleading for peace..He is telling the South that they wont be attacked unless they are the aggressors, and that he has a solemn oath to defend the country..