Posted on 07/07/2016 7:48:06 AM PDT by Sean_Anthony
Show me the deed.
The garrison remaining on sovereign soil after repeated demands that it vacate the fort was the act of war, as were the repeated attempts by the Union to reinforce and resupply the garrison by violating South Carolina’s sovereign borders.
South Carolina deeded the fortress to the US in perpetuity. This is a historical fact. South Carolina had no intention of offering just compensation for the property that they seized.
You asked who started the Civil War. You got your answer: The traitors fired first on the United States Army and on United States territory. You tacitly admit this, by attempting to claim it didn't happen because "they declared it sovereign territory."
South Carolina had no legal basis for the claim that it had a "right to secede." There was a dispute about this between South Carolina and the United States. South Carolina ratified a document which put the adjudication of disputes between states and between states and the Federal government in the hands of the Supreme Court. South Carolina's refusal to abide by the Constitution of the United States -- with it ratified -- was a criminal act, and its claims of sovereignty are therefore a legal nullity at the time the traitors fired on Fort Sumter.
Do you know how many Confederates were tried for war crimes? One. Col Wirz. He got tried for Andersonville.
You make far too many presumptions for me to address here. Suffice it to say that your assertion of federal sovereignty cannot be substantiated and since that is the cornerstone of your argument, the entire edifice collapses.
Did South Carolina -- or did South Carolina not -- solemnly ratify a document on May 23rd, 1788, with the following definition of powers:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Did South Carolina -- or did South Carolina not -- attempt to have its sovereignty claims lawfully adjudicated before its treasonous expedition against the United States?
Those are the only questions at law. No presumption is involved.
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.
How can a state that has seceded from the Union be bound by a Constitution that is an artifact of that Union? You’ll recall that the Confederacy established its own Constitution, leading to the inescapable conclusion that it no longer considered itself bound by the Constitution of the United States.
You’re simply restating the crux of the argument. The Constitution does not grant any rights, including the right to secede. But the Enumerated Powers clause of Article I, Section 8, and the Tenth Amendment allow that, absent any explicit delegation of that authority to the Federal Government, it resides in the states. Since the Constitution does not expressly forbid secession nor does it delegate that power to the Federal Government, it is a power reserved to the states (or the People).
Your whole defense turns on the notion that states are not allowed to exercise sovereignty. If they are, your argument crumbles. Yet you cannot refute my contention that the Confederate secession was perfectly legitimate, except by invoking a circulus in probando fallacy: the Confederacy could not secede because it was part of the United States, and it was inviolably part of the United States because it could not secede.
The 10th Amendment doesn’t apply here because the constitution defined the mechanism for admission and consent authority for the construction and definition of the states to the Congress in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1.
I’m unsure about the meaing of the Provision in the second paragraph. It would appear that cession of the property was contingent upon its continued legal use. Certainly, harboring a hostile force within its walls would not be considered legal use.
What is clear is that the state usurped any individual claim to the property.
In the specific case of Fort Sumter, in 1827, Secretary of War John C. Calhoun had approved the construction of a new fort in the harbor. The first appropriations were made by Congress in 1828 and construction started on the harbor shoal. In November, 1834, after the United States had expended roughly $200,000, one Major William Laval, Esq., claimed title to the "land" which included the under-construction fort.A South Carolina statute passed in 1791 established a method by which the state disposed of its vacant lands (we tend to forget that much of the territory of the states was empty in the Nineteenth Century: in the original thirteen states, this land was held by the states; in the remaining part of the country, it was held by the Federal government, except in Texas, where the public lands were retained by the state when it was admitted). Laval used the law to claim title to the land - but he described it in a vague manner and given the lack of decent maps of any of the country, his vagueness hid the exact location of the tract he claimed.
When Laval appeared on the scene, the Corps of Engineers stopped work and asked for instructions. It appeared that Laval had filed a proper claim for the land - except that the "land" was below low tide and therefore exempt from purchase.
Well South Carolina was aghast! They did not want to lose the fort to protect themselves, nor the payrolls that would come with the completed fort.
The result was the state law ceding the land to the federal government.
And the Enumerated Powers clause creates the authority by which states can declare sovereignty, whether you concede that the Tenth Amendment does or not.
Had he not, SC could have dissolved its legislature, called new elections and created itself a new entity, just as the United States of America did. The new entity, no longer being South Carolina, could have made compensation to the United States for property seized under the new government, and then, had the Yankees not agreed, have had a valid claim to "invasion."
That did not happen because South Carolina unilaterally voided its ratification of the Constitution without first seeking legal redress, and stole property from the United States.
In any event, the question of who started the war is clear: the traitors started it.
Personally, I strongly believe that John Surratt was the lynchpin of the entire conspiracy. I believe that he was the main link between Confederate political and military leaders, responsible for funding, planning, and passing communications back and forth between Booth, his team, and the southern conspirators. In the end, John should have been on that scaffold instead of his mother, but he made sure he was long gone before the manhunt began.
August 9, 1960
Dear Dr. Scott:
Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.
General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.
From deep conviction, I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s calibre would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the Nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.
Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.
Sincerely,
Dwight D. Eisenhower
People who live in glass insane asylums shouldn’t throw stones...
Maryland “Freak State” PING!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.