Posted on 03/22/2018 9:00:10 AM PDT by Kaslin
California is a part of America. But it’s no longer American. It is a foreign state. It is a fugitive state. The U.S. Constitution and the rule of law no longer apply in California. Call it, “The People’s Socialist Republic of California.” It’s a state without a country. But it’s certainly no longer American in any way.
Liberals in California want to secede. They are trying to put it on the ballot. They call it “Calexit.” I say, “Glory Hallelujah." Let’s help make it happen. I propose 63 million Trump voters join the team. Let's work 24/7 to turn their dream into a reality!
Millions of illegal aliens live in California; drive in California with official state-issued drivers’ licenses; and of course, use those licenses to vote in California. Millions. That’s precisely how Hillary won California by over 4 million votes.
California supports illegal aliens over legal, law-abiding American citizens. They support illegals getting free college tuition, while children of native-born Americans pay full fare. They support illegals over police and ICE. Many liberals in California want to abolish ICE. They want no borders and no immigration law.
The Attorney General of California has warned any business owner who cooperates with ICE will face prosecution by the state of California. You heard correctly. California will put the business owner in prison, for cooperating with federal law, to protect the criminal breaking the law.
The Mayor of Oakland famously played Paul Revere to warn illegal felons “ICE is coming. ICE is coming.” The Feds report over 800 felons evaded arrest because of that stunt. How many legal, law-abiding, native-born Americans will be robbed, raped, or murdered in the coming weeks because of that act of sedition?
A California judge just sided with the ACLU and barred LA County from enforcing gang restrictions that dramatically lowered crime. California has once again sided with hoodlums and gang-bangers over the law-abiding taxpayers.
In Oakland, a coffee shop prohibits employees from serving police, in order to create a “safe space” for their customers. Californians hate and distrust police more than illegal felons and thugs who speak no English and wear gang tattoos. Really.
All of this is sheer madness. But California has taken it to a whole new level.
Just this week the California Senate appointed the first-ever illegal alien to an official statewide post. Lizbeth Mateo, a 33-year old illegal alien-turned-attorney, will serve on the official state committee that doles out money to illegals attending college. In California, illegals now decide how taxpayer money is spent.
President Trump loves to brand (see "Crooked Hillary"). Let’s brand California. It’s not a “Sanctuary State.” It’s a “Fugitive State.” It’s a place that chooses to let felons and fugitives run free. It’s a place where the rights of criminals are far more important than protecting legal, law-abiding American citizens who pay taxes. We are the second class citizens in California.
Here’s the way to fix the problem. Liberal Californians want to secede. I'm joining the movement. How about you?
Conservatives should beg California to secede. We should make it easy for them. We should help pay for it. Pass the hat. Every conservative should chip in $20. I’ll throw $1000 to get the ball rolling.
Just think of elections. Without California, Trump and all future Republican presidential candidates would win, without breaking a sweat. Without California, we’d easily win the popular vote. And we'd win the electoral vote by a landslide.
Next think of Congress. California has 53 House seats. Democrats lead 39-14, for a net gain of 25 seats. Send California packing and the GOP gains a 25 House seat lead. We would dominate the House for decades to come.
And of course, the GOP would gain an automatic two seats in the Senate through the subtraction of California. As it stands now, those two U.S. Senate seats are deep blue Democrat forever. But if California secedes a 51-49 GOP lead instantly moves to 51-47.
If 63 million Trump voters just gave an average of $20 each to the "Calexit movement" that’s over $1.2 billion dollars. That’s enough money to help California secede, with enough left over as a down payment on building a wall…
with California.
Like all Lost Causers, our FRiend FLT-bird discards actual history in favor of a philosophical debate over his alleged “right to secede” and the equation of 1861 with 1776.
If we could “secede” in 1776 then why not in 1861 or, indeed, today, say our Lost Causers.
Like all PC Revisionists, Joe wants to get past the embarrassing constitutional arguments because, well, Lincoln doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
Ridiculous. Of course they seceded in 1776. They left a larger political entity...they declared independence. Hell, the colonies had never been recognized as sovereign. They were on far worse legal footing than the states which left in 1861. By 1776, the colonies had taken up arms against the Brits. Lexington and Concord and all that? 1775.
They took up arms the year before declaring independence. Mutual consent in 1788? WTH? The Treaty of Paris was in 1783. By 1788 the colonies’ sovereignty had been recognized by treaty for 5 years already. The British parliament and king certainly did not consent to the colonies declarations of independence in 1776. So much for “mutual”. What they did was almost exactly like what the sovereign states did in 1861 only by 1861, the states had already long been recognize as sovereign while the colonies had not been prior to 1783.
Who was to determine “necessity”? The states of course. The right of secession is unilateral. They nowhere agreed to subject themselves to any other state’s or the federal govt’s permission before “resuming the powers of government” as they phrased it.
This is simply false and there is no textual support for this claim.
Well considering this is flat out wrong.....that the Treaty of Paris was 1783 and that each state had just as much right to determine “necessity” as each colony did....nay more since the states were recognized as sovereign, any attempt at drawing a distinction between 1776 and 1861 can only be seen to favor 1861 for its legality.
Of course our Lost Causers argue Lincoln started war at Fort Sumter, but the fact remains there would have been no war had Jefferson Davis not ordered a military assault on Federal troops in the fort. So the right or wrong of secession was irrelevant to the start of Civil War.
War started because Davis ordered it.
The aggressor is one who invades the land of another - not one who fires to drive an invader away. Lincoln ordered a heavily armed flotilla to be sent into South Carolina’s sovereign territory. That was the act of war that started it. Furthermore he did so with the deliberate purpose of starting a war AND he did so without the consent of Congress.
Think George Washington would have tolerated the Brits maintaining a heavily armed fortress in the middle of New York harbor? Of course not.
Hi BroJoeJ - I am largely sympathetic to your post but continue to take issue with even entertaining the lost cause myth of the states’ signing statements bearing any force of law.
So far in my research I have failed to find anyone anywhere prior to or during the Civil War claiming that specific right. If you can supply a quote or reference I would love to see it.
No, I think that it was simpler than that. Like the democrats they were, the rebels staged “secession votes” with a thumb or two on the scales. Sometimes they had to repeat the vote until they got what they wanted. Then, on the “strength” of those votes declared themselves “seceded”. They knew it was all pretense and subterfuge - because simultaneously they were looting the federal coffers and armories, arming themselves against their brothers and neighbors.
When confronted by Buchanan they scoffed and shouted “You ain’t the boss of me!” and dared the president to do anything. Poor Bucolic, er Buchanan, impotent in his indecision, did nothing and further emboldened the fire-eaters.
There was nothing legal or secessive about their secession.
California Wants to Secede?
Let me help them pack!
However Mexafornia will be a larger border problem than the current Mexican border. Therefore we need to partition at the Mexican-California border and send all leftists to Mexico. Just like pakis to Pakistan. Good a bye.
I am leaving California in two days. I can’t wait to get out.
_________________
welcome home, Fight all the leftist who preceded you. Keep our red states red.
Again it goes back to the basic question. The US Constitution is silent on secession; so on that legal ground alone the issue it is up the states. Secession is not legal nor illegal at the Federal level.
The power to regulate states with regard to disposition (admission, size, subdivision, etc) is granted to congress. Authority for question over secession is implied. This is reinforced by SCOTUS decision in Texas v. White.
While it may have been a matter of contention in 1861, it isn’t any longer, sans legal challenges.
Nonsense, the constitutional arguments were addressed by our Founders, especially Madison, but none ever supported unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.
Lincoln's position was the same as outgoing Democrat President Buchanan & others which was: states had no "right of secession" at pleasure, but the Union should do nothing militarily to stop them.
FLT-bird: "Ridiculous.
Of course they seceded in 1776.
They left a larger political entity...they declared independence."
But in effect Founders had already been declared independent by the Brits -- that's what a declaration of rebellion & war is.
It means they are no longer governed by British law and must be defeated militarily.
So our Founders merely recognized the "secession" Brits had already declared them in.
And there was nothing even remotely resembling those 1776 conditions in late 1860 or early 1861.
FLT-bird: "Hell, the colonies had never been recognized as sovereign.
They were on far worse legal footing than the states which left in 1861."
In fact our Founders had no "legal footing" at all -- zero, zip, nada footing -- except, except the one thing that truly mattered: necessity.
They were declared outlaws -- outside the law and subject to hanging if captured.
The only issue was, as Patrick Henry expressed: "liberty or death".
So they chose liberty.
And nothing remotely resembling that 1776 situation existed in late 1860 or early 1861.
FLT-bird: "By 1776, the colonies had taken up arms against the Brits.
Lexington and Concord and all that? 1775."
You have it exactly backwards.
By 1776 the Brits had taken up arms against our Founders, revoked their charters of self government, declared them in rebellion and waging war:
So in 1776 "secession" (our Founders said "disunion") was already a fact accomplished by Brits making their Declaration a necessity.
FLT-bird: "They took up arms the year before declaring independence."
Only in response to British "injuries and oppressions" (remember that Va. phrase?) making resistance necessary (as NY said).
No situation even remotely resembling that existed in late 1860 or early 1861.
FLT-bird: "Mutual consent in 1788? WTH?
The Treaty of Paris was in 1783.
By 1788 the colonies’ sovereignty had been recognized by treaty for 5 years already.
The British parliament and king certainly did not consent to the colonies declarations of independence in 1776.
So much for 'mutual'."
Sorry, my fault for assuming you understand the basics of American history, will try not to do that again.
1788 was the year our Founders "seceded" from the old Articles of Confederation by mutual consent to adopt their new Constitution instead.
Necessity and mutual consent are the two (and only two) legitimate reasons our Founders acknowledged for dissolving one polity and forming a new one.
Neither condition existed in late 1860 or early 1861.
FLT-bird: "What they did was almost exactly like what the sovereign states did in 1861 only by 1861, the states had already long been recognize as sovereign while the colonies had not been prior to 1783."
There is no language recognizing the states as "sovereign" under the US Constitution, just the opposite.
FLT-bird: "Who was to determine “necessity”?
The states of course.
The right of secession is unilateral.
They nowhere agreed to subject themselves to any other state’s or the federal govt’s permission before 'resuming the powers of government' as they phrased it."
So the Fire Eaters & secessionists of 1860 claimed, but in fact our Founders had a very clear idea of what the word "necessity" implied, it meant what they experienced in 1776 and was starkly contrasted with "at pleasure" declarations which no Founder ever supported.
FLT-bird: "This is simply false and there is no textual support for this claim."
Wrong, every text supports it and no text contradicts it.
There is simply no example of any Founder ever supporting unilateral, unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.
All assumed that disunion could only come from mutual consent (i.e., 1788) or serious necessity (1776).
Neither condition existed in late 1860 or early 1861.
FLT-bird: "The aggressor is one who invades the land of another - not one who fires to drive an invader away.
Lincoln ordered a heavily armed flotilla to be sent into South Carolina’s sovereign territory."
No more an act of "aggression" than the US today sending "heavily armed flotillas" to resupply or reinforce the US base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Communist Cubans don't like it, don't recognize our right to be there, but if they start war over it, that's on them, just as the Civil War is on Jefferson Davis.
FLT-bird: "Think George Washington would have tolerated the Brits maintaining a heavily armed fortress in the middle of New York harbor?
Of course not."
Of course he did.
Brits remained in New York City for two years after their "unconditional surrender" at Yorktown.
They even lingered for four months after receiving orders to evacuate.
Washington was patient, and waited for negotiations to take their course.
And New York City was far from the only place Brits left their forts & troops on US territory.
In upstate New York, Ohio and Michigan the Brits still had dozens of forts and trading posts for 15 years until finally negotiated away by John Jay, in 1796.
The fact is that neither George Washington nor any other Founder after 1781 ever used British forts & troops on US territory as excuse for starting war.
Only Jefferson Davis considered that a matter of Confederate "integrity" being "assailed" and reason enough to launch Civil War.
Of course we don't really disagree on that.
But our Lost Causers insist that those signing statements reflect our Founders' beliefs that secession was totally understood and acceptable.
I am merely using them to point out the stark difference between "disunion" from necessity (1776) or mutual consent (1788) -- which our Founders did recognize as legitimate -- versus unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure, which no Founder ever approved of.
Even those Va & NY signing statements do not support what Deep South Fire Eaters did in late 1860 and early 1861.
That's my point here.
rockrr: "There was nothing legal or secessive about their secession."
Totally agree.
<>”He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.”<>
FWIW, George III made war on his colonies beginning in December of 1775. He declared our independence seven months before we did. The Founders were remarkably restrained. They really had no choice.
BroJoeK
Nonsense, the constitutional arguments were addressed by our Founders, especially Madison, but none ever supported unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.
Lincoln’s position was the same as outgoing Democrat President Buchanan & others which was: states had no “right of secession” at pleasure, but the Union should do nothing militarily to stop them.
Nonsense. The 10th amendment was added to ensure that nobody could claim that the federal government was delegated powers not stated in the constitution by the Sovereign states and 3 states made express reservations of their right to unilateral secession. Furthermore, several presidents thought states did have the right to secede.
“The future inhabitants of [both] the Atlantic and Mississippi states will be our sons. We think we see their happiness in their union, and we wish it. Events may prove otherwise; and if they see their interest in separating why should we take sides? God bless them both, and keep them in union if it be for their good, but separate them if it be better.” – Thomas Jefferson
“If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation” over “union,” “I have no hesitation in saying, ‘let us separate.’” Thomas Jefferson
In his book Life of Webster Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge writes, “It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw.”
A textbook used at West Point before the Civil War, A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle, supports this view. It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed. —William Rawle, Chapter 32, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America
Another who agreed that states did have that right was Ulysses S Grant:
“If they had foreseen it, the probabilities are they would have sanctioned the right of a State or States to withdraw rather than that there should be war between brothers.” (The Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant, Old Saybrook, Connecticut: Konecky & Konecky, 1992, reprint, p. 131)
“If there had been a desire on the part of any single State to withdraw from the compact at any time while the number of States was limited to the original thirteen, I do not suppose there would have been any to contest the right, no matter how much the determination might have been regretted.” (The Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant, p. 130)
President John Tyler likewise believed a state had the right to leave the Union. So did President John Quincy Adams who tried to organize the New England states to secede in the 1820’s.
As for James Buchanan,he thought the federal government had no right to use force to prevent secession:
United States President James Buchanan, Fourth Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union December 3, 1860: “The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it can not live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force.”
The Northern Federalists’ Hartford Convention declared in 1814 that a state had the right to secede in cases of “absolute necessity” (Alan Brinkley, Richard Current, Frank Freidel, and T. Harry Williams, American History: A Survey, Eighth Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1991, p. 230).
Uhh no. The Brits did not recognize any legal separation or independence by the colonies. That’s why they went to the trouble of sending troops after all.
1776 was the same as 1860-61 except the colonies had never been recognized as sovereign while the states had. If anything, the secessions/declarations of independence of 1860-61 were on much firmer legal ground.
The sovereign states determined they had “necessity” just as the colonies did before them. The situations were analogous in many ways as Robert Barnwell Rhett laid out in his address which was attached to South Carolina’s Declaration of Causes. In both cases, the minority was being taxed by the majority for their own benefit rather than for the benefit of the minority community and the votes of the minority (the Brits offered a few seats in Parliament) were insufficient to protect them from this economic exploitation for others’ benefit.
“... plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death...”
So in 1776 “secession” (our Founders said “disunion”) was already a fact accomplished by Brits making their Declaration a necessity.
No you have it backwards. The Colonies refused to be governed by the Brits any longer and took up arms against them in 1775. They weren’t even sovereign like the states were. Their power to determine “necessity” was no greater than that of the sovereign states of their grandchildren 85 years later.
The one who obviously lacks historical knowledge here is you.
Patently false. They had after all seceded from the British Empire in 1776 without consent.
The sovereignty of each was recognized by name in the 1783 Treaty of Paris. It was recognized by the Constitution’s two biggest Cheerleaders Madison and Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. It has been recognized numerous times in by the SCOTUS. You have absolutely no historical backing for this argument.
It is up to each state to determine necessity for itself. Its nonsensical to argue that a colony which was not sovereign could determine necessity for itself but a state which was sovereign could not.
WRONG. See the quotes above. The artificial distinction you are trying to draw between 1776 and 1861 for the same act is laughable. The Brits never consented to the secession of the colonies prior to the 1783 Treaty of Paris. Yet the colonies declared independence anyway. So much for it being mutual.
Nope! The US has a signed treaty with Cuba in which the terms of a perpetual lease of Gitmo are laid out in 1903. The analogy would be the Brits maintaining a fortress in a major harbor like NY after the 13 colonies’ secession from the British Empire, not a signed treaty between two sovereign countries for a lease.
And New York City was far from the only place Brits left their forts & troops on US territory.
In upstate New York, Ohio and Michigan the Brits still had dozens of forts and trading posts for 15 years until finally negotiated away by John Jay, in 1796.
The fact is that neither George Washington nor any other Founder after 1781 ever used British forts & troops on US territory as excuse for starting war.
Only Jefferson Davis considered that a matter of Confederate “integrity” being “assailed” and reason enough to launch Civil War.
The Brits were required to pull their troops out of US Territory in the 1783 Treaty of Paris. That was 2 years after Yorktown. The Brits did leave some troops in border areas and yes that was a source of friction. There was still wrangling over compensation to be paid to loyalists who had had their property seized also.....mainly the Colonies had not coughed up the money agreed to compensate them. It did take further negotiations for both sides to live up to all the terms they had agreed to years earlier.
It was Lincoln who started the war and furthermore he did so deliberately.
“Lincoln and the First Shot” (in Reassessing the Presidency, edited by John Denson), John Denson painstakingly shows how Lincoln maneuvered the Confederates into firing the first shot at Fort Sumter. As the Providence Daily Post wrote on April 13, 1861, “Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor” by re-provisioning Fort Sumter. On the day before that the Jersey City American Statesman wrote that “This unarmed vessel, it is well understood, is a mere decoy to draw the first fire from the people of the South.” Lincoln’s personal secretaries, John Nicolay and John Hay, clearly stated after the war that Lincoln successfully duped the Confederates into firing on Fort Sumter. And as Shelby Foote wrote in The Civil War, “Lincoln had maneuvered [the Confederates] into the position of having either to back down or else to fire the first shot of the war.”
Lincoln’s letter to his naval commander congratulating him for starting the war:
” , May 1st, 1861. Washington
Capt. G.V. Fox:
My Dear Sir, I sincerely regret that the failure of the late attempt to provision Fort Sumter should be the source of any annoyance to you. The practicability of your plan was not, in fact, brought to a test. By reason of a gale, well known in advance to be possible, and not improbable, the tugs, an essential part of the plan, never reached the ground ; while, by an accident, for which you were in nowise responsible, and possibly I, to some extent, was, you were deprived of a war-vessel, with her men, which you deemed of great importance to the enterprise.
I most cheerfully and truthfully declare that the failure of the undertaking has not lowered you a particle, while the qualities you developed in the effort have greatly heightened you in my estimation. For a daring and dangerous enterprise of a similar character, you would, to-day, be the man of all my acquaintances whom I would select. You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.
Very truly your friend, A. LINCOLN.”
Agreed, but I'd argue it began long before that with, for example, the 1774 Massachusetts Government Act:
The British increased their military in the colonies and began moving against patriot militias as early as September, 1774 (Powder Alarm).
In February 1775 Massachusetts was declared in rebellion and in August all the colonies fell under the Brits' Proclamation of Rebellion.
Jacquerie: "He declared our independence seven months before we did.
The Founders were remarkably restrained.
They really had no choice."
Agreed but I'd say: effectively two years before we did.
The internet is chock full of fake Jefferson quotes, and on the face of it this appears to be one, else, why the phrase "over 'union' " inserted?
Yes, Jefferson is reported to have spoken kindly of Northern secession at the time of the Hartford Convention (1815) but when faced with real secession of his old Vice President, Aaron Burr, Jefferson had Burr arrested and tried for treason.
So Jefferson himself demonstrated Founders supported disunion by mutual consent but not unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.
FLT-bird quoting: "Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge writes, 'It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw."
Peacefully via mutual consent.
No Founder ever supported unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.
And as it happened, in early 1861 Deep South Fire Eaters did "withdraw" more-or-less peacefully.
FLT-bird: "A textbook used at West Point before the Civil War, A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle, supports this view."
Proving only that secessionist propaganda could be found almost anywhere.
In fact, no Founder supported unilateral unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure.
Instead, they considered mutual consent or necessity as required for disunion.
FLT-bird quoting Grant: "If they had foreseen it, the probabilities are they would have sanctioned the right of a State or States to withdraw rather than that there should be war between brothers."
In fact, our Founders understood clearly the distinction between peaceful disunion by mutual consent (as in 1788) versus rebellion, insurrection, domestic violence, invasion & treason.
Their new Constitution provides for defense against those latter events.
FLT-bird: "President John Tyler likewise believed a state had the right to leave the Union.
So did President John Quincy Adams who tried to organize the New England states to secede in the 1820’s."
President John Tyler was a Virginian, slave-holder and Confederate Congressman who unsurprisingly sympathized with secession arguments.
John Quincy Adams was Secretary of State under Prsident Monroe from 1817 to 1825 and US President from 1825 to 1829, so can't imagine what your claim here represents.
On the contrary, according to this analysis:
Young John Quincy Adams was a Founding Son, and the furthest possible from closet secessionist.
Old John Q gave young Congressman Abraham Lincoln advice on "contraband of war" which helped Old Abe write the Emancipation Proclamation.
FLT-bird quoting President Buchanan in 1860 on Congress & Union: "...the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force."
Buchanan also argued that unilateral unapproved secession at pleasure was unconstitutional & illegal.
FLT-bird: "The Northern Federalists’ Hartford Convention declared in 1814 that a state had the right to secede in cases of 'absolute necessity' "
Exactly, that is my argument here: mutual consent (as in 1788) and necessity (as in 1776) are the two, and only two, legitimate reasons for disunion.
Neither condition existed in late 1860 and early 1861.
FLT-bird: "The Brits did not recognize any legal separation or independence by the colonies.
That’s why they went to the trouble of sending troops after all."
In 1774 Brits revoked the Massachusetts charter of self-government of 1691 and in 1775 declared the colonies in rebellion -- essentially a declaration of war and death sentence on our Founders.
That's as clear a separation as can be imagined.
FLT-bird: "The sovereign states determined they had 'necessity' just as the colonies did before them.
The situations were analogous in many ways "
But in 1776 necessity was clear & present to our Founders -- as clear as a rope around their necks.
Nothing remotely resembling such necessity existed in late 1860 & early 1861.
FLT-bird: "The situations were analogous in many ways as Robert Barnwell Rhett laid out in his address which was attached to South Carolina’s Declaration of Causes."
In 1776 our Founders laid out about two dozen material reasons for their separation from Britain.
Not a single one of those reasons applied to 1860 secessionists.
FLT-bird: "In both cases, the minority was being taxed by the majority for their own benefit rather than for the benefit of the minority community and the votes of the minority (the Brits offered a few seats in Parliament) were insufficient to protect them from this economic exploitation for others’ benefit."
The Brits did discuss American complaints about "taxation without representation" but offered nothing.
In 1860 Deep South slavers were not only represented in Congress, but over-represented due to the Constitution's 3/5 rule.
So there is no legitimate comparison -- zero, zip, nada legit -- between 1776 and 1860.
FLT-bird: "No you have it backwards.
The Colonies refused to be governed by the Brits any longer and took up arms against them in 1775.
They weren’t even sovereign like the states were."
Brits began separating themselves from their American colonies by (among others, see DOI):
Through those acts & others Brits lost any claim to legitimate rule.
Nothing remotely resembling that existed in 1860.
FLT-bird: "The one who obviously lacks historical knowledge here is you."
I do note you've collected many of the standard Lost Causer proof-texts, but otherwise seem oblivious to what actually happened in either 1776 or 1860.
FLT-bird: "Patently false.
They had after all seceded from the British Empire in 1776 without consent."
Right, they separated from necessity which along with mutual consent they considered valid reasons for disunion.
No Founder ever supported unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.
FLT-bird: "The sovereignty of each was recognized by name in the 1783 Treaty of Paris."
But not in the new US Constitution of 1787.
Just the opposite, the Constitution provides for Federal response to rebellion, insurrection, domestic violence, invasion and/or treason.
FLT-bird: "It was recognized by the Constitution’s two biggest Cheerleaders Madison and Hamilton in the Federalist Papers."
Then you will provide us with proof-texts for this claim?
FLT-bird: "It is up to each state to determine necessity for itself.
Its nonsensical to argue..."
It is certainly nonsensical to argue, as you do, the equation of conditions in 1776 with those of 1860.
There was no similarity whatever.
Founders clearly understood the distinctions between true necessity and unjustified actions at pleasure.
FLT-bird: "WRONG.
See the quotes above.
The artificial distinction you are trying to draw between 1776 and 1861 for the same act is laughable. "
Sorry, but none of your proof-texts actually support your argument.
They are irrelevant to it.
And what's laughable are your efforts to make an equation of 1776 and 1860.
FLT-bird: "Nope! The US has a signed treaty with Cuba in which the terms of a perpetual lease of Gitmo are laid out in 1903."
And South Carolina deeded land to the Federal Government for Fort Sumter.
Then, just like Cubans today, they declared Federal ownership illegitimate, but unlike Cubans who have not started war over Gitmo, Confederates used Fort Sumter as their excuse to start Civil War.
FLT-bird: "The analogy would be the Brits maintaining a fortress in a major harbor like NY after the 13 colonies’ secession from the British Empire, "
And Brits did maintain forces in New York City, along with dozens of forts & trading posts in New York, Ohio and Michigan for years after their 1781 Unconditional Surrender at Yorktown.
No Founding president used those Brit forts as their excuse to start another war, unlike Jefferson Davis in 1861.
FLT-bird: "The Brits did leave some troops in border areas and yes that was a source of friction."
But unlike Jefferson Davis no Founding President used those British forts, forces & trading posts as excuses to start a war.
FLT-bird: "And as Shelby Foote wrote in The Civil War, 'Lincoln had maneuvered [the Confederates] into the position of having either to back down or else to fire the first shot of the war.' "
It's still rubbish, regardless of how many parrot it.
In fact, Lincoln's duty was to resupply Fort Sumter just as President Buchanan had attempted in January, 1861.
Jefferson Davis' decision to use Lincoln's mission as his excuse to start Civil War was Davis' and his cabinet's alone.
And they all knew the consequences:
FLT-bird quoting Lincoln to Fox: "I sincerely regret that the failure of the late attempt to provision Fort Sumter..."
That's the important part: Lincoln regrets failing to resupply Fort Sumter.
That he finds some consolation in Jefferson Davis' decision to start Civil War is not surprising, but cannot be called the reason for Lincoln's resupply mission.
BroJoeK
The internet is chock full of fake Jefferson quotes, and on the face of it this appears to be one, else, why the phrase “over ‘union’ “ inserted?
Yes, Jefferson is reported to have spoken kindly of Northern secession at the time of the Hartford Convention (1815) but when faced with real secession of his old Vice President, Aaron Burr, Jefferson had Burr arrested and tried for treason.
So Jefferson himself demonstrated Founders supported disunion by mutual consent but not unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.
Pure BS. Jefferson made numerous quotes which all showed he supported the notion that government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. This was after all the author of the declaration of Independence. He said several times that the union was voluntary and a state had the right to unilateral secession as the quotes I posted show. Nowhere did he ever say anything about mutual consent.
No. He never said anything about mutual consent. This is a fantasy you have created which you have no evidence for.
LOL! More spin than a laundry machine. It was taught at West Point. Several presidents held that view. The union was voluntary. There was no requirement of mutual consent expressed by any of them and certainly not by the states who were the parties to the Constitution.
There is no requirement for mutual consent expressed anywhere in the constitution or the Federalist papers. This is entirely your own fantasy creation.
So yet another president who felt states had the right of unilateral secession. You could have just admitted that and saved time.
He did say that...he also said the federal government did not have the right to prevent it by force.
Exactly. Your argument is a joke entirely without historical support. You can find nothing that argues for “mutual consent” nor is there anything that says a state cannot determine necessity but a colony can....especially since the state is sovereign and the colony is not. It was for each state to determine whether it was necessary or not. Several believed it was - as was their right.
There was no clear separation. In fact it was prevent separation ie secession that the Brits sent troops. Your argument is nonsensical.
The sovereign states felt there was such necessity in 1860 and 1861. Since they reserved the right to do so when they ratified the constitution and nowhere gave up that right, it was for them to determine necessity. Several of the states did lay out declarations of causes ranging from refusal to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the constitution to unfair taxation and federal government expenditures to deliberately failing to provide border security as required by treaty.
Here you’re wrong. The Brits did offer seats in Parliament for the Colonies. Its just that it would not have been enough seats to prevent themselves from being economically exploited for the benefit of the mother country. That is perfectly analogous to the situation the Southern states found themselves in in 1861. They had tried nullification of the Tariff of Abominations a generation earlier. Now the demographics had shifted even more against them and the Northern states set about to jacking up the tariff rates to ruinous levels once again. The Morrill Tariff ended up tripling tariff rates.
Imposing taxation without representation.
Revoking Massachusetts’ 1691 Charter of self-government.
Imposing British troops on colonists.
Declaring colonies in rebellion.
Taking military actions against colonial militias.
Through those acts & others Brits lost any claim to legitimate rule.
Nothing remotely resembling that existed in 1860.
Au Contraire. The Brits were still the recognized rulers of the colonies. The Colonies were not sovereign. They never had been. There was no separation. That was something the colonies did themselves. Your attempts at drawing some artificial distinction here fail. Utterly.
Just as I note that you’ve collected many of the PC Revisionist texts and yet are amazingly ignorant about US history and simply come up with your own little fantasy justifications like mutual consent which was nowhere agreed to by the states and nowhere stated in the constitution....or this fanciful notion of necessity which only the non sovereign colonies could determine for themselves but not the sovereign states.
More of your forays into fantasyland. Nowhere did any state agree to having to get a permission slip from other states in order to do exactly what they had done 8 years earlier ie secede unilaterally according to their own determination of necessity.
It didn’t need to be recognized in the US Constitution. It had already been recognize. It was acknowledged by everybody including the biggest proponents of the Constitution. It was nowhere denied in the Constitution. Nowhere in the constitution was the federal government delegated the power to prevent secession. The 10th amendment was added to make sure nobody could claim powers not mentioned in the constitution belonged to the federal government instead of to the sovereign states.
Here is but one example. Federalist #39 There are many more. READ the Federalist papers.
“...the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States.... Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a SOVEREIGN body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act” (Federalist 39).’ James Madison
Oh not at all. The states were sovereign in 1861 while the colonies were not in 1776. The Colonies were offered representation but not enough to protect themselves from being exploited by the tyranny of the majority. The situation was the same for the Southern states in 1861. Sovereign states had if anything, a superior right to determine necessity for themselves vis a vis non sovereign colonies in 1776.
And what’s laughable are your efforts to make an equation of 1776 and 1860.
Oh but they do. Laughable is your attempt to claim secession in 1776 by non sovereign colonies was OK but secession in 1861 by sovereign states which had never agreed to surrender their sovereignty was not OK.
And land in the colonies belonged to the British Crown....until the colonies seceded. Certainly once there has been secession compensation is due, but any property within a sovereign country or sovereign state can be claimed under eminent domain. This is of course a completely different situation to Gitmo in Cuba. There is no dispute that is sovereign Cuban territory. The US holds it under a lease agreement by treaty.
And the Brits evacuated the fort in NY City after the Treaty of Paris. Had they held it and sent a heavily armed flotilla to reinforce it and not agreed to the colonies secession, THEN the situation would have been analogous to 1861 when Lincoln sent a heavily armed flotilla into South Carolina’s sovereign territory to reinforce FT. Sumter.
Davis didn’t start the war. Lincoln did.
Nope! This is what’s rubbish. Lincoln started the war. Anybody who sends a fleet of warships into one of another country’s principle harbors is committing an act of war and is knowingly doing so. The aggressor is one who invades the land of another - not one who fires to drive an invader away.
Did you not read his letter to his naval commander? He was delighted the armed invasion of South Carolina’s territory got a war started. It was all about money.
“But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?” ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.
I will say, Bird, that I've been watching these Civil War threads for several years now and I've never seen anyone so comfortable in their own ignorance as you seem to be. Rather than refute your same nonsense yet again, I see that you added a few claims so I think I'll concentrate on those.
“If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation” over “union,” “I have no hesitation in saying, ‘let us separate.’” Thomas Jefferson
Your mastery of partial quotes is impressive, and at least you offer some documentation which, on the face of it, seems to support your claim. But let's look at the quote in full, shall we?
It's from a June 20, 1816 letter to William Crawford discussing the economic direction of the country. The quote, in context, is: "In your letter to Fisk, you have fairly stated the alternatives between which we are to choose : 1, licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for the many; or, 2, restricted commerce, peace, and steady occupations for all. If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying, "let us separate." I would rather the States should withdraw, which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture."
So Jefferson is talking about separation based on a specific issue, not merely leaving in a snit. But if we look at the words used - "let us separate" - then is there anyone foolish enough to conclude that Jefferson is talking about a mutual decision? One where both sides, after discussions, agree that it's best to go their separate ways? In your other Jefferson quote about separating, has the same connotation; peaceful partition based on a mutual decision. Which is as it should be, and as I have been saying all along. Secession is a mutual decision and requires the agreement of both sides - those staying as well as those going. Because only through mutual agreement and after the resolution of issues of possible contention can it be peaceful. The alternative is the one the South chose, separation through war. And do you honestly believe that's what Jefferson would have wanted? None of his quotes would indicate that.
A textbook used at West Point before the Civil War, A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle, supports this view.
Leaving aside for a moment the fact that Rawle's book was only used for a very short time at West Point, let's still look at what Rawle said. This is from Chapter 32 of Rawle's book titled "Of The Permanence of the Union":
"The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state. The people alone as we have already seen, hld the power to alter their constitution. The Constitution of the United States is to a certain extent, incorporated into the constitutions or the several states by the act of the people. The state legislatures have only to perform certain organical operations in respect to it. To withdraw from the Union comes not within the general scope of their delegated authority. There must be an express provision to that effect inserted in the state constitutions. This is not at present the case with any of them, and it would perhaps be impolitic to confide it to them."
So my question to you would be when did the Southern states incorporate provision in each of their state Constitutions? Month and year for each would be sufficient.
"f they had foreseen it, the probabilities are they would have sanctioned the right of a State or States to withdraw rather than that there should be war between brothers."
Again let's look at the quote in context. What Grant said was this: "The fact is the constitution did not apply to any such contingency as the one existing from 1861 to 1865. Its framers never dreamed of such a contingency occurring. If they had foreseen it, the probabilities are they would have sanctioned the right of a State or States to withdraw rather than that there should be war between brothers." In other words, Grant is non saying that the South had a Constitutional right to leave. He's saying there was no remedy in the Constitution, so their actions were illegal. This is borne out by this Grant quote from his memoires: “Now, the right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression, if they are strong enough, either by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable. But any people or part of a people who resort to this remedy, stake their lives, their property, and every claim for protection given by citizenship—on the issue. Victory, or the conditions imposed by the conqueror—must be the result."
The South resorted to rebellion. They rolled the dice and lost.
“The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it can not live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force.”
And you breezed right by this part of the message, didn't you?
"The right of the people of a single State to absolve themselves at will and without the consent of the other States from their most solemn obligations, and hazard the liberties and happiness of the millions composing this Union, can not be acknowledged. Such authority is believed to be utterly repugnant both to the principles upon which the General Government is constituted and to the objects which it is expressly formed to attain. It is not pretended that any clause in the Constitution gives countenance to such a theory."
And land in the colonies belonged to the British Crown....until the colonies seceded.
Let's toss this one out as crap right off the bat. Final ownership of the property was settled after 8 years of rebellion and the Treaty of Paris. There is no parallel.
Certainly once there has been secession compensation is due, but any property within a sovereign country or sovereign state can be claimed under eminent domain.
Eminent Domain? Really? How many errors can we find in that logic? I can think of two right off the bat.
In the first place eminent domain applies to private property taken by the government for its use. Government cannot use eminent domain to take another government's property. A state cannot use eminent domain to take property belonging to a city nor can the federal government use eminent domain to take property belonging to a state. And it certainly stands to reason that a state cannot use eminent domain to take property belonging to the federal government. Only Congress can dispose of federal property.
The key provision in any eminent domain law is the concept of "just compensation" in that property can't be taken through eminent domain unless it's paid for. And payment must be made before ownership is transferred. So even if South Carolina could use eminent domain to take Sumter it had to be paid for first.
And land in the colonies belonged to the British Crown....until the colonies seceded. Certainly once there has been secession compensation is due, but any property within a sovereign country or sovereign state can be claimed under eminent domain. This is of course a completely different situation to Gitmo in Cuba. There is no dispute that is sovereign Cuban territory. The US holds it under a lease agreement by treaty.
Where to begin with this one? The U.S. did not hold a lease agreement, by "treaty" or anything else. It owned the property free and clear due to act of the South Carolina legislature. And once ownership had been transferred then South Carolina had no claims and no power to resume control. Article I, Section 8 says Congress exercises exclusive legislation over all property owned by the federal government, explicitly mentioning forts. There is no shared ownership between the federal government and the states. Article IV says that Congress has the sole power to dispose of property belonging to the U.S. South Carolina could not resume ownership under the Constitution or any rule of law.
And the Brits evacuated the fort in NY City after the Treaty of Paris. Had they held it and sent a heavily armed flotilla to reinforce it and not agreed to the colonies secession, THEN the situation would have been analogous to 1861 when Lincoln sent a heavily armed flotilla into South Carolina’s sovereign territory to reinforce FT. Sumter.
But they didn't, did they? Ownership was legally transferred to the U.S. through the Treaty of Paris. Negotiated and signed by both sides. Lincoln's actions were not analogous to your scenario because Sumter was the property of the federal government and Lincoln had the right to send supplies there. Even if the Southern secession had been legal. Which it was not.
"Consent of the governed" is one thing, everyone supports that, but secession is something else altogether.
Jefferson did not support "secession" (his word was "scission") except by mutual consent (as in 1788) or absolute necessity (as in 1776).
Here are some of Jefferson's words on the subject:
FLT-bird: "No.
He never said anything about mutual consent.
This is a fantasy you have created which you have no evidence for."
Mutual consent was practiced by Founders in 1788 in ratifying their new Constitution.
They all understood exactly what it meant and Madison expressed it explicitly:
Elsewhere Madison remarks on Jefferson's alleged support for nullification:
And that was only nullification, not secession.
FLT-bird: "LOL!
More spin than a laundry machine.
It was taught at West Point.
Several presidents held that view.
The union was voluntary."
Speaking of spin, that's it entirely.
There's no debate or doubt about the historical fact that secession became widely debated in the generations after our Founders.
But there was no debate amongst Founders who well understood their own minds: disunion from necessity (1776) or mutual consent (1788) were the only reasons acceptable to them.
Everything else was rebellion, insurrection, domestic violence, invasion and/or treason.
FLT-bird: "There is no requirement for mutual consent expressed anywhere in the constitution or the Federalist papers.
This is entirely your own fantasy creation."
Nor is there anywhere authorization for unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.
But our Founders knew their own minds on the subject and practiced what James Madison spelled out, see quote above.
FLT-bird: "So yet another president who felt states had the right of unilateral secession.
You could have just admitted that and saved time."
Everyone who knows even a little history (which seemingly does not include FLT-bird) understands that people were threatening secession for decades before 1860 and many people formed opinions pro & con.
After the 1814 Hartford Convention those threatening secession were almost exclusively Southern, so John Tyler's opinion here is not surprising.
But the point remains valid that our Founders believed disunion from necessity or mutual consent were the only two legitimate reasons.
FLT-bird: "John Quincy Adams presented a petition for secession.
He certainly believed in the right of secession by the sovereign states."
And you have a source for this claim?
In fact, John Quincy Adams was a lifelong supporter of Union, opposed to secession.
FLT-bird on Buchanan: "He did say that...he also said the federal government did not have the right to prevent it by force."
Exactly, and that was also Lincoln's opinion as expressed in his First Inaugural Address.
FLT-bird: "Your argument is a joke entirely without historical support.
You can find nothing that argues for 'mutual consent' "
Not true, see my quotes above.
But more important is the example Founders set in 1788 by "seceding" from the old Articles of Confederation peacefully, by mutual consent.
And the clincher is that every Founding President from Washington through Madison faced secession or rebellion issues and responded decisively to quell them.
FLT-bird: "nor is there anything that says a state cannot determine necessity but a colony can....especially since the state is sovereign and the colony is not.
It was for each state to determine whether it was necessary or not.
Several believed it was - as was their right."
"Necessity" in our Founders' minds was defined by their experience in the years around 1776.
"Mutual consent" was defined by their experiences after 1787.
Everything else they considered rebellion, insurrection, domestic violence, invasion and/or treason and they responded appropriately.
FLT-bird: "There was no clear separation.
In fact it was prevent separation ie secession that the Brits sent troops.
Your argument is nonsensical."
Sorry, but the nonsense is all yours because: there could not be anything more separating that putting nooses around our Founders' necks or sending armies to destroy their Congress.
FLT-bird: "The sovereign states felt there was such necessity in 1860 and 1861.
Since they reserved the right to do so when they ratified the constitution and nowhere gave up that right, it was for them to determine necessity.
Several of the states did lay out declarations of causes ranging from refusal to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the constitution..."
You're correct that some (not all) seceding states did appeal to "necessity" in their "Reasons for Secession" document.
But in every case it was a lie.
For example, consider Mississippi's:
In fact, no such actions had been taken in Washington, DC, nor were any contemplated, so it was a Big Lie, meaning the real reason was not "necessity" but secession at pleasure.
FLT-bird: "Here you’re wrong.
The Brits did offer seats in Parliament for the Colonies.
Its just that it would not have been enough seats to prevent themselves from being economically exploited for the benefit of the mother country."
There were only informal discussions, never a formal offer of representation in the British Parliament.
If you fantasize otherwise, present your data.
FLT-bird: "That is perfectly analogous to the situation the Southern states found themselves in in 1861."
There is no analogy whatever -- none, zero, nada analogy -- since in 1860 Southerners effectively ruled in Washington, DC.
It was the opposite of "taxation without representation."
FLT-bird: "They had tried nullification of the Tariff of Abominations a generation earlier."
Which many Southerners, including Vice President John C. Calhoun from South Carolina supported and many Northerners opposed.
But President Jackson threatened to hang anyone he found in rebellion and that ended it.
Then just a few years later Democrats lowered the tariffs and by 1860 US tariffs were among the lowest ever.
FLT-bird: "Now the demographics had shifted even more against them and the Northern states set about to jacking up the tariff rates to ruinous levels once again.
The Morrill Tariff ended up tripling tariff rates."
The original Morrill Tariff of 1860, which Southerners defeated, was a modest increase back to average levels in the past.
Morrill only passed after Southerners seceded & walked out of Congress.
And none of the original "Reasons for Secession" mentioned Morrill.
FLT-bird: "The Brits were still the recognized rulers of the colonies.
The Colonies were not sovereign.
They never had been.
There was no separation.
That was something the colonies did themselves.
Your attempts at drawing some artificial distinction here fail.
Utterly."
Utter failure is your ridiculous defense of Lost Causer mythology.
In fact the 1776 colonies never separated themselves until after Brits revoked their charter, declared them in rebellion and began waging war against them.
That is the opposite of events in 1860.
FLT-bird: "Just as I note that you’ve collected many of the PC Revisionist texts and yet are amazingly ignorant about US history..."
Actually, I've learned quite a bit of your Lost Causer mythology, enough to know about 95% of it is pure nonsense & Big Lies.
FLT-bird: "and simply come up with your own little fantasy justifications like mutual consent which was nowhere agreed to by the states and nowhere stated in the constitution.."
But mutual consent was practiced by all Founders and spelled out by the Father of the Constitution James Madison, as quoted & linked above.
It therefore qualifies as Founders Original Intent, unlike your mythological "right of secession".
FLT-bird: "or this fanciful notion of necessity which only the non sovereign colonies could determine for themselves but not the sovereign states."
Founders clearly understood the difference between absolute necessity (as in 1776) and secession at pleasure as in 1860.
There were simply no material facts in 1860 supporting Deep South Fire Eaters' declarations of secession, ergo at pleasure.
FLT-bird: "More of your forays into fantasyland.
Nowhere did any state agree to having to get a permission slip from other states in order to do exactly what they had done 8 years earlier ie secede unilaterally according to their own determination of necessity."
But, first, there was no necessity -- none, zero, nada necessity -- in 1860, so even pretending otherwise was a Big Lie.
And if you just took a minute to consider, you'd realize that.
Second, as for "permission slips" that's exactly what they did in 1788 so no Founder could be in doubt about the legitimacy of mutual consent.
FLT-bird: "It didn’t need to be recognized in the US Constitution.
It had already been recognize.
It was acknowledged by everybody including the biggest proponents of the Constitution."
So I'll ask again, can you provide data to support that?
FLT-bird quoting Madison: "Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a SOVEREIGN body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act” (Federalist 39).’ James Madison"
"Bound" is the key word, meaning: no longer fully "sovereign".
FLT-bird: "Oh not at all.
The states were sovereign in 1861 while the colonies were not in 1776...
Sovereign states had if anything, a superior right to determine necessity for themselves vis a vis non sovereign colonies in 1776."
As shown by your own quote, states after 1787 were bound and no longer "sovereign".
By contrast, in 1776 our Founders were unbound by the British declaration of rebellion and waging of war against them.
FLT-bird: "Laughable is your attempt to claim secession in 1776 by non sovereign colonies was OK but secession in 1861 by sovereign states which had never agreed to surrender their sovereignty was not OK."
Here you argue against the Declaration's words, which insist separation was "necessary" and against the Federalist which says the states "bound" themselves, meaning no longer sovereign.
FLT-bird: "And land in the colonies belonged to the British Crown....until the colonies seceded."
No, until the Brits revoked colonial self government, declared them in rebellion and began waging war against them.
That's what the Declaration of Independence says.
You should read it someday.
FLT-bird: "Certainly once there has been secession compensation is due, but any property within a sovereign country or sovereign state can be claimed under eminent domain.
This is of course a completely different situation to Gitmo in Cuba.
There is no dispute that is sovereign Cuban territory.
The US holds it under a lease agreement by treaty."
"Eminent domain" implies a legal process which never happened, so there was no claim of "eminent domain" over Fort Sumter in 1861.
There were only demands for immediate Union surrender and threats of war.
FLT-bird: "Brits evacuated the fort in NY City after the Treaty of Paris."
Which took two years to negotiate and even then Brits did not evacuate for another four months after receiving orders to do so.
All the while George Washington was patient.
Unlike Jefferson Davis who refused to wait more than a few weeks before unleashing military assault on Fort Sumter.
Further there were dozens of other British forts & trading posts left in place in upstate NY, Ohio & Michigan, some supporting Native American war against settlers.
But our Founders were patient, for 15 years, until 1796's Jay Treaty.
Unlike Jefferson Davis.
FLT-bird: "Davis didn’t start the war. Lincoln did."
Resupplying troops is not an act of war, but demanding surrender & launching military assault on troops is.
Davis started Civil War.
FLT-bird: "Anybody who sends a fleet of warships into one of another country’s principle harbors is committing an act of war and is knowingly doing so.
The aggressor is one who invades the land of another - not one who fires to drive an invader away."
Now suddenly Lincoln's resupply mission has grown in FLT-bird's description from a "flotilla" to a "fleet of warships".
And in the next telling, will we see Lincoln's naval armada to Fort Sumter??
Again, the proper analogy is Gitmo, deny it all you will.
FLT-bird: "Did you not read his letter to his naval commander?
He was delighted the armed invasion of South Carolina’s territory got a war started. It was all about money."
Your alleged quote on this is a fake quote.
Thanks!
Great responses.
Great work!
To simplify (and considering the California problem): By the Constitution, the People of the United States through Congress OWN and are sovereign over forts, magazines, dockyards, arsenals, post offices and post roads, and other needful buildings located in any State considering secession.
THEREFORE: A seceding state must either NEGOTIATE a satisfactory agreement with the People of the United States regarding our property and the utilities that flow from sovereignty over same (e.g., naval basing at San Diego, movement of mails from San Francisco over Interstate highways, etc), OR they must seize those things and claim right of conquest according to the Laws of War.
South Carolina chose the latter, and had to accept the outcome.
fltbird is chock-full of fake quotes.
I'm on the road again, with time to spare last weekend.
Now will be tied up for a day or two.
Thanks again for your great posts.
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.