Replies

FLT-bird: "In law, a superior can delegate some of his rights to a subordinate.
He still retains those rights in full and can resume them."

Pro-Confederate opinions notwithstanding, our Founders all believed such "resuming" could only be for material cause, not "at pleasure".
Just as Virginia's 1788 ratifying statement said:

"...powers granted under the Constitution... may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression,"

FLT-bird: "The CSA did what it could to build a navy but it had had no time to build one up prior to the war"

The Union navy at war's end had roughly twice the number of vessels as served the Confederate cause -- 671 Union vs. circa 380 Confederate ships & boats.
Union ships were arguably bigger and more purpose-built, so the count of numbers doesn't tell the whole story.

FLT-bird on Fort Sumter ownership: "There was no such treaty between the Union and South Carolina or Florida."

No need for a treaty, since there was an 1836 legal document transferring ownership of Fort Sumter to the Federal government.

"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... "

So, as of at least 1836, Fort Sumter was Federal, not SC state property.
Nor did South Carolina ever attempt to lawfully repossess Fort Sumter, by eminent domain or any other legal sham.

Now we have the matter of the US Constitution:

Article I Section 8

"Congress shall have the power . . . To exercise the exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever, . . .
and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which same shall be, for the erection of Forts, Magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and other needed buildings; . . ."

"Congress shall have the power . . . to suppress insurrections . . ."

These were powers, given under the U.S. Constitution to Congress and not states.

FLT-bird: "By any definition in any book in history, having warships repeatedly invade the territorial waters of another country is an act of war and Lincoln 100% knew and understood that."

But that never happened, and Davis knew it and didn't care.
You also know it, but chose to lie about it, and why?

Pro-Confederate opinions notwithstanding, our Founders all believed such "resuming" could only be for material cause, not "at pleasure". Just as Virginia's 1788 ratifying statement said: "...powers granted under the Constitution... may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression,"

Yes and it was up to each state to determine if there was sufficient cause. The Southern states did determine there was sufficient clause and exercised their right to unilaterally secede.

FLT-bird: "The CSA did what it could to build a navy but it had had no time to build one up prior to the war" The Union navy at war's end had roughly twice the number of vessels as served the Confederate cause -- 671 Union vs. circa 380 Confederate ships & boats. Union ships were arguably bigger and more purpose-built, so the count of numbers doesn't tell the whole story.

OK. No argument. As I said, the Union inherited the US Navy as well as the region where the shipbuilding industry - built up via generations of subsidies and protectionism - was located. Its no surprise their navy was far larger than the CSA's given that the CSA had to start from scratch while fighting a major land war and given the fact that the North's total White population was about 4 times that of the CSA.

No need for a treaty, since there was an 1836 legal document transferring ownership of Fort Sumter to the Federal government. "In the [SC] 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... " So, as of at least 1836, Fort Sumter was Federal, not SC state property. Nor did South Carolina ever attempt to lawfully repossess Fort Sumter, by eminent domain or any other legal sham. Now we have the matter of the US Constitution:

Ah but there you are wrong. South Carolina did lay claim to Fort Sumter under eminent domain once it resumed the powers of government it had delegated to the federal government.

"Article I Section 8: "Congress shall have the power . . . To exercise the exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever, . . . and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which same shall be, for the erection of Forts, Magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and other needed buildings; . . ." "Congress shall have the power . . . to suppress insurrections . . ." These were powers, given under the U.S. Constitution to Congress and not states.

So long as the state was in and was a part of the US. South Carolina no longer was and had resumed such powers as sovereign.

But that never happened, and Davis knew it and didn't care. You also know it, but chose to lie about it, and why?

but it did happen and you've even cited instances. Why are you lying about it now? Do you really think anybody is going to believe your lies?