Posted on 12/22/2019 4:23:47 AM PST by Bull Snipe
I see you keep repeating yourself in the hope that maybe this time it’ll be right. Too bad.
The other signatories didn’t care what they wrote on their state’s documents.....since they carried no weight of law and did not affect the ratification one whit.
“And how do you know this? And how was all the other property also not being used to make war on the United States?”
Slaves grew the food that fed the Confederate Armies.
Slaves built the forts and trenches of the Confederate Army.
Slaves worked in the mills, factories, arsenals, that made the weapons, ammunition, shells, and gun powder for the Confederate Army.
Slaves cooked for the Confederate Armies.
Slaves shod the horses and mules used to Confederate Army cavalry, artillery, and mounted infantry officers.
Slaves nursed the wounded of the Confederate Army.
Slaves offloaded the blockade runners bring in arms, ammunition and other tools of war.
slaves repaired the damaged railroads and bridges supporting the movement and supply of he Confederate Army.
Without those slaves, the War would have ended in a few months.
In addition to slaves, any property useful to the Confederate cause was usually seized, destroyed or otherwise rendered unusable by the Confederate cause.
So did the land. In fact, the land had more to do with it than the slaves.
In addition to slaves, any property useful to the Confederate cause was usually seized, destroyed or otherwise rendered unusable by the Confederate cause.
Not to the same extent. This singling out of this particular "property" is clearly the whim of those in charge, and is not an actual objective standard.
The reality is "because I said so" and nothing else. There is no real law underpinning this, just power.
Except for the fact you have virtually no proof that the contrary was true. I've discussed this many times, and about all anyone can drag out is Madison's forty year later letter on the subject.
The actual states and their legislatures who are in fact telling you what they understand the compact to be, are ignored.
The supporting legal facts are thus.
The Declaration says so.
Three states, meaning the entire legislative body of three states, (and two of the most significant states) explicitly said so.
Massachusetts and Connecticut also said so during the Hartford convention of 1814.
Who do you have claiming the contrary? Madison, 40 years later.
The actual historical and legal evidence goes the other way.
Poppycock. Maybe your copy does, but no one else's does.
The supporting legal facts are thus.
I hope you don't try to get a loan with that sort of collateral - you'll be laughed out of the bank.
You say it doesn't say that, well then what does it actually say?
https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h976.html
(you weren’t expecting me to type it all out, were you?!)
For real? I'm not sure he literally owned everything, but he ceased to own what he did own when the peace treaty was signed. Before that ownership was ... er ... rather hotly contested. Even then, he was very slow about giving up Detroit, because he thought we hadn't been keeping our side of the bargain, or maybe just because he wanted to.
Anderson occupied Ft. Sumter for four months. Had a Federal garrison occupied it since 1800, it would have been a different matter I think.
Good. That is another telling admission on your part. I don't think it matters, though. After everything else the US lost, their holding on to one or two forts was not the great threat or insult that secessionists made it out to be.
Anderson took it, and this after the South Carolinians had been told it would be turned over to them by the then Secretary of War.
Do you mean John Floyd, Buchanan's Secretary of War, who favored secession and became a Confederate general during the war? That John Floyd? He was shipping guns South where the rebels could get their hands on them. He was also involved in financial misconduct.
If that's the Secretary of War you are talking about, you have managed to kill two birds with one stone. First, it's understandable that when Floyd left office with the shadow of corruption and treason hanging over him that any promises or agreements he made would have to be reconsidered and could be revoked. If Alger Hiss made commitments to the Soviets, would we really expect the US to be bound by those promises once Hiss's treachery had been exposed?
Secondly, all this talk of "cronyism" starts to look differently. It certainly wasn't foreign to Southerners, Democrats, or slaveowners. Pierce refused to prosecute a corrupt territorial governor. Buchanan was accused of bribing legislators and trading contracts for campaign contributions. Stephen Douglas was working hand in hand with the railroads to their mutual benefit. Cronyism is a fact of life in government and no party has a monopoly on corruption.
Objective reality decides. California is not essential, but those military bases are. Army and Air force bases can be moved, but Naval bases cannot.
That is subjective. Californians - if they seceded - would not agree. They might think that those bases were necessary to their own survival, faced with a powerful, predatory US. They would make all the arguments that you make on behalf of South Carolina. Think of Russia and Ukraine. Russia might think that bases in Crimea are necessary for its survival, but Ukraine may believe that Russian bases on what was Ukrainian territory constitute a threat to Ukranian security and independence.
If the federal government is to be the judge of what is necessary to its security, then you agree with what I have been saying for years and you admit that you were wrong. In 1860, the country was falling apart. Militants and Confederate secession commissioners were inciting secession in the Upper South and the Border States. State militias were training and moving against federal property, raiding, stealing, and occupying. The national capital was in danger of being surrounded and occupied by the rebels. There was even talk of parts of the country that didn't have slavery breaking away. It seemed with good reason as though the country's survival was at stake.
Under such circumstances, it wasn't too much for the federal government, legitimately concerned with the country's "objective" security, to want to hold on to some of its legitimately owned property in the South. That could help the government to save face and slow down the growing chaos and anarchy. It would establish confidence that the constitutionally elected government could preserve order. A fort or other installation would also serve as a bargaining chip in future negotiations. Nothing could be more reasonable than that, and intelligent and thoughtful Southerners recognized that.
What were they trying to do to "hurt" the country they were leaving?
I have addressed that many times, even in this very post. They were organizing a military, stealing federal weapons, and inciting secessionism in other states. We would recognize any group doing that as a threat to our country.
But I don't think you are really serious about any of this. You hate New York and California and probably the other Democrat states, and would deny any prerogatives to a government that they have a say in. For some reason, you love the South and will always take its side. You forgive the Confederates even for trying to destroy the country. And you wouldn't be opposed to federal strong-arming if you controlled the government. Your chatter is all just empty rationalizations of what you feel emotionally.
Without the slaves, the land will grow not enough food in quantities to feed the Confederate Army.
“Not to the same extent. This singling out of this particular “property” is clearly the whim of those in charge, and is not an actual objective standard”
So? interfering with slavery interfered with the Confederate ability to make war. This is a legitimate action by the C in C.
“The reality is “because I said so” and nothing else. There is no real law underpinning this, just power.”
Not power, victory The reality is it is a war. There is no consolation prize for second place. You are correct, no law underpins the President of the United States acting as the C in C in the prosecution of a war. Victory was the objective. Victory was what Lincoln was achieved.
I was expecting you to give a thesis statement. You know, a summation of what it says in as few words as possible.
To put my finger on it's central core, I point to this sentence.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
If you have a different core sentence that you believe summarizes the soul of the Declaration of independence, please point it out.
Brown’s raid did scare people. But it didn’t begin the worry about slave revolts. Haiti did that, as well as Nat Turner.
That history is well described in Thomas Fleming’s “A Disease In The Public Mind”.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Like that?
What, you mean like,
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Like that?
;'}
It was quite the threat to South Carolina. It could prohibit trade traffic and thereby greatly affect their income. Northern newspapers called for the guns to be turned on Charleston, and while Anderson's men were occupying it, they actually discussed turning the cannons on Charleston.
Do you mean John Floyd, Buchanan's Secretary of War, who favored secession and became a Confederate general during the war?
Was he not at the time an official of the Union government?
Besides that, the Confederates were told from other supposedly official sources that Sumter would be turned over to them.
Stephen Douglas was working hand in hand with the railroads to their mutual benefit.
Seems like the railroad administrators were involved in a lot of this sort of corruption. And of course Lincoln was a Corporate Railroad lawyer who worked for these creeps. Even so, bad behavior on the part of one party does not justify the same bad behavior on the part of another party.
That is subjective. Californians - if they seceded - would not agree. They might think that those bases were necessary to their own survival, faced with a powerful, predatory US.
With the US possessing Nuke weapons, those bases would not change their chances of survival at all.
I have addressed that many times, even in this very post. They were organizing a military, stealing federal weapons, and inciting secessionism in other states.
You talk about the weapons in forts on their property, and for which those states likely paid the bulk as if they weren't entitled to their land or what their money had bought in at least equal measure to the North.
And so far as inciting secessionism in other states, the colonists did the same thing. If people have a legal right to leave, and a legal right to speak, then this is the consequence of having such a system. States could chose to leave or not, and if it was in their interest to remain in the Union, they would have done.
You hate New York and California and probably the other Democrat states,
I don't hate the states, or the people in them, per say, I hate that they are now the spearpoints of the socialist juggernaut threatening to take everything away. I believe New York is heavily involved in influencing the government to keep the spending fountain going, and I think the plutocrats there use the media as a tool to keep the Washington DC spending party going.
I think the elite of California are part of this same clique, and collaborate in undermining what is normal and proper in this country.
...and would deny any prerogatives to a government that they have a say in.
They have too much say. They control the media, both News and Entertainment, and I have long believed this is their primary vehicle for manipulating Americans into supporting ideas and causes that are ultimately harmful to both the people and the nation in the long run.
They also have too much influence on government, and this is apart from the huge numbers of representatives their populations allow, and the electoral votes they wield. I think the New York power cartel is intimately associated with the entire bureaucracy in Washington, and use that influence to enact rules and policies that are inimical to people like me.
For some reason, you love the South and will always take its side.
I don't know anything about the South, except that it was hot when I drove through it a couple of times in summers past. I can only go on what I read, and what I read tells me they tend to vote conservative and respect rights I consider important such as the right to keep and bear arms.
I am more in love with the idea that we don't have to stay shackled to the kooks in California or the Crooks in New York and Chicago.
You forgive the Confederates even for trying to destroy the country.
What I see is New York and California destroying the country, and I mean the one i'm living in right now, not 159 years ago.
I thought my posting the core sentence from it would give you a clue.
Did you lose track of the discussion? Clearly you did at one time realize that we were specifically talking about the Declaration of Independence.
Your train of thought must have jumped the track.
Without the land, it wouldn't grow enough to feed anyone.
So? interfering with slavery interfered with the Confederate ability to make war. This is a legitimate action by the C in C.
Not when it allows the retention of other property that allows the Confederates the ability to make war. It is clearly subverting the winning of the war to a political agenda.
You can make the claim that the President may do anything which helps to win the war, but this argument requires him to do anything to win the war. If he's not doing that, then what he is doing he isn't doing for the purpose of winning the war, he's doing it for some other reason, and claiming that as an excuse to cover up his actually illegal motives.
Victory was the objective. Victory was what Lincoln was achieved.
But how much more blood and treasure was expended because he did not apply the same measure to all property used to support the Confederacy?
You cannot claim a moral imperative in which you employs half measures.
What in fact happened is he masqueraded a political decision as a military decision, because doing it for political reasons was completely illegal and an usurpation of power.
I have heard of that book many times. I shall have to read it.
Up until #1,104 we were talking about ratifying the US Constitution. Then you slipped in a non-existent reference in the DOL. Yes, it was there that disinterest drifted my attention off-point.
My point is and remains that signatories to the ratification of the United States Constitution got no spiffs, no bonus, no commemorative pens. There were no side deals and no conditional language other than what appears in the Constitution itself.
So yeah, the Declaration is very relevant to the fact that secession is within the framework of the Constitution.
The three initial states, and the two subsequent ones are just further support for the same legal point.
Do you have anything in writing from say a state legislature or perhaps a US Congress to say secession isn't allowed? (And it has to be from around 1787-1789.)
Opinions of private folk are one thing, but official statements of governing bodies is quite another.
That would apply even more to California if it seceded.
And so far as inciting secessionism in other states, the colonists did the same thing. If people have a legal right to leave, and a legal right to speak, then this is the consequence of having such a system. States could chose to leave or not, and if it was in their interest to remain in the Union, they would have done.
Different situation. There was a Continental Congress that brought all the colonies together. While some colonies were more radical than others, it wasn't a case of some states trying to turn others against England. Moreover, there were a lot more agitation and more electoral shenanigans in 1860 than in 1775.
I have long believed this is their primary vehicle for manipulating Americans into supporting ideas and causes that are ultimately harmful to both the people and the nation in the long run.
Manipulating Americans into supporting ideas and causes that are ultimately hostile by to the people and the nation in the long run? That was certainly true of Davis and the Fire-Eaters.
What I see is New York and California destroying the country, and I mean the one i'm living in right now, not 159 years ago.
Yet you have only kind words for the destroyers a century and a half back.
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.