Posted on 09/09/2019 9:42:11 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
Ah piss up a rope Reb. You make up your own history. The f’ing Rebs started the war and lost and no amount of your revisionism is going to change that fact you loser.
Ah piss up a rope Reb. You make up your own history. The f’ing Rebs started the war and lost and no amount of your revisionism is going to change that fact you loser.
Go screw yourself idiot. You're the one making up history to suit your Leftist PC Revisionist dogma. You're just too ignorant to realize it. Moron.
If states are sovereign then why can't they join the union by holding a referendum or organizing a convention and proclaiming themselves a state and sending reps to Washington?
There certainly was a rebellion. One which the southerns sates lost badly.
As I've already discussed earlier, Chase's ruling was a farce.
Of course you did. Because anything Chase did or said that you don't agree with is a farce, and anything Chase said or did that you do agree with was the wise words or actions of a prudent jurist. You want to have your cake and eat it too.
But if it doesn't belong to them then it isn't within its territory, is it?
no matter who it belongs to. Go to any country on earth. If the government needs your land for a public purpose it can take your land. It may have to pay you fair market value, but it can take your land. That is universal.
Well to begin with, no it can't. Not without agreement on both sides. Secondly, the rebel government tried to take Sumter without paying for it. The same way it took all other federal property.
value of goods imported and exported.
By value of goods imported Charleston was the second busiest port after New Orleans. By value of goods exported Charleston was the fourth busiest after New Orleans, Mobile, and Savannah.
South Carolina is not a province. It is a sovereign state.
But was a part of the Confederacy.
You can ant to argue over the procedures for ratifying the constitution and for seceding? Various states did it differently. It’s up to each state to determine how whether referendum, convention, etc.
There was no rebellion. The US federal government had no authority over them. They had seceded.
Chase was a political hack. One who was directly involved with the matters he then sat in judgment on. Any reasonable jurist would have recused himself.
But the fort is within South Carolina’s sovereign territory.
To begin with, yes it can. The government can take your land if it is needed for a public purpose ie roads, hospitals, power plants, airports, national defense, etc. The Sovereign states offered to come to a reasonable agreement regarding assets and liabilities such as forts, post offices, the national debt etc. in good faith. Lincoln refuses to meet with them.
As I said, Charleston was the second most important port for n the then CSA and was the largest and most important in South Carolina. Know how I know you’re just arguing for sake of arguing?
South Carolina is a sovereign state.
Isn't that pretty much the point of this discussion?
Various states did it differently. It’s up to each state to determine how whether referendum, convention, etc.
And all did it incorrectly. As the Supreme Court found.
But back to my original question. If states can leave merely through referendum or convention then why don’t they join the same way? Hold a referendum, declare statehood, send representatives to Washington, and presto! They’re in the union. If leaving is as easy as you say then why should joining be any harder?
When the manner in which you attempt secession is illegal and you start shooting up federal forts then that's rebellion by any definition of the word.
Chase was a political hack.
And yet you chose to quote him in your feeble attempt to defend Jeff Davis's actions. A bit hypocritical wouldn't you say?
So? If it doesn't belong to South Carolina, if South Carolina had, in fact, relinquished all claims to it, then it wasn't part of South Carolina and they had no right to claim it.
To begin with, yes it can. The government can take your land if it is needed for a public purpose ie roads, hospitals, power plants, airports, national defense, etc.
Yeah we've gone down this path before. The government has the right to seize my land because I am a private individual. Eminent Domain laws give them that power. But eminent domain applies to private property only. The government does not have the right to seize the land of another government entity without the approval of that entity first. The federal government cannot seize the property of South Carolina any more than South Carolina can seize the property of the federal government.
The Sovereign states offered to come to a reasonable agreement regarding assets and liabilities such as forts, post offices, the national debt etc. in good faith. Lincoln refuses to meet with them.
Again a complete misstatement. There was never an offer made in writing to Lincoln to negotiate payment for federal property stolen by the Southern states. In fact, if such an offer had been made then wouldn't that be an admission on the part of the Confederacy that seizing them was illegal to begin with?
As I said, Charleston was the second most important port for n the then CSA and was the largest and most important in South Carolina.
Yes, you have said that. You have said a lot of things that aren't true. But expect people to continue to correct you.
Know how I know you’re just arguing for sake of arguing?
No, how?
So if it’s within their sovereign territory the government of South Carolina can claim it for public purposes. You seem determined not to grasp the concept of eminent domain even though it is commonplace around the world and has been for centuries.
If one country owns property in another country be it a company or real estate, the government of the host country can take that property - ever heard of nationalizing something? Compensation at fair market value is owed to the dispossessed former owner, but that is all. Sorry, you cannot deny the sovereignty of another sovereign country in their own territory just because that property happens to be owned by an outside sovereign govt. their writ does not run in another sovereign’s territory. You’re just wrong here.
No property was stolen. Property in the seceding states was nationalized. They sent a delegation to negotiate in good faith - like the Brits sent negotiators to Brussels. Lincoln refuses to meet with them. Your question about an offer to negotiate separation terms being some kind of admission of wrongdoing is bizarre.
Know how I know? Because you falsely try to claim that things I’ve said are untrue when they are not. You also want to argue over even how important of a port Charleston was. LOL!
But were they sovereign? I mean I can say my house and land are now a sovereign country and it doesn’t make it so.
In fact I would argue that the southern commission was sent to the wrong place. It should have been sent to Congress because only congress is empowered by the constitution to decide any status of a state.
Lincoln believed, as President Buchanan before him, that secession was illegal. So, as far as they were concerned, they were still states in the Union. And both of them had precious Presidents actions as precedent for this stance. Both President Taylor and Andrew Jackson had stated secession was illegal. In fact President Jackson produced a proclamation to South Carolina, that was published in all the newspapers at the times, during the secession crisis that said in part;
“So obvious are the reasons which forbid this secession, that it is necessary only to allude to them. The Union was formed for the benefit of all. It was produced by mutual sacrifice of interest and opinions. Can those sacrifices be recalled? Can the States, who magnanimously surrendered their title to the territories of the West, recall the grant? Will the inhabitants of the inland States agree to pay the duties that may be imposed without their assent by those on the Atlantic or the Gulf, for their own benefit? Shall there be a free port in one State, and enormous duties in another? No one believes that any right exists in a single State to involve all the others in these and countless other evils, contrary to engagements solemnly made. Everyone must see that the other States, in self-defense, must oppose it at all hazards.”
Do you have any evidence that any President supported secession by the states?
I think it's you that does not grasp the concept. Eminent Domain applies to private property only. Or are you saying that the federal government has the right to seize the property of South Carolina for their own purposes? If that's your claim then what are we arguing about Sumter for? You can claim that South Carolina used eminent domain to seize Sumter and I can say the federal government used eminent domain to seize it right back. That would make perfect sense by your definition of eminent domain.
If one country owns property in another country be it a company or real estate, the government of the host country can take that property - ever heard of nationalizing something?
Again you are conflating private property with property owned by a state or nation.
Sorry, you cannot deny the sovereignty of another sovereign country in their own territory just because that property happens to be owned by an outside sovereign govt. their writ does not run in another sovereign’s territory. You’re just wrong here.
So then again to someone's earlier point, all Cuba has to do is tell the U.S. that it claims the Guantanamo Bay base, pay them what Cuba determines is a fair price, and the U.S. has to leave? Why didn't Castro think of that. </sarcasm>
No property was stolen.
None of it was paid for.
Property in the seceding states was nationalized. They sent a delegation to negotiate in good faith - like the Brits sent negotiators to Brussels.
Say what? Brussels?
Lincoln refuses to meet with them.
Then of course you can point me to the message to Lincoln that made that offer?
Your question about an offer to negotiate separation terms being some kind of admission of wrongdoing is bizarre
I look back on what you post and somehow I don't feel like I'm the bizarre one in this conversation.
Know how I know? Because you falsely try to claim that things I’ve said are untrue when they are not. You also want to argue over even how important of a port Charleston was. LOL!
When you make an incorrect claim then you should expect to be challenged on it.
Yes, they were sovereign. Their sovereign status was recognized in the 1783 Treaty of Paris. Madison described them as sovereign in the federalist papers. The SCOTUS has affirmed their sovereign status many times. It’s not in question.
Congress is not empowered to determine the status of a state.
Several previous presidents held that unilateral secession was perfectly constitutional. Thomas Jefferson and several others openly and repeatedly said so.
While I would love to spend hours and hours going over the exact same points with you another 20 times today, it will have to wait until later. I do need to get some work done. Looks like you’ll need to find another way to occupy your time today.
They turned their backs on the rule of law and the compact they were pledged to honor. They violated both the letter and the spirit of the law that their forefathers had created. They seized and stole everything that wasn't locked down - and much that was. And they initiated a civil war that would consume hundreds of thousands of American lives. All because they lost an election.
So bird-brain is correct when he says might doesn't necessarily make right - just look to the south's actions in the Civil War to see it in action.
I'll save you time. Having seen your arguments in the past I can't think of any which you could repeat that would any more sense then they did when you tried them before. So let's agree to disagree.
Are talking about Fort Sumter?
If we are, wasn’t the fort on Federal property, under Federal jurisdiction?
I would ask the same question about coastal waterways - were they under the control and jurisdiction of the United States?
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.