Posted on 11/06/2003 7:31:54 PM PST by republicanwizard
The law granting that title was repealed.
Not that it matters, but you are saying that the -specific- law was repealed?
Where?
But it doesn't matter, because all right to the property was ceded.
Your rant is just blue smoke and mirrors; it won't fool anybody worth fooling.
Walt
It worked well enough to preserve the Union the Framers made.
Walt
I am saying that all previous laws connecting SC to the United States were repealed, and that would by necessity include the Sumter one. This occurred in the act of severance adopted when SC seceded in December 1860.
But it doesn't matter, because all right to the property was ceded.
Sure it matters. The law ceding the property was voided and replaced, thus reclaiming the property for SC. It doesn't matter if the earlier law claimed itself to be "super dooper double secret unrepealable and permanent times infinity" in the text because all it takes to repeal any statute is another statute.
And yet you keep trying. In the end the fact remains that South Carolina had no claim to Sumter and there was no conflict between what Governor Pickens was told and what the fleet was ordered to do. Regardless of how you twist it.
It gets tried from time to time. I simply look for the amusing aspects of the idiocy on the other side.
No such fact exists nor has any been substantiated. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Ditto. Your imagination when it comes to making up your stuff apparently knows no bounds.
If you're speaking of the claim to Sumter by South Carolina then I couldn't agree more.
I am saying that all previous laws connecting SC to the United States were repealed....
So when you said this particular law was repealed, you were lying.
Walt
When?
What was the name of the superceding legislation?
Walt
"Most northern people in 1861 shared Lincoln's conviction that the fate of democratic government hung on the outcome of the Civil War. That passion sustained them through four years of the bloodiest war in the Western world between 1815 and 1914. "We must fight," insisted the Indianapolis Daily Journal on April 27,1861, two weeks after the firing on fort Sumter, "because we must. The National Government has been assailed. The Nation has been defied. If either can be done with impunity neither Nation nor Government is worth a cent. . . . War is self preservation, if our form of Government is worth preserving. If monarchy would be better, it might be wise to quit fighting, admit that a Republic is too weak to take care of itself, and invite some deposed Duke or Prince of Europe to come over here and rule us. But otherwise, we muit fight. "
None felt this sense of democratic mission more strongly than Union soldiers, who imperiled their lives for it. "I do feel that the liberty of the world is placed in our hands to defend," wrote a Massachusetts private to his wife in 1862, "and if we are overcome then farewell to freedom." In 1863, on the second anniversary of his enlistment, an Ohio private wrote in his diary that he had not expected the war to last so long, but no matter how much longer it took it must be carried on "for the great principles of liberty and self government at stake, for should we fail, the onward march of Liberty in the Old World will be retarded at least a century, and Monarchs, Kings, and Aristocrats will be more powerful against their subjects than ever."
-- BCF
Walt
They probably did. I strongly doubt that most Southerners felt that way.
One reason that some in the South voted against secession was that they were afraid their form of government might be changed. From the Picayune of May 4, 1861:
The Belton Democrat [Texas] of the 19th says, "We have upon our table late letters from McLennon, Bosque, Ellis, Denton and Fannin counties, all stating that many who opposed secession for fear our form of government might be changed, are now ardent friends of the new government."
This will be handed to you by Captain G.V. Fox, an ex-officer of the Navy. He is charged by authority here, with the command of an expedition (under cover of certain ships of war) whose object is, to reinforce Fort Sumter.
To embark with Captain Fox, you will cause a detachment of recruits, say about 200, to be immediately organized at fort Columbus, with competent number of officers, arms, ammunition, and subsistence, with other necessaries needed for the augmented garrison at Fort Sumter.
Signed: Winfield Scott
Not at all. If a law is passed repealing all laws that do X, every prior specific law doing X is by necessity repealed.
The Ordinance of Secession.
Curious claim from and individual who could not substantiate it if his life depended on doing so.
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.