Posted on 05/24/2007 6:03:30 AM PDT by Rebeleye
Which "States' rights" the North had a right to defend by not ratifying the Constitution.
You are talking about Article IV of the Constitution as it was written. "Trample", hogwash.
The Northern reaction to Southern bullying was the source of the widespread support that produced the rapid early growth of the GOP.
Blatant falsehood. The Northerners were always the aggressors on sectional issues. They rejected Missouri statehood, they rejected Texas statehood, and they demanded admission for Oregon despite Oregon's having a state constitution and ordinances that prohibited what the Constitution permitted. They started it, and they killed a million people to have things their way.
Maybe the Northern States shouldn't have ratified the Constitution in the first place. Maybe they should have had their own Union.
Hey, as long as you're up, could you get me a fresh lie? lol
....the South might talk about it, but only after Lincoln first recognized the legality of their acts of secession and confederate sovereignty.
The People didn't need Lincoln to "recognize" anything. You build Lincoln up every chance you get, don't you? Since when did acts of the People become subject to your adaptation of the rules of "Mother May I?"
Because the form of your proposition was, and is, entirely a "false dilemma", that's why.
You're as phony as a used-car salesman, so spare us the injured innocence.
Either A, which I know isn't forthcoming, or B, I get my way on the point I need to support "it was all about slavery/South 'rebelled'".
Phony as a three-dollar bill.
You're the one retailing that fantasy. Secession was another creature entirely, and transacted at the level of the People determining their own fate, as they had, and have, every right to do.
Or will you now join your compeer in insisting that there is a superordinating principle or entity that has the right and power to tell the People the limits of their freedom and authority? And that that entity has a name and a face?
Against what sovereign?
Against the government they placed over them and the Constitution they agreed to abide by.
Since Carton253 has decided he no longer wants to continue the discussion why are you?
Since the people of the United States ratified the Constitution.
Apparently they did, since they kept trying so hard for someone, anyone to agree that they were a sovereign nation. Nobody did.
Which was?
Armed insurrection? South Carolina was independent by that point in time with a bunch of foreign facilities in its midst.
... I can't find your incident, unless you mean this: "The skipper of the rented schooners sensed what the signal meant and tried to prevent Hall from taking the boats to Sumter, but Hall and a sergeant shoved the captain into the hold and took off, arriving shortly after Seymour."
That's it. My description is roughly similar.
It is a case of hijacking, IMO. Hijack -- "To seize control of (a moving vehicle) by use of force, especially in order to reach an alternate destination." So, you are basically arguing that if I charter a plane, I can legitimately overpower the pilot and have him take me someplace other than where he contracted to take me?
More broken agreements from the South Carolinians.
I believe the ship in this case was contracted to take women and children and supplies over to Fort Johnson, not Sumter. In any event, a ship's captain has absolute command of his vessel, unless, of course, it is hijacked. Was maritime law different back then?
"Informal truce" indeed! It's a fine agreement when no one knows what they're agreeing to? Buchanan says he can't pledge anything, and they assume he's promised them something?
I gather that the Southern congressmen and senators were livid about Anderson's move to Sumter, telling Buchanan that Anderson's move breaking the December 10th agreement (Buchanan's "honor among gentlemen") would result in war. Anderson's move did lead to war eventually, of course, although there were so many other potential powder kegs that something else could have easily started the conflict. Perhaps even unruly Charlestonians might have invaded hard-to-defend Fort Moultie (Anderson's reason for moving to Sumter) and started the war. Who knows?
A similar Buchanan truce to maintain the status quo was in place at Fort Pickens. In April, the federal naval officer in charge of Pensacola refused to obey an order coming from Winfield Scott to offload troop reinforcements at Fort Pickens because it violated the truce. Lincoln had to send a special messenger to get the Pensacola officer to realize Lincoln intended to violate the truce. This happened about the same day that Chew informed Governor Pickens of Lincoln's latest ploy concerning Sumter.
As I've mentioned on these threads, I fault Davis for not holding the status quo at Sumter.
The idea that state officials could declare themselves independent and start giving ultimatums to the federal government overnight is so far from experience and understanding that it's hard to take it seriously.
Secession is not outlawed by the Constitution, your earlier argument notwithstanding. The issue at hand was not "ultimatums." The issue was whether you wished to be the one to start a war. The congressmen urged Buchanan to hold the status quo and negotiate about the fort. Apparently, he did not disagree.
It sounds like you would have started a war come what may.
I don't think this discussion is going anywhere.
Agreed. Why don't we cease and desist? We've beat this subject to death.
Appeal to force, and teleology.
{yawn}...kiss my grits boy.
Point me to the article that says, "Oh, and before the People act, they have to check with Non-Sequitur and his fellow enforcers."
Not on your life, liar.
Bottom line, you see yourself as a member of a faction victorious over the People, and determined to keep your privileges -- privileges of franking or nullifying the People's acts and limiting their choices, as their keepers, taskmasters, and tormentors for your advantage and pleasure. Risky business, Jack.
None of this conceded, of course. The People are sovereign, and I'm confident they'll overcome the various factions that want them for a hobbyhorse and service industry.
You rail against the old slave States constantly, you hate them, and you admit it; but you deal in compulsion, yea slavery, more readily than Bedford Forrest ever did, and you'd do it with free men. That you should want to do so, after having professed other ideals, will be your epitaph. It also explains your contempt and animosity against the legacy of Jefferson, and the people who still uphold it.
Jefferson professed eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the minds of men. He was talking about people like you. I honor his memory, you'd make it your footstool. Live with that; you've earned it.
Like Nelson Rockefeller, who thought he was campaigning in Georgia, you'd probably put sugar on them.
[You, coming out at last] Against the government they placed over them and the Constitution they agreed to abide by.
That about says it all, jackboot. You see the Constitution as a deed of ownership of the People -- a bill of indenture. Capture the Government, and you own the People. I was wrong, you're a bigger slaver than Forrest ever was.
I thought you protested too much. I was right.
How much Galleano have you had tonight pardner?
[Me] Troops, gentlemen. Lincoln sent troops, after telling Governor Pickens he wasn't doing any such thing.
[You, dissembling] Read the letter again. Supplies only, if not opposed. Troops and supplies if opposed.
Yeah, really? The envelope, please. Let's look at Lincoln's actual orders, written by General Scott and endorsed by Lincoln personally:
March 29, 1861
To the Secretary of the NavyI desire that an expedition, to move by sea be go ready to sail as early as the 6th of April next, the whole according to memorandum attached: and that you co-operate with the Secretary of War for that object.
Signed: Abraham Lincoln
[Attached memorandum]
From the Navy, three ships of war, the Pocahontas, the Pawnee and the Harriet Lane; and 300 seamen, and one month's stores.
From the War Department, 200 men, ready to leave garrison; and one year's stores.
April 1, 1861 by General Scott
April 2, 1861 approved by Abraham Lincoln
To: Brevet Colonel Harvey Brown, U.S. Army[Second memo of attachment]
April 4, 1861
To: Lieut. Col. H.L. Scott, Aide de CampThis 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
[Emphasis supplied]
Further notes: Fort Columbus (now renamed Fort Jay) was located on Governor's Island in New York Harbor. Also, it is worth noting that Forts Moultrie, and afterward, were in regular supply from the Charleston economy and that Anderson's men were in no need of supplies such as were carried by the flotilla from New York ordered out by Lincoln on March 29th.
The Confederate authorities, learning of the mission, then halted supplies to Fort Sumter on April 7th.
The mission was a catspaw, pure and simple.
The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean
The only thing that could be referring to is taking slave property into the territories. That was settled by the founding generation in the Northwest Ordinance. When southerners talked about "southern rights" they were talking about slavery. That's the only differentiation between northern and southern rights.
The document did talk about Indian warfare and maybe had a reference to tariffs in speaking of unequal legislation. But as long as tariffs were passed according to the procedures in the Constitution, I don't see a covenant breaker there unless an additional "southern right" is the right to be pleased 100% of the time with what Congress does.
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.