Posted on 05/24/2007 6:03:30 AM PDT by Rebeleye
...he was stunned to see two large Confederate flags flying from trucks...emblazoned with the words "The South Shall Rise Again." I'm stunned, too, that people still think it is cool to fly this flag. Our society should bury these flags -- not flaunt them...because the Confederate flag symbolizes racial tyranny to so many... ...This flag doesn't belong on city streets, in videos or in the middle of civil discussion. It belongs in our past -- in museums and in history books -- along with the ideas it represents.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansas.com ...
To call the Southern states 'invading states' is incorrect because while they did trespass on federal property at Sumter it was not an invasion. One invades other countries, not part of one's own. "Screwor" or "screwee" is also confusing. When you are talking about the Screwee then are you talking about the remaining states, left with debt, treaty obligations and suffering the loss of property stolen by the South? Or are you talking about Texas and their complaints about federal inaction they suffered when Southern Democrats ran Congress? It's just too hard to keep track. No, I truly believe that 'rebelling states' is still the most accurate description.
That would be a legitimate policy basis for going out of the Union, and in fact the Texans mention it a lot, as you can see.
It's amazing that Texas suffered in silence for so long and only chose to rebel once a president with a stated policy against the expansion of slavery was elected. I guess their patience just plumb wore out, huh? </sarcasm>
Then it is revolution or rebellion, and hence outside, perhaps even against, the Constitution. It's likely to result in war, since just who the People are is always open to debate.
You'll most likely argue that every state is a separate "People," and that nothing larger or smaller than a state is a "People." But once you break with the Constitution, as you do break with it to "determine your own fate" outside existing constitutional constraints, all bets are off, and everything from the smallest village to the largest ethnic group can declare itself a "People" with its own destiny and right to self-determination.
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?
Cher compère, I'm saying stay with the existing system for as long as you can and don't open up Pandora's box. One you do there's a world of pain. Not just from some higher authority, but from everyone else who wants to take up the same power that you've assumed for yourself.
The secession acts of the People of the Southern States, with the arguable exception of that of Arkansas whose legislature acted for that State rather than the People, were and still are "legal" -- in fact, they are above "legal", they are supraconstitutional, beyond the reach, and beyond the scope and review, of any government or court. They were absolute and absolutely sovereign acts of the People for which the People answer to nobody who is not the Lord high invisible God of Israel.
By the way, there is a word for someone who thinks the Government is sovereign, the highest entity in society. Look that up in your Merriam-Webster's.
I'm sure there's an exception for law enforcement authorities. Tongue in cheek, I'd say that Jack Bauer does it all the time. Do you really think Confederate authorities never commandeered any vehicles?
It sounds like you would have started a war come what may.
No, but the federal authorities had a right to hold the line, to maintain the forts that were their property until things were sorted out. Negotiations of some sort could have been undertaken, but no state had the authority to seize or demand federal property without due process.
Agreed. Why don't we cease and desist? We've beat this subject to death.
Okay by me.
I'm familiar with Harper's site. And while he makes some valid points, it still doesn't quite support your point that "millions" of yankees invested capital in the slave trade, unless by "invested capital" you count, for example, making barrels that might be used to transport rum that might be used to purchase slaves. Maybe to you there's no difference between investing capital and producing goods that may or may not be used as an element of the slave trade. I guess I just have a stricter definition of "investing capital." Of course, by your definition, every southerner, including your non-slaveowning ancestors, were just as hip deep in the slave biz, since every good produced in an economy that includes slavery goes to support slavery, at least tangentially. Your definition would also mean that, say, gun manufacturers have invested capital in the drug trade, since some guns are used by drug dealers.
But a few days later, I did a Google search of "Northern slavery" and "slavery in the North," and my pages were no longer at the top of the list.
Well, it's the #1 hit today.
Well, it might have been the Wide Awakes who were running around Texas, trying to burn the place down and start a slave rising.
That would tend to piss people off.
If that's your gold standard for valid secession then you should probably take issue with a number of other states. South Carolina, taken into rebellion solely by act of the state legislature without referendum. North Carolina, taken into rebellion by act of the state legislature despite a popular referendum against secession. Virginia, admitted to the confederacy and taking arms against the federal government before the popular referendum was held. And so on and so forth.
...in fact, they are above "legal", they are supraconstitutional, beyond the reach, and beyond the scope and review, of any government or court.
But here on planet Earth we generally refer to those as 'rebellion'.
So it was all about slavery after all?
Not really. The attendees of the Philadelphia Convention, of the ratification conventions in Virginia, New York, and elsewhere, and of the Virginia Constitutional Convention in 1830 all understood who the People were, and that they were the People of their State.
That is the fundamental building-block of the American political and constitutional system.
Or do I have to quote Federalist 39 yet again, one more weary time?
But once you break with the Constitution, as you do break with it to "determine your own fate" outside existing constitutional constraints, all bets are off, and everything from the smallest village to the largest ethnic group can declare itself a "People" with its own destiny and right to self-determination.
No, only the States are Peoples. Cities aren't. Basic colonial and American history, again.
Your point about defending sovereignty is well-taken, and one of the arguments for the Constitution was security, and the security of freedom. I guess they just didn't install adequate safeguards against getting drygulched by a lawyer-president.
Which is basically what happened.
Lincoln put together a bogus lawyer's theory about the Union's predating, and therefore somehow superordinating the States, meaning that the Union -- the United States Government -- was the real Sovereign instead of the People, never mind the Conventions and the Federalist, and so it could tell the People what to do, and then he picked a fight he figured he could win, using his theory and the political wedge issue he "discovered" in 1854 to justify sending hordes of fresh immigrants south to burn out his marks.
Worked slick, except for Booth. Hazards of war, I guess.
Arson, and people trying to start race wars.
There was no rebellion, just as there was no rebellion whenever King Edward VII changed his trousers.
OK, now your analogies are getting odder by the minute. What do Edward VII's trousers have to do with rebellion, Southern or other?
I'm sure there's an exception for law enforcement authorities.
Whose law were they enforcing? Certainly not local law, because South Carolina had two steamers patroling the harbor since the night of the 20th to ensure that no one moved to Sumter except authorized workers. (Klein, paperback version, pg 153).
I imagine the ship captain who had been contracted to take women and children over to Fort Johnson was quite aware of the patrling steamers and their purpose and did not want to put his ship in danger by taking it to Sumter.
I did find mention of the charter. It was as I suspected. From Klein, pg 154: "He [Anderson] had sent Lieutenant Norman C. Hall to charter three schooners and some barges ostensibly to move the women and children in Moultrie across the harbor to Fort Johnson."
Then I found this in reference to Governor Pickens and the truce with Buchanan. Klein, pg 163: "Rhett senior and three legislators had visited Pickens soon after his arrival in Charleston to urge that all measures be taken to keep federal soldiers out of Sumter. Rhett had also tried to get the convention to approve siezure of the forts. But Pickens was adamant; he would not move so long as the "understanding" remained in place and until the commissioners [rb note: South Carolina's commissioners to Washington] had had a chance to fulfill their mission."
Your "law enforcers" didn't want to be seen by the patrol boats. In one instance they removed their caps and coats and hid their arms and insignia to fool a patrol boat into thinking that they were a regular Sumter workparty. If was dusk or after dark.
Sounds like Jack Bauer all right. Where was Chloe when the South Carolinians needed her?
OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 1, vol 1, Part 1 (Charleston Campaign) Page 236
HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY, Washington, D. C., April 4, 1861.
Lieutenant Colonel HENRY L. SCOTT, A. D. C., New York:
SIR: This letter will be landed to you by Captain G. V. Fox, ex-officer of the Navy, and a gentleman of high standing, as well as possessed of extraordinary nautical ability. He is charged by high authority here with the command of an expedition, under cover of certain ships of war, whose object is to re-enforce Fort Sumter.
To embark with Captain Fox you will cause a detachment of recruits, say about two hundred, to be immediately organized at Fort Columbus, with a competent number of officers, arms, ammunition, and subsistence. A large surplus of the latter-indeed, as great as the vessels of the expedition can take — with other necessaries, will be needed for the augmented garrison of Fort Sumter.
The subsistence and other supplies should be assorted like those which were provided by you and Captain Ward of the Navy for a former expedition. Consult Captain Fox and Major Eaton on the subject, and give all necessary orders in my name to fit out the expedition, except that the hiring of vessels will be left to others.
Some fuel must be shipped. Oil, artillery implements, fuses, cordage, slow-march, mechanical levers, and gins, &c., should also be put on board.
Consult, also, if necessary, confidentially, Colonel Tompkins and Major Thornton.
Respectfully, yours,
WINFIELD SCOTT.
Mr. McSWEENEY, THE CHARLESTON BUTCHER WHO REGULARLY SUPPLIED FORT SUMTER. Meats from the farmer’s market; vegetables; fruit; and fish.
OFFICIAL RECORDS: Armies, Series 1, Volume 1 Page 144
EXECUTIVE OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF WAR
Charleston, January 19, 1861.
Maj. ROBERT ANDERSON:
SIR: I am instructed by his excellency the governor to inform you that he has directed an officer of the State to procure and carry over with your mails each day to Fort Sumter such supplies of fresh meat and vegetables as you may indicate.
I am, sir, respectfidiy yours,
D. F. JAMISON.
FORT SUMTER S. C., January 19, 1861
Hon. D. F. JAMISON,
Executive Office, Department of War:
SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of this date, stating that you are authorized by his excellency the governor to inform me that he has directed an officer of the State to procure and carry over with my mails each day to Fort Sumter such supplies of fresh meat and vegetables as I may indicate. I confess that I am at a loss to understand the latter part of this message, as I have not represented in any quarter that we were in need of such supplies. As commandant of a military post, I can only have my troops furnished with fresh beef in the manner prescribed by law, and I am compelled, therefore, with due thanks to his excellency, respectfully to decline his offer. If his suggestion is based upon a right, then I must procure the meat as we have been in the habit of doing for years, under an unexpired contract with Mr. McSweeney, a Charleston butcher, who would, I presume, if permitted, deliver the meat, &c., at this fort or at Fort Johnson, at the usual periods for such delivery, four times in ten days. If the permission is founded on courtesy and civility, I am compelled respectfully to decline accepting it, with a reiteration of my thanks for having made it. in connection with this subject, I deem it not improper respectfully to suggest that his excellency may do an act of humanity and great kindness if he will permit one of the New York steamers to stop with a lighter and take the womeu and children of this garrison to that city. The confinement within the walls of this work, and the impossibility of my having it in my power to have them furnished with the proper and usual articles of food, will, I fear, soon produce sickness among them. The compliance with this request will confer a favor upon a class of persons to whom similar indulgences are always granted, even during a siege in time of actual war, and will be duly appreciated by me.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ROBERT ANDERSON,
Major, First Artillery, Commanding Fort Sumter.
P.S. — I hope that the course I have deemed it my duty to take in reference to the supplies will have a tendency to allay an excitement which, jndging from the tenor of the paragraphs in to-day’s paper, I fear they are trying to get up in the city.
FOOD WAS SUPPLIED TO FORT SUMTER UNTIL APRIL 7, 1861
There was no food shortage. It is well-documented that Fort Sumter had obtained food from the merchants of Charleston since shortly after Major Anderson moved there. It is well documented by the official records of both sides that the supply of food from the Charleston merchants was not cut off until April 7, 1861. After the South Carolina officials learned of the fleet that was sailing toward them, they cut off the food supply.
UNION CORRESPONDENCE
[247]
No; 96.
FORT SUMTER, S. C., April 7, 1861.
(Received A. G. O., April 13.)
Col. L. THOMAS,
Adjutant- General U. S. Army:
COLONEL:
I have the honor to report that we do not see any work going on around us. There was more activity displayed by the guard-
[248] boats last night than has been clone for some time. Three of them remained at anchor all night and until after reveille this morning, near the junction of the three channels. You will see by the inclosed letter, just received from Brigadier-General Beauregard that we shall not get any more supplies from the city of Charleston. I hope that they will continne to let us have onr mails as long as we remain. I am glad to be enabled to report that there have been no new cases of dysentery, and that the sick-list only embraces six cases to-day.
I am, colonel, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ROBERT ANDERSON,
Major, First Artillery, Commanding.
[Inclosure.l
CONFEDERATE CORRESPONDENCE
HEADQUARTERS OF THE PROVISIONAL ARMY, C. S.,
Charleston, S. C., April 7, 1861.
Maj. ROBERT ANDERSON,
Commanding at Fort Sumter, Charleston Harbor S. C.:
Sir:
In compliance with orders from the Confederate Government at Montgomery, I have the honor to inform you that, in consequence of the delays and apparent vacillations of the United States Government at Washington relative to the evacuation of Fort Sumter, no further communications for the purposes of supply with this city from the fort and with the fort from this city will be permitted from and after this day. The mails, however, will continue to be transmitted as heretofore, until further instructions from the Confederate Government.
I remain, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
G.T. BEAUREGARD,
Brigadier- General, Commanding
Though Lincoln allowed himself to be portrayed as being concerned with the “starving” garrison, it was his orders to the civilian Fox and the activity at the Naval yard in New York that prompted the Confederacy to cease supplies.
Lincoln wanted a confrontation with the secession group, and set about to be the prime mover and catalyst for the action that he would peg as the beginning of war.
The states undoubtedly are a fundamental building-block of our system, but it's not that states have some divine right to prevail over other polities. It's that we need a division of power between federal and local authorities, and the states provide that.
You apparently want to make the decisions of British Kings prevail over those of the Founding Fathers. If King Charles chartered separate colonies under the British Crown are they forever to be sovereign with no ability to form a more general government? If King George didn't want to recognize a federal union but ony separate states, does that mean we didn't have and could never form such a union?
Or do I have to quote Federalist 39 yet again, one more weary time?
Not if you're going to get it wrong again: "The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both." Thus the Constitution is more than a mere league of independent states.
They say the Civil War was fought over a word: "The United States is" versus "The United States are." I don't think that's quite right. 20th century American usage differs from 18th century British, so we'd be saying "is" even without fighting a war.
But it looks like you're willing to fight over the word "sovereignty." One problem is that the states relinquished most of the attributes of sovereignty at the beginning of the Republic -- separate armies, navies, currencies, embassies, treaty-making, import regulations, etc. The other problem is that you can't reconcile the Constitution's "Supremacy Clause" (Article VI, Clause 2) with state sovereignty:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Sure you can - it's rather simple. The Supremacy clause states, 'This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; ...'
Unless you have a delegated power preventing a state from exercising a power, per the 10th (superseding any prior verbiage) such power remains with the state.
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.