Posted on 12/24/2007 10:11:44 AM PST by wardaddy
But it was the property of another sovereign nation. Disposition would have required a treaty. Bombarding it would certainly be considered an act of war. But then you already knew that.
Are you suggesting that the State of South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter, due to some previously unmentioned failure to pay back taxes? Hmm? Sovereignty is the issue - perhaps you would care to address it...
No, you seem to be suggesting that since you were the one who raised taxes for some unknown reason. The confederacy fired on Sumter because it decided that posession of the fort was worth a war. Turns out that was one of their dumber decisions.
Actually, based on your posts here, the Tenth Amendment should say:
The powers not delegated to the States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the federal government, are reserved to the federal government, period.
Obviously, you can not defend your position on the basis of historical documentation available during the ratification. You're clearly a 'historical revisionist,' just like most of the other left-wing moon bats...
;>)
Sorry, sport - the ownership of a property does not necessarily include the specific right to fortify and garrison that property. I assume (based on your comments here, generously interpreted ;>) that you own your home "free and clear." Care to install AAA and hire mercenaries to man it? If you ever chose to do so, you would discover (first hand) the actual limits of ownership, "free and clear."
(Frankly, I hope you go for it - it would invigorate our average, dull news days... ;>)
And I must ask: are you suggesting that the State of South Carolina did not request that federal troops be removed from Fort Sumter? Or maybe you're claiming that the federal government was NOT in the process of reinforcing the garrison at Fort Sumter, when the fort was finally (after many months) fired upon?
The confederacy fired on Sumter because it decided that possession of the fort was worth a war. Turns out that was one of their dumber decisions.
Actually, the war was the direct result of the decision to reinforce the garrison at Fort Sumter (care to tally up the votes in the President's cabinet, for or against reinforcement? For or against 'war?' Hmm? ;>) - which was obviously an absolutely brilliant decision by the Chief Executive, assuming that killing 2/3 of a million Americans was that person's goal...
Go ahead Ron; run as an Independent. You will only takes votes from the Dem candidate.
I hope Bloomberg also runs as an Indy. And, how ‘bout little Denny Koocinni? Then, throw in Al Gore on the Green Party ticket......
Oh yeah; let ‘em all run.
Ron Paul will take votes from the Dem candidate??????
It does when the purpose is made clear to begin with. Sport. The legislation stated that South Carolina did "...cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory..." Now are you honestly suggesting that the South Carolina legislature didn't know that a fort would be armed and garrisoned? Sport?(Frankly, I hope you go for it - it would invigorate our average, dull news days... ;>)
Sorry. I'm apparently not blessed with your imagination.
And I must ask: are you suggesting that the State of South Carolina did not request that federal troops be removed from Fort Sumter?
And I must answer: they did demand that. And the federal government said no. So what?
Or maybe you're claiming that the federal government was NOT in the process of reinforcing the garrison at Fort Sumter, when the fort was finally (after many months) fired upon?
I am claiming that. In his message to Governor Pickens, Lincoln laid out his intentions: "I am directed by the President of the United States to notify you to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumpter (sic) with provisions only; and that, if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition, will be made, without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the Fort." Had the South not chosen to bombard the fort, and start the war, the April attempt would have landed food and supplies only.
Actually, the war was the direct result of the decision to reinforce the garrison at Fort Sumter...
Resupply the garrison. And there was nothing improper with that.
(care to tally up the votes in the President's cabinet, for or against reinforcement? For or against 'war?' Hmm? ;>)
Which vote? The one on March 15th where the cabinet was 5 to 2 against resupply? Or the one held about two weeks later, after reports from General Scott and Major Anderson and Stephen Hurlburt had been received, which voted 5 to 2 for resupply? But regardless of which one you're referring to, we don't have a parliamentary form of government. The President doesn't have to do what his cabinet recommends. In fact I'm surprised that you would even care what the cabinet said since you no doubt consider their posts unconstitutional.
...which was obviously an absolutely brilliant decision by the Chief Executive, assuming that killing 2/3 of a million Americans was that person's goal...
A not surprising assumption on your part. But since you're so hung up on cabinets, what about Jefferson Davis? His secretary of state warned him that "firing on that fort will inaugurate a civil war greater than any the world has yet seen...At this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend in the North...You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountains to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary; it put us in the wrong; it is fatal." Toombs was under no illusions as who was the aggressor and what the outcome would be. But 'ol JD went and started his war anyway, killing hundreds of thousands and leaving the South devastated in the process. Was it worth it?
And you are an every day, ordinary, run-of-the-mill moon bat. Who knew we had something in common?
Judging from the posts around here all of the Ron Paul loonies are from a fringe of the Republican party. I could see dissatisfied Dems going Green Party, but Ron Paul? Not in a million years.
Obviously, the State legislature knew the fort would be "armed and garrisoned" - the State had delegated certain responsibilities relating to its defense to the federal government, as specified by the specific written terms of the Constitution. Any agreement between the State and the federal government relating to Fort Sumter was based upon that delegation. When South Carolina withdrew from the union, that delegation ceased to exist - as the 1803 edition of Blackstone's Commentaries ( http://www.constitution.org/tb/tb-0000.htm ) noted:
The federal government then, appears to be the organ through which the united republics communicate with foreign nations, and with each other. Their submission to it's operation is voluntary: it's councils, it's engagements, it's authority are theirs, modified, and united. It's sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of it's functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent.
As I noted above, sovereignty is the issue - although you refuse to address it...
;>)
But ownership continued. Regardless of the original purpose, South Carolina did cede ownership of the property to the U.S. It did not own Sumter or the property it stood on, any more than New York owned Fort Hamilton or Massachusetts owned Fort Warren. And even had the South Carolina secession been legal that would not have changed. Disposition of the property would have been a matter for negotiations between sovereign nations, not some automatic transfer of ownership. As it turns out, the confederacy chose war to acquire that which it could not steal outright.
As I noted above, sovereignty is the issue - although you refuse to address it...
I didn't address it because it's irrelevant. At the most basic it could be said to be a property issue.
So now you're back to ownership? As antinomian so ably observed in his Post #363, "And you [Non-Sequitur] are still dodging the issue which is not the ownership of the fort but the army inside it. Who cares about the property title? The government can take a property title under eminent domain, but that wasn't the issue."
Regardless of the original purpose, South Carolina did cede ownership of the property to the U.S. It did not own Sumter or the property it stood on, any more than New York owned Fort Hamilton or Massachusetts owned Fort Warren.
And now you're suggesting that the original purpose has no bearing? (In your Post #386, you stated : "It does when the purpose is made clear to begin with. Sport." ;>). Thanks for coming around to my point of view. The fact that the State of South Carolina may have ceded title to it's agent, the federal government, for the purpose of defending Charleston (subject to the specific written terms of the Constitution), provided no justification whatsoever for the presence of federal troops on that property, once the State seceded (at which point the federal government ceased being the agent of the State). As for any fortifications in New York or Massachusetts, those States did not secede, so the federal government continued to serve as their agent in certain matters relating to defense.
And even had the South Carolina secession been legal that would not have changed. Disposition of the property would have been a matter for negotiations between sovereign nations, not some automatic transfer of ownership. As it turns out, the confederacy chose war to acquire that which it could not steal outright.
As noted by another: "[T]he issue... is not the ownership of the fort but the army inside it. Who cares about the property title? The government [of a seceded State] can take a property title under eminent domain..." Your suggestion that the Fort was fired upon to obtain ownership of the property (rather than to remove foreign troops) is simply idiotic. And the question of whether the federal troops were foreign or not is completely dependent upon the constitutionality of State secession.
I didn't address [the issue of sovereignty] because it's irrelevant. At the most basic it could be said to be a property issue.
Actually, it's the issue of property ownership that is irrelevant. But you've made one thing clear - your screen name is highly appropriate...
;>)
I've never been off it. You and antinomian have both chosen to ignore it, not being able to explain how the South magically became the owners of the fort.
Thanks for coming around to my point of view.
You really are mixed up, aren't you?
The fact that the State of South Carolina may have ceded title to it's agent, the federal government, for the purpose of defending Charleston (subject to the specific written terms of the Constitution), provided no justification whatsoever for the presence of federal troops on that property, once the State seceded (at which point the federal government ceased being the agent of the State).
South Carolina ceded the property to the federal government free and clear. They had no right to the property and no legal way to resume ownership. Your jibberish about 'agent of the state' notwithstanding.
As noted by another...
As pointed out time and again, yes it is. If Sumter was the property of the U.S. then their troops were there legally and South Carolina had no legal way of expelling them. The only way to do that was through negotiation or war, and they chose the later.
Your suggestion that the Fort was fired upon to obtain ownership of the property (rather than to remove foreign troops) is simply idiotic.
Who better than you would know if something was idiotic?
And the question of whether the federal troops were foreign or not is completely dependent upon the constitutionality of State secession.
And we've been over that before.
In fact, Southern voters were given extra representatives.
Such ignorance makes it impossible to take your post seriously.
Actually, ownership of the property is not an issue.
;>)
You really are mixed up, aren't you?
Only when I try to follow your convoluted, sorry-@ss excuse for reasoning, or attempt to understand your apparent preference for rule by an appointed judiciary, rather than the rule of written, constitutional law.
South Carolina ceded the property to the federal government free and clear. They had no right to the property and no legal way to resume ownership.
Actually, you're entirely wrong, if secession was constitutional - which is no doubt why you ignore that issue, in favor of your irrelevant 'property ownership' issue.
Your jibberish about 'agent of the state' notwithstanding.
I could have used the term "organ," as did St. George Tucker (quoted above), but thought I would simplify things for you...
;>)
As pointed out time and again, yes it is. If Sumter was the property of the U.S. then their troops were there legally and South Carolina had no legal way of expelling them.
If secession was constitutional, then the troops were foreign, and their presence in Fort Sumter, without the consent of the State, was illegal. You suggested in your Post #376 that "We cannot seize another countries embassy or consulates" (so it's your analogy ;>). We don't have to, sport: we can tell them to get the hell out of our country. And no foreign country has the unilateral right to occupy a consulate or an embassy within the boundaries of another (whether they own the property or not), without the consent of the host country. In other words, if secession was constitutional, then South Carolina had every right to order federal troops to leave Fort Sumter - your jibberish about 'property ownership' notwithstanding.
;>)
The only way to do that was through negotiation or war, and they chose the later.
Actually, the federal government chose the latter.
WIJG: "Your suggestion that the Fort was fired upon to obtain ownership of the property (rather than to remove foreign troops) is simply idiotic."
N-S: "Who better than you would know if something was idiotic?"
LOL! I tell you what, sport: cite some documents from the period suggesting that the Fort was fired upon simply to obtain ownership of the property, rather than to remove the troops. If you're right, I'm sure you won't have a problem. (In fact, your suggestion is quite literally idiotic.)
WIJG: "And the question of whether the federal troops were foreign or not is completely dependent upon the constitutionality of State secession."
N-S: "And we've been over that before."
(And you have yet to prove that secession was unconstitutional, which is no doubt why you argue irrelevancies such as 'property ownership.' ;>) But as I noted above, feel free to post some period documents suggesting that the Fort was fired upon only to obtain ownership of the property, rather than to force the removal of the federal troops...
Then there should have been no issue. The fort belonged to the federal government. The troops stationed there were federal troops. So why did the confederacy choose to start a war over it?
Actually, you're entirely wrong, if secession was constitutional - which is no doubt why you ignore that issue, in favor of your irrelevant 'property ownership' issue
And I have offered on several occasions to assume, for the sake of arguement, that the southern secession was legal. That still changes nothing. The fort belonged the the U.S. The troops were U.S. troops. They were not on confederate property. There was no invasion. There were no acts of aggression. So why did the confederacy start their war?
If secession was constitutional, then the troops were foreign, and their presence in Fort Sumter, without the consent of the State, was illegal.
Even if the acts of secession were legal how could that be so? The fort belonged to the U.S., you admit that. So the confederacy has no say over it. The troops were there and not on confederate territory, so they couldn't be in the confederacy illegally. How could that constitute an invasion or an illegal presence?
We don't have to, sport: we can tell them to get the hell out of our country.
And if they refuse to leave? Then what?
And no foreign country has the unilateral right to occupy a consulate or an embassy within the boundaries of another (whether they own the property or not), without the consent of the host country.
Would you care to try it? The UN occupies its headquarters and by treaty cannot be forced to leave. Embassies enjoy extraterritorial status and are considered the sovereign territory of the foreign government. You can order people out but if they hunker down in the embassy itself and refuse to leave then you can't enter to force them out without violating international law.
In other words, if secession was constitutional, then South Carolina had every right to order federal troops to leave Fort Sumter - your jibberish about 'property ownership' notwithstanding.
South Carolina could not order the U.S. to leave its own property. You might as well say that South Carolina could have also ordered the U.S. out of Fortress Monroe.
But in the cases you're talking about the country allows gives up some of its territory for the embassy to occupy. In the case of Sumter, the property was never part of the confederacy to begin with.
Actually, the federal government chose the latter.
Your knowledge of history is obviously as shaky as your knowledge of most everything else you post on. The confederacy chose war when it bombarded Sumter. Thus, and I'm playing along with the whole sovereign nation thing again, attacking the territory of another sovereign state, the U.S. That's an act of war in anyone's book.
And you have yet to prove that secession was unconstitutional...
Nor have you shown it to be constitutional. Now I can point to Supreme Court decisions which say it was illegal. But we already know what little regard you hold the Supreme Court in.
Another non sequitur from Non-Sequitur.
;>)
So why did the confederacy choose to start a war over it?
Actually, the federal government chose to start a war, by refusing to evacuate the fort.
And I have offered on several occasions to assume, for the sake of arguement, that the southern secession was legal. That still changes nothing.
And yet another non sequitur from Non-Sequitur.
The fort belonged to the U.S., you admit that.
I have assumed that your citations from some supposed documentation (which you have not linked or provided) regarding a cession of land by the State of South Carolina, as a party to the federal compact, to the federal government, for the purpose of defending Charleston are, in fact, correct (but then, I'm generous).
So the confederacy has no say over it. The troops were there and not on confederate territory, so they couldn't be in the confederacy illegally. How could that constitute an invasion or an illegal presence?
Foreign governments may own property within the boundaries of the United States (for example), but that does not confer a right to post troops (armed with heavy artillery) on that property.
Besides, you're a fan of implied powers, as your earlier posts on this thread make quite clear. Any cession of land for the purpose of defending the State necessarily implies the negation of such cession, when the right to such defense passes from the federal "organ" and reverts to the State - as it did when the State seceded.
;>)
You can order people out but if they hunker down in the embassy itself and refuse to leave then you can't enter to force them out without violating international law.
I do not believe South Carolina was a signatory to any such agreement. Care to be more specific?
South Carolina could not order the U.S. to leave its own property. You might as well say that South Carolina could have also ordered the U.S. out of Fortress Monroe.
That would presumably have been a decision for the State of Virginia, following the secession of that State.
But in the cases you're talking about the country allows gives up some of its territory for the embassy to occupy. In the case of Sumter, the property was never part of the confederacy to begin with.
The property was a part of the State of South Carolina, when that State existed as a independent and sovereign entity. When South Carolina entered the union formed under the Constitution, it delegated certain specific powers to a new "organ" created by that compact - the federal government. It ceded the property in question for the purpose of defending Charleston. When South Carolina seceded from the constitutional union, it re-assumed all powers previously delegated (see my Tucker's Blackstone's quote above). If the State subsequently elected to once again delegate certain powers to the Confederacy, that was certainly the State's right to do so.
The confederacy chose war when it bombarded Sumter. Thus, and I'm playing along with the whole sovereign nation thing again, attacking the territory of another sovereign state, the U.S. That's an act of war in anyone's book.
Actually, the federal government chose war when it refused to evacuate Fort Sumter. Maintaining a body of foreign troops, armed with heavy artillery, within the boundaries of another country without that country's permission, is an act of war in anyone's book.
Nor have you shown it to be constitutional.
Actually, I can quote the same clause cited by Senator Robert Augustus Toombs of Georgia, upon his departure from the United States Senate:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
There it is - in writing.
Now I can point to Supreme Court decisions which say it was illegal.
Actually, you've never mentioned that specific decision (it's Texas v. White, if I remember correctly). Unfortunately for you, that opinion contained even more obvious errors than the Marshall opinion you alluded to.
But we already know what little regard you hold the Supreme Court in.
Actually, I hold the court in very high regard, when it issues opinions that comply with the specific written terms of the Constitution, and are consistent with relevant historical documentation - or at least opinions that do not contain obvious falsehoods, or fail the basic rules of logic...
;>)
Amazing. You’re just making this shit up as you go along, aren’t you?
Oh, you betcha! So far as you know, I personally wrote all of the 'historical documentation' I cite, and control all of those 'official looking' web sites where it is posted, via my enormous influence within 'the vast right wing conspiracy'...
(But don't tell anyone - it's all 'top secret!' ;>)
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.