Posted on 12/24/2001 4:25:26 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
When the rebs here claimed it was a Customs House I started doing some surfing. It turns out Sumter was not even completed even though it was under construction for over 30 years. It sounds like it was a Federal Boondoggle project and was never actually 'open for business' let alone as a customs house.
A preliminary survey of the entire coastline of the fledgling United States was begun in 1817, and by 1828 plans had been drawn and adopted for Ft. Sumter¹s construction. In the introspective atmosphere of the Ante-Bellum United States, which expected little chance of naval assault from any foreign nation, construction on the new fort was slow and in 1834, with only its granite foundation above the water¹s surface, construction was halted altogether due to an ownership dispute over the actual property on which the fort sat. Construction resumed in January of 1841but by 1860, on the eve of South Carolina¹s secession from the Union, the fort was still incomplete.When South Carolina seceded on December 20, 1860 Ft. Sumter¹s outward appearance was impressive towering nearly 60 feet above the water¹s surface, with masonry walls five feet thick, and three levels of guns on four of its five sides, but the barracks and the officer¹s quarters, which lined the fort¹s rear 317 foot gorge wall were still under construction. If one took the time to inspect the structure further they would also have noticed that many of the second tier gun embrasures remained opened, each about 15 feet square. Much work still remained to be done. Despite its incomplete state, Sumter was the most recently armed of all the United States forts with potential to mount 135 guns, however, only 10 of these weapons were actually mounted, all defiantly facing the Atlantic Ocean. The balance of the fort¹s weapons were stacked on the parade ground. Along with piles of construction sand and a city of storage sheds.
One mile to the north-east, across the entrance of Charleston Harbor on the southern tip of Sullivan¹s Island, sat Ft. Moultrie and its 80-odd man garrison of the First United States Artillery. Moultrie was the polar opposite of Sumter; it was as old as the hills and was barely 11 feet in height with delapidated walls upon which decades of sand drift had accumulated. It was no uncommon sight to find local cows grazing on the weeds that grew out of Moultrie¹s ancient masonry walls. As secession became a reality, Moultrie¹s meagher garrison was the only organized force available to resist the state¹s action. Hopelessly outnumbered by hostile civilians and state militia, Moultrie¹s commander, Kentuckian Major Robert Anderson, decided to transfer his tiny garrison across the channel to the much more defensible Ft. Sumter. At Sumter Anderson could be re-supplied and reinforced more easily than at Moultrie, and if his government desired, he would be in a position to bottle up Charleston Harbor to all outside shipping. In a text book maneuver during the night of December 26-27, 1860 Anderson and his men slipped across the water and occupied Ft. Sumter. When the citizenry of Charleston awoke the morning of the 27th to find U.S. forces occupying the strongest bastion in the new Palmetto Republic, all hell broke loose!
Source: http://www.civilwarcharleston.com/fort_sumter.html
Nothing suggests Sumter was ever a customs house. Just more fables from the modern day appogilists for the Southern Slavocarcy.
You guys must have reading comprehension problems. No one here said that the North went to war to end slavery.
Let me say that again just so it might sink through your thick skull.
The North did not go to war to end slavery! They went to war to preserve the Union!
Do you get it now?
Moreover, it undermines the claim that the South seceded to preserve the institution of slavery. If that had been the South's goal, then what better guarantee did it need than an unrepealable amendment to the Constitution to protect slavery as it then existed?
The radicals that caused secession knew full well that Lincoln and the vast majority of Republicans had no intention of ending slavery as it then existed. Lincoln said so very explicitly both before and after he was elected. He repeted that pledge in his innugural. But that was not good enough for those greedy bastards in Charleston and elsewhere. They were not interested in preserving slavery as it then existed. They were interested in the expansion of slavery to the west. They wanted that for two reasons. One was the money they could get from selling slaves and the second was to create additional slave states to maintain their political power in congress. They knew Lincoln and the Republicans would not roll over as the Whigs had done for 40 years and allow the slavers to get their way. Lincoln, the Republicans, and the vast majority of Northerners would never allow westward expansion of slavery and that is why the Slavocracy broke the Union. It was all about slavery. The radicals were a small faction, they were skillful propagandists. They used trumpted up states rights issues and outright fear of 'free blacks' raping and pilliging to fire up the citizenery into support for their scheem.
And if you don't think the seven deep south states that were the first to seceed didn't do it because of slavery, you must be calling those very same individuals liars. Whiskey Papa has alread posted the secession documents from those states that say quite plainly that they were breaking the Union and going to war to defend the instution of slavery.
I'm not going to go looking for it, but I did apologize for accidently directing that post to you instead of the real racist that did post it. You know that is a fact.
I didn't attribute words to you and you get all upset. Seems like you may have some sort of unwarranted superiority complex.
Excuse me? What the hell do you call this?
To: ConfederateMissouri
You must keep in mind that Ditto learned his "history" at the Walt Disney Institute. The North was all pious and in no way profited from the slave trade. All Southerners are fork-tongued serpents who only enslaved Africans in order to abuse them and become filthy rich. Also, America started with Plymouth Rock, there was no Jamestown, the Pilgrims came here for religious freedom and not financial profit, etc. etc.
268 posted on 12/27/01 10:26 AM Pacific by Leesylvanian
When did I say any of that.
Your observation regarding “dreck,” “half-truths, myth and misinformation” reminded me of something else I read recently:
...(T)he people of the United States as a -whole- are the sovereigns of the country and NOT the states...
Walt
124 posted on 12/26/01 2:55 AM Pacific by WhiskeyPapa
As James Madison noted in Federalist No. 39:
“In order to ascertain the real character of the government, it may be considered in relation to the foundation on which it is to be established...
“On examining [this] first relation, it appears, on the one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State - the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution will not be a national but a federal act.
”That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors - the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation - is obvious from this single consideration: that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules has been adopted. Each State in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act...” (italics in the original)
Mr. Madison refuted your "people of the United States as a -whole-" claim at least four different times, just within this short passage. Your statement therefore seems unable to qualify even as a “half-truth:” would you prefer that we refer to it as “dreck,” “myth,” or "misinformation?”
;>)
I told you to get used to seeing this:
To: donmeaker
Under the terms of the 10th Amendment, powers not delegated or prohibited by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people of the States - and the Constitution nowhere delegates or prohibits secession. 'So: there. No legal foundation to oppose secession. End of story.' As Harvard history professor William Gienapp recently noted, "the proponents of secession had a strong constitutional argument, probably a stronger argument than the nationalists advanced"...;>)
57 posted on 12/24/01 2:36 PM Pacific by Who is John Galt?
Okay, that is not what the tenth amendment says.
Now, as to Madison:
In Dec., 1832, he wrote to Nicholas P. Trist as follows
"The essential difference between a free Government and Governments that are not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater right to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of 1898, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice."
(James Madison, Writings; Rakove, Jack N., editor; The Library of America; 1999; p. 862)
In March, 1833, he wrote to William Cabell Rives as follows:
"The nullifiers it appears, endeavor to shelter themselves under a distinction between a delegation and a surrender of powers. But if the powers be attributes of sovereignty & nationality & the grant of them be perpetual, as is necessarily implied, where not otherwise expressed, sovereignty & nationality are effectually transferred by it, and the dispute about the name, is but a battle of words. The practical result is not indeed left to argument or inference. The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. shall be supreme over the Constitution and laws of the several States; supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority.
Without a supremacy in those respects it would be like a scabbard in the hands of a soldier without a sword in it. The imagination itself is startled at the idea of twenty four independent expounders of a rule that cannot exist, but in a meaning and operation, the same for all.
"The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification; but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdrasw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a state, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired agst. (sic) their bretheren of other States, not to expose them, to the dangers of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned; that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co-States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtrude it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them!"
(ibid; pp. 864, 865)
You can't dragoon Madison into supporting your lies.
Walt
Given the historical-revisionist, pseudo-constitutional, mental and moral 'gymnastics' required to 'justify' the use of armed force to prevent State secession, your statement would be much more valid if you changed a single word - substitute 'northern' for "southern."
As always, I will refer you to the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
“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.”
When you can show us where the Constitution "delegated" or "prohibited" secession, you can change 'northern' back to "southern."
;>)
To: donmeaker
Under the terms of the 10th Amendment, powers not delegated or prohibited by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people of the States - and the Constitution nowhere delegates or prohibits secession. 'So: there. No legal foundation to oppose secession. End of story.' As Harvard history professor William Gienapp recently noted, "the proponents of secession had a strong constitutional argument, probably a stronger argument than the nationalists advanced"...
;>)
57 posted on 12/24/01 2:36 PM Pacific by Who is John Galt?
Okay, that is not what the tenth amendment says.
Now, as to Madison:
Thank you for posting the perfect lead in: “Now, as to Madison:”
"...(T)his assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong...[an] act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation..."
And as you are aware, any ‘reservation’ of rights or powers applies only to the parties to a compact: in this case (as Mr. Madison makes abundantly clear) “the people...composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong” (or as I put it, “the people of the States” ;>). In other words, “you can't dragoon Madison into supporting your lies.”
;>)
As for the rest of your quotes:
1) Not a single one of them supports your “people of the United States as a –whole-“ nonsense;
2) Each and every one was made many decades after ratification, and is therefore less relevant than Mr. Madison’s comments during the ratification debates;
3) The fact that the “Constitution & laws of the U. S. shall be supreme” in no way affects any reservation of rights agreed to under the terms of the same Constitution;
4) The phrase “Neither of them therefore can have a greater right to break off from the bargain” suggests equal rights, not superior rights;
5) And “whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co-States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them...” in no way precludes State secession. Quite the opposite, in fact: Mr. Madison used similar language in Federalist No. 43 when he discussed the secession of the ratifying States from the so-called ‘perpetual union’ formed under the Articles of Confederation (a subject you avoid like a vampire avoids holy water):
Two questions of a very delicate nature present themselves on this occasion: 1. On what principle the Confederation, which stands in the solemn form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without the unanimous consent of the parties to it? 2. What relation is to subsist between the nine or more States ratifying the Constitution, and the remaining few who do not become parties to it?
...(A)n answer (to the first question) may be found without searching beyond the principles of the compact itself...A compact between independent sovereigns, founded on ordinary acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void. Should it unhappily be necessary to appeal to these delicate truths for a justification for dispensing with the consent of particular States to a dissolution of the federal pact, will not the complaining parties find it difficult to answer the multiplied and important infractions with which they may be confronted? The time has been when it was incumbent on us all to veil the ideas which this paragraph exhibits. The scene is now changed, and with it the part which the same motives dictate.
The second question is not less delicate...It is one of those cases which must be left to provide for itself. In general, it may be observed that although no political relation can subsist between the assenting and dissenting States, yet the moral relations will remain uncanceled. The claims of justice, both on one side and on the other, will be in force, and must be fulfilled; the rights of humanity must in all cases be duly and mutually respected; whilst considerations of a common interest, and, above all, the remembrance of the endearing scenes which are past, and the anticipation of a speedy triumph over the obstacles to reunion, will, it is hoped, not urge in vain moderation on one side, and prudence on the other.
And, as you are no doubt aware, Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson repeatedly referred to the Constitution as a compact among the States, and to the States as parties to the constitutional compact.
Shall I post quotes?
;>)
Does that mean you can't "show us where the Constitution 'delegated' or 'prohibited' secession? Perhaps, then, you can show us where the federal government was ever authorized to act upon any other basis?
;>)
I post the Tenth Amendment, verbatim, and you post "Yadda, yadda, yadda." I will let others judge which post more closely resembles 'Seinfeld'...
;>)
Neither of them were on the Supreme Court.
Walt
You have on occasion -failed- to post the tenth amendment verbatim.
To: donmeaker
Under the terms of the 10th Amendment, powers not delegated or prohibited by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people of the States - and the Constitution nowhere delegates or prohibits secession. 'So: there. No legal foundation to oppose secession. End of story.' As Harvard history professor William Gienapp recently noted, "the proponents of secession had a strong constitutional argument, probably a stronger argument than the nationalists advanced"...;>)
57 posted on 12/24/01 2:36 PM Pacific by Who is John Galt?
All your posts don't make a hill of beans.
No reasonable person would adopt your positiion based on the whole record--which you tried to subvert.
Walt
Ah, yes - your tired old cicular argument: you insist that the court determines what the Constitution means because the court says it determines what the Constitution means. One legal scholar recently made this observation regarding your court:
“The careful reader will no doubt notice that judges are not exactly the heroes and heroines of my tale [of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights]. Federal judges, after all, enthusiastically enforced the infamous Sedition Act of 1798, cheerfully sending men to prison for their antigovernmental speech and neutering juries along the way. It is hard to imagine a bigger betrayal of the original Bill of Rights, whether we look at the First, or the Sixth, or the Tenth Amendment. A century later, the Supreme Court strangled the privileges-or-immunities clause in its crib in the Slaughter-House Cases; blessed Jim Crow in Plesy; and blithely allowed judges to fine a newspaper publisher (in a juryless proceeding lacking specific statutory authorization) simply because the publisher had the audacity to criticize the very judges in question. [Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454 (1907)] (Thus a single [federal] court acted as legislature, prosecutor, complaining witness, judge, and jury - quite a trick if you can get away with it.) Due process of law, according to the Taney Court, was satisfied by fugitive-slave hearings presided over by a financially biased adjudicator, but violated by free-soil laws like the Northwest Ordinance. And although Roger Taney himself (rightly) had doubts about the federal government’s power to draft citizens outside the Constitution’s careful militia system, the Supreme Court, in the Selective Draft Law Cases, gave this argument the back of its hand.
“...As Phillip Bobbitt and Richard Fallon have observed, textual arguments count in court - and so do arguments from history and original intent - but precedent counts, too. Judges must consider all these factors, and others as well, when deciding cases...”
In other words, the precedent established by your 'men in black' is hardly the flawless icon required by your 'whatever-the-court-says-is-right-is-right' argument. Perhaps you should consider "textual arguments," "history" and "original intent" (i.e., 'reality') from time to time...
;>)
No reasonable person would adopt your positiion based on the whole record--which you tried to subvert.
You are nothing if not entertaining, friend Walt! I quote the ratification debates, the Federalist Papers, the ratification documents of the States, the words of Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison, the early history of the Republic, the most prominent legal references of the era, the Constitution itself, and judicial opinions consistent with the foregoing - in other words, “the whole record.” You quote your ‘men in black.’ My position is based upon "textual arguments," "history," "original intent," and consistent “precedent.” Yours is based almost solely upon “precedent” (whether it is consistent or not), and almost completely ignores everything else.
(Speaking of which, would you care to discuss the secession of the ratifying States from the so-called ‘perpetual union’ formed under the Articles of Confederation? No? How about the palpably unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts – which were enforced by federal judges? I thought not. What was it, again, that you were saying about "the whole record?" ;>)
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.