Posted on 02/03/2006 3:38:06 PM PST by churchillbuff
The fact of the matter is that South Carolina gave up all right, title, or claim to the property Sumter was built on. South Carolina law apparently did recognize the property, soggy as it was, as land belonging to the state because the 1836 legislation was in response to a claim by a man named William Laval. He had filed claim to the property under a 1791 statute governing how South Carolina disposed of it's vacant property. Rather than lose the fort, South Carolina deeded it to the U.S. and appointed a commission to clear up the Laval claim. Something that they would not have done if the land wasn't their's.
Despite the resolution you recited, there is no evidence that the State of South Carolina could dispense with any underwater feature that was under navigable river or harbor water. It had no power to do so.
Interesting claim. You base this on?
Additionally, there was no law that permitted the US Corps of Engineers to begin to dump the granite rock which it did before receiving any permission from the state to introduce anything that might affect the water patterns in the harbor.
The Army began doing so on the orders of the Secretary of Was in 1827. A gentleman named John C. Calhoun, someone with more than a passing interest in the area. But hey, what did he know, right? He didn't have you to advise him.
In doing this, no deed or absolute ownership was created.
Sure there was. In giving up all rights, deeds and claims to the property, South Carolina was establishing ownership by the federal government.
In fact, there were stipulations to the cede that involved Federal responsibility for construction within certain time periods that in fact, the government failed to meet.
So you all have claimed, though I've not seen anyone post the document that establishes that. In any case, every claim of this clause that I've seen all say that the clause predates the 1836 agreement. That would be binding, and other than allowing for the serving of criminal or civil papers that agreement places no time limit or restrictions.
In December of 1860, South Carolina attempted to buy the fort to avoid hostilities.
Really? And how much did they offer to pay for it?
They don't tell you that on the FT. Sumter Tour.
I would venture to guess that a lot of what you claim isn't covered by any reputable tour.
I leave the tripe to you. But as to where I got the information from it was the USPS website. Free home delivery didn't begin until 1863. Prior to that people picked up their mail at their post office.
Now you would have us believe that newspapers were so dependent on the mail system that being barred from the mails had the effect of removing the papers from circulation. In your world that seems to be the only way people got their papers. I'm pointing out that it would seem to me that depending solely on the mail was a poor way of distributing your product in a timely manner. In fact, the overwhelming majority of newspapers were sold directly to the consumers, and the mails played a small part in the distribution. Being banned from the mail did not remove a paper from circulation, no matter how much you would have us believe. If meant that out of town customers didn't get the newspaper, but I challenge you to show a city newspaper that depended on the mail for the bulk of its circulation.
He was to be sent to jail, Brownlow continued, "because I have failed to recognize the hand of God in the work of breaking up the American government, and the inauguration of the most wicked, cruel, unnatural, and uncalled for war, ever in recorded history." He pledged, if it was ever within his power, to make good on his obligations to his subscribers, and tried to get away. He was caught in North Carolina, returned to Nashville, and put in jail, where he contracted typhoid fever. His confinement was shifted to house arrest; then, still in poor health, he was released and banished to the North on March 3, 1863."
From "Blue & Grey in Black and White: Newspapers in the Civil War" by Brayton Harris, pp 112-113.
Hey...you said no country. I'm just responding to your statement.
Next you'll be trotting out the old "Pope recognized the confederacy" chestnut. Still, all I'm saying is that I've seen more than one version of that unsubstantiated claim and I think the claim is suspect.
I'm still looking for the part where he praises Lincoln like you said he did.
Why did you say he did, when he didn't?
I'll take a guess. Like the left you won't allow truth and historical accuracy to get in the way of you moonbat ideology so you'll say anything that's convienent for the moment. And when you're shown to be wrong, you just "Moveon" (c) and make up some new "facts".
Lots of us around here don't play that game.
Actually, I believe that the Pope did recognize the Confederacy. I have seen the Crown of Thorns he had delivered to Jeff Davis, while imprisoned in Ft. Monroe, after the war. It is in the Confederate Memorial Museum in New Orleans.
I guess you prove it. Goodbye.
That's all you have to say.
That's funny since most of the people who wrote or had a hand in the making of the Constitution had no problem with sucession since they just did it themselves.
That's funny since most of the people who wrote or had a hand in the making of the Constitution had no problem with secession since they just did it themselves.
From "Blue & Grey in Black and White: Newspapers in the Civil War" by Brayton Harris, pp 112-113.
Your source is in error.
HEADQUARTERS,
Knoxville, March 3, 1862.
Honorable J. P. BENJAMIN, Secretary of War.
SIR: Your telegraphic order [of 1st instant] to transmit Doctor Brownlow out of Tennessee by "Cumberland Mountains or any safe road" was received on Saturday. This morning I sent Doctor Brownlow in charge of Colonel [H. Casey] Young of General Carroll's staff with a guard of ten men to Nashville and thence to Kentucky. I did not deem it safe to send by any of the mountain passes.
With great respect, I have the honor to be, your obedient servant,
G. H. MONSARRAT,
Captain, Commanding Post
"It is on chapter 10, page 566. Hitler take on the Federated state. He doesn't say Lincoln's name, but you get the point:"
There is no point. The point is that Hitler knew more about American government than you do. He knew enough to figure out that the States are not soveirgn independent nations. When you try to compare Lincoln to Hitler you just make a fool out of yourself.
Whoop-de-do. And I've read the account of the U.S. ambassador to the Papal States where he says the Pope's Secretary of State denies that His Holiness intended diplomatic recognition in his letter. Post-rebellion gifts to the contrary not withstanding.
You are absolutely correct in saying that people have no constitutional right to revolt. No such concept exists, and it would be preposterous to think of any such right. However, recall that the Constitution is an organic creation of the States acceding to it (ratifying it): The Constitution does not create rights it merely limits the exercise of powers by the general Government, and by the States acceding to its terms. (At least, under its ORIGINAL design, which we are NO LONGER operating under!)
However, recall that the Declaration of Independence states that when " it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
In other words, the Declaration of Independence declares that men have the right to dissolve their governments (of which the Constitution is one) and re-establish their political station in a manner which is no longer oppresive.
The only thing absolutely proven by the outcome of the Civil War, is that the Declaration of Independence is absolutely dead to the modern world, and no longer holds any validity, particularly when the Government is entrusted and entitled to vast military powers.
Respectfully,
~dt~
I am terribly sorry, my friend, but you are operating under a completely mistaken understanding of the American concept of delegation of powers. The powers granted to the Federal government are granted to them not by the Constitution, which is a non-living instrument, similar to a treaty; but, by the States, which are the sovereign signatories TO that treaty.
You will find NO, and I cannot stress this enough, contemporary resources, books, newspaper articles, or other material from the timeframe surrounding the ratification of the Constitution, that would suggest ANYTHING similar to the position you are taking, my friend, and I urge you to go back and look at the DIRECT historical record if you don't believe me. Original sources, original sources, original sources!
The States agreed, under the Articles of Confederation and the Acts of the united States in Congress Assembled (hereafter, the Confederacy Congress), that the matter of borders should be something that should be negotiated by the States in joint Congress. The reason for this is not because the Constitution is somehow supreme, but because the States were in disagreement over where their borders began and where they ended (due to the vague way in which the Colonies boundaries were laid out by ROYAL Charter). Remember - These original borders were accepted by the Confederacy Congress, and were modified due to negotiations between the Sovereign states which participated in said Congress.
On the topic of the admission of States, this is once again not some area in which the Constititution is somehow supreme, but this is a method by which the States, who retained their Sovereignty but DELEGATED CERTAIN POWERS to the Federal government, decided to JOINTLY determine which areas should be admitted to the Confederacy (and later, the Federal union) on equal terms as them.
The difference between North and South over freedom of the press was glaring.
The colonies didn't secede from England. They revolted against it. The Declaration of Independence makes no claim of their action being legal under British law. It does, however, talk about Natural Rights, of " the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."
only the lunatic fringe of the DY coven of fools, idiots, weirdos, nincompoops & DUMB-bunnies like "m.eSPINola" seem to have ANY feelings at all about me.
free dixie,sw
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.