Posted on 04/12/2007 9:34:54 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861
So, you believe the other States could have kicked South Carolina out of the Union, without consulting it?
How hard is it for you to understand that one party to a mutual agreement cannot turn the clock back and screw over its partners unilaterally? You cannot simply "negate" a deal and remain bound by the rule of law. That's just making up the rules as you go along, backed solely by the gun to enforce your will.
In 1836, South Carolina's state government passed a law ceding all claim on Sumter. If they could negate that at will, why not every other land transfer done in 1836? Who owned the land between 1836 and 1861? Who paid for the land's very existence, not to mention the fortifications upon it? Who paid for and maintained the surrounding coastal defenses, such as Moultrie? Clearly, the Federal government did. Was there any agreement to transfer ownership from the rightful title holder? No. Was there any attempt to make such an agreement? No. Did South Carolina attempt any due process to condemn the land for eminent domain? No. Was the Federal government acting outside of its powers by supplying troops, as they had for the past 25 years and more, within its own fort, which they held complete legal title to? No.
South Carolina simply had NO legal or justifiable claim to that land, and throwing some convention to vote themselves the right unilaterally, without consulting the OWNERS of that property doesn't change that. It was simply creating a situation where it could steal title and blame the violation on Force Majeure. They were as much thieves as any tinpot dictatorship nationalizing oil refineries.
yes.....
“So, you believe the other States could have kicked South Carolina out of the Union, without consulting it?”
Yes, I do. If the citizens of each of those states voted to do so. The will of the people is ALWAYS preeminent.
There is still the idea that the crisis over Sumter was created when:
1. Anderson decided on his own to occupy Ft. Sumter. Ft. Moultrie would not have been a menace.
2. Lincoln decided to re-supply the Ft. , when the soldiers would have been forced to leave due to lack of food.
3. As I mentioned earlier, the Confederate Government was left NO choice, but to reduce the fort, because of it’s position.
B.S. Pointing a gun at someone after stealing their property and demanding they recognize the theft as legal isn't "negotiating". Nor was it the only option "the South" had. Military force was merely the only option they would consider; no one "forced" them to employ it, any more than opposing bank robbers "forces" them to shoot hostages because the bank won't agree to their unilateral seizing of the money.
If South Carolina didn't want Federal fortifications covering the harbor, they shouldn't have pushed so hard to get them, or expected the whole United States to pay for them.
It wasn't a "foreign power" holding the forts. It was the legally authorized Federal Government. There are only two ways the secession of South Carolina might have been legal. First, by following the Rule of Law and appealing to the designated arbiter, the USSC. Second, by being victorious by force of arms, followed by surrender and acknowledgment by the current legal authority. In effect, appealing the matter to God's hands. They didn't manage either path, so what they did wasn't legal. As they say in some parts, "Deo vindice".
“It wasn’t a “foreign power” holding the forts.”
As far as I and many Southerners are concerned, once secession took place, the Federal Troops WERE a foreign power. As of Dec. of 1860, to be exact.
Maybe, maybe not. But you can't deny that the actual text of the law allowed slave catchers to force any citizen, regardless of their conscience in the matter, to aid them. How is that different from forcing anyone off the street to aid in performing an abortion, regardless of their own conscience? The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, along with the overturning of the MIssouri Compromise, was one of the major items in making the north realize that they were in thrall to the slave power of the south.
*PING*
Which he did because he was menaced by military threat BY THE SOUTHERERS.
2. Lincoln decided to re-supply the Ft. , when the soldiers would have been forced to leave due to lack of food.
Which he did because he was menaced by military threat BY THE SOUTHERERS. Otherwise, the fort would have been resupplied as normal.
3. As I mentioned earlier, the Confederate Government was left NO choice, but to reduce the fort, because of it’s position.
You can claim it, but it is patently untrue. Sumter didn't threaten Charleston directly; so they could have maintained the status quo. After all, the fort did nothing to commerce that a blockade couldn't. They had many options, but decided to pursue military attack.
Your scenario falls apart right off the bat. One, there was no agreement to transfer ownership. Actual transfer of ownership had occured. The state of South Carolina had deeded the property free and clear to the federal government. They gave up all ownership so there were no obligations to be fulfilled. The frederal government had not defaulted on anything.
The fact of the matter is that there was no legal justification for the South's actions. They took property that did not belong to them without compensation. It was theft, pure and simple. There is no other description for it.
I doubt it's any more acceptable for the Cubans but to date they haven't started a war over it. The South chose to do so.
You can walk out on your spouse and consider yourself divorced. It doesn't make it so. It just means you have no regard for the rule of law.
That's government of the Fred, by the Fred and for the Fred.
1. Anderson decided on his own to occupy Ft. Sumter. Ft. Moultrie would not have been a menace.
2. Lincoln decided to re-supply the Ft. , when the soldiers would have been forced to leave due to lack of food.
3. As I mentioned earlier, the Confederate Government was left NO choice, but to reduce the fort, because of it’s position.
Oh hang it up, would you? Admit it, there was no legal justification for stealing the fort. They wanted it. They took it. they started a war over it. They lost the war they started. End of story.
In Fred we trust.
I see you’re trying to save his hometown.
like everything else you post, your IGNORANCE is laughable.
why not turn off your PC & go do some RESEARCH in the local library. if you do, you won't be a LAUGHINGSTOCK to everyone here (with the exception of "Mr SPIN" & "ftd", who will believe ANYTHING.)
free dixie,sw
If you want to do some research, go read the reactions of the north after passage of the Fugitive Slave Act, after Dred Scott, and after the caning of Sumner.
Only because they know they will LOSE.
The Confederacy wasn’t worried about it.
In this case it was an anullment, rather than a divorce.
Fred for President in 08! :)
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.