Replies

It is more appropriate to first ask when did South Carolina property magically become federal property? Answer: after a compact was signed between the several states, and the federal government lawfully annexed the property for a constitutionally authorized facility.

No. It was after the ownership of the property was granted to the federal government by act of the South Carolina legislature, December 31, 1836 Link

When did the federal government lose the right to South Carolina property? Answer: when the federal government broke the compact by favoring one part of the economy over another, resulting in the secession of South Carolina (and other states). The only way that land could remain federal property was to force South Carolina to remain a state.

Madison once noted that since the states are equal partners to the compact, no one state has the power to declare the compact is broken since the other state can say that it is intact. So the compact was not broken just because South Carolina said it was.

And even had South Carolina's action been legal, having deeded the property to the federal government then it could only be returned to South Carolina through an act of Congress. Such act never occurred.

It seems you are also unable to see that Lincoln, of the so-called “Republican” Party, set in motion the destruction of federalism by usurping power from the republican governments of states.

No, I can't. But then again I don't have your view on things.

DoodleDawg, you wrote, "No. It was after the ownership of the property was granted to the federal government by act of the South Carolina legislature, December 31, 1836"

Apparently the good people of the state of South Carolina in the 1860's disagreed with your interpretation.

DoodleDawg, you wrote, "Madison once noted that since the states are equal partners to the compact, no one state has the power to declare the compact is broken since the other state can say that it is intact. So the compact was not broken just because South Carolina said it was."

Baloney. If any party violates the terms of a compact, the compact is void. Otherwise, in this situation, those states with the most to gain by remaining in the compact would always overrule the offended states wishing to get out. By your interpretations, all such compacts would be permanent unless every single party agreed to dissolve it.

DoodleDawg, you wrote, "I don't have your view on things.

Apparently not; but few in the days of Lincoln (maybe no one) believed he was abiding by the constitution. The time of war and crises are the most important times to enforce the constitution; otherwise tyrants, like Lincoln, will keep government in a constant state of crises.

Have you ever read the 1792 Editorial in the National Gazette titled "Rules for changing a limited republican government into an unlimited hereditary one"? You should. Someone posted in on FR a good while back. It is hard reading, but well worth the trouble.