By this logic, all Cuba has to do is tell the US to leave Guantanamo Bay. We know it's far more complicated.
By what legal process were they confiscating the property? Was that even legal?
The Supreme Court also decided in Texas v. White that the secession of the South in 1860-1 was unconstitutional. They made that decision based on their decision. You're picking where you like the SC and where you dislike the SC.
In Dred Scott, what they decided was property rights. You had the right to take your "property" (in this case another human being) wherever you choose. Interestingly, from a states rights point of view, they invalidated any state making slavery illegal.
It doesn't protect the institution of slavery from being banned. It merely protected, again, "property" rights. (FYI, in any case I will always put the word property in quotes when referring to a human being.). It also protected you if your indentured servant flew the coop.
It did not say that abolition of slavery wasn't a possibility.
If I had a time machine, I'd go back and find out. I'd take a copy of Jeff Davis' memoirs and I'd ask Stephens if the war wasn't about slavery, why was that the "Cornerstone" of the Confederacy? Alas, I cannot do that.
Preserving their labor system, which was based on slave labor, was a big part of why the Southern states seceded. It's a perfectly understandable action. Just not legal.
I like this bit from the neo-Confederate "Oh yeah, a lot of protection it was. It wasn't even in use." Using the same logic, the United States doesn't need all of the nukes sitting at air bases and aboard submarines around the world - they're "not in use"
The Fed Govt was illegally occupying Ft. Sumter. "provided" It means you have to go.
Oh yeah, a lot of protection it was. It wasn't even in use.
Quantrill
Actually its not complicated at all. If a country tells you to leave, then leave.
Secession was legal. So, go away.
Quantrill
Oh yeah. Whose the traitors now.
Quantrill
Military bases are NOT the property of the State in which they're located.So basically it was act of war to take back what you own. D:
Ok?
"Provided" the state of S. Carolina retained jurisdiction for service of civil and criminal process. Nearly all the lands that were ceded to the US government by S. Carolina had this Service to Process clause. See.....The Fed Govt was illegally occupying Ft. Sumter. "provided" It means you have to go.
Oh yeah, a lot of protection it was. It wasn't even in use.
Quantrill
There was nothing in the 1836 SC resolution that said the US government had to go and everything that said it could stay. If you think otherwise, then prove it.ARTICLE 1. LANDS NEEDED FOR GENERAL PUBLIC PURPOSES
SECTION 3-1-20. Retention of concurrent jurisdiction for service of civil and criminal process.
Such jurisdiction is granted upon the express condition that the State shall retain a concurrent jurisdiction with the United States in and over such lands, so far as that civil process in all cases not affecting the real or personal property of the United States and such criminal or other process as shall issue under the authority of the State against any person charged with crimes or misdemeanors committed within or without the limit of such lands may be executed therein in the same way and manner as if no jurisdiction had been hereby ceded.
ARTICLE 5. LANDS NEEDED FOR LIGHTHOUSES, BEACONS AND OTHER NAVIGATIONAL AIDS
SECTION 3-1-320. Retention of concurrent jurisdiction for service of civil and criminal process.
The State shall retain concurrent jurisdiction so far that all process, civil or criminal, issuing under the authority of the State, may be executed by the proper officers thereof upon any person amenable to such process within the limits of land so ceded in like manner and to like effect as if this article had never been enacted.
ARTICLE 3 LANDS NEEDED FOR CUSTOMHOUSES, COURTHOUSES, POST OFFICES, ARSENALS AND THE LIKE
SECTION 3-1-120. Jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States; service of process.....
B) The United States may accept exclusive jurisdiction or concurrent jurisdiction in and over any federal correction facility so acquired by the United States pursuant to the consent given by Section 3-1-110 which shall be, and the same is hereby, ceded to the United States for all purposes except the service upon such sites of all civil and criminal process of the courts of this State. The jurisdiction so ceded shall continue no longer than the United States shall own such federal correction facilities.
South Carolina Legislature Mobile
Yes, I can see why the Fort wasn't in use because...THEY WERE STILL BUILDING IT!!! ROTFL.Construction on Fort Sumter began in 1829, and the structure was still unfinished in 1861, when the Civil War began....
Fort Sumter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It ain't never gonna happen.....I think a state should be allowed to secede. Isn't there such a thing as state sovereignty or some sort that treats states as if they are a collective?
They willing entered into the Articles of Confederation, though sometimes made statements to that effect. I can't help but look at what they consented to, even in the Articles that abridged their sovereignty significantly. They didn't control their own military forces, didn't make their own money, and didn't handle their own foreign affairs. Are there any cases where they sent an ambassador to a neighboring state? Because an exchange of ambassadors and establishment of consulates is something that 2 independent states do when they recognize each other, so that would be a good clue as to their intentions.
Define who thinks or considers on behalf of them. I'm sure that much like things are today, you could have found plenty of people on both sides of the issue.
It ain't never gonna happen.....
Thank you Connery for first posting this on page one. lol
I don't know to which "guys" you refer. As for your question, however, I do not believe the States saw themselves as little nations unto themselves, no, which is what you're suggesting. They saw themselves as the Unites States of America, which is evident if you read the Declaration. It says, "We the People of the United States ..." it doesn't say "We the People of the Thirteen Colonies ..." or "We the Thirteen Colonies of the United States ..." or any other variation thereof.Interesting. So you guys think that after the revolution the former colonies didn't consider themselves to be free, sovereign, and independent states?
The colonies were never a "state" of England. They were an outpost that the British barely acknowledged until they needed tax slaves to pay off their war debt.So like with America and England in the past, the message may have to be made with blood?
Personally I think it's ironic how we split from England in the past, but are oh so adamant about allowing a state like Texas to do the same peacefully.
If you can't see the difference then maybe a college course in American history would help.So like with America and England in the past, the message may have to be made with blood?
Personally I think it's ironic how we split from England in the past, but are oh so adamant about allowing a state like Texas to do the same peacefully.
Wrong. The land that Fort Sumter was on was ceded to the US government in 1836 by the South Carolina legislature....
Fort Sumter belonged to the Federal Government.
I don't know to which "guys" you refer. As for your question, however, I do not believe the States saw themselves as little nations unto themselves, no, which is what you're suggesting. They saw themselves as the Unites States of America, which is evident if you read the Declaration. It says, "We the People of the United States ..." it doesn't say "We the People of the Thirteen Colonies ..." or "We the Thirteen Colonies of the United States ..." or any other variation thereof.
Did they retain that wording in the Constitution? Or did they throw it out along with a lot of other stuff that didn't make sense?So we have the peace treaty between Great Britain and her former colonies in which is is documented that they are now free, sovereign, and independent states. But you guys don't take this as evidence that they regarded themselves and each other as such. Perhaps this one document was a fluke.
How about the articles of confederation: "Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." So we have documentation that each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence. The use of the word "retain" seems to indicate that sovereignty, independence, and freedom are preexisting attributes of each of the states.
Did they retain that wording in the Constitution? Or did they throw it out along with a lot of other stuff that didn't make sense?
The colonies were never a "state" of England. They were an outpost that the British barely acknowledged until they needed tax slaves to pay off their war debt.
If the majority of people in Texas wanted to secceed from the union then where are they? All I see is a bunch of looney politicians using this as political fodder to pander to far right extremists.
We're not talking about the constitution. We are discussing whether or not the 13 colonies were free, sovereign, and independent states prior to the constitution.
I haven't read all 600+ posts, but what do you think of this? Do you think no state can ever secede from the USA?
Did they retain that wording in the Constitution? Or did they throw it out along with a lot of other stuff that didn't make sense?
It ain't never gonna happen.....
Thank you Connery for first posting this on page one. lol
Yes, under our present system - NO state can secede
Anyone that thinks the pledge of alliance means anything is a moron. Yup, I just called the judge a moron.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?