Its their property. Clearly land within their borders. No different than if there was a foreign countries base somewhere on land. And they first tried to get it back peacefully. It wasnt until the US sent troops to reinforce it that SC attacked.
"Jefferson Davis, who, like Stephens, wrote his account after the Civil War, took a similar position. Fort Sumter was rightfully South Carolina's property after secession, and the Confederate government had shown great "forbearance" in trying to reach an equitable settlement with the federal government. But the Lincoln administration destroyed these efforts by sending "a hostile fleet" to Sumter. "The attempt to represent us as the aggressors," Davis argued, "is as unfounded as the complaint made by the wolf against the lamb in the familiar fable. He who makes the assault is not necessarily he that strikes the first blow or fires the first gun."
View attachment 67370259
If the governor of a different nation tells your nation to get out, you get out.
No I dont. Confederates renounced their citizenship joined a new country and then attacked their previous countryVegas I can imagine someone like you gambling:
Bookie: Sir, you lost 41-3.
Vegas: No I didn't. It was a tie, 0-0.
Bookie: Uhh, sir that was the score before the game started
Vegas: Exactly I bet the pre game.
Bookie: You take something that hasn't a kernel of truth to it, and then exaggerate it beyond all recognition.
You ever think of renaming ur screen name to “Thread Killer”?No I dont. Confederates renounced their citizenship joined a new country and then attacked their previous country
That is the very definition of a traitor to America
I see you have nothing further to addYou ever think of renaming ur screen name to “Thread Killer”?
Also known as the Civil War.
The Constitution is the contract that theoretically binds all states into perpetual union. If you can find a place where those signing conditions are stated in detail, I'd accept that as evidence.
As I expected your “Low Attention” warning lamp has been on for a few days & still illuminates dimly!I see you have nothing further to add
I accept your concession
No I dont. Confederates renounced their citizenship joined a new country and then attacked their previous country
That is the very definition of a traitor to America
...i don't. I call it the War of the Southern Rebellion.
The Southerners knew Lincoln's sympathies before he came in, and even the one grievance people tend to agree that his election was a big factor in secession.Lincoln wasn't president when South Carolina seceded. And their unilateral secession meant the surrendered any claim to Fort Sumter.
Look up the story of how Lincoln treated Maryland to make sure that that state, which shared three borders with District of Columbia, would get no chance to secede. That history ought to convince anyone that whatever his other virtues, Lincoln could be thoroughly uncompromising in his determination to preserve the Union.Well he sure didnt attack first. That was the south
We've already been over the uselessness of Texas v. White, and in any case I stated my criteria in post 965.
"97
Did Texas, in consecuence of these acts, cease to be a State? Or, if not, did the State cease to be a member of the Union?
98
It is needless to discuss, at length, the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause, regarded by herself as sufficient, is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.
99
The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
100
But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union, by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still, all powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term, that the people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,' and that 'without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States.' Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.
101
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.
Then we agree that Lincoln was responsible for the Sumter troops not leaving.The Armed Forces of the United States takes orders only from it's Commander in Chief. The US President.
That's something the Northern victory turned into a fait accompli, but like I said earlier, I'm discussing the ethics of the Constitutional violation.There were no "separate countries" involved here. Only one. That's why it's called "The Civil War". Which is a war between citizens of the same country.
Nope, current views of what the Constitution says are still just current views.As treason is defined in the Constitution that is essentially what they were.
The Southerners knew Lincoln's sympathies before he came in, and even the one grievance people tend to agree that his election was a big factor in secession.
Then Lincoln broke his oath when he breached the Constitution.Article Two. Section 1. Clause 8. Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Already answered in the negative several times already and have cited established Supreme Court law denying that any state has the right to unilaterally secede from the Union. But you keep asking it nonetheless expecting a different answer.
Fort Sumter was on Southern land and the North no longer had claim to it.And when they seceded, they gave up any claim they had to Fort Sumter.
So when they fired on it, they were engaging in an act of aggression.
Fort Sumter was on Southern land and the North no longer had claim to it.
I'm sure a Northern lawyer would have made that argument, and a Southern lawyer would have made the opposite argument, that the State had nullified the arrangement. So what? Just because you agree with the first does not invalidate the second POV.No, it stopped being solely Southern land when the state of South Carolina gave up that land to the communal ownership of the United States pursuant to the rules found in the Constitution South Carolina voluntarily entered into.
When they unilaterally seceded, without negotiation on the ownership of communally owned property, they gave up any claim they had to it.
I like to study it and visit historic sites.Also known as the Civil War.
I'm sure a Northern lawyer would have made that argument, and a Southern lawyer would have made the opposite argument, that the State had nullified the arrangement. So what? Just because you agree with the first does not invalidate the second POV.
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?