Confederate constitution legalized slavery

[RKMBrown]

No. Your link shows what I said. Which is that a main reason for session was slavery.

not sure why this is confusing you so much... I'll put in bigger letters, maybe that will help.

SECESSION WAS NOT A DECLARATION OF WAR

Who said secession was a declaration of war? I said thats the reason the losers went to war. Thanks for agreeing with me.

No moron. The reason the losers went to war was not BECAUSE THEY SECEDED it was to defend themselves from the INVADING ARMY OF THE NORTH who were sent by THE ASSHOLE IN CHIEF LINCOLN TO KILL SOUTHERNERS. LINCOLN WAS A PROPONENT OF SLAVERY AT THE TIME.

Dont get emotional. it doesnt impact me any differently other than to make me laugh. The losers went to war for the same reasons they seceded.

Not true. Would you not defend your family, your home, your town from an invader that was killing your family? When the North sent their armies south it was for power. When the South sent their armies to meet them it was for their own freedom. Granted the assholes included many slavers. But that is just a "part" of the scene, not the reason for the actions.

Bullshit. The loser confederates seceded over slavery and they fought a war to preserve slavery. All they had to do was simply abolished slavery and they would not have gotten their asses kicked or "invaded" as you put it.

ROFL... nonsense. Lincoln did not send the armies to free slaves. He sent the armies to recover the states that had seceded. I put as proof, that he reclaimed the southern states. He did not depose it's leaders and shed them of slavery, then let them go. Oh no. He did what he planned to do. CONQUER the south. The south did not fight a war to preserve slavery. Freeing slaves became a political football for the north after the killing of many hundreds of thousands of the North and South. Hell Lincoln wanted to send all the blacks back to Africa.

 

[Asclepias]

Who said secession was a declaration of war? I said thats the reason the losers went to war. Thanks for agreeing with me.

No moron. The reason the losers went to war was not BECAUSE THEY SECEDED it was to defend themselves from the INVADING ARMY OF THE NORTH who were sent by THE ASSHOLE IN CHIEF LINCOLN TO KILL SOUTHERNERS. LINCOLN WAS A PROPONENT OF SLAVERY AT THE TIME.

Dont get emotional. it doesnt impact me any differently other than to make me laugh. The losers went to war for the same reasons they seceded.

Not true. Would you not defend your family, your home, your town from an invader that was killing your family? When the North sent their armies south it was for power. When the South sent their armies to meet them it was for their own freedom. Granted the assholes included many slavers. But that is just a "part" of the scene, not the reason for the actions.

Bullshit. The loser confederates seceded over slavery and they fought a war to preserve slavery. All they had to do was simply abolished slavery and they would not have gotten their asses kicked or "invaded" as you put it.

ROFL... nonsense. Lincoln did not send the armies to free slaves. He sent the armies to recover the states that had seceded. I put as proof, that he reclaimed the southern states. He did not depose it's leaders and shed them of slavery, then let them go. Oh no. He did what he planned to do. CONQUER the south. The south did not fight a war to preserve slavery. Freeing slaves became a political football for the north after the killing of many hundreds of thousands of the North and South. Hell Lincoln wanted to send all the blacks back to Africa.

You keep saying things I never said. Why do you do that when you are losing a debate?

 

[RKMBrown]

No. Your link shows what I said. Which is that a main reason for session was slavery.

not sure why this is confusing you so much... I'll put in bigger letters, maybe that will help.

SECESSION WAS NOT A DECLARATION OF WAR

Who said secession was a declaration of war? I said thats the reason the losers went to war. Thanks for agreeing with me.

No moron. The reason the losers went to war was not BECAUSE THEY SECEDED it was to defend themselves from the INVADING ARMY OF THE NORTH who were sent by THE ASSHOLE IN CHIEF LINCOLN TO KILL SOUTHERNERS. LINCOLN WAS A PROPONENT OF SLAVERY AT THE TIME.

Dont get emotional. it doesnt impact me any differently other than to make me laugh. The losers went to war for the same reasons they seceded.

Not true. Would you not defend your family, your home, your town from an invader that was killing your family? When the North sent their armies south it was for power. When the South sent their armies to meet them it was for their own freedom. Granted the assholes included many slavers. But that is just a "part" of the scene, not the reason for the actions.

Bullshit. The loser confederates seceded over slavery and they fought a war to preserve slavery. All they had to do was simply abolished slavery and they would not have gotten their asses kicked or "invaded" as you put it.

Bullshit liar! They seceded over the asshole tyrants from the north that wanted to change the republic into a federal tyranny, sort of like the ONE WE HAVE NOW. See the 14th amendment SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS at the end of the civil war that gives STATE GOVERNMENTS THE RIGHT TO TAKE YOUR LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY AND THE FEDS THROUGH THE STATES WHEN THOSE STATES AGREE TO IT. It was not about freeing anyone, IT WAS ABOUT CHANGING SLAVE OWNERSHIP FROM the plantation owners to GOVERNMENT LEADERS.

 

[Asclepias]

Who said secession was a declaration of war? I said thats the reason the losers went to war. Thanks for agreeing with me.

No moron. The reason the losers went to war was not BECAUSE THEY SECEDED it was to defend themselves from the INVADING ARMY OF THE NORTH who were sent by THE ASSHOLE IN CHIEF LINCOLN TO KILL SOUTHERNERS. LINCOLN WAS A PROPONENT OF SLAVERY AT THE TIME.

Dont get emotional. it doesnt impact me any differently other than to make me laugh. The losers went to war for the same reasons they seceded.

Not true. Would you not defend your family, your home, your town from an invader that was killing your family? When the North sent their armies south it was for power. When the South sent their armies to meet them it was for their own freedom. Granted the assholes included many slavers. But that is just a "part" of the scene, not the reason for the actions.

Bullshit. The loser confederates seceded over slavery and they fought a war to preserve slavery. All they had to do was simply abolished slavery and they would not have gotten their asses kicked or "invaded" as you put it.

Bullshit liar! They seceded over the asshole tyrants from the north that wanted to change the republic into a federal tyranny, sort of like the ONE WE HAVE NOW. See the 14th amendment SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS at the end of the civil war that gives STATE GOVERNMENTS THE RIGHT TO TAKE YOUR LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY AND THE FEDS THROUGH THE STATES WHEN THOSE STATES AGREE TO IT. It was not about freeing anyone, IT WAS ABOUT CHANGING SLAVE OWNERSHIP FROM the plantation owners to GOVERNMENT LEADERS.

Your ranting now Brown and off topic. I said the loser confederates went to war over slavery. I was not talking about the north. Stop deflecting and getting emotional.

 

[RKMBrown]

No moron. The reason the losers went to war was not BECAUSE THEY SECEDED it was to defend themselves from the INVADING ARMY OF THE NORTH who were sent by THE ASSHOLE IN CHIEF LINCOLN TO KILL SOUTHERNERS. LINCOLN WAS A PROPONENT OF SLAVERY AT THE TIME.

Dont get emotional. it doesnt impact me any differently other than to make me laugh. The losers went to war for the same reasons they seceded.

Not true. Would you not defend your family, your home, your town from an invader that was killing your family? When the North sent their armies south it was for power. When the South sent their armies to meet them it was for their own freedom. Granted the assholes included many slavers. But that is just a "part" of the scene, not the reason for the actions.

Bullshit. The loser confederates seceded over slavery and they fought a war to preserve slavery. All they had to do was simply abolished slavery and they would not have gotten their asses kicked or "invaded" as you put it.

Bullshit liar! They seceded over the asshole tyrants from the north that wanted to change the republic into a federal tyranny, sort of like the ONE WE HAVE NOW. See the 14th amendment SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS at the end of the civil war that gives STATE GOVERNMENTS THE RIGHT TO TAKE YOUR LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY AND THE FEDS THROUGH THE STATES WHEN THOSE STATES AGREE TO IT. It was not about freeing anyone, IT WAS ABOUT CHANGING SLAVE OWNERSHIP FROM the plantation owners to GOVERNMENT LEADERS.

Your ranting now Brown and off topic. I said the loser confederates went to war over slavery. I was not talking about the north. Stop deflecting and getting emotional.

The South was invaded and conquered. What makes you think the South attacked the North to get slaves? They already had slaves.

Show us a link where the north offered to let the south go if they agreed to free the slaves.

 

[Asclepias]

Dont get emotional. it doesnt impact me any differently other than to make me laugh. The losers went to war for the same reasons they seceded.

Not true. Would you not defend your family, your home, your town from an invader that was killing your family? When the North sent their armies south it was for power. When the South sent their armies to meet them it was for their own freedom. Granted the assholes included many slavers. But that is just a "part" of the scene, not the reason for the actions.

Bullshit. The loser confederates seceded over slavery and they fought a war to preserve slavery. All they had to do was simply abolished slavery and they would not have gotten their asses kicked or "invaded" as you put it.

Bullshit liar! They seceded over the asshole tyrants from the north that wanted to change the republic into a federal tyranny, sort of like the ONE WE HAVE NOW. See the 14th amendment SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS at the end of the civil war that gives STATE GOVERNMENTS THE RIGHT TO TAKE YOUR LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY AND THE FEDS THROUGH THE STATES WHEN THOSE STATES AGREE TO IT. It was not about freeing anyone, IT WAS ABOUT CHANGING SLAVE OWNERSHIP FROM the plantation owners to GOVERNMENT LEADERS.

Your ranting now Brown and off topic. I said the loser confederates went to war over slavery. I was not talking about the north. Stop deflecting and getting emotional.

The South was invaded and conquered. What makes you think the South attacked the North to get slaves? They already had slaves.

Show us a link where the north offered to let the south go if they agreed to free the slaves.

The south got their asses kicked because they refused to give up slavery. When did someone tell you I said the south attacked the north to get slaves?

 

[paperview]

... The south did not fight a war to preserve slavery.

It's incredible people can still be saying this after all the evidence. Yes. they Did. For christufckingsakes.

Hell Lincoln wanted to send all the blacks back to Africa

Lincolns Colonization plan was one adopted by abolitionists, and even some of our founding fathers.

Lincoln's plan was for *voluntary* colonization - not mandatory, because he knew a good portion of the country would never accept them as equals.

Knowing the 100 years of deprivation of Civil Rights that followed the Civil war -- he obviously, was right.

 

[paperview]

Not only was the Confederacy dedicated to preserving, protecting and defending their 4 millions of their black human bondage, worth more than 3 Billion (1860 dollars) -- more collective wealth than all the property in the US combined

-- they were bent on expansion. Before Lincoln even stepped into office, in January of 1861 --

HUNTSVILLE, January 12, 1861.

To Gov. A. B. MOORE:

I leave for Montgomery to-day. It is absolutely certain that Tennessee will go with the South.

L. P. WALKER.

Mr. Henderson, of Macon, offered the following Resolution, which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:

Resolved, That the Committee on Foreign relations be instructed to inquire into the expediency of sending a special Commissioner, or Commissioners, to the Territories of New Mexico and Arizonia, for the purpose of securing, if possible, the annexation of those Territories to a Southern Confederacy, as new States, at the earliest practicable period.

A communication from the Governor was received and read, with reference to affairs at Pensacola, as follows:

Executive Department, January 12, 1861.

and hey...from that same month -- January 1861 --

"CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY.
Be it Ordained by the people of Alabama in Convention assembled, That full power to confiscate Property belonging to enemies at war with the State of Alabama is hereby invested in the General Assembly of this State. And the power to suspend the collection of Debts, and all obligations to pay money due or owing persons, artificial or natural, in the non-slaveholding States of the United States of America, may be likewise exercised by the General Assembly of this State, in any manner they may see proper; any provisions in the Constitution of the State to the contrary notwithstanding."

"The enemies at war. " In January, 1861.

And more interest in expanding:

""It is true that the interests of the South may demand territorial expansion, for expansion seems to be the law and destiny and necessity of our institutions.

To remain healthful and prosperous within and to make sure our development and power, it seems essential that we should grow without. Arizona and Mexico, Central America and Cuba all may yet be embraced within the limits of our Southern republic. A Gulf Confederacy may be established in the South which may well enjoy almost a monopoly in the production of cotton, rice, sugar, coffee, tobacco, and tropical fruits.

The trade of all tropical America combined with that of the Cotton States would make our Confederacy the wealthiest, the most progressive, and the most influential power on the globe. Should the border States refuse to unite their destiny with ours, then we may be compelled to look for territorial strength and for political power to those rich and beautiful lands that lie upon our southwestern frontier. Their genial climate and productive soil, their rich agricultural and mineral resources, render them admirably adapted to the institution of slavery. Under the influence of that institution these tropical lands would soon add millions to the commercial wealth of our Republic and their magnificent ports would soon be filled with ships from every nation. Slave labor would there build up for the Southern Confederacy populous and wealthy States as it has built up for the late Union the States of Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas."

Lewis M. Stone, Alabama secession convention, January, 1861"

You want to get a eye-opening? Read :

William Russell Smith 1815-1896. The History and Debates of the Convention of the People of Alabama Begun and Held in the City of Montgomery on the Seventh Day of January 1861 in Which is Preserved the Speeches of the Secret Sessions and Many Valuable State Papers.

 

[RKMBrown]

... The south did not fight a war to preserve slavery.

It's incredible people can still be saying this after all the evidence. Yes. they Did. For christufckingsakes.

Hell Lincoln wanted to send all the blacks back to Africa

Lincolns Colonization plan was one adopted by abolitionists, and even some of our founding fathers.

Lincoln's plan was for *voluntary* colonization - not mandatory, because he knew a good portion of the country would never accept them as equals.

Knowing the 100 years of deprivation of Civil Rights that followed the Civil war -- he obviously, was right.

No. They fought to defend their country and themselves from being killed. Slavery was on it's way out with or without the civil war. The slavery issue not the reason the south defended themselves from BEING MURDERED BY THE INVADING ARMIES FROM THE NORTH. Most people in the south did not even own slaves.

As then, only the democrats refuse to see their brothers as equals.

 

[RKMBrown]

Not true. Would you not defend your family, your home, your town from an invader that was killing your family? When the North sent their armies south it was for power. When the South sent their armies to meet them it was for their own freedom. Granted the assholes included many slavers. But that is just a "part" of the scene, not the reason for the actions.

Bullshit. The loser confederates seceded over slavery and they fought a war to preserve slavery. All they had to do was simply abolished slavery and they would not have gotten their asses kicked or "invaded" as you put it.

Bullshit liar! They seceded over the asshole tyrants from the north that wanted to change the republic into a federal tyranny, sort of like the ONE WE HAVE NOW. See the 14th amendment SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS at the end of the civil war that gives STATE GOVERNMENTS THE RIGHT TO TAKE YOUR LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY AND THE FEDS THROUGH THE STATES WHEN THOSE STATES AGREE TO IT. It was not about freeing anyone, IT WAS ABOUT CHANGING SLAVE OWNERSHIP FROM the plantation owners to GOVERNMENT LEADERS.

Your ranting now Brown and off topic. I said the loser confederates went to war over slavery. I was not talking about the north. Stop deflecting and getting emotional.

The South was invaded and conquered. What makes you think the South attacked the North to get slaves? They already had slaves.

Show us a link where the north offered to let the south go if they agreed to free the slaves.

The south got their asses kicked because they refused to give up slavery. When did someone tell you I said the south attacked the north to get slaves?

Make up your mind they started a war to get slaves or they defended themselves from attack, you can't have it both ways.

 

[Asclepias]

Bullshit. The loser confederates seceded over slavery and they fought a war to preserve slavery. All they had to do was simply abolished slavery and they would not have gotten their asses kicked or "invaded" as you put it.

Bullshit liar! They seceded over the asshole tyrants from the north that wanted to change the republic into a federal tyranny, sort of like the ONE WE HAVE NOW. See the 14th amendment SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS at the end of the civil war that gives STATE GOVERNMENTS THE RIGHT TO TAKE YOUR LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY AND THE FEDS THROUGH THE STATES WHEN THOSE STATES AGREE TO IT. It was not about freeing anyone, IT WAS ABOUT CHANGING SLAVE OWNERSHIP FROM the plantation owners to GOVERNMENT LEADERS.

Your ranting now Brown and off topic. I said the loser confederates went to war over slavery. I was not talking about the north. Stop deflecting and getting emotional.

The South was invaded and conquered. What makes you think the South attacked the North to get slaves? They already had slaves.

Show us a link where the north offered to let the south go if they agreed to free the slaves.

The south got their asses kicked because they refused to give up slavery. When did someone tell you I said the south attacked the north to get slaves?

Make up your mind they started a war to get slaves or they defended themselves from attack, you can't have it both ways.

I said neither. Must be one of your deflections again. They started a war to keep slavery. They lost because they were losers. Sorry.

 

[Rogue 9]

Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.

Oddly enough, Abraham Lincoln sought to enshrine slavery into the US Constitution with his tacit support for the Corwin Amendment. Said amendment would have made the institution permanent.
The Confederate Constitution barred importation of slaves, it recognised slaves as property, but unlike Corwin it did not prevent the elimination of the institution at some future date.

Have you read the thing? Here, I'll give you a hint.

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

Hey look. You're wrong. What a surprise.

 

[RKMBrown]

Bullshit liar! They seceded over the asshole tyrants from the north that wanted to change the republic into a federal tyranny, sort of like the ONE WE HAVE NOW. See the 14th amendment SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS at the end of the civil war that gives STATE GOVERNMENTS THE RIGHT TO TAKE YOUR LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY AND THE FEDS THROUGH THE STATES WHEN THOSE STATES AGREE TO IT. It was not about freeing anyone, IT WAS ABOUT CHANGING SLAVE OWNERSHIP FROM the plantation owners to GOVERNMENT LEADERS.

Your ranting now Brown and off topic. I said the loser confederates went to war over slavery. I was not talking about the north. Stop deflecting and getting emotional.

The South was invaded and conquered. What makes you think the South attacked the North to get slaves? They already had slaves.

Show us a link where the north offered to let the south go if they agreed to free the slaves.

The south got their asses kicked because they refused to give up slavery. When did someone tell you I said the south attacked the north to get slaves?

Make up your mind they started a war to get slaves or they defended themselves from attack, you can't have it both ways.

I said neither. Must be one of your deflections again. They started a war to keep slavery. They lost because they were losers. Sorry.

What a LYING POS you are. They did not defend themselves? WTF is wrong with you.

 

[James Everett]

Show us the documents where the South was willing to pay for every bit of federal property they stole or were going to steal, Reb, that was offered before they fired on ships - and you know, actually stole the property of the whole of the U.S.

Paperview.....
As you requested.....

"Show us the documents where the South was willing to pay for every bit of federal property they stole or were going to steal, Reb, that was offered before they fired on ships - and you know, actually stole the property of the whole of the U.S."

South Carolina’s Isaac Hayne, representing Governor Pickens, had been in Washington DC for over two weeks. His job was to establish some sort of agreement between the United States and South Carolina over Fort Sumter. He had seen President Buchanan upon his arrival, but the President requested something in writing. Haynes had met with Southern senators and finally wrote to Governor Pickens in order to put it into words.

Pickens, through Hayne, reiterated that Fort Sumter was property of South Carolina even though the United States had a military post within it. Nevertheless, South Carolina wished to purchase the fort from the United States. If purchased, of course, Major Anderson and all Federal troops would have to leave. But the US could probably use the money much more than it could use a now-useless fort.
[LETTER OF MR. HOLT TO MR. HAYNE.]

War Department, February G, 1861.

Sir: The President of the United States has received your
letter of the 31st ult., and has charged me with the duty of
replying thereto.
Hayne delivered the letter to Buchanan and hoped for a speedy reply.
If it be so that Fort Sumter is held as property, then,
as property, the rights, whatever they may be, of the United
States, can be ascertained, and for the satisfaction of these
rights, the pledge of the State of South Carolina, you are
authorized to give." The full scope and precise purport of
your instructions, as thus modified, you have expressed in the
following words : " I do not come as a military man to demand
the surrender of a fortress, but as the legal officer of the State,
its Attorney General, to claim for the State the exercise of
its undoubted right of eminent domain, and to pledge the State
to make good all injury to the rights of property which arise
from the exercise of the claim." And lest this explicit lan-
guage should not sufficiently define your position, you add :
'• The proposition now is that her (South Carolina's) law officer
should, under authority of the Governor and his Council, dis-
tinctly pledge the faith of South Carolina to make such com-
pensation, in regard to Fort Sumter, and its appurtenances and
contents, to the full extent of the money value of the property
of the United States

 

[James Everett]

You will always lose neo-confederates -- because confederates

-- are losers.

As I stated earlier....
The Coastal States in 1861 territorial waters extended out three miles from the low tide mark. South Carolina Charleston Harbor was well within that three mile mark. The U.S.attempts to traverse South Carolina sovereign waters to resupply fort Sumter without establishing a peace treaty with South Carolina was an act of war and aggression.
An armistice had been entered into between South Carolina's government and the United States government, December 6, 1860. A similar armistice had been entered into between Florida and the United States government, January 29, 1861. These armistices agreed that the forts, Sumter and Pickens, should neither be garrisoned nor provisioned so long as these armistices continued in force.
South Carolina had offered to purchase the Fort.
Now as to the invasion of South Carolina by the U.S. and its plans to further invade South Carolina....
On March 29, Lincoln, without consent of his Cabinet, ordered three ships with 300 men and provisions to be ready to go to Fort Sumter. All orders were marked private. A fourth expedition was secretly sent to Pensacola, Florida, under Lieutenant Porter, April 7th, on which date the three vessels were directed to go to Fort Sumter. On that same day President Lincoln directed Seward to address to the Confederate Peace Commissioners in Washington, and say "that they had no design to reinforce Fort Sumter." In short there were four expeditions ordered to garrison and provision Forts Sumter and Pickens while the armistice was yet in force. South Carolina observed her agreement faithfully, to make no attack on Fort Sumter on account of promises made to evacuate the premises by the Federals, as well as its permission, continued into April, 1861, for Major Anderson to purchase fresh provisions in the markets of Charleston. This points out a peaceable disposition which cannot be misunderstood, unless Lincoln was looking to provoke war.
Not until sufficient time had elapsed to cover the estimated landing of the vessels were the Confederate Peace Commissioners informed of these facts regarding the North intent to reinforce the US troops. At length, on the 8th of April, South Carolina was officially informed that "an attempt would be made to supply Fort Sumter, peaceably if they could, forcibly if they must." Eight armed vessels with soldiers aboard had been sent to sustain the notification, and moved so quickly on this expedition that only an unexpected storm at sea caused delay enough for the Confederate authorities to successfully meet the issue. A storm delayed some of the ships.
The Confederate States objected to this movement of the Federals, because the reinforcement was invasion by the use of physical force; because it asserted the claim of the United States to sovereignty over South Carolina, which was in dispute; and because the supply of the garrison in Fort Sumter with necessary rations was not the object nor the end of the expedition. The purpose was to secure Fort Sumter, to close the port with the warships, to reduce Charleston by bombardment if necessary, to land troops from transports, and thus crush "The Rebellion" where it was supposed to have begun by overthrowing South Carolina.
Now as stated, South Carolina territory extended out to sea 3 miles from the low tide mark, hence in order to re -supply Ft Sumter, the U.S. would need to traverse South Carolina's territorial waters, and to do so without establishing a treaty to do so constituted an act of war.
Confederate States of America Interim Government
March 1 at 5:49pm · Edited ·
Attempts, and intentions by the U.S. to resupply Fort Sumter by traversing South Carolina waters without establishing a treaty with South Carolina was an invasion of South Carolina and constituted an act of war and aggression by the U.S.
The U.S. had no jurisdiction over the waters within Charleston harbor, or the soil beneath those waters, such can be understood from an early court case .......
United States v. Bevans, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 336 (1818), which involved a federal prosecution for a murder committed on board the Warship, Independence, anchored in the harbor of Boston, Massachusetts.
The defense complained that only the state had jurisdiction to prosecute and argued that the federal Circuit Courts had no jurisdiction of this crime supposedly committed within the federal government's admiralty jurisdiction. In argument before the Supreme Court, counsel for the United States admitted as follows:
"The exclusive jurisdiction which the United States have in forts and dock-yards ceded to them, is derived from the express assent of the states by whom the cessions are made. It could be derived in no other manner; because without it, the authority of the state would be supreme and exclusive therein," 3 Wheat., at 350, 351.
In holding that the State of Massachusetts had jurisdiction over the crime, the Court held:
"What, then, is the extent of jurisdiction which a state possesses?
"We answer, without hesitation, the jurisdiction of a state is co-extensive with its territory; co-extensive with its legislative power," 3 Wheat., at 386, 387.
So we see here that the U.S. held no jurisdiction in a murder even on a U.S. war ship as it was anchored within the jurisdictional waters of the State of Massachusetts.

A coastal States jurisdiction extended at that time to three miles out from the low tide mark: today that jurisdiction extends much further. ALL OF CHARLESTON HARBOR WAS/IS WITHIN SOUTH CAROLINA'S JURISDICTION.

While the U.S. may have held Jurisdiction within the bounds of Fort Sumter, the U.S. held NO SUCH JURISDICTION over the waters that it must traverse to resupply that fort, hence a treaty to do so would be required before resupplying that fort.

In New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 102 (1837), the question before the Court involved the attempt by the City of New York to assess penalties against the master of a ship for his failure to make a report as to the persons his ship brought to New York. As against the master's contention that the act was unconstitutional and that New York had no jurisdiction in the matter, the Court held:

"If we look at the place of its operation, we find it to be within the territory, and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of New York. If we look at the person on whom it operates, he is found within the same territory and jurisdiction," 36 U.S., at 133.

"They are these: that a State has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a State, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its general welfare, by any and every act of legislation which it may deem to be conducive to these ends; where the power over the particular subject, or the manner of its exercise is not surrendered or restrained, in the manner just stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may, perhaps, more properly be called internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrained; and that, consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a State is complete, unqualified and exclusive," 36 U.S., at 139.

In Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845), the question of federal jurisdiction was once again before the Court. This case involved a contest of the title to real property, with one of the parties claiming a right to the disputed property via a U.S. patent; the lands in question were situated in Mobile, Alabama, adjacent to Mobile Bay. In discussing the subject of federal jurisdiction, the Court held:

"We think a proper examination of this subject will show that the United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory, of which Alabama or any of the new States were formed," 44 U.S., at 221.

"ecause, the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted," 44 U.S., at 223.

"Alabama is therefore entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law," 44 U.S., at 228, 229.

This is simply another example of how the unjust, illegal and unlawful war on our Southern Confederate States, and subsequent 150 years of occupation began.

Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which read as follows:

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings."
Here we see that any jurisdiction of the States as a collective in government formation has NO JURISDICTION OUTSIDE OF THE TEN MILES SQUARE THAT IS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS NON-EXISTENT EXCEPT WITHIN A U.S. FORT, AN ARSENAL, A U.S. GOVERNMENT BUILDING, MAGAZINE, OR DOCK YARD, THUS ANY JURISDICTION BEYOND THAT IS THAT OF EACH STATE RESPECTIVELY/INDIVIDUALLY.

The reason for the inclusion of this clause in the Constitution was and is obvious. Under the Articles of Confederation, the States retained full and complete jurisdiction over lands and persons within their borders. The Congress under the Articles was merely a body which represented and acted as agents of the separate States for external affairs, and had no jurisdiction within the States.


I suggest that the Yankee drop his indoctrination, then learn and accept the truth of their ancestors rebellion.

 

[James Everett]

Your ranting now Brown and off topic. I said the loser confederates went to war over slavery. I was not talking about the north. Stop deflecting and getting emotional.

The South was invaded and conquered. What makes you think the South attacked the North to get slaves? They already had slaves.

Show us a link where the north offered to let the south go if they agreed to free the slaves.

The south got their asses kicked because they refused to give up slavery. When did someone tell you I said the south attacked the north to get slaves?

Make up your mind they started a war to get slaves or they defended themselves from attack, you can't have it both ways.

I said neither. Must be one of your deflections again. They started a war to keep slavery. They lost because they were losers. Sorry.

What a LYING POS you are. They did not defend themselves? WTF is wrong with you.

The majority of this Yankee indoctrination BS is debunked within the Articles posted at CSAgov.org
Not to be confused with CSAgovernment.org which is a website created by two Yankees to create confusion, and thwart the restoration effort.

 

[Ravi]

The north did not attack the south over slavery. The south did not defend it's people from attack by the north over slavery. The north did not refuse to remove it's troops from sovereign lands over slavery. The first shots were not over slavery. The fight was over land and control, not slavery. Slavery was the excuse given.

Actually slavery was exactly what the South went to war for. It says so in the Cornerstone speech and articles of secession from various confederate states. In these declarations you rarely got past the first 2-3 sentences without slavery being mentioned as the reason.

Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."

You are confused.
You mix secession with war.
Not all the States that seceded mentioned slavery as a reason for severing their relationship with the Northern States, however there is no doubt that was one of the reasons, and likely the main reason.
The Confederate States went to war as a defense against the U.S. Invasion.
Get your facts straight, and stop relying on Yankee indoctrination.

You must be confused or illiterate. "Various" states doesnt mean all states. There is no doubt it was the primary reason. It says so in the loser confederate speech called the cornerstone speech as I pointed out. The losers documented their reasons. Their reason was slavery. Stop pretending the south will rise again. It wont. Face it.... the confederates were losers. The best part was that Black soldiers ensured their demise.

Nice try at deflection. You stated slavery was the main reason the Southern States went to war. I corrected your ignorance. Stop crying like a Yankee child because you made a fool of yourself.
The VP's cornerstone speech was not about the war. You see, your Yankee indoctrination makes it difficult for you get your facts straight, it's no different than any lie, it's just using half truths which = whole lies. You really should educate yourself out of the indoctrination. The Southern States were simply defending themselves from invasion.

Thats correct. Slavery was the reason the losers went to war. The Cornerstone speech doubles down on that. You must be confused about history. If Stephens speech had nothing to do with war why did he try to retract the below statement after the losers got their asses beat?

"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."

I just can't believe someone would write, think, or believe such a thing let alone found a country based on something like that.

 

[Ravi]

Not only was the Confederacy dedicated to preserving, protecting and defending their 4 millions of their black human bondage, worth more than 3 Billion (1860 dollars) -- more collective wealth than all the property in the US combined

-- they were bent on expansion. Before Lincoln even stepped into office, in January of 1861 --

HUNTSVILLE, January 12, 1861.

To Gov. A. B. MOORE:

I leave for Montgomery to-day. It is absolutely certain that Tennessee will go with the South.

L. P. WALKER.

Mr. Henderson, of Macon, offered the following Resolution, which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:

Resolved, That the Committee on Foreign relations be instructed to inquire into the expediency of sending a special Commissioner, or Commissioners, to the Territories of New Mexico and Arizonia, for the purpose of securing, if possible, the annexation of those Territories to a Southern Confederacy, as new States, at the earliest practicable period.

A communication from the Governor was received and read, with reference to affairs at Pensacola, as follows:

Executive Department, January 12, 1861.

and hey...from that same month -- January 1861 --

"CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY.
Be it Ordained by the people of Alabama in Convention assembled, That full power to confiscate Property belonging to enemies at war with the State of Alabama is hereby invested in the General Assembly of this State. And the power to suspend the collection of Debts, and all obligations to pay money due or owing persons, artificial or natural, in the non-slaveholding States of the United States of America, may be likewise exercised by the General Assembly of this State, in any manner they may see proper; any provisions in the Constitution of the State to the contrary notwithstanding."

"The enemies at war. " In January, 1861.

And more interest in expanding:

""It is true that the interests of the South may demand territorial expansion, for expansion seems to be the law and destiny and necessity of our institutions.

To remain healthful and prosperous within and to make sure our development and power, it seems essential that we should grow without. Arizona and Mexico, Central America and Cuba all may yet be embraced within the limits of our Southern republic. A Gulf Confederacy may be established in the South which may well enjoy almost a monopoly in the production of cotton, rice, sugar, coffee, tobacco, and tropical fruits.

The trade of all tropical America combined with that of the Cotton States would make our Confederacy the wealthiest, the most progressive, and the most influential power on the globe. Should the border States refuse to unite their destiny with ours, then we may be compelled to look for territorial strength and for political power to those rich and beautiful lands that lie upon our southwestern frontier. Their genial climate and productive soil, their rich agricultural and mineral resources, render them admirably adapted to the institution of slavery. Under the influence of that institution these tropical lands would soon add millions to the commercial wealth of our Republic and their magnificent ports would soon be filled with ships from every nation. Slave labor would there build up for the Southern Confederacy populous and wealthy States as it has built up for the late Union the States of Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas."

Lewis M. Stone, Alabama secession convention, January, 1861"

You want to get a eye-opening? Read :

William Russell Smith 1815-1896. The History and Debates of the Convention of the People of Alabama Begun and Held in the City of Montgomery on the Seventh Day of January 1861 in Which is Preserved the Speeches of the Secret Sessions and Many Valuable State Papers.

and here we've been told that the confederates just wanted to live in peace.

 

[James Everett]

Actually slavery was exactly what the South went to war for. It says so in the Cornerstone speech and articles of secession from various confederate states. In these declarations you rarely got past the first 2-3 sentences without slavery being mentioned as the reason.

Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."

You are confused.
You mix secession with war.
Not all the States that seceded mentioned slavery as a reason for severing their relationship with the Northern States, however there is no doubt that was one of the reasons, and likely the main reason.
The Confederate States went to war as a defense against the U.S. Invasion.
Get your facts straight, and stop relying on Yankee indoctrination.

You must be confused or illiterate. "Various" states doesnt mean all states. There is no doubt it was the primary reason. It says so in the loser confederate speech called the cornerstone speech as I pointed out. The losers documented their reasons. Their reason was slavery. Stop pretending the south will rise again. It wont. Face it.... the confederates were losers. The best part was that Black soldiers ensured their demise.

Nice try at deflection. You stated slavery was the main reason the Southern States went to war. I corrected your ignorance. Stop crying like a Yankee child because you made a fool of yourself.
The VP's cornerstone speech was not about the war. You see, your Yankee indoctrination makes it difficult for you get your facts straight, it's no different than any lie, it's just using half truths which = whole lies. You really should educate yourself out of the indoctrination. The Southern States were simply defending themselves from invasion.

Thats correct. Slavery was the reason the losers went to war. The Cornerstone speech doubles down on that. You must be confused about history. If Stephens speech had nothing to do with war why did he try to retract the below statement after the losers got their asses beat?

"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."

I just can't believe someone would write, think, or believe such a thing let alone found a country based on something like that.

The Yankee, cannot help but lie in order to justify and coverup their ignorance. Such are the same idiots who believe the war in Iraq is over WMD: After all their President said so.
There is nothing within the speech that states that the Southern States went to war over slavery, such is just another lie by the Yankee liars to justify their ancestors rebellion.
The United States was built on the same principle as Alexander Stephens Stated that the Southern Confederacy was built on, they just acted in typical hypocritical form when it came to the Black man, and the Native American Indian. All men were created equal, that is when it suited there desires. For 89 years the black man was enslaved under the U.S. CONstitution, for a far more number of years the Native American Indian was exterminated under manifest destiny, wherein the Soldiers that carved the unborn from their mothers wombs, threw nursing infants into the air and bayoneted them as their lil bodies fell back to the blood stained ground, and then stated their reasons for doing these things was because "NITS MAKE LICE!" I cannot believe that the Yankee would believe such and build a nation on the blood of these people.
It was after all, Yankee General Philip Sheridan who stated...."The only good Indian I ever saw was a DEAD Indian".
You see, such as Ravi's post begins with a lie, and is based in an attempt to deflect, and project all her ancestors evils on the people of the Southern Confederate States.
The war was forced upon the Southern Confederate States in defense of the invasion of the Southern Confederate States by the Yankee.

The Coastal States in 1861 territorial waters extended out three miles from the low tide mark. South Carolina Charleston Harbor was well within that three mile mark. The U.S.attempts to traverse South Carolina sovereign waters to resupply fort Sumter without establishing a peace treaty with South Carolina was an act of war and aggression.
An armistice had been entered into between South Carolina's government and the United States government, December 6, 1860. A similar armistice had been entered into between Florida and the United States government, January 29, 1861. These armistices agreed that the forts, Sumter and Pickens, should neither be garrisoned nor provisioned so long as these armistices continued in force.
South Carolina had offered to purchase the Fort.
Now as to the invasion of South Carolina by the U.S. and its plans to further invade South Carolina....
On March 29, Lincoln, without consent of his Cabinet, ordered three ships with 300 men and provisions to be ready to go to Fort Sumter. All orders were marked private. A fourth expedition was secretly sent to Pensacola, Florida, under Lieutenant Porter, April 7th, on which date the three vessels were directed to go to Fort Sumter. On that same day President Lincoln directed Seward to address to the Confederate Peace Commissioners in Washington, and say "that they had no design to reinforce Fort Sumter." In short there were four expeditions ordered to garrison and provision Forts Sumter and Pickens while the armistice was yet in force. South Carolina observed her agreement faithfully, to make no attack on Fort Sumter on account of promises made to evacuate the premises by the Federals, as well as its permission, continued into April, 1861, for Major Anderson to purchase fresh provisions in the markets of Charleston. This points out a peaceable disposition which cannot be misunderstood, unless Lincoln was looking to provoke war.
Not until sufficient time had elapsed to cover the estimated landing of the vessels were the Confederate Peace Commissioners informed of these facts regarding the North intent to reinforce the US troops. At length, on the 8th of April, South Carolina was officially informed that "an attempt would be made to supply Fort Sumter, peaceably if they could, forcibly if they must." Eight armed vessels with soldiers aboard had been sent to sustain the notification, and moved so quickly on this expedition that only an unexpected storm at sea caused delay enough for the Confederate authorities to successfully meet the issue. A storm delayed some of the ships.
The Confederate States objected to this movement of the Federals, because the reinforcement was invasion by the use of physical force; because it asserted the claim of the United States to sovereignty over South Carolina, which was in dispute; and because the supply of the garrison in Fort Sumter with necessary rations was not the object nor the end of the expedition. The purpose was to secure Fort Sumter, to close the port with the warships, to reduce Charleston by bombardment if necessary, to land troops from transports, and thus crush "The Rebellion" where it was supposed to have begun by overthrowing South Carolina.
Now as stated, South Carolina territory extended out to sea 3 miles from the low tide mark, hence in order to re -supply Ft Sumter, the U.S. would need to traverse South Carolina's territorial waters, and to do so without establishing a treaty to do so constituted an act of war.
Confederate States of America Interim Government
March 1 at 5:49pm · Edited ·
Attempts, and intentions by the U.S. to resupply Fort Sumter by traversing South Carolina waters without establishing a treaty with South Carolina was an invasion of South Carolina and constituted an act of war and aggression by the U.S.
The U.S. had no jurisdiction over the waters within Charleston harbor, or the soil beneath those waters, such can be understood from an early court case .......
United States v. Bevans, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 336 (1818), which involved a federal prosecution for a murder committed on board the Warship, Independence, anchored in the harbor of Boston, Massachusetts.
The defense complained that only the state had jurisdiction to prosecute and argued that the federal Circuit Courts had no jurisdiction of this crime supposedly committed within the federal government's admiralty jurisdiction. In argument before the Supreme Court, counsel for the United States admitted as follows:
"The exclusive jurisdiction which the United States have in forts and dock-yards ceded to them, is derived from the express assent of the states by whom the cessions are made. It could be derived in no other manner; because without it, the authority of the state would be supreme and exclusive therein," 3 Wheat., at 350, 351.
In holding that the State of Massachusetts had jurisdiction over the crime, the Court held:
"What, then, is the extent of jurisdiction which a state possesses?
"We answer, without hesitation, the jurisdiction of a state is co-extensive with its territory; co-extensive with its legislative power," 3 Wheat., at 386, 387.
So we see here that the U.S. held no jurisdiction in a murder even on a U.S. war ship as it was anchored within the jurisdictional waters of the State of Massachusetts.

A coastal States jurisdiction extended at that time to three miles out from the low tide mark: today that jurisdiction extends much further. ALL OF CHARLESTON HARBOR WAS/IS WITHIN SOUTH CAROLINA'S JURISDICTION.

While the U.S. may have held Jurisdiction within the bounds of Fort Sumter, the U.S. held NO SUCH JURISDICTION over the waters that it must traverse to resupply that fort, hence a treaty to do so would be required before resupplying that fort.

In New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 102 (1837), the question before the Court involved the attempt by the City of New York to assess penalties against the master of a ship for his failure to make a report as to the persons his ship brought to New York. As against the master's contention that the act was unconstitutional and that New York had no jurisdiction in the matter, the Court held:

"If we look at the place of its operation, we find it to be within the territory, and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of New York. If we look at the person on whom it operates, he is found within the same territory and jurisdiction," 36 U.S., at 133.

"They are these: that a State has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a State, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its general welfare, by any and every act of legislation which it may deem to be conducive to these ends; where the power over the particular subject, or the manner of its exercise is not surrendered or restrained, in the manner just stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may, perhaps, more properly be called internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrained; and that, consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a State is complete, unqualified and exclusive," 36 U.S., at 139.

In Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845), the question of federal jurisdiction was once again before the Court. This case involved a contest of the title to real property, with one of the parties claiming a right to the disputed property via a U.S. patent; the lands in question were situated in Mobile, Alabama, adjacent to Mobile Bay. In discussing the subject of federal jurisdiction, the Court held:

"We think a proper examination of this subject will show that the United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory, of which Alabama or any of the new States were formed," 44 U.S., at 221.

"ecause, the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted," 44 U.S., at 223.

"Alabama is therefore entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law," 44 U.S., at 228, 229.

This is simply another example of how the unjust, illegal and unlawful war on our Southern Confederate States, and subsequent 150 years of occupation began.

Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which read as follows:

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings."
Here we see that any jurisdiction of the States as a collective in government formation has NO JURISDICTION OUTSIDE OF THE TEN MILES SQUARE THAT IS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS NON-EXISTENT EXCEPT WITHIN A U.S. FORT, AN ARSENAL, A U.S. GOVERNMENT BUILDING, MAGAZINE, OR DOCK YARD, THUS ANY JURISDICTION BEYOND THAT IS THAT OF EACH STATE RESPECTIVELY/INDIVIDUALLY.

The reason for the inclusion of this clause in the Constitution was and is obvious. Under the Articles of Confederation, the States retained full and complete jurisdiction over lands and persons within their borders. The Congress under the Articles was merely a body which represented and acted as agents of the separate States for external affairs, and had no jurisdiction within the States.


I suggest that the Yankee drop his indoctrination, then learn and accept the truth of their ancestors rebellion.

 

[Ravi]

Right, the cornerstone of their "country" was slavery and that means the war had nothing to do with slavery.