Was seccession illegal?

[yiostheoy]

The only reason it hasn't handed over Guantanamo is the fact that the USA can crush Cuba like a bug. If it didn't have that power, then Cuba could repossess it and It would be perfectly within its rights to do so. Anywhere else the host country wanted us to leave, we did. All you're arguing is that might makes right.

My point had nothing at all to do with "might makes right". As I wrote in my original post, South Carolina didn't own Fort Sumter when they attacked it. The fort belonged to the United States. South Carolina ceded the island it sits on to the United States on Dec 21, 1836 and thus the confederacy had no rightful claim to it. I equated that action to John Brown's raid on the federal armory in Harper's Ferry. Both attacked the United States and ended up paying the price.

You bring up the government should simply leave when asked. I responded with Guantanamo as example that the world doesn't operate that way. Another example would be the time it took for the United States to cede the Panama Canal back to Panama.

View attachment 122019
​

The Confederacy needed the munitions.

 

[yiostheoy]

We all know the SC ruled on it AFTER it was all said and done. If you apply the principle of legality, well, the idea it was illegal is shot to hell. But what about the 10th amendment?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I have never heard anyone discuss this issue.
Thoughts?

Nope, never was, which is why it was such a constant and often used threat by most regions. The first states to use the threat were the New England states, upset over Jefferson's winning the Presidency and for decades after, and for reasons far less justifiable than the southern states had. The 1868 'ruling' wasn't explicitly about secession, it was about the appointed military governor of Texas wanting to steal some Texas state bonds that had matured for his own pocket, and of course the completely corrupt Chase SC gladly handed them to him, most likely for a suitable bribe, of course.

How was it illegal?

Don't know what you mean. Secession wasn't illegal, and still isn't.

How wasn't it legal? The COTUS didn't clarify it. There wasn't a previous SC ruling. There were no federal laws..

Exactly, there were no prohibitions against secession. The document is intended to define and limit Federal powers, which is why it isn't mentioned, and in fact using force against a state seceding was specifically rejected at the Convention. Does your town have any laws covering where Martians can poop in the local park? No, because there is no reason for one to begin with. The union was a voluntary union.

There are no prohibitions against Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny either.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, btw, specific to the southern states secession, the attack on Ft. Sumter, the act of war to confiscate a federal military installation, was clearly illegal.

It was an act of war, that much is true.

Wrong. Kicking trespassers out of you country is not an act of war.

Taking over part of a country and trying to make it a different country and using force in the process is an act of war.

 

[percysunshine]

We all know the SC ruled on it AFTER it was all said and done. If you apply the principle of legality, well, the idea it was illegal is shot to hell. But what about the 10th amendment?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I have never heard anyone discuss this issue.
Thoughts?

The Russians are behind this;

Yes California Independence Campaign Has Russian Backing, Deserves Defeat | National Review

Heh...

 

[NYcarbineer]

In a sense, the illegality of secession, as it relates to violating federal laws, had been tested in the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791.

The rebels lost.

 

[Picaro]

The only reason it hasn't handed over Guantanamo is the fact that the USA can crush Cuba like a bug. If it didn't have that power, then Cuba could repossess it and It would be perfectly within its rights to do so. Anywhere else the host country wanted us to leave, we did. All you're arguing is that might makes right.

My point had nothing at all to do with "might makes right". As I wrote in my original post, South Carolina didn't own Fort Sumter when they attacked it. The fort belonged to the United States. South Carolina ceded the island it sits on to the United States on Dec 21, 1836 and thus the confederacy had no rightful claim to it. I equated that action to John Brown's raid on the federal armory in Harper's Ferry. Both attacked the United States and ended up paying the price.

You bring up the government should simply leave when asked. I responded with Guantanamo as example that the world doesn't operate that way. Another example would be the time it took for the United States to cede the Panama Canal back to Panama.

View attachment 122019
​

Actually the property reverted back to the state who gave it the Feds, and the Feds fully intended to collect Federal duties, all illegally. And yes, they should have left when asked, as they did several other ports in the South and properties elsewhere.

 

[Picaro]

In a sense, the illegality of secession, as it relates to violating federal laws, had been tested in the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791.

The rebels lost.

Nonsense, and desperation for a point to make, when none exist.

 

[Picaro]

Nope, never was, which is why it was such a constant and often used threat by most regions. The first states to use the threat were the New England states, upset over Jefferson's winning the Presidency and for decades after, and for reasons far less justifiable than the southern states had. The 1868 'ruling' wasn't explicitly about secession, it was about the appointed military governor of Texas wanting to steal some Texas state bonds that had matured for his own pocket, and of course the completely corrupt Chase SC gladly handed them to him, most likely for a suitable bribe, of course.

How was it illegal?

Don't know what you mean. Secession wasn't illegal, and still isn't. States can't be forced to remain in the Union. The federal govt. has no power to force them to stay in the union.

What's the legal process for secession then?

The state votes itself out, of course. Your silly notion that it requires a national referendum on an Amendment is ridiculous and nowhere in the Constitution or any Supreme Court ruling, and certainly not an 'implied power'.

The state has no such authority. The state agreed to be a part of a nation and in doing so accepted the authority of the national government.

Yes, actually it does, and most everybody thought so, including northern states, who had threatened the same thing many times themselves.

 

[Picaro]

Alaska and Texas are still trying believe it or not! Idiots!

So is California!

Except that the rest of the country supports California leaving, and as quickly as possible.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Alaska and Texas are still trying believe it or not! Idiots!

The Peoples Republic of California is.

 

[Picaro]

Can't wait to build a fence around it. We need to start now, right away.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh, btw, specific to the southern states secession, the attack on Ft. Sumter, the act of war to confiscate a federal military installation, was clearly illegal.

It was an act of war, that much is true.

Wrong. Kicking trespassers out of you country is not an act of war.

Taking over part of a country and trying to make it a different country and using force in the process is an act of war.

South Carolina was a country before it joined the union, dumbass. It wasn't taking over anything. Lincoln used force. Carolina simply extricated itself from a treaty it no longer wanted to be a party to.

 

[bripat9643]

In a sense, the illegality of secession, as it relates to violating federal laws, had been tested in the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791.

The rebels lost.

The Whiskey Rebellion had nothing to do with secession. It had to do with paying an excise tax on Whiskey.

 

[percysunshine]

In a sense, the illegality of secession, as it relates to violating federal laws, had been tested in the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791.

The rebels lost.

It was also tested at the court house ...Appomattox, I believe.

Not that anyone would want to fight California for succeeding....they would probably get some help from red states.

 

[my2¢]

The only reason it hasn't handed over Guantanamo is the fact that the USA can crush Cuba like a bug. If it didn't have that power, then Cuba could repossess it and It would be perfectly within its rights to do so. Anywhere else the host country wanted us to leave, we did. All you're arguing is that might makes right.

My point had nothing at all to do with "might makes right". As I wrote in my original post, South Carolina didn't own Fort Sumter when they attacked it. The fort belonged to the United States. South Carolina ceded the island it sits on to the United States on Dec 21, 1836 and thus the confederacy had no rightful claim to it. I equated that action to John Brown's raid on the federal armory in Harper's Ferry. Both attacked the United States and ended up paying the price.

You bring up the government should simply leave when asked. I responded with Guantanamo as example that the world doesn't operate that way. Another example would be the time it took for the United States to cede the Panama Canal back to Panama.

View attachment 122019
​

Actually the property reverted back to the state who gave it the Feds, and the Feds fully intended to collect Federal duties, all illegally. And yes, they should have left when asked, as they did several other ports in the South and properties elsewhere.

I've already presented the legislative act which ceded the land. So to add I'll simply quote:

Some neoconfederates make the claim that South Carolina specified the fort had to be used in defense of South Carolina, or of Charleston, and that if it ever was not placed to that use its ownership would revert to South Carolina. As we can see from the legislation, such is not the case. As Crawford tells us, “It had been acquired and the jurisdiction yielded by the Legislature of the State in the usual way. There was no special contract between the Federal Government and this Commonwealth, nor any feature which distinguished the legal relations between them from those maintained with the other States of the Union.”

In other words, Fort Sumter belonged to the United States. Anyone who makes any claim to the contrary is simply wrong.

Who Owned Fort Sumter?​

 

[percysunshine]

.
I can see it now. New York and Vermont vs. California and all the red states.

Anyone want to guess who will win?

 

[bripat9643]

The only reason it hasn't handed over Guantanamo is the fact that the USA can crush Cuba like a bug. If it didn't have that power, then Cuba could repossess it and It would be perfectly within its rights to do so. Anywhere else the host country wanted us to leave, we did. All you're arguing is that might makes right.

My point had nothing at all to do with "might makes right". As I wrote in my original post, South Carolina didn't own Fort Sumter when they attacked it. The fort belonged to the United States. South Carolina ceded the island it sits on to the United States on Dec 21, 1836 and thus the confederacy had no rightful claim to it. I equated that action to John Brown's raid on the federal armory in Harper's Ferry. Both attacked the United States and ended up paying the price.

You bring up the government should simply leave when asked. I responded with Guantanamo as example that the world doesn't operate that way. Another example would be the time it took for the United States to cede the Panama Canal back to Panama.

View attachment 122019
​

Actually the property reverted back to the state who gave it the Feds, and the Feds fully intended to collect Federal duties, all illegally. And yes, they should have left when asked, as they did several other ports in the South and properties elsewhere.

I've already presented the legislative act which ceded the land. So to add I'll simply quote:

Some neoconfederates make the claim that South Carolina specified the fort had to be used in defense of South Carolina, or of Charleston, and that if it ever was not placed to that use its ownership would revert to South Carolina. As we can see from the legislation, such is not the case. As Crawford tells us, “It had been acquired and the jurisdiction yielded by the Legislature of the State in the usual way. There was no special contract between the Federal Government and this Commonwealth, nor any feature which distinguished the legal relations between them from those maintained with the other States of the Union.”

In other words, Fort Sumter belonged to the United States. Anyone who makes any claim to the contrary is simply wrong.

Who Owned Fort Sumter?​

The land become property of the federal government. It remained the territory of South Carolina. In typical fashion, a member of the Lincoln cult tries to blur the distinction between territory and property.

You would have us believe that Annapolis Naval base is not part of Maryland and not subject to the laws of Maryland. I think you'll find that the Maryland state legislature believes otherwise.

BTW, your source is a no-name blog. His first error is deliberately mischaracterizing the argument of the people on my side of the issue.

 

[my2¢]

The land become property of the federal government. It remained the territory of South Carolina. In typical fashion, a member of the Lincoln cult tries to blur the distinction between territory and property.

You would have us believe that Annapolis Naval base is not part of Maryland and not subject to the laws of Maryland. I think you'll find that the Maryland state legislature believes otherwise.

BTW, your source is a no-name blog. His first error is deliberately mischaracterizing the argument of the people on my side of the issue.

You're wrong again. I challenge you to present anything I wrote relating to the State of Maryland ceded the property to Annapolis.

 

[bripat9643]

The land become property of the federal government. It remained the territory of South Carolina. In typical fashion, a member of the Lincoln cult tries to blur the distinction between territory and property.

You would have us believe that Annapolis Naval base is not part of Maryland and not subject to the laws of Maryland. I think you'll find that the Maryland state legislature believes otherwise.

BTW, your source is a no-name blog. His first error is deliberately mischaracterizing the argument of the people on my side of the issue.

You're wrong again. I challenge you to present anything I wrote relating to the State of Maryland ceded the property to Annapolis.

Annapolis is a military base, just like Ft Sumter. All military bases are subject to the laws of the state where they are located, just like Ft Sumter and Annapolis. Your job is to explain why there is some fundamental difference between Ft Sumter and Annapolis.

 

[my2¢]

Annapolis is a military base, just like Ft Sumter. All military bases are subject to the laws of the state where they are located, just like Ft Sumter and Annapolis. Your job is to explain why there is some fundamental difference between Ft Sumter and Annapolis.

Which part of "Resolved, That this State do cede to the United States, all the right title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory" don't you get?

As for my source, I used ebook:
Acts and Joint Resolutions of the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina
By South Carolina

Acts and joint resolutions of the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina. (Journal, magazine, 1776) [WorldCat.org]

​