Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine


I don't believe any supeanaes or arrest warrents were issued

quote:

ORIGINAL: Santee Rifleman

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine


I don't believe any supeanaes or arrest warrents were issued

Agreed on the arrest warrants. However, the original document says ALL processes... and in December of 1860 the State of South Carolina was attempting to execute sovereign dominion over her territory. The movement of the harbor garrison from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter was in violation of the agreement between the State of South Carolina and the United States of early December 1860 which stipulated among other things that Fort Sumter was neither to be garrisoned nor provisioned while the State and the United States negotiated possession. The removal of the Moultrie garrison to Sumter was extra-legal. The garrison was in possesion of the fort illegally. The demand for the evacuation of Sumter and its surrender to authorities of the State of South Carolina was a legal process of the SC State government. The Law was the Ordinance of Secession. The demand for the Fort was made under the laws of the State of South Carolina, under the jurisdiction of Her Constitution, by the will of Her people, and under the aegis of Her government.

Dum Spiro Spero...

W.G.U. Moultrie.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine
Except they gave up all rights to property in 1836:

Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"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, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836

"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
IF the Government has the power then the States cant simply say, "Damn we quit" and negate that power... claiming they can ignores the reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
I chose to LIVE in North Carolina and have done so since 1993. Is it now your opinion that only those that agreee with you are allowed to live where ever it is you decide they can?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

Correction: Ft. Sumter was not "empty" when Major Anderson transferred his command in late December 1860; a small party of US engineers was at Sumter busily engaged on construction work since at least October of that year (acting very much like they owned the place, I might add).

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine

Agreement with whom, the Secretary of War, John B. Floyd, who ended up being a Confederate general? There is nothing illegal with voiding such an agreement. If such a formal agreement existed, it falls in the realm of civil litigation and not criminal.

quote:

When and where did a formal hearing take place. When was the United States informed? Who represented them at the hearing? Due process is required.

quote:

The agreement, if one existed (I can't find any evidence of such an agreement), would have been portrayed to minimize tension, but more than likely, it was intended to allow South Carolina to take posession without due process and a fight. The only reason Major Robert Anderson was put in command of Ft. Sumter was because he was from Kentucky. It was believed, since he was from a Southern state, that he would just turn everything over if South Carolina asked. If South Carolina felt it had a legal right to the property, why were devious tactics required?

quote:

None the less, the terminology in the document is such that South Carolina wanted access to anyone hiding from the law within Ft. Sumter. It was not to leave a convenient out form the first part of the statement. In 1836, they weren't looking at it from any other prospective than they wanted protection for the harbor from foreign ships. The law required such fort be on Federal property, owned by the Federal government and not the state. No provision was made for returning such property to a state during secession because no provision was made for secession. The argument for the legality of secession is the absense of explicit prohibitions in the Constitution, i.e. "states may not secede from the Union." The only thing I see explicit is "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." South Carolina, by the agreement had legal access to the occupants of said property for civil or criminal litigation. They don't have access to ownership rights of the property itself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Santee Rifleman

Further, in 1860, the concept of the right of the People to choose their own Government was a fundamentally American one, no matter what the "legalities" were or are. Otherwise, we'd still be putting English Royal stamps on our transactions and paying taxes to a crowned tyrant. Into the Union the peace-loving citizens of South Carolina came, uncoerced, of their own free will. Out of the Union they went, peacefully and of their own free will. Morally, where is the argument? It took war, invasion, death, desolation, destruction and defeat, occupations and Reconstruction to force them back into same Union, against their will, under a government they did not choose...


Dum Spiro Spero...

W.G.U. Moultrie.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
Thanks for this interesting document, which of course I knew nothing about. It seems rather conclusive, except that it appears to have been a resolution of the US House of Representatives (the recipient of the gift!) rather than a resolution of the State of South Carolina (the donor). It is quite possible that South Carolina was willing at the time to give up all claims to Fort Sumter (in which case I would agree that it had no legal case for claiming it back in 1861), but the document you quote doesn't seem to provide evidence of that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine
After they started building Ft. Sumter, which I believe was built from the harbor floor, someone tried to claim it as being property of South Carolina and not the Federal Government. All land that forts are built on is suppose to be Federal property, but since there wasn't anything other than water originally, no one bothered to purchase it in the government. Since South Carolina wanted the fort for protection, they cleared the issue up by transferring ownership to the Federal Government and voiding all claims others had to the property. This document is from the House of Representatives declaring the resolution to the problem. Somewhere, there is a corresponding document from the South Carolina governor transferring ownership, but I haven't found that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine
Overall, South Carolina want the fort because it posed a threat to Charleston harbor in 1861 and who really owned it didn't matter one bit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
Let's play with this a bit and see how much we can agree on (if anything).

1. The powers of the US government don't apply to other countries.

quote:


2. But that does not 'negate' those powers.

quote:


3. US citizens can emigrate to other countries and take foreign citizenship, in which case the powers of the US government no longer apply to them.

quote:


4. But that does not 'negate' those powers.

quote:


5. In theory, the whole population of the southern states could have emigrated to other countries in 1861, in which case the powers of the US government would no longer have applied to them.

quote:


6. But that would not have 'negated' those powers.

quote:


I'm not sure whether we can agree on all these points, but there seems some possibility of it.

Assuming for the time being that we can agree on all these points, we seem to have agreed that any number of US citizens could choose at any time to take themselves permanently out of US jurisdiction, without even negotiating with the US government, and yet without the powers of the US government being 'negated'.

If they could do this by one method, why it is so outrageous to suggest that they could do it by a slightly different method? And why it is that one method is deemed to 'negate' the powers of the US government, but the other method is not?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine

Agreement with whom, the Secretary of War, John B. Floyd, who ended up being a Confederate general? There is nothing illegal with voiding such an agreement. If such a formal agreement existed, it falls in the realm of civil litigation and not criminal.

Actually this would be in the realm of treaties since South Carolina was a sovereign nation.

quote:

quote:

When and where did a formal hearing take place. When was the United States informed? Who represented them at the hearing? Due process is required.

All that was required by international law at the time was a declaration of sovereignity from the former State, which South Carolina issued and delivered to the US Congress by way of the last official act of its representatives to that body.

quote:


Exactly which South Carolinian put Maj. Anderson in charge of Ft. Moultrie, because as I explained before he was not in charge of Ft. Sumter when South Carolina seceeded? If you are claiming that Floyd did this for that purpose, the US Congress aquitted him of any wrong doing in the disposition of forces and commands immediately preceeding the War of Northern Aggression.

quote:


It's called eminent domain (legal term, you can go look it up). When South Carolina declared itself a sovereign nation it reclaimed all land owned by the United States withing it's borders, for which the US could have sued to be reimbursed. Instead of following the due process of a sovereign nation, they invaded.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
Fair enough, I'm willing to believe you. There's still some possibility of argument remaining, in that South Carolina ceded the fort to the government of a country that included South Carolina. When South Carolina split off from that country, as I've already mentioned it could claim to be due some Federal properties in return for past taxes paid, which might have included Fort Sumter. This could have been a subject of negotiation.

quote:


However, if it had already explicitly waived all claims to the fort, to open fire on it in place of negotiations looks overhasty. Major Anderson's little trip was an unnecessary provocation, but it could easily have been ignored.

quote:


Apparently. But patience would have been a virtue in this case. The fort was clearly vulnerable and South Carolinians could have waited for it to fire first. Probably the USA would have got sick of supplying it before then.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine
Anderson's move might have been provocative, but it may also have been viewed as self preservation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine
Does such emigration render prior citizenship void? Some countries figure if you are born a citizen of this country, whatever this country might be, then you are always a citizen of this country. Consider this country to be a fill in the blank. I know some people have citizenship stripped and have been deported back to the country they came from, but that is typically when they lied when becoming citizens in the first place. Also, during the Vietnam War, many people went to Canada to avoid the draft and became citizens. That didn't stop the United States from wanting them if they ever returned.

I also think there is a process for renouncing citizenship to a country. Emigration would make one a citizen of another country, but not necessarily void the citizenship of the parent country.

quote:

he clearly felt exposed at Fort Moultrie. But I believe he had orders to surrender if necessary rather than fight to the death

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine
There are a number of problems I see.

The first is no one, other than the Confederacy itself, considered the South to be another country. I believe England and France considered the Civil War to be an internal problem to the United States.

Second, emigration is a personal thing. If you are trying to say the Southern states were in effect, emigrating in mass, what about the people who didn't want to "emigrate"? There were some in every Southern state. Beside, emigration is a people and not a territory thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
As for "emigration is a people and not a territory thing": I'm not suggesting that emigration and secession are the same thing; merely that they're two somewhat different ways of quitting a country. The fact that emigration is permitted doesn't necessarily mean that secession should be; but it does suggest to me that the general idea of quitting a country shouldn't cause alarm and outrage. People do it all the time by emigrating.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lvaces
It is true that Anderson had orders saying he was not expected to "fight to the death". He was still expected to conduct the best defense he could, however; and he thought (correctly so) the best defense available was at Fort Sumter. Just because an officer is told he is not expected to fight to the last man does not mean he is then free to conduct a lackidasical half-ass defense, then surrender on demand. I think given the orders he had - make the best defense you can; but if you can't win, you may surrender to save the lives of your men - all his choices from beginning to end were almost exactly right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
I chose to LIVE in North Carolina and have done so since 1993. Is it now your opinion that only those that agreee with you are allowed to live where ever it is you decide they can?

No, we just have enough trouble being perceived in the rest of the nation as ignorant without you supporting that stereotype. You clearly are talking out your ass about things you have not researched as many others here have pointed out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
I chose to LIVE in North Carolina and have done so since 1993. Is it now your opinion that only those that agreee with you are allowed to live where ever it is you decide they can?

No, we just have enough trouble being perceived in the rest of the nation as ignorant without you supporting that stereotype. You clearly are talking out your ass about things you have not researched as many others here have pointed out.

Ahh so now your going to call me names... whats wrong cant win otherwise?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
IF the Government has the power then the States cant simply say, "Damn we quit" and negate that power... claiming they can ignores the reality.

Let's play with this a bit and see how much we can agree on (if anything).

1. The powers of the US government don't apply to other countries.

2. But that does not 'negate' those powers.

3. US citizens can emigrate to other countries and take foreign citizenship, in which case the powers of the US government no longer apply to them.

4. But that does not 'negate' those powers.

5. In theory, the whole population of the southern states could have emigrated to other countries in 1861, in which case the powers of the US government would no longer have applied to them.

6. But that would not have 'negated' those powers.

I'm not sure whether we can agree on all these points, but there seems some possibility of it.

Assuming for the time being that we can agree on all these points, we seem to have agreed that any number of US citizens could choose at any time to take themselves permanently out of US jurisdiction, without even negotiating with the US government, and yet without the powers of the US government being 'negated'.

If they could do this by one method, why it is so outrageous to suggest that they could do it by a slightly different method? And why it is that one method is deemed to 'negate' the powers of the US government, but the other method is not?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine
Except they gave up all rights to property in 1836:

Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"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, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836

"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S.

Thanks for this interesting document, which of course I knew nothing about. It seems rather conclusive, except that it appears to have been a resolution of the US House of Representatives (the recipient of the gift!) rather than a resolution of the State of South Carolina (the donor). It is quite possible that South Carolina was willing at the time to give up all claims to Fort Sumter (in which case I would agree that it had no legal case for claiming it back in 1861), but the document you quote doesn't seem to provide evidence of that.

quote:


Glad to see another South Carolinian :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
Individuals can leave anytime they want (with restrictions even there) Governments can NOT.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
IF the state wanted to leave and had the votes to do so it had to petition the Federal Government OR it had to create and pass an amendment to the Constitution otherwise the Federal Authority and Power LISTED in detail in the Constitution take precedent over ANY state law action or desire.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Individuals can leave anytime they want ( with restrictions even there) Governments can NOT. No State or local Government can tell the US Government that the Authority and power of the local supercedes the Federal, because it DOESNT. IF the state wanted to leave and had the votes to do so it had to petition the Federal Government OR it had to create and pass an amendment to the Constitution otherwise the Federal Authority and Power LISTED in detail in the Constitution take precedent over ANY state law action or desire.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
I was replying to Twotribes, who keeps claiming that secession is unthinkable because it would 'negate' (his word) all the powers of the US government. Therefore I tried to point out that it is possible for US citizens to quit the USA and leave its jurisdiction -- by emigrating -- without, apparently, negating the powers of the US government. If they can quit the USA in one way, it shouldn't be unthinkable for them to quit in another way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Santee Mtd Rifleman

quote:


Glad to see another South Carolinian :)

Glad to be here, Murat! :-). I grew up right under the guns of Sumter, across the harbor mouth on Sullivan's Island (literally under the guns of Moultrie!). This is a great discussion!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes


As to Rieryc, can you read?

quote:


Have you READ the Constitution?

quote:

Are you asking me to write here the provisions so clearly stated in the Constitution?

quote:

If so why?

quote:

Are you in capable of locating said document on the internet and reading it?

quote:


Are you claiming that the Provisions that provide SPECIFIC powers to the Federal Government are unclear?

quote:


I can provide you a link to said document if you would like, I however have never figured out how to copy and paste in this forum and have NO intention of rewriting what you clearly should have access to yourself.