Was seccession illegal?

[yiostheoy]

this thread is spam.

just like TNHarley intended.

 

[TNHarley]

this thread is spam.

just like TNHarley intended.

Are you not done getting your ass handed to you, yet?

 

[Picaro]

So, when France ceded us the Louisiana Purchase they got th keep the forts and other French govt. property? Your 'proof' is just nonsense; it ceased being 'Federal property' when S. Carolina seceded, and the Feds were going to collect their tariffs from the port. the only way they could do that is by blockade and force, acts of war.

My case is the U.S. owed Fort Sumter because South Carolina's legislature ceded the territory to the U.S. This is consistent with the United States ownership of all the Louisiana territory (forts and other French property included) when France ceded the land to the U.S.

It was state territory to begin with, and granted to serve a Federal purpose. That purpose no longer existed, and the Union was openly stating it was going to keep collecting tariffs from the port, a clear and recognized act of war. You have nothing but wishful thinking here.

For your "logic" to be consistent you would be the one needing to make the point that France got to keep the forts and their government property after they ceded the land to the U.S.

No, actually my point highlights how ridiculous yours is, and you can't make a legal case for yours.

 

[Picaro]

There is no exit clause in the Constitution.

That's because it was a voluntary Union, no exit clause needed, period.

When each State joined the Union, they were aware of this.

Yes, they knew it was a voluntary union. None of them would have signed if it weren't.

It's not impossible to add an exit clause to the Constitution in the form of an Amendment.

So? It wasn't necessary,

If the Confederates had worked on adding such a clause - it would have been eventually added. They could have left the Union without a question.

So, the verdict is: the Confederate States were too stupid to leave the Union.

Some are too stupid to admit they don't have a clue. If leaving was to be illegal, then they would have made it illegal and laid out the consequences for leaving. We already know using the military against a state govt. was emphatically and specifically rejected, so we know Lincoln was violating the law and committing treason to boot.

Joining was voluntary, just like signing any contract is voluntary. But like any contract, there is no exiting the contract unless either the other party voids the contract or there's an exit clause specifying the conditions for exiting.

It strikes me that it wouldn't be very difficult to add an amendment to the Constitution that allowed cessation.

Horseshit. Unless a contract spells out penalties for not abiding by the terms of the contract, there are none. If my gym membership specifies no penalties for not continuing to pay the fee, there are none. Your belief that you aren't allowed to break a contract without any exit terms is ludicrous. The reason all contracts have exit terms is the fact that the party creating the contract knows he can do nothing about the other party walking away if he doesn't.

You obviously got your understanding of the law in the sand box.

First of all, most minor contract do have exit clauses saying that either party can exit without penalty. Second, simple common sense dictates that joining a gym is not a life long binding contract, so unless the contract specifies a penalty, there is none.

However, a State joining a Union to form a country is a whole other magnitude of contract. It could be reasonably understood that States can not just join and leave the union willy-nilly. Every year the Union would be changing which States are and are not members? Every time a federal law was passed that some States didn't like they'd leave? They'd suddenly rejoin when they needed the protection of Federal military forces, but leave whenever a war that didn't threaten them was declared? That's not workable and is void of any reasonable common sense.

Do you ever think things thru?

They would only have to show just cause, and in fact that very situation of states threatening to leave was the standard for many decades; it prompted many compromises, so obviously it was workable.

 

[there4eyeM]

Perpetual Union, more perfect Union, leaving only through consent and Constitutional process. Unilateral secession not allowed. Militant uprising put down. Union preserved.

 

[JohnnyApplesack]

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?

no one would utter a word if Tejas seceded again

 

[my2¢]

No, actually my point highlights how ridiculous yours is, and you can't make a legal case for yours.

The case you make is imaginary. Mine is based on South Carolina's legislative action and the Constitution of the United States (Article I, Section 8).

http://www.civilwarhome.com/sumterownership.html

 

[LeftofLeft]

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?

Who gives a shit about seccession? Vermont screamed it would secede during Bush as did Texas during Obama as did California did it during Trump. How many yahoos put it out there that if Trump was elected they would leave the Country. Who has left??? It's all bullshit. No one is leaving. Everyone, Left and Right, wants to be HERE because it is BETTER than anywhere else. American Exceptionalism.

 

[bripat9643]

No, actually my point highlights how ridiculous yours is, and you can't make a legal case for yours.

The case you make is imaginary. Mine is based on South Carolina's legislative action and the Constitution of the United States (Article I, Section 8).

http://www.civilwarhome.com/sumterownership.html

No it isn't. Your case is based on lies and bullshit.

 

[my2¢]

No, actually my point highlights how ridiculous yours is, and you can't make a legal case for yours.

The case you make is imaginary. Mine is based on South Carolina's legislative action and the Constitution of the United States (Article I, Section 8).

http://www.civilwarhome.com/sumterownership.html

No it isn't. Your case is based on lies and bullshit.

Your ignorance amuses me. My case is right there in the text of legislation authored by none other than South Carolina itself. You've got nothing.
q.e.d.

 

[bripat9643]

No, actually my point highlights how ridiculous yours is, and you can't make a legal case for yours.

The case you make is imaginary. Mine is based on South Carolina's legislative action and the Constitution of the United States (Article I, Section 8).

http://www.civilwarhome.com/sumterownership.html

No it isn't. Your case is based on lies and bullshit.

Your ignorance amuses me. My case is right there in the text of legislation authored by none other than South Carolina itself. You've got nothing.
q.e.d.

RIght, and I quoted the text that proves your claim wrong.

"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.

 

[my2¢]

RIght, and I quoted the text that proves your claim wrong.

"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.

How does a clause inserted to allow state officials to enter the Federal property to seize fugitives from justice or to serve civil process papers support your claim?

 

[bripat9643]

RIght, and I quoted the text that proves your claim wrong.

"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.

How does a clause inserted to allow state officials to enter the Federal property to seize fugitives from justice or to serve civil process papers support your claim?

The reserved the right to enforce state law their. That's called "jurisdiction," moron.

 

[my2¢]

"The reserved the right to enforce state law their. That's called "jurisdiction," moron."

Again you amuse me. When they ceded the territory their state laws no longer extended to Fort Sumter. They simply retained the right to bring any escaped slaves, fugitives and civil defendants back to the mainland for trial. Again this goes against your point because they wouldn't have needed this clause if South Carolina hadn't given away jurisdiction.

q.e.d. (This gets easier for me all the time.)

 

[Picaro]

No, actually my point highlights how ridiculous yours is, and you can't make a legal case for yours.

The case you make is imaginary. Mine is based on South Carolina's legislative action and the Constitution of the United States (Article I, Section 8).

http://www.civilwarhome.com/sumterownership.html

Your case isn't a case, it's you grasping at straws and pissing on our legs and trying to tell us it's gold.

 

[Picaro]

"The reserved the right to enforce state law their. That's called "jurisdiction," moron."

Again you amuse me. When they ceded the territory their state laws no longer extended to Fort Sumter. They simply retained the right to bring any escaped slaves, fugitives and civil defendants back to the mainland for trial. Again this goes against your point because they wouldn't have needed this clause if South Carolina hadn't given away jurisdiction.

q.e.d. (This gets easier for me all the time.)

So the drugs are kicking in? We can tell.

 

[bripat9643]

"The reserved the right to enforce state law their. That's called "jurisdiction," moron."

Again you amuse me. When they ceded the territory their state laws no longer extended to Fort Sumter. They simply retained the right to bring any escaped slaves, fugitives and civil defendants back to the mainland for trial. Again this goes against your point because they wouldn't have needed this clause if South Carolina hadn't given away jurisdiction.

q.e.d. (This gets easier for me all the time.)

It doesn't matter how much logic and home many facts are presented. You will continue to stamp your foot and shout "Nuh Uhn!"

You're an imbecile.

 

[my2¢]

I've got facts on my side, all you have to resort to is name calling and conjecture on how you wish it should be.
q.e.d.