How about you tell me what you think it allows, why it does, and I’ll decide from there whether or not I agree with it.
Not true. Congress does not need to seat delegations and can vote to ignore them, and you ignore that states must send legitimate, legal delegations.
Under what authority? It was a federal fort, literally land created ex nihilo by the U.S. government. Davis was a civilian with no authority, threatening bloodshed if he did not get his way. In fact, he was a criminal engaged in a criminal enterprise, and was quite generously treated after the war.
You already know I think it allows exactly the situation in effect after the Civil War, and I already know you’ve decided – “yes” – that you disagree with so applying it in that situation. You know what I think the section allows; I don’t know what you think it allows.
We are talking about the seditious state governments. Under the Constitution, Congressional representation is assigned to states, not to the people directly.
[QUOTE=Article I, Section 2]
The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Article I, Section 3]
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State
[/QUOTE]
I’m curious as to how denying representation to people in the various states can be construed as guaranteeing a Republican form of government. It appears to me it would be a direct contradiction.
Is there anything that South Carolina could have don’t that wouldn’t have been legal in their minds? Or yours?
I’m sure the states of the defeated confederation would have been willing to send delegations if they were allowed to.
Round and round we go. Maybe if you keep on repeating this viewpoint I’ll believe it.
Well, extrapolate to the point of absurdity: imagine a vote is taken in a state, by which I mean only members of one family – let’s maybe say royal family? – are allowed to vote; everyone else is denied representation. And imagine the US in turn denies representation to that state, (a) rightly pointing out that such a vote doesn’t involve the guaranteed ‘republican form of government,’ and (b) instead making representation at the federal level hinge on representation at the state level: the very instant your state counts those other votes, we say, we’ll count your state’s votes.
Still a direct contradiction?
Just like they did during the war, I imagine.
Alright, Fort Sumter was federal property. Owned lock, stock, and barrel by the US of A. Not South Carolina. Then Jeff Davis decided to start blowing it up.
You can’t have it both ways. Either he started a war, or he led a domestic insurrection. Either way, he was wrong. You can only say the CSA was right if you assume from the start that it had a moral right to secession, the right to protect its slave property, and as a meaningful inference to dominate the entire United States political system.
Ok I’ll buy that. It’s a good point, that’s why I wanted to get what you were saying straight before I disagreed.
The official position of the U.S. government was that secession was rebellion in opposition to the laws of the United States:
Similarly, after the war, Military Reconstruction was imposed because (according to Congress)
The U.S. Supreme Court decision Texas v. White refers to statehood as “indestructible”. However, those indestructible states are part of a “perpetual union”. By engaging in insurrection against the Union, the rights of the rebel States were “suspended”, and the governments and citizens of the rebel states “incurred the consequences of rebellion”. But statehood itself had–very explicitly–not been destroyed:
While the opinion of the Union legislature, president, and judiciary was that secession was illegal, I don’t believe a case has been made that this was in fact true. The fact is, judicial review is not an effective check on federal power. It has proven time and time again to expand this power and the case cited is another example.
Right. “It was in South Carolina, so it belongs to South Carolina.” The problem I have with this line of argument is that I have a great deal of difficulty believing that you would accept the logic that underlies it, were it applied to any place other than Charleston Harbor, 1861. Otherwise, one is forced to assume that, should I ever visit your house, you would feel justified in taking my shoes, because you believe that being *on *your property *makes *them your property.
Can your shoes kill me or my family?
Shoes don’t kill people-people kill people.
Especially if they’re in forts.
They’ve killed millions so far, what’s a few more?
So, you’re saying it’s appropriate for the government to seize other people’s property without compensation, if the property in question is a lethal weapon?
I dunno. I mean, I’m in favor of gun control, but that still seems a little extreme to me.
It was your foolish analogy, I tried to make it work. The property being taken is a threat to the sovereignty of South Carolina.
You’ll find that Fort Sumter lacked nuclear weapons and combat aircraft. I think that labeling it as a “threat to the sovereignty of South Carolina” is a bit much.
Miller’s shoes are likely as threatening to you and your family as Fort Sumter was to South Carolina.