You didn’t report it because you know I didn’t accuse you of racism; you’re just doing a soccer dive because you’re losing an argument.
I disagree. And I disagree.
- Get ready for some profundity. Here’s my cite again:
Withdrawal from the United Nations - Wikipedia - The constitution specifically allows congress to admit new states, but has no provision for letting them leave. I disagree with your interpretation of the 10th Amendment, as did the North at the time. Did the Confederacy cite the 10th Amendment when they seceded?
- South Carolina didn’t let them in, the United States put the fort there.
-
Would have been a 96-nil vote if that provision was before the ratifying Senate. Would have been a 13-love in 1787.
-
No need to cite. Is there a power delegated to the feds to force states to remain? No. Is it prohibited to secede? No. Therefore that power is reserved to the states. In addition to the usual arrangement of compacts.
-
Just another restatement. South Carolina “let” them in so long as the compact survived. When it doesn’t, then get out.
They would cite it, because that’s how things work. “These Confederate States, under the powers granted to us by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, hereby secede from the Union” or something like that. If they didn’t reference that amendment, then they didn’t think they had that power under it, and you’re just guessing. And, they clearly didn’t have that power, in retrospect.
Is it? Please explain your reasoning here.
I don’t understand your point. The states clearly thought they had the power and several states mentioned it since the founding. Maybe they needed better lawyers to draft it, but they all clearly thought that a power to join meant the power to resign, just like the Elks Club. Of course it turns out they “didn’t have that power” because force of arms let the victors write the rules. That is hardly good legal reasoning.
Sure. If you believe that the Constitution was a compact that you can resign from at any time, then any federal installations on state land is implicitly only allowed at sufferance. If I join the Elks Club and allow them to use a spare room in my office, once I resign, they have to get out. If my joining of the Elks Club was an irrevocable act that requires my descendants to remain until the sun goes supernova, then I don’t have that right.
Do you believe that you can resign your citizenship at any time?
I don’t mean go to another country, get citizenship there, and then allow your citizenship in this country to lapse or be revoked, I mean to be in the US, and declare that the laws of the US no longer apply to you?
There are people who do believe this, Sovereign Citizens. They have arguments that they claim are airtight.
If you succeed from the US, using the same airtight arguments as the SC’s, does that mean that you have the right to fire on the utility worker when he comes to shut off your power for non-payment? The repo man as he takes your car you’ve stopped paying on?
I’ve watched as SC’s were dragged off in handcuffs, claiming that they were actually free. Is it only because of force of arms that their claim is invalid? Or is it that their claim is stupid, and is invalid for that reason?
Just because you have convinced yourself of the validity of your argument doesn’t make it valid.
The south wanted their argument to be valid, so they convinced themselves it was valid. That doesn’t mean that it was valid. It was stupid and self serving and was solely for the purpose of preserving slavery.
It was traitorous. Earlier, @bump I think, chided another poster for calling the Confederacy our enemy, and he said that they were just countrymen on the wrong side. No, people that vote differently than I are countrymen on the wrong side. People who take up arms because they do not like the results of an election are my enemy.
Make no mistake, the entire point of succession was to abandon democracy because the south’s principles were in conflict with it.
Is this the case if you legally cede ownership of that spare room to the Elks Club, where they subsequently took the empty room and built it out with state of the art gear? I’m pretty sure in that case, the Elks would tell you to piss off, with the full support of every court in the land. I’m also pretty sure if you forced the Elks out at the point of a gun and took control of the kitted out room, you’d wind up in jail, again supported by any court in the land.
The US Gov’t wasn’t borrowing land that belonged to South Carolina, they were given the land. If SC wanted it back, the US Gov’t would have to agree to give it back.
- I dispute that syllogism and would challenge you to prove/cite it.
- Ft. Sumter was never “state land”, therefore it could not under any circumstance revert to being “state land”.
- The 10th Amendment does not deal with ownership of land.
Secession doctrine is legally debatable, but there is no legal theory by which US property could be converted to state property. Confederates simply seized it as spoils of war (a war which didn’t exist until they initiated violence against a US military installation).
I don’t know where you are getting your information but it’s flat out wrong. If I let someone use a room in my house, no matter what they do with it, it is still MY room.
Tricked out gear, millions of $$ in upgrades, doesn’t matter at all. It doesn’t change ownership.
Who owned the land?
The United States of America.
10-4, so the USG owned all of S Carolina then yes, not just the fort?
The federal government built the the land. Fort Sumter sits on a man made island.
The fact that they built it provides little historical back up for ownership.
I was more curious about the States lands, if the USG bought all that land to begin with, how would secessionists even have a leg to stand on?
Wouldn’t it be at the whim of the USG basically saying ok, only because we don’t want to fight, or could they expect to be paid back for the land purchase of whatever State(s) were trying to secede?
I don’t think so, but I’m not positive. In NJ, there’s Fort Dix. I’m pretty sure NJ couldn’t just decide to kick out the feds and take over the land. Conversely, absent some eminent domain reason, the feds couldn’t just take over the NJ capitol building, or even state parks.
Then the USG doesn’t own the land? Does ownership get transferred upon statehood or some such?
If by “It” you mean the following from the South Carolina Legislature Dec 31, 1836:
“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,”
then yes, it does change ownership. Feel free to explain how the above allows SC to retain any right, title or claim to the site of Fort Sumter.
You asked whether the USG owned all of South Carolina. I don’t think it did, but it did own the land where the fort was. I think there is state-owned land, federally owned land, and privately owned land. You can probably override any of those with the proper eminent domain case, but not just because you don’t want them there anymore.
Does federal land require the things that privately held land does, like access easements? I can certainly see how Forts of other military bases might be problematic in a secession.