Posted on 12/21/2004 7:01:52 AM PST by cougar_mccxxi
The powers granted to the federal government are delegated, or enumerated (see the 10th Amendment). The federal government can constitutionally do only those few, specific items delegated it by the States. They can print money, maintain the navy, deliver the mail, etc.
The Constitution does NOT limit the States in any way whatsoever. Nor does it give the federal government any authority over the States. The Constitution (1) defines the structure of the federal government, (2) lists the few powers given, or enumerated, to it (about 24 specific powers), and (3) list a few of the rights which NO ONE can ever limit, or take away, in the bill of rights.
Again, the federal government is a servant of the states, not the master. When it ceases to serve the States, the States can end the contract, called the Constitution.
...Considering that the southern actions were illegal, then they did indeed initiate a rebellion or insurrection, take your pick. -NS
WHAT illegal actions? The Constitution lists NO actions of the States that are illegal; it only limits upon the federal government! This is a very BASIC Constitutional concept! (One could say, however, the States are limited by the fact that they agree to no longer perform the limited actions granted to the federal government. For instance, SC could no longer print money, deliver the mail, or negotiate treaties with foreign countries. Short of those specific 24 or so powers delegated to the fed, the States are free t do ANYTHING THEY CHOOSE!!! The 10th Amendment is instructive here...)
...Sumter was a fort, not a customs house. And it was also the property of the U.S. government and not the state of South Carolina. Lincoln had every right to resupply it. -NS
Wrong again. Sumter was a customs house, a fact well documented in Charles Adams' "When in the Course of Human Events". And when SC seceded, all federal property within her borders reverted back to the State. Otherwise, or foreign country would own property within her borders, which is an absolutely prepososterous proposition, appart from embassies that might be allowed.
...What Northern Declaration of War? -NS
Obviously, you didn't take time to educate yourself from the yankee propoganda you think you know by reading the post above, quoting the proposed 13th Amendment amost unanimously passed by the northern Congress guarranteeing slavery forever, and the Declaration of War, which stated that the war had NOTHING to do with slavery.
... Instead the southern states attempted to unilaterally leave the Union, walking away from financial obligations that were incurred by the United States, and seizing anything that caught their fancy. -NS
This is an outlandish statement with no basis in fact.
1)The South did NOT 'unilaterally leave the Union' at all. Each State, acting in it's own sovereign will, seceded according to its' own wishes. Initially, only 7 seceded to form the Confederacy. The remainder only seceded when Lincoln proved himself a tyrant, and, like the native Americans, determined to oppose his tyrrany.
2)The Southern States NEVER tried to 'walk away from financial obligations'. That is a lie that is easily proven wrong. The Confederate emmisaries sent to Washington were there with the specific instructions to negotiate the Southern states paying any debts.
3) No Southern State EVER 'siezed anything that caught their fancy'. That is a lie. They reclaimed what had previously been federal property, but ceased to be so when the States ended the contract, called the Constitution.
NS, your lack of knowledge of very basic history and the Constitution is disheartening...
...A more accurate analogy would be the spoiled wife walking out on the husband, taking whatever community property she wanted to, and firing a shot at his head on her way out the door.-NS
Let's see: in 1860, the South was paying 87% of all taxes collected by the federal government. About the same percentage was SPENT in the North. And WHICH SIDE was spoiled????
When the Confederate government formed, they immediately passed a low 10% tarriff rate. The city of New York threatened to secede if Lincoln did not FORCE collection of the tarriffs in the South. Northern newspapers cried that northern industry would be bancrupt before the next winter if Lincoln could not collect the tarriffs in the South.
And I know of NO 'community property' the South took; only previous federal property that reverted to the States. The South got NONE of the navy, very little in the way of military supplies, and in 1860, the federal government (which was FAR, FAR SMALLER then) owned very little anyway. Remember, NO income taxes, NO death taxes, NO corporate taxes, etc, etc, etc....
NS, I suggest you read Adam's "When in the Course of Human Events", as well as DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln", just for starters. Both excellent works which simply state the facts from primary sources, instead of making excuses of Lincoln's tyranous acts, like the northern apologists usually do....
Sure it does. Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 lays out a whole host of actions that the states are forbidden. Clause 2 and Clause 3 lay out actions that the states can do only with the approval of Congress. Article IV, Section 4 says that the federal government will tell the states what kind of government they are allowed to have. And Article VI, Section 2 says that the Constitution and the laws and treaties made under it will be the supreme law of the land, trumping local laws and state constitutions where they conflict.
When it ceases to serve the States, the States can end the contract, called the Constitution.
Not unilaterally, no.
The Constitution places a number of restrictions on what states can do, and it definitely puts the Constitution in a position of supremecy over any state constitution or local laws.
Wrong again. Sumter was a customs house, a fact well documented in Charles Adams' "When in the Course of Human Events".
The Charleston Customs house was located on East Bay Street. Sumter was always a military fort. Not a single dime of tariff revenue was ever collected there.
And when SC seceded, all federal property within her borders reverted back to the State. Otherwise, or foreign country would own property within her borders, which is an absolutely prepososterous proposition, appart from embassies that might be allowed.
Having given up all claims to the territory when they gave title to it to the federal government, I'm curious as to what rule of law automatically transferred ownership from the federal government to the state of South Carolina. The Constitution makes it clear that only Congress can dispose of federal property like that. Congress didn't do that. Even if their acts of secession had been legal the southern states still had no legal claim to the federal property within their borders.
Obviously, you didn't take time to educate yourself from the yankee propoganda you think you know by reading the post above, quoting the proposed 13th Amendment amost unanimously passed by the northern Congress guarranteeing slavery forever, and the Declaration of War, which stated that the war had NOTHING to do with slavery.
I'll ask again, what declaration of war? When did Lincoln declare war? What document does that? You don't declare war against your own country.
The South did NOT 'unilaterally leave the Union' at all. Each State, acting in it's own sovereign will, seceded according to its' own wishes.
The southern actions were unilateral in that they were not approved by all the parties affected by the decision, that is the remaining states in the United States. Their interests deserved to be addressed, too.
The Southern States NEVER tried to 'walk away from financial obligations'. That is a lie that is easily proven wrong. The Confederate emmisaries sent to Washington were there with the specific instructions to negotiate the Southern states paying any debts.
Utter nonsense. If you would bother to read the instructions given to the so-called emmisaries you would see that they were tasked with establishing relations between the U.S. and the confederate states. In short, obtain recognition from the Lincoln Adminisitration. Only once that was obtained would they discuss 'settlement of all questions of disagreement'. There was no specific instruction to negotiate payment of debts or payment for property seized. In any case, the time to negotiate such a settlement would have been before the separation, when both parties could make their case, and not after you have seized the property in question.
No Southern State EVER 'siezed anything that caught their fancy'. That is a lie. They reclaimed what had previously been federal property, but ceased to be so when the States ended the contract, called the Constitution. NS, your lack of knowledge of very basic history and the Constitution is disheartening...
And you disinterest in the rule of law comes close the equalling that of the Davis regime. The property belonged to the federal government. The states didn't lend the land to the federal government, they signed it over free and clear. The Constitution is clear that only Congress can dispose of the property, states cannot just seize it. But seize it is exactly what the southern states did.
Let's see: in 1860, the South was paying 87% of all taxes collected by the federal government. About the same percentage was SPENT in the North. And WHICH SIDE was spoiled????
Pure myth. The southern states never paid anywhere close to 87% of all taxes. There were, in fact, virtually no taxes to begin with. The bulk of the federal income came from tariffs and the south never came close to paying anything but a fraction of those.
When the Confederate government formed, they immediately passed a low 10% tarriff rate. The city of New York threatened to secede if Lincoln did not FORCE collection of the tarriffs in the South. Northern newspapers cried that northern industry would be bancrupt before the next winter if Lincoln could not collect the tarriffs in the South.
The confederate tariff actually went up to 25% on some items.
NS, I suggest you read Adam's "When in the Course of Human Events", as well as DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln", just for starters. Both excellent works which simply state the facts from primary sources, instead of making excuses of Lincoln's tyranous acts, like the northern apologists usually do....
I've read them both. And while I generally like good fiction, neither of them would fall into the category of 'good'.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.