Secession did not start the "Civil War"

[Swordsmyth]

Ugh. This again?? Seriously???

South Carolina ceded the land to the federal government in 1836.

Ugh. This again?? Seriously???

Ceding property to the Federal government while part of the union was irrelevant, the south had a right to take it's share of the joint property of the member states held by the federal government when it left, an island dominating the entrance to a strategically vital port in their territory was obviously part of that share.

You don't understand the nature of the pre-war union, it was a co-operative venture of the member states, they ceded the land because the Federation was in charge of defense against foreign powers, when they left the union they were once again responsible for their own defense and the property that had been granted to the union to defend them reverted to them.

[Gaddafi Duck]

Ugh. This again?? Seriously???

Ceding property to the Federal government while part of the union was irrelevant, the south had a right to take it's share of the joint property of the member states held by the federal government when it left, an island dominating the entrance to a strategically vital port in their territory was obviously part of that share.

You don't understand the nature of the pre-war union, it was a co-operative venture of the member states, they ceded the land because the Federation was in charge of defense against foreign powers, when they left the union they were once again responsible for their own defense and the property that had been granted to the union to defend them reverted to them.

Sorry, but the land was ceded in 1836, which means you can't come back in 1936 or 2036 and be like, "Mine. I want it back". You gave up title to it. Meaning, you have no claim to it. Just like how many early states were much larger than they are today. Massachusetts cannot claim parts of Michigan today because they didn't like how the Northwest Ordinance turned out.

Using your logic, all territorial cessions can be declared null and void after-the-fact and devolve to the original state that existed there.

[Gaddafi Duck]

they left the union they were once again responsible for their own defense and the property that had been granted to the union to defend them reverted to them.

Uhhh....what?! The South Carolina legislature, in 1836, gave up ALL TITLE to the land. How can one argue they have the right to claim it back?? LOL. Read up on what "title" is. If you have no title to the land, and if you fire upon it and occupy it from the foreign force that was there, that's an aggressive invasion.

Just because you secede doesn't mean you get claim to land you ceded title to decades prior. Doesn't work that way.

[Swordsmyth]

Uhhh....what?! The South Carolina legislature, in 1836, gave up ALL TITLE to the land. How can one argue they have the right to claim it back?? LOL. Read up on what "title" is. If you have no title to the land, and if you fire upon it and occupy it from the foreign force that was there, that's an aggressive invasion.

Just because you secede doesn't mean you get claim to land you ceded title to decades prior. Doesn't work that way.

The south had a right to take it's share of the joint property of the member states held by the federal government when it left, an island dominating the entrance to a strategically vital port in their territory was obviously part of that share.

[Gaddafi Duck]

The south had a right to take it's share of the joint property of the member states held by the federal government when it left, an island dominating the entrance to a strategically vital port in their territory was obviously part of that share.

WTF? It wasn't "joint property". It was federal property. Using your logic, the State of Michigan is "joint property" of Massachusetts and Michigan because, well, Michigan was carved out of the Northwest Ordinance in land that was formerly Massachusetts. So, Massachusetts, if they seceded today, could, what? Tax Michigan?? LOL

[Gaddafi Duck]

Here we go again. Text from the 1836 statute passed by the South Carolina legislature:

""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"

What part of that do you not understand? Apparently all of it, because you keep stating "joint property". History made up in your head because it fits your Neo-Confederate narrative. Look at the facts---it's obvious you're in denial.

[Swordsmyth]

WTF? It wasn't "joint property". It was federal property. Using your logic, the State of Michigan is "joint property" of Massachusetts and Michigan because, well, Michigan was carved out of the Northwest Ordinance in land that was formerly Massachusetts. So, Massachusetts, if they seceded today, could, what? Tax Michigan?? LOL

You just don't understand the difference between member states and the federation do you?
When new states were created their territory became irrevocably theirs, the federation is merely an agent of the member states, the only territory that fully belongs to it is DC.

[Gaddafi Duck]

You just don't understand the difference between member states and the federation do you?
When new states were created their territory became irrevocably theirs, the federation is merely an agent of the member states, the only territory that fully belongs to it is DC.

Wow, that's completely wrong. Go read the Constitution, buddy.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

"Irrevocably theirs", huh?? Seems like the Constitution states otherwise---that state legislatures get to determine that. Doesn't seem "irrevocable" to me. Yeah, go sit in the corner. I'll repeat, again and again, the South Carolina legislature ceded the land of Fort Sumter to the federal government in 1836. You don't get "do-overs". Sorry, your premise is completely wrong, AND, you followed it up with an ignorant statement that once a state is a state, their land is "irrevocably theirs". Wrong, try again.

""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"

[Swordsmyth]

Wow, that's completely wrong. Go read the Constitution, buddy.



"Irrevocably theirs", huh?? Seems like the Constitution states otherwise---that state legislatures get to determine that. Doesn't seem "irrevocable" to me. Yeah, go sit in the corner. I'll repeat, again and again, the South Carolina legislature ceded the land of Fort Sumter to the federal government in 1836. You don't get "do-overs". Sorry, your premise is completely wrong, AND, you followed it up with an ignorant statement that once a state is a state, their land is "irrevocably theirs". Wrong, try again.

You are an idiot, the provision you cite says that the new state can't be created from the territory of an old state without that states permission, it says nothing either way about whether the territory can ever be reclaimed.

""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"

Yes the property was transferred to the federation, the federation was the joint property of the member states and when South Carolina left it had a right to take it's share of federation property with it.

[dannno]

You just don't understand the difference between member states and the federation do you?
When new states were created their territory became irrevocably theirs, the federation is merely an agent of the member states, the only territory that fully belongs to it is DC.

Ya this makes sense, I'm not sure why Rubber Ducky thinks states have the right to cede property to the Federal Govt. indefinitely, or, should have the right.

For what purpose does this ever make sense?

[Gaddafi Duck]

Ya this makes sense, I'm not sure why Rubber Ducky thinks states have the right to cede property to the Federal Govt. indefinitely, or, should have the right.

For what purpose does this ever make sense?

Yeah, I mean why would I think that, right?? It only says it right in the Constitution, and the State Legislature in South Carolina passed the law in 1836 to give up the land. But hey, it's quite clear I could copy and paste the law right in front of you and you'll argue that the English language is not the English language.

So, what do you do when debating people who insist 1+1 does not equal 2? Shrug your shoulders and laugh! LOL!

[PierzStyx]

Ugh. This again?? Seriously???

South Carolina ceded the land to the federal government in 1836.

Doesn't matter.

When the Confederacy formed all the land off its coasts automatically fell under its domain and Fort Sumter is right in Charleston Bay. Which means the US government was maintaining and resupplying a military fort on foriegn territory without the permission of the government that controlled that land.

[Swordsmyth]

Yeah, I mean why would I think that, right?? It only says it right in the Constitution, and the State Legislature in South Carolina passed the law in 1836 to give up the land. But hey, it's quite clear I could copy and paste the law right in front of you and you'll argue that the English language is not the English language.

So, what do you do when debating people who insist 1+1 does not equal 2? Shrug your shoulders and laugh! LOL!

Yes the property was transferred to the federation, the federation was the joint property of the member states and when South Carolina left it had a right to take it's share of federation property with it.

[Gaddafi Duck]

You are an idiot, the provision you cite says that the new state can't be created from the territory of an old state without that states permission, it says nothing either way about whether the territory can ever be reclaimed.

.....I mean....speechless....THAT'S your retort?? HAHAHAH!!! Yeah, it can be reclaimed---through invasion and aggression, which is what the South did. Thanks for playing!

Yes the property was transferred to the federation, the federation was the joint property of the member states and when South Carolina left it had a right to take it's share of federation property with it.

WHOAAAAAA WHOA WHOA!!!! Just a minute ago you said land in a state is "irrevocably theirs". Now you say, "Well, uhhh, yeah, it was transferred..." WHAT?!?! "Irrevocable" means you CAN'T "transfer", it means "cannot be changed", HAHAHAH!

What's hilarious is reading the rebuttals on the fly, because you literally weren't aware of the 1836 statute, you literally weren't aware the Constitution allows for states to carve themselves up, and you're throwing out blatantly wrong legal arguments of "joint property" which is a legal term that doesn't even apply here. Show me where "joint property" exists in the Constitution.

South Carolina had the right to take "its share" of federal property with it? Cite the law that states that. C'mon big boy. The only law I see is where South Carolina ceded ALL TITLE of the land. Show me where in history ANYWHERE that a person or a state can "clawback" land title they gave up. I'd LOVE to read it.

Just please, for once, cite a law. I don't want regurgitated Neo-Confederate blog propaganda.

[Gaddafi Duck]

Yes the property was transferred to the federation, the federation was the joint property of the member states and when South Carolina left it had a right to take it's share of federation property with it.

LOL, a minute ago it was "irrevocable". Now it's "transferrable"? Sounds to me like you had no idea and are faking it as you go. "Joint property"? Do you even know what that means? Another bogus argument that doesn't apply to states ceding land.

"Joint property" means multiple entities enjoy title to the property. Last I checked, South Carolina, by their own legislature, ceded ALL TITLE. Your argument is it's "joint property". Okay, so states can never give up any land (your original argument of "irrevocability"), but then you go onto arguing bogus "joint property" line of thought when you got educated by me about the law.

You're hop-scotching and can't point to a statute for your claims. Then when I post two laws establishing my very argument, you ignore it.

So, it would appear I'm arguing with an irrational person who argues for the sake of arguing. A stubborn Neo-Confederate who just won't admit 1+1=2. He just cannot admit South Carolina gave up ALL TITLE/CLAIMS because, well, they apparently never can. Oh wait, they can after I proved the Constitution allows for it, so uhhh...uhhh...it's joint property!! Yeah! That's it!

Unbelievable. Hahahah.

[Gaddafi Duck]

Doesn't matter.

When the Confederacy formed all the land off its coasts automatically fell under its domain and Fort Sumter is right in Charleston Bay. Which means the US government was maintaining and resupplying a military fort on foriegn territory without the permission of the government that controlled that land.

Actually, it does matter. Because when you give up "all title/claims" to a piece of land, you can't "clawback" that provision. It's over with. You have no claim to it. Unless, of course, you invade it, which is what the South did.

It's hilariously odd Ron Paulians/Misesians/Rothbardians are rewriting what cession of title for a piece of property actually means. Apparently when you give up title to something, you have rights to it. That's news to me--doesn't resemble anything in America, but okay.

[Swordsmyth]

.....I mean....speechless....THAT'S your retort?? HAHAHAH!!! Yeah, it can be reclaimed---through invasion and aggression, which is what the South did. Thanks for playing!





WHOAAAAAA WHOA WHOA!!!! Just a minute ago you said land in a state is "irrevocably theirs". Now you say, "Well, uhhh, yeah, it was transferred..." WHAT?!?! "Irrevocable" means you CAN'T "transfer", it means "cannot be changed", HAHAHAH!

What's hilarious is reading the rebuttals on the fly, because you literally weren't aware of the 1836 statute, you literally weren't aware the Constitution allows for states to carve themselves up, and you're throwing out blatantly wrong legal arguments of "joint property" which is a legal term that doesn't even apply here. Show me where "joint property" exists in the Constitution.

South Carolina had the right to take "its share" of federal property with it? Cite the law that states that. C'mon big boy. The only law I see is where South Carolina ceded ALL TITLE of the land. Show me where in history ANYWHERE that a person or a state can "clawback" land title they gave up. I'd LOVE to read it.

Just please, for once, cite a law. I don't want regurgitated Neo-Confederate blog propaganda.

There is a difference between the inability of others to take property from you and an inability/ability to give it away, I said that when Michigan was created their territory was irrevocably theirs therefore Massachusetts could not reclaim the territory, Michigan can choose to give their territory to the federation or to a new state if they wish.

The Union is a creation of the States, it is not an independent entity, you are committing the same error as Lincoln, The States own the Union the Union does not own the States, the creation is subject to the creator not the other way around.

[Swordsmyth]

Actually, it does matter. Because when you give up "all title/claims" to a piece of land, you can't "clawback" that provision. It's over with. You have no claim to it. Unless, of course, you invade it, which is what the South did.

It's hilariously odd Ron Paulians/Misesians/Rothbardians are rewriting what cession of title for a piece of property actually means. Apparently when you give up title to something, you have rights to it. That's news to me--doesn't resemble anything in America, but okay.

If you and I enter a partnership and we both give property to that partnership then if we break up the partnership we divide the property, what is so hard to understand about that?

[Gaddafi Duck]

There is a difference between the inability of other to take property from you and an inability/ability to give it away, I said that when Michigan was created their territory was irrevocably theirs therefore Massachusetts could not reclaim the territory, Michigan can choose to give their territory to the federation or to a new state if they wish.

The Union is a creation of the States, it is not an independent entity, you are committing the same error as Lincoln, The States own the Union the Union does not own the States, the creation is subject to the creator not the other way around.

*yawn* still waiting for you to cite the law where "joint property" exists and applies to this discussion. Also waiting for you to point to the law where one maintains claim to it after they've given up "all title/claims" to it.

Shouldn't be that hard to find given you're so persistent in arguing it. So, educate me. Post the statute. I'd love to read it. I'm tired of Neo-Confederate talking points, I want the actual damn law you're saying overrides a state legislature's cession of all title of land.

[Swordsmyth]

*yawn* still waiting for you to cite the law where "joint property" exists and applies to this discussion. Also waiting for you to point to the law where one maintains claim to it after they've given up "all title/claims" to it.

Shouldn't be that hard to find given you're so persistent in arguing it. So, educate me. Post the statute. I'd love to read it. I'm tired of Neo-Confederate talking points, I want the actual damn law you're saying overrides a state legislature's cession of all title of land.

If you and I enter a partnership and we both give property to that partnership then if we break up the partnership we divide the property, what is so hard to understand about that?

[Gaddafi Duck]

If you and I enter a partnership and we both give property to that partnership then if we break up the partnership we divide the property, what is so hard to understand about that?

Terrible analogy as the United States was not formed as a business partnership. Completely separate legal concept.. Seems like you don't actually have facts and are trying to slap some putty on varying concepts to make an argument without actually using facts and the law that applies. You're not making a legal argument---you're ad hoc-ing it as you go. You goofed up when you said a state's land is irrevocably a state's land. I then showed you otherwise and you're too stubborn to admit you had no idea, so you backtrack and toss word salad. "Irrevocable" becomes "transferable".

What's even more hilarious is you claiming, "Well, in a partnership, this happens..." Okay, and that has nothing to do with the United States. Even so, using your argument, South Carolina took the whole enchilada---the entire Fort Sumter, and used aggression to do it. Not exactly "splitting the property" as one would have to in a partnership, which doesn't even apply, so it's moronic. I guess your idea of "splitting it" is South Carolina getting 100% of Fort Sumter. Yeah!! That's right! LOL!!!

Still waiting for the statute to be posted by you.

[Swordsmyth]

Terrible analogy as the United States was not formed as a business partnership. Completely separate legal concept. Seems like you don't actually have facts and are trying to slap some putty on varying concepts to make an argument without actually using facts and the law that applies.

Still waiting for the statute to be posted by you.

It was formed as a partnership, that is where you go wrong, once you believe that the Union is anything more than a partnership of the States you are lost.

The Constitution of the United States

Preamble Note

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[Swordsmyth]

What's even more hilarious is you claiming, "Well, in a partnership, this happens..." Okay, and that has nothing to do with the United States. Even so, using your argument, South Carolina took the whole enchilada---the entire Fort Sumter, and used aggression to do it. Not exactly "splitting the property" as one would have to in a partnership, which doesn't even apply, so it's moronic. I guess your idea of "splitting it" is South Carolina getting 100% of Fort Sumter. Yeah!! That's right! LOL!!!

And they took NONE of various and sundry other federal properties sited elsewhere throughout the Union, if I am a member of a gun store partnership that breaks up we would not cut all the guns in half we would each take ALL of this or that gun.

[Gaddafi Duck]

Yeah,yeah, you're conflating a business partnership with the US Constitution to try and salvage your embarrassing arguments.

Please, for once, post the statute where South Carolina, after giving up all title/claims, can undo that. PLEASE.

[otherone]

What's even more hilarious is you claiming, "Well, in a partnership, this happens..." Okay, and that has nothing to do with the United States.

Hypothetically, if the States at some time in the future dissolve the federal government, what happens to the federally owned land?

[dannno]

Yeah,yeah, you're conflating a business partnership with the US Constitution to try and salvage your embarrassing arguments.

Please, for once, post the statute where South Carolina, after giving up all title/claims, can undo that. PLEASE.

You are on a completely different planet than us.

You think the government has rights.

[Gaddafi Duck]

Hypothetically, if the States at some time in the future dissolve the federal government, what happens to the federally owned land?

Terrible hypothetical given this didn't happen in 1861. South Carolina left the Union and invaded United States territory in the process. Try to stay on topic and post actual statutes---there's been enough diverting by everyone else in this discussion.

I just thoroughly enjoy this 1836 statute where South Carolina gave up all claims to the land of Fort Sumter, and get a kick out of the Neo-Confederates insisting it's still South Carolina's land. So, the state's rights folks insist South Carolina can't do that, or that they didn't really mean it?? That's the best part of it all.

[Swordsmyth]

Yeah,yeah, you're conflating a business partnership with the US Constitution to try and salvage your embarrassing arguments.

Please, for once, post the statute where South Carolina, after giving up all title/claims, can undo that. PLEASE.

It is a partnership:

The Constitution of the United States

Preamble Note

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[Gaddafi Duck]

You are on a completely different planet than us.

You think the government has rights.

Aaaaand, there you went. When you can't win an argument over how South Carolina ceded Fort Sumter back in 1836 and all claim and title to it, revert immediately to a completely different esoteric philosophical discussion over "rights" and "states" and "man".

It just demonstrates you can't argue the indisputable fact, so you go cling to your go-to safe space arguments, however irrelevant it is. It took you two whole posts to go from South Carolina ceding Fort Sumter to the US in 1836 to the philosophy of rights and government. Yawn. Hahahahahah.

[Swordsmyth]

Terrible hypothetical given this didn't happen in 1861. South Carolina left the Union and invaded United States territory in the process. Try to stay on topic and post actual statutes---there's been enough diverting by everyone else in this discussion.

I just thoroughly enjoy this 1836 statute where South Carolina gave up all claims to the land of Fort Sumter, and get a kick out of the Neo-Confederates insisting it's still South Carolina's land. So, the state's rights folks insist South Carolina can't do that, or that they didn't really mean it?? That's the best part of it all.

Any partner leaving the partnership has a right to it's share of the joint property, that is why partners have to buy eachother out when one or more leave a partnership.