U.S. Civil War - Did the South Have the Right to Secede?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I wonder why no one's brought up Texas v White.

(a) Look at the date - it's irrelevant to the legal status of acts in 1860 and 1861

(b) The court was packed. There was no way a Yankee court, after the fact, was going to validate the lawful (at the time) acts of the seceding states, nor was it going to do anything but validate every act of the Yankee government.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Hmmm, apparently the CSA declared war on the USA after the assault on Fort Sumter. Regardless of whether they had the right to secede or not, they started the war.

The war was started by an armed foreign force entering the territorial waters of the sovereign state of South Carolina to reinforce the garrison of a foreign fort which had no right to be or remain in South Carolina waters.

[MRT144]

what? MtG foriegn how? When did SC declare their independence

[MichaeltheGreat]

"We are a band of brothers, native to the soil,
fighting for our liberty with treasure, blood and toil."

AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America."

We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by us in convention on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the "United States of America," is hereby dissolved.

Done at Charleston the twentieth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty.

Can't get much more clear than that.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The war was started by an armed foreign force entering the territorial waters of the sovereign state of South Carolina to reinforce the garrison of a foreign fort which had no right to be or remain in South Carolina waters.

You didn't read Imran's post, did you? Or are you just ignoring it?

[MichaeltheGreat]

I'm ignoring it for three reasons.

One, it relates to an act in 1836, seven years after the start of construction of Sumter. (which construction wasn't completed in nearly 32 years, so obviously the Yankees never gave a fair damn about "protecting" South Carolina.)

Two, the grant by the State of South Carolina was clearly and expressly conditional, as it was made subject to South Carolina retaining the authority and ability to enforce state law and state process against "any person" within Sumter. The United State abrogated this provision, and the reinforcement of the garrison was a further violation of this provision.

Three, the entire context of the half-assed building of the fort and the grant of title was in the relationship between the sovereign State of South Carolina, and the union of the United States. When South Carolina seceded, there was no longer that established relationship between sovereign entities, and the United States had no further right to remain there without the permission of the State of South Carolina. It wasn't the place of Virginians or Alabamians to tell the Yankees to leave, but it sure as hell was within the rights of South Carolinians to do so.

[Kuciwalker]

Two, the grant by the State of South Carolina was clearly and expressly conditional, as it was made subject to South Carolina retaining the authority and ability to enforce state law and state process against "any person" within Sumter. The United State abrogated this provision,

What?

and the reinforcement of the garrison was a further violation of this provision.

What?

[MichaeltheGreat]

South Carolina did not waive the right to enforce state laws and process within Sumter (in most Federal installations today, states have no process rights - this wasn't the case with the act Imran cited. South Carolina made the grant subject to its ability to enforce its laws and process.

Even when it was in the Union, the Yankees would have had to garrison the fort only with approval of the state authorities. (In fact, the fort was not garrisoned prior to secession). When South Carolina left the union, the Yankees at Sumter absolutely were subject to state authority and process.

[Kuciwalker]

I was wondering how the US abrogated that provision.

South Carolina did not waive the right to enforce state laws and process within Sumter (in most Federal installations today, states have no process rights - this wasn't the case with the act Imran cited. South Carolina made the grant subject to its ability to enforce its laws and process.

Even when it was in the Union, the Yankees would have had to garrison the fort only with approval of the state authorities. (In fact, the fort was not garrisoned prior to secession). When South Carolina left the union, the Yankees at Sumter absolutely were subject to state authority and process.

The ability to arrest criminals who go onto base seems pretty far removed from the ability of the state to order the soldiers on the base around.

[MichaeltheGreat]

State law and process is not limited to arresting fugitives.

And no, they didn't have authority to "order soldiers around," but they did have the authority to order their removal as trespassers if they were there without the permission of the state. The days of mistrust of strong, tyrannical central governments were still around in 1860.

And once secession occurred, the Yankees had no rights to Sumter at all, as the bonds of union, and thus the concept of "providing for the common defense" were severed.

[Kuciwalker]

And no, they didn't have authority to "order soldiers around," but they did have the authority to order their removal as trespassers if they were there without the permission of the state.

Trespassing on federal property?

"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.

Quoted again.

That sounds like the state retains the ability to serve warrants and such on the fort, and that's all - it doesn't reserver the right to kick the federal government out.

[MichaeltheGreat]

The entire thing is mooted by secession. If Sumter had been on an island 13 miles offshore, that would have been one thing. But yes, trespassing on "Federal property" as you put it. Basing of Federal troops in such a way as to intimidate the exercise of sovereign state political rights, or to forcibly impose Federal will on the state, was not taken lightly in those days. Something to do with another rebellion 84 years earlier.

and "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"

is a bit broader than serving warrants on personnel.

[Kuciwalker]

The entire thing is mooted by secession.

How so, any more than the perpetual lease on Gitmo?

[DaShi]

Are you guys still arguing about this? Look, it's simple the South was wrong for leaving and got its ass handed to it after a long bloody war that still leaves scars in this country today. Vietnam!

[LordShiva]

If India had a North vs. South civil war, the South would kick ass...

South India FTW!!