Do the Democrats have ANY credibility at all?

[2ndAmendment]

...but if Ken had built an arsenal in your home, operated some mining, some ports, railroads and so forth on your property for use by the whole neighborhood, with the neighborhoods money and your consent but then you withdrew your consent because you didn't like the new President of the Homeowners Association and you took physical possession of the improvements, offered no compensation whatsover and prevented use by others and fired upon Ken and/or others when they attempted to use or remove the improvements, you've started a war.

But the compensation was the use of the facilities while in community control. The improvements were built on my land (since there was no community land at all in my community) which I let the community use at my pleasure as long as they were for common use. When I was threatened with violence by persons within the improvements, I took great offense and in order to protect myself, family, and community, expelled those that were threatening and told them they could no longer use my land. The new president of the homeowners association was not the issue. The threat of force to completely upset the entire livelihood of the community without compensation was the issue.

See how it turns on point of view? The reason many feel the way they do is the North won the war and that is the perspective history is presented from. If the South had won, history presentation would be different and I am not just referring to the outcome of the war.

 

[Larry Gude]

We will never know...

And freedom of individuals is what is lost in the loss of state sovereignty. It does little good for people to vote with their feet.

...because the rashness and violence central to secceesion starting in 1860 destroyed all opportunity for the South to, as Davis claimed to desire, go in peace.

Succeeding states held referendums and duly and peacefully and in an organized fashion withdrew themsleves from the Union.

To then bond together a new article of confederation and elect representatives and leadership for this new nation and to have never fired ONE shot in hostility, to not have confiscated one dollar of federal property would have left the Union, what was left, no choice but to hope time would heal.

As it was, Davis and Lincoln danced around getting the other to fire the first shot and Davis blinked.

No nation or collection of states claiming to MERELY be leaving the club had any standing to use violence of any kind.

They WANTED the fight.

What would our world be like today had slavery died a natural death? What would our federal government be like if it knew it had to respect any states right and ability to leave the 'club' and to be mindful in its actions thus?

You point a finger at Lincoln.

I say Davis and the Rhetts and Yancey and Toombs and on and on and on are the ones who, through their arrogance and violent natures destroyed much of the rights of states and nutured the seeds that grew into our modern day federal leviathan.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...blockade itself?



The harbor was protected by a Federal fort which was threatened. The blockade was the result of the unlawful demand of surrender of the fort as states property.

In any event, federal aresenals througout the SOuth were siezed before Charleston was blockaded and the first shots fired were from the South.

Also, before the blockade, an attempt to merely supply the fort with food was stopped by force.

If the port is in a state and the state is considered sovereign except for powers specifically ceded to the federal government, then the federal government declared war on the state. Where did the states cede the ability to control their own economies? The federal government was only ceded the power to regulate commerce between the states, not within the states.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...because the rashness and violence central to secceesion starting in 1860 destroyed all opportunity for the South to, as Davis claimed to desire, go in peace.

Succeeding states held referendums and duly and peacefully and in an organized fashion withdrew themsleves from the Union.

To then bond together a new article of confederation and elect representatives and leadership for this new nation and to have never fired ONE shot in hostility, to not have confiscated one dollar of federal property would have left the Union, what was left, no choice but to hope time would heal.

As it was, Davis and Lincoln danced around getting the other to fire the first shot and Davis blinked.

No nation or collection of states claiming to MERELY be leaving the club had any standing to use violence of any kind.

They WANTED the fight.

What would our world be like today had slavery died a natural death? What would our federal government be like if it knew it had to respect any states right and ability to leave the 'club' and to be mindful in its actions thus?

You point a finger at Lincoln.

I say Davis and the Rhetts and Yancey and Toombs and on and on and on are the ones who, through their arrogance and violent natures destroyed much of the rights of states and nutured the seeds that grew into our modern day federal leviathan.

I agree that there should have not been a shot in anger, but Lincoln surely pressed the issue. While I do not condone slavery, the federal government had no right to impose its will on the internal workings of any state.

If the C.S.A. had won, the U.S. and C.S.A. would be what we consider third world countries. Germany would have won WW I. There would not have been a WW II and Germany would probably rule the world.

 

[Larry Gude]

You can change the point of view...

But the compensation was the use of the facilities while in community control. The improvements were built on my land (since there was no community land at all in my community) which I let the community use at my pleasure as long as they were for common use. When I was threatened with violence by persons within the improvements, I took great offense and in order to protect myself, family, and community, expelled those that were threatening and told them they could no longer use my land. The new president of the homeowners association was not the issue. The threat of force to completely upset the entire livelihood of the community without compensation was the issue.

See how it turns on point of view? The reason many feel the way they do is the North won the war and that is the perspective history is presented from. If the South had won, history presentation would be different and I am not just referring to the outcome of the war.

...for conversations sake but we cannot change the realities of history.

Lincoln was on the verge of surrendering Sumnter without another shot being fired. South Carolinian arrogance would not wait.

There was no YOU allowing the community to use the improvements; they were manned, maintained and operated by the community, by the federal government in the name of and for the good of the community, the nation.

Lincoln said loud and clear to all before the election that if he thought slavery should be outlawed in the South he would NOT do it because the Constitution didn't allow him to do so.

He also said if the Constitution did allow him to outlaw slavery in the slave states he would not do it because he did not think it the business of the federal government.

The only threatening that happened was Southern states, from North Carolina to South Carolina to Texas to Misssouri, threatening to take over federal property; arsenals, forts and so forth.


Southern arrogance destroyed the Constitution.

 

[Larry Gude]

Damn right Lincoln pressed the issue...

I agree that there should have not been a shot in anger, but Lincoln surely pressed the issue. While I do not condone slavery, the federal government had no right to impose its will on the internal workings of any state.

If the C.S.A. had won, the U.S. and C.S.A. would be what we consider third world countries. Germany would have won WW I. There would not have been a WW II and Germany would probably rule the world.

...how would you like to be the guy in charge when the whole thing fell apart? Lincolns greatness as a leader and see'er of the larger picture is underappreciated.

Had the CSA left in peace I wonder very much what would have happened. Would brothers, after some time apart, come back together?

You cannot succeed from the ground adjacent to yours. You cannot claim an end to kinship with your family of over 80 years.

If your brother lives next door, even if there is a line on a map between your homes, how long can you stay mad at each other? How long can the sides deny they have pretty much EVERYTHING in common and are, in fact, one?

As far as Germany, WWI was a stalemate before we came in. France and Great Britain had the strength to continue to hold on but no the strength to win. Germany was in the same shape. It's people were living in conditions of near famine from the blockade.

I think a draw would have been declared from mutual exhaustion absent us.

In fact, I think an argument can be made that the scales were somewhat against Germany when we showed up.

Wilson was very much in a hurry to get in on the goodies.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...for conversations sake but we cannot change the realities of history.

Lincoln was on the verge of surrendering Sumnter without another shot being fired. South Carolinian arrogance would not wait.

There was no YOU allowing the community to use the improvements; they were manned, maintained and operated by the community, by the federal government in the name of and for the good of the community, the nation.

Lincoln said loud and clear to all before the election that if he thought slavery should be outlawed in the South he would NOT do it because the Constitution didn't allow him to do so.

He also said if the Constitution did allow him to outlaw slavery in the slave states he would not do it because he did not think it the business of the federal government.

The only threatening that happened was Southern states, from North Carolina to South Carolina to Texas to Misssouri, threatening to take over federal property; arsenals, forts and so forth.


Southern arrogance destroyed the Constitution.

The federal government owned no land in any of the original 13 states with the exception of the federal enclave that was ceded by Maryland and Virginia that became Washington, D.C. as far as I know. All federal installations, forts, arsenals, etc, were built on state property.

 

[Larry Gude]

As far as you know...

...well, in all fairness I can't type here that I know fact certain what the legal status of the ground of each federal installation was but it is my opinion that they were all considered Federal installation, filled with Federal property, built with Federal money. Many states had their own arsenals as a contrast.

Also, every single graduate of West Point took an oath to defend and protect the Union. There was no 'unless my state goes to war with the Union' escape clause.

One of histories" Great What if's" had Davis been able to quell the fire eaters.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...well, in all fairness I can't type here that I know fact certain what the legal status of the ground of each federal installation was but it is my opinion that they were all considered Federal installation, filled with Federal property, built with Federal money. Many states had their own arsenals as a contrast.

Also, every single graduate of West Point took an oath to defend and protect the Union. There was no 'unless my state goes to war with the Union' escape clause.

One of histories" Great What if's" had Davis been able to quell the fire eaters.

Well it is obvious that unless the land that the federal installation was built on was paid for by the federal government or was given by the state to the federal government, it was state land if it was in one of the original 13 since the federal government did not exist while the states (colonies) did.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...well, in all fairness I can't type here that I know fact certain what the legal status of the ground of each federal installation was but it is my opinion that they were all considered Federal installation, filled with Federal property, built with Federal money. Many states had their own arsenals as a contrast.

Also, every single graduate of West Point took an oath to defend and protect the Union. There was no 'unless my state goes to war with the Union' escape clause.

One of histories" Great What if's" had Davis been able to quell the fire eaters.

Yet many a West Pointer did indeed take the side of the C.S.A.

 

[Midnightrider]

Well it is obvious that unless the land that the federal installation was built on was paid for by the federal government or was given by the state to the federal government, it was state land if it was in one of the original 13 since the federal government did not exist while the states (colonies) did.

I'm not sure, but i think fort sumpter was built in the harbor, and not on land, so that arguement doesn't hold up. It was built with federal funds, and therefore belonged to the federal gov.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I'm not sure, but i think fort sumpter was built in the harbor, and not on land, so that arguement doesn't hold up. It was built with federal funds, and therefore belonged to the federal gov.

That goes right along with my "best of my knowledge". No insult intended. I have tried to research the status of federal property and how it was acquired by the feds before the Civil War and have yet to find anything that says fort so-in-so was acquired through imminent domain or donated by <state> or was leased or whatever.

Just because a building is build with certain funds has no bearing on the ownership of the land on which it is built. There are many houses in Baltimore where the owner owns the building but leases the land.


Going <img src="http://www.grifent.com/forums/images/smiles/2gunsfiring_v1.gif" /> so TTFN.

 

[Larry Gude]

And my point...

Yet many a West Pointer did indeed take the side of the C.S.A.

= TRAITORS

 

[Larry Gude]

Also...

Dear dummy who gave me this:

Red karma: dummy rummy


Mind explaining what that means?

Is Rummy a dummy or am I a dummy playing rummy or...???

 

[Larry Gude]

I'm with you...

Well it is obvious that unless the land that the federal installation was built on was paid for by the federal government or was given by the state to the federal government

...in that I don't know either AND if it was state land, it was state land.

Again, Abe was on the verge, from what I read in several books, of giving over Sumnter.

 

[Ken King]

Fort Sumter was Federal Property

...in that I don't know either AND if it was state land, it was state land.

Again, Abe was on the verge, from what I read in several books, of giving over Sumnter.

Seems the property was ceded to the Federal Government under a 1791 South Carolina statute. An interesting article on the matter is here.

 

[Larry Gude]

That settles that...

Seems the property was ceded to the Federal Government under a 1791 South Carolina statute. An interesting article on the matter is here.

...the South started the war.

Thank you, Ken!

 

[2ndAmendment]

Thanks Ken. I did a search but did not find that.

By the way, I don't think I ever said the South did not start the war. My premise was and is that the states that wanted or want to leave the Union had and have that right. I see nowhere where that right was ceded by the states. The South was wrong in firing the first shots.

And an oath at West Point does not effect the Constitution in any way.

 

[2ndAmendment]

= TRAITORS

Only because the North won.

 

[Larry Gude]

I think we pretty much agree...

My premise was and is that the states that wanted or want to leave the Union had and have that right

...but there had to be certain conditions followed to do it peacefully and again I say there's the what if of all time.

Yahoos for the South always say 'states rights! the South did nothing wrong!" and Northern yahoss say "Slavery! Slavery!".

If cooler heads had prevailed...who knows what our narion would be like today???

Southerners already had eliminated trading in new slaves and had open disdain for those who traded in domestic slavery. Many older types were setting their slaves free at their death.

Who knows?