Secession, right or wrong?

[Santee Rifleman]

ORIGINAL: RERomine


I don't believe any supeanaes or arrest warrents were issued [:D]

Agreed on the arrest warrants. However, the original document says ALL processes... and in December of 1860 the State of South Carolina was attempting to execute sovereign dominion over her territory. The movement of the harbor garrison from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter was in violation of the agreement between the State of South Carolina and the United States of early December 1860 which stipulated among other things that Fort Sumter was neither to be garrisoned nor provisioned while the State and the United States negotiated possession. The removal of the Moultrie garrison to Sumter was extra-legal. The garrison was in possesion of the fort illegally. The demand for the evacuation of Sumter and its surrender to authorities of the State of South Carolina was a legal process of the SC State government. The Law was the Ordinance of Secession. The demand for the Fort was made under the laws of the State of South Carolina, under the jurisdiction of Her Constitution, by the will of Her people, and under the aegis of Her government.

Dum Spiro Spero...

W.G.U. Moultrie.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Santee Rifleman

ORIGINAL: RERomine


I don't believe any supeanaes or arrest warrents were issued [:D]

Agreed on the arrest warrants. However, the original document says ALL processes... and in December of 1860 the State of South Carolina was attempting to execute sovereign dominion over her territory. The movement of the harbor garrison from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter was in violation of the agreement between the State of South Carolina and the United States of early December 1860 which stipulated among other things that Fort Sumter was neither to be garrisoned nor provisioned while the State and the United States negotiated possession. The removal of the Moultrie garrison to Sumter was extra-legal. The garrison was in possesion of the fort illegally. The demand for the evacuation of Sumter and its surrender to authorities of the State of South Carolina was a legal process of the SC State government. The Law was the Ordinance of Secession. The demand for the Fort was made under the laws of the State of South Carolina, under the jurisdiction of Her Constitution, by the will of Her people, and under the aegis of Her government.

Dum Spiro Spero...

W.G.U. Moultrie.

Agreement with whom, the Secretary of War, John B. Floyd, who ended up being a Confederate general? There is nothing illegal with voiding such an agreement. If such a formal agreement existed, it falls in the realm of civil litigation and not criminal. When and where did a formal hearing take place. When was the United States informed? Who represented them at the hearing? Due process is required. The agreement, if one existed (I can't find any evidence of such an agreement), would have been portrayed to minimize tension, but more than likely, it was intended to allow South Carolina to take posession without due process and a fight. The only reason Major Robert Anderson was put in command of Ft. Sumter was because he was from Kentucky. It was believed, since he was from a Southern state, that he would just turn everything over if South Carolina asked. If South Carolina felt it had a legal right to the property, why were devious tactics required?

None the less, the terminology in the document is such that South Carolina wanted access to anyone hiding from the law within Ft. Sumter. It was not to leave a convenient out form the first part of the statement. In 1836, they weren't looking at it from any other prospective than they wanted protection for the harbor from foreign ships. The law required such fort be on Federal property, owned by the Federal government and not the state. No provision was made for returning such property to a state during secession because no provision was made for secession. The argument for the legality of secession is the absense of explicit prohibitions in the Constitution, i.e. "states may not secede from the Union." The only thing I see explicit is "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." South Carolina, by the agreement had legal access to the occupants of said property for civil or criminal litigation. They don't have access to ownership rights of the property itself.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: RERomine
Except they gave up all rights to property in 1836:

Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"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.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836

"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S.

Thanks for this interesting document, which of course I knew nothing about. It seems rather conclusive, except that it appears to have been a resolution of the US House of Representatives (the recipient of the gift!) rather than a resolution of the State of South Carolina (the donor). It is quite possible that South Carolina was willing at the time to give up all claims to Fort Sumter (in which case I would agree that it had no legal case for claiming it back in 1861), but the document you quote doesn't seem to provide evidence of that.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
IF the Government has the power then the States cant simply say, "Damn we quit" and negate that power... claiming they can ignores the reality.

Let's play with this a bit and see how much we can agree on (if anything).

1. The powers of the US government don't apply to other countries.

2. But that does not 'negate' those powers.

3. US citizens can emigrate to other countries and take foreign citizenship, in which case the powers of the US government no longer apply to them.

4. But that does not 'negate' those powers.

5. In theory, the whole population of the southern states could have emigrated to other countries in 1861, in which case the powers of the US government would no longer have applied to them.

6. But that would not have 'negated' those powers.

I'm not sure whether we can agree on all these points, but there seems some possibility of it.

Assuming for the time being that we can agree on all these points, we seem to have agreed that any number of US citizens could choose at any time to take themselves permanently out of US jurisdiction, without even negotiating with the US government, and yet without the powers of the US government being 'negated'.

If they could do this by one method, why it is so outrageous to suggest that they could do it by a slightly different method? And why it is that one method is deemed to 'negate' the powers of the US government, but the other method is not?

[Murat]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
I chose to LIVE in North Carolina and have done so since 1993. Is it now your opinion that only those that agreee with you are allowed to live where ever it is you decide they can?

No, we just have enough trouble being perceived in the rest of the nation as ignorant without you supporting that stereotype. You clearly are talking out your ass about things you have not researched as many others here have pointed out.

[marecone]

I didn't read all of your posts but this seems very interesting to me.
Since I am from Croatia and I've visited USA only once for four months I am afrraid to talk about states rights with all of you but I can give you a modern example of secession.
About 1945, maybe before Yugoslavia was formed. It was formed from 6 republics. One of them was Croatia.
They joined as it was the best thing to do back then. We got to communism and lived like that until 1990. Then, first slovenia and then Croatia, decided that we want to go our way. Serbia, largest republic, had all important political positions in regime and we were supresed by them. Hughe ammounts of money earned from turists in Croatia and slovenia were transfered to Serbia. Serbs lived good and rest of us didn't.
We rose against them and in 1995. we finally got our Country. We fought for 5 years for our independence.
Just to mention, in 1990. there was a voteing on what we want to do and 98% of people decided to secedee!
After that Macedonia, Bosnia and this year even Monte Negro seceded.
I belive you can find a linking points to what happened in ACW. Ofcourse it was a diferent time but...
Anyway, to sum it up; I belive southern states had every right to secede.

[Murat]

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

Correction: Ft. Sumter was not "empty" when Major Anderson transferred his command in late December 1860; a small party of US engineers was at Sumter busily engaged on construction work since at least October of that year (acting very much like they owned the place, I might add).

As for this, you are partially correct, it was not empty, it had construction workers (NOT US engineers) in it who were all evicted when Anderson moved his force into Ft. Sumter.

ORIGINAL: RERomine

Agreement with whom, the Secretary of War, John B. Floyd, who ended up being a Confederate general? There is nothing illegal with voiding such an agreement. If such a formal agreement existed, it falls in the realm of civil litigation and not criminal.

Actually this would be in the realm of treaties since South Carolina was a sovereign nation.

When and where did a formal hearing take place. When was the United States informed? Who represented them at the hearing? Due process is required.

All that was required by international law at the time was a declaration of sovereignity from the former State, which South Carolina issued and delivered to the US Congress by way of the last official act of its representatives to that body.

The agreement, if one existed (I can't find any evidence of such an agreement), would have been portrayed to minimize tension, but more than likely, it was intended to allow South Carolina to take posession without due process and a fight. The only reason Major Robert Anderson was put in command of Ft. Sumter was because he was from Kentucky. It was believed, since he was from a Southern state, that he would just turn everything over if South Carolina asked. If South Carolina felt it had a legal right to the property, why were devious tactics required?

Exactly which South Carolinian put Maj. Anderson in charge of Ft. Moultrie, because as I explained before he was not in charge of Ft. Sumter when South Carolina seceeded? If you are claiming that Floyd did this for that purpose, the US Congress aquitted him of any wrong doing in the disposition of forces and commands immediately preceeding the War of Northern Aggression.

None the less, the terminology in the document is such that South Carolina wanted access to anyone hiding from the law within Ft. Sumter. It was not to leave a convenient out form the first part of the statement. In 1836, they weren't looking at it from any other prospective than they wanted protection for the harbor from foreign ships. The law required such fort be on Federal property, owned by the Federal government and not the state. No provision was made for returning such property to a state during secession because no provision was made for secession. The argument for the legality of secession is the absense of explicit prohibitions in the Constitution, i.e. "states may not secede from the Union." The only thing I see explicit is "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." South Carolina, by the agreement had legal access to the occupants of said property for civil or criminal litigation. They don't have access to ownership rights of the property itself.

It's called eminent domain (legal term, you can go look it up). When South Carolina declared itself a sovereign nation it reclaimed all land owned by the United States withing it's borders, for which the US could have sued to be reimbursed. Instead of following the due process of a sovereign nation, they invaded.

ORIGINAL: Santee Rifleman

Further, in 1860, the concept of the right of the People to choose their own Government was a fundamentally American one, no matter what the "legalities" were or are. Otherwise, we'd still be putting English Royal stamps on our transactions and paying taxes to a crowned tyrant. Into the Union the peace-loving citizens of South Carolina came, uncoerced, of their own free will. Out of the Union they went, peacefully and of their own free will. Morally, where is the argument? It took war, invasion, death, desolation, destruction and defeat, occupations and Reconstruction to force them back into same Union, against their will, under a government they did not choose...


Dum Spiro Spero...

W.G.U. Moultrie.

Glad to see another South Carolinian

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
Thanks for this interesting document, which of course I knew nothing about. It seems rather conclusive, except that it appears to have been a resolution of the US House of Representatives (the recipient of the gift!) rather than a resolution of the State of South Carolina (the donor). It is quite possible that South Carolina was willing at the time to give up all claims to Fort Sumter (in which case I would agree that it had no legal case for claiming it back in 1861), but the document you quote doesn't seem to provide evidence of that.

After they started building Ft. Sumter, which I believe was built from the harbor floor, someone tried to claim it as being property of South Carolina and not the Federal Government. All land that forts are built on is suppose to be Federal property, but since there wasn't anything other than water originally, no one bothered to purchase it in the government. Since South Carolina wanted the fort for protection, they cleared the issue up by transferring ownership to the Federal Government and voiding all claims others had to the property. This document is from the House of Representatives declaring the resolution to the problem. Somewhere, there is a corresponding document from the South Carolina governor transferring ownership, but I haven't found that.

Overall, South Carolina want the fort because it posed a threat to Charleston harbor in 1861 and who really owned it didn't mattered one bit.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: RERomine
After they started building Ft. Sumter, which I believe was built from the harbor floor, someone tried to claim it as being property of South Carolina and not the Federal Government. All land that forts are built on is suppose to be Federal property, but since there wasn't anything other than water originally, no one bothered to purchase it in the government. Since South Carolina wanted the fort for protection, they cleared the issue up by transferring ownership to the Federal Government and voiding all claims others had to the property. This document is from the House of Representatives declaring the resolution to the problem. Somewhere, there is a corresponding document from the South Carolina governor transferring ownership, but I haven't found that.

Fair enough, I'm willing to believe you. There's still some possibility of argument remaining, in that South Carolina ceded the fort to the government of a country that included South Carolina. When South Carolina split off from that country, as I've already mentioned it could claim to be due some Federal properties in return for past taxes paid, which might have included Fort Sumter. This could have been a subject of negotiation.

However, if it had already explicitly waived all claims to the fort, to open fire on it in place of negotiations looks overhasty. Major Anderson's little trip was an unnecessary provocation, but it could easily have been ignored.

ORIGINAL: RERomine
Overall, South Carolina want the fort because it posed a threat to Charleston harbor in 1861 and who really owned it didn't matter one bit.

Apparently. But patience would have been a virtue in this case. The fort was clearly vulnerable and South Carolinians could have waited for it to fire first. Probably the USA would have got sick of supplying it before then.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
Let's play with this a bit and see how much we can agree on (if anything).

1. The powers of the US government don't apply to other countries.

This I would agree on, with the stipulation that the Federal Government and no other goverment in the world recognized the Confederacy as another country.

2. But that does not 'negate' those powers.

Agreed.

3. US citizens can emigrate to other countries and take foreign citizenship, in which case the powers of the US government no longer apply to them.

Does such emigration render prior citizenship void? Some countries figure if you are born a citizen of this country, whatever this country might be, then you are always a citizen of this country. Consider this country to be a fill in the blank. I know some people have citizenship stripped and have been deported back to the country they came from, but that is typically when they lied when becoming citizens in the first place. Also, during the Vietnam War, many people went to Canada to avoid the draft and became citizens. That didn't stop the United States from wanting them if they ever returned.

I also think there is a process for renouncing citizenship to a country. Emigration would make one a citizen of another country, but not necessarily void the citizenship of the parent country.

4. But that does not 'negate' those powers.

If you mean the powers of the parent country are not, in general, negated, I would agree.

5. In theory, the whole population of the southern states could have emigrated to other countries in 1861, in which case the powers of the US government would no longer have applied to them.

Dependant on their legal status based on #3. The issue is typically moot because if someone picks up and goes to another country they tend to be out of reach of their parent country, especially in 1861.

6. But that would not have 'negated' those powers.

Same as #4.

I'm not sure whether we can agree on all these points, but there seems some possibility of it.

Assuming for the time being that we can agree on all these points, we seem to have agreed that any number of US citizens could choose at any time to take themselves permanently out of US jurisdiction, without even negotiating with the US government, and yet without the powers of the US government being 'negated'.

If they could do this by one method, why it is so outrageous to suggest that they could do it by a slightly different method? And why it is that one method is deemed to 'negate' the powers of the US government, but the other method is not?

There are a number of problems I see.

The first is no one, other than the Confederacy itself, considered the South to be another country. I believe England and France considered the Civil War to be an internal problem to the United States.

Second, emigration is a personal thing. If you are trying to say the Southern states were in effect, emigrating in mass, what about the people who didn't want to "emigrate"? There were some in every Southern state. Beside, emigration is a people and not a territory thing.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Murat

ORIGINAL: RERomine

Agreement with whom, the Secretary of War, John B. Floyd, who ended up being a Confederate general? There is nothing illegal with voiding such an agreement. If such a formal agreement existed, it falls in the realm of civil litigation and not criminal.

Actually this would be in the realm of treaties since South Carolina was a sovereign nation.

Treaties with foreign nations are the realm of Congress and the President and not the Secretary of War.

When and where did a formal hearing take place. When was the United States informed? Who represented them at the hearing? Due process is required.

All that was required by international law at the time was a declaration of sovereignity from the former State, which South Carolina issued and delivered to the US Congress by way of the last official act of its representatives to that body.

What international law? There is a law covering the rights of part of a country to rebell? That is what was occurring and everyone perceived it as such. I don't deny it happens and it's always nice to notify the country a section is trying to separate from, but end result depends on how the parent country responds. No other country recognized the Confederacy so, if there was such a law, it was loosely written at best.

Exactly which South Carolinian put Maj. Anderson in charge of Ft. Moultrie, because as I explained before he was not in charge of Ft. Sumter when South Carolina seceeded? If you are claiming that Floyd did this for that purpose, the US Congress aquitted him of any wrong doing in the disposition of forces and commands immediately preceeding the War of Northern Aggression.

On the technicality that he didn't personally benefit from his actions.

It's called eminent domain (legal term, you can go look it up). When South Carolina declared itself a sovereign nation it reclaimed all land owned by the United States withing it's borders, for which the US could have sued to be reimbursed. Instead of following the due process of a sovereign nation, they invaded.

Yes, I've heard of eminent domain and there is a process. It varies some from state to state, but it doesn't starts with, "WE WANT IT, GET OUT". The first step is to negotiate the prices, if the seller is willing to sell. For sake of argument, we can conclude the Federal Government made it very clear they didn't want to sell. Hearings are then held to deteremine if the property is required for public use. Again, we can conclude South Carolina would have found this to be the case. Then South Carolina would have determined a fair market value of the property and this amount would be paid and the title transferred. Therein lies the rub. No fair market price was ever established and certainly no payment rendered other than steel. Appeals may take place at the end of the process.

All that aside, I don't believe State courts can seize Federal property under eminent domain laws. The simple fact is their was a fort in Charleston Harbor that South Carolina deemed a threat and wanted it. This I understand, but there weren't any laws existed that gives them legal rights to it. Rebellion is a sometimes violent process where people break away from parent nation. It all depends on how the parent country reacts to this. There is no international court of law where a country can go and declare their independence. If this was the case, Taiwan would have done that a long time ago. They act independent, up to and including having their own military, but no one officially recognizes them because China has made it clear they do not view they as independent and would consider any foreign recognition an act of war. Military threats have the ability to veto right.

We could go all day long on the legal aspects of rebellion and get nowhere. Courts interpret and enforce laws and often they don't agree. There are many things in life that are right, but illegal. Was the legal for the colonies to break away from England? I'm sure England felt it was not. Was it right for the colonies to break away? For them, they felt it was, just as the people of South Carolina felt it was right for them. I didn't live then and don't know how they felt. Through books, I can read how they felt, but I can't feel it anymore than I can feel how people thought about Pearl Harbor.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
Fair enough, I'm willing to believe you. There's still some possibility of argument remaining, in that South Carolina ceded the fort to the government of a country that included South Carolina. When South Carolina split off from that country, as I've already mentioned it could claim to be due some Federal properties in return for past taxes paid, which might have included Fort Sumter. This could have been a subject of negotiation.

I understand the tax thing, but we could chew that one to death. The lion share of the coastline was in the South so the argument could be made most of the taxes were spent building forts to protect it. They might have gotten more than their fair share in that respect, depending on how much they paid to begin with. The only number I've seen is 87% of all taxes, but that number just seems too high to be accurate considering there were more people in the North than the South. On top of that, the Secretary of War, John B. Floyd, was appropriating funds for arms in the South, pretty much knowing they would be breaking away shortly. $230,000 in November, 1860 for the purpose of completing Ft. Sumter and Ft. Moultrie. Also, 113,000 muskets were transferred from arsenals in the North to ones in the South. There were some other things as well. Floyd was investigated for the activity, but not convicted of anything based on the technicality that he didn't profit from the activity. The Secretary of the Interior, Jacob Thompson, was doing much the same thing. It seems like pro-South cabinet members were milking the Federal coffers just before the South broke away.

However, if it had already explicitly waived all claims to the fort, to open fire on it in place of negotiations looks overhasty. Major Anderson's little trip was an unnecessary provocation, but it could easily have been ignored.

Anderson's move might have been provocative, but it may also have been viewed as self preservation. Before the move, Abner Doubleday stated, "The secessionists could hardly be restrained from attacking us, but their leaders kept them back, knowing that our workmen were laboring in their interests, at the expense of the United States."

Apparently. But patience would have been a virtue in this case. The fort was clearly vulnerable and South Carolinians could have waited for it to fire first. Probably the USA would have got sick of supplying it before then.

That would have been the simplest option, considering Anderson had already told them they would be out of supplies in few days unless supplied. Supply ships were on their way, but nothing that would get to Ft. Sumter if South Carolina wouldn't let it and they already proved they wouldn't.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: RERomine
Anderson's move might have been provocative, but it may also have been viewed as self preservation.

Maybe that's how he saw it -- he clearly felt exposed at Fort Moultrie. But I believe he had orders to surrender if necessary rather than fight to the death; he could have surrendered Fort Moultrie and come to no harm, just as he surrendered Fort Sumter and came to no harm. He was back in the North the next month on a recruiting drive.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: RERomine
Does such emigration render prior citizenship void? Some countries figure if you are born a citizen of this country, whatever this country might be, then you are always a citizen of this country. Consider this country to be a fill in the blank. I know some people have citizenship stripped and have been deported back to the country they came from, but that is typically when they lied when becoming citizens in the first place. Also, during the Vietnam War, many people went to Canada to avoid the draft and became citizens. That didn't stop the United States from wanting them if they ever returned.

I also think there is a process for renouncing citizenship to a country. Emigration would make one a citizen of another country, but not necessarily void the citizenship of the parent country.

A quick look around on the Web tells me that US citizens who take foreign nationality these days can generally keep US nationality as well unless they deliberately renounce it, which they can do at a consulate. In earlier times, deliberately applying for foreign nationality could make you liable to lose your US nationality.

The USA seems willing to let anyone renounce his nationality at will.

[lvaces]

he clearly felt exposed at Fort Moultrie. But I believe he had orders to surrender if necessary rather than fight to the death

It is true that Anderson had orders saying he was not expected to "fight to the death".  He was still expected to conduct the best defense he could, however; and he thought (correctly so) the best defense available was at Fort Sumter.  Just because an officer is told he is not expected to fight to the last man does not mean he is then free to conduct a lackidasical half-ass defense, then surrender on demand.  I think given the orders he had - make the best defense you can; but if you can't win, you may surrender to save the lives of your men - all his choices from beginning to end were almost exactly right.   

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: RERomine
There are a number of problems I see.

The first is no one, other than the Confederacy itself, considered the South to be another country. I believe England and France considered the Civil War to be an internal problem to the United States.

Second, emigration is a personal thing. If you are trying to say the Southern states were in effect, emigrating in mass, what about the people who didn't want to "emigrate"? There were some in every Southern state. Beside, emigration is a people and not a territory thing.

I was replying to Twotribes, who keeps claiming that secession is unthinkable because it would 'negate' (his word) all the powers of the US government. Therefore I tried to point out that it is possible for US citizens to quit the USA and leave its jurisdiction -- by emigrating -- without, apparently, negating the powers of the US government. If they can quit the USA in one way, it shouldn't be unthinkable for them to quit in another way.

Being recognized as independent by other countries is a practical rather than a theoretical matter. Other countries wait for a while to see if a new country is going to survive or not. If not, having recognized it would be somewhat embarrassing.

Of course there must have been a significant minority of Confederates who were actively opposed to secession: most obviously in West Virginia and part of Tennessee. But the USA was a democracy, and likewise the CSA. If they were outvoted, they had to go with the majority. Though West Virginia could and did secede from Virginia.

As for "emigration is a people and not a territory thing": I'm not suggesting that emigration and secession are the same thing; merely that they're two somewhat different ways of quitting a country. The fact that emigration is permitted doesn't necessarily mean that secession should be; but it does suggest to me that the general idea of quitting a country shouldn't cause alarm and outrage. People do it all the time by emigrating.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
As for "emigration is a people and not a territory thing": I'm not suggesting that emigration and secession are the same thing; merely that they're two somewhat different ways of quitting a country. The fact that emigration is permitted doesn't necessarily mean that secession should be; but it does suggest to me that the general idea of quitting a country shouldn't cause alarm and outrage. People do it all the time by emigrating.

I just was thinking of the how those chosing to remain loyal to the Crown after the American Revolution migrated in mass to Canada. In that case, they weren't emigrating because Canada was English territory as well.

In general, we have deviated from your thread title because it has plunged into the legality of the process and no one is going to come away with a concensus on this one. All us non-lawyer types are trying to interpret laws in the midst of step for independence and laws generally aren't applicable then. I count myself in that category of non-lawyer types. As I mentioned elsewhere and I believe you did as well, courts interpret and enforce laws and they don't often agree themselves. When the professionals can't agree on laws, how can we expect to here?

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: lvaces
It is true that Anderson had orders saying he was not expected to "fight to the death". He was still expected to conduct the best defense he could, however; and he thought (correctly so) the best defense available was at Fort Sumter. Just because an officer is told he is not expected to fight to the last man does not mean he is then free to conduct a lackidasical half-ass defense, then surrender on demand. I think given the orders he had - make the best defense you can; but if you can't win, you may surrender to save the lives of your men - all his choices from beginning to end were almost exactly right.

From a military point of view, perhaps. From a political point of view, his action was seen as a provocation by the Confederates, and precipitated the start of the war.

Of course it's possible that he would have been attacked if he'd stayed in Fort Moultrie, in which case his decision made no difference to the situation. No-one can know.

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: Murat

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
I chose to LIVE in North Carolina and have done so since 1993. Is it now your opinion that only those that agreee with you are allowed to live where ever it is you decide they can?

No, we just have enough trouble being perceived in the rest of the nation as ignorant without you supporting that stereotype. You clearly are talking out your ass about things you have not researched as many others here have pointed out.

Ahh so now your going to call me names... whats wrong cant win otherwise?

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

ORIGINAL: Murat

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
I chose to LIVE in North Carolina and have done so since 1993. Is it now your opinion that only those that agreee with you are allowed to live where ever it is you decide they can?

No, we just have enough trouble being perceived in the rest of the nation as ignorant without you supporting that stereotype. You clearly are talking out your ass about things you have not researched as many others here have pointed out.

Ahh so now your going to call me names... whats wrong cant win otherwise?

[&:]

Maybe I'm missing it, but what name did he call you?