Author Topic: Question about the south (Read 4109 times)

Hangtime · « **Reply #165 on:** June 07, 2006, 02:01:38 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Scherf
Nah, their mistake was Grits.

What the hell are (is?) Grits, anyway?

True Grit.

nirvana · « **Reply #166 on:** June 07, 2006, 02:37:55 AM »

Grits are cornmeal that has been reconstituted I think. Malt-o-meal is what i enjoy.

lazs2 · « **Reply #167 on:** June 07, 2006, 09:14:38 AM »

holden yep..you are right I was being simplistic... the constitution really just limits governments rights.

No where in it does it say that a state does not have the right to suceed.. the supreme court backed this up... even today it is possible for a state to suceed from the union. There are quite a few papers on the possibility out there.

The south was in the right attacking federal forces that refused to vacate... they were right but... they didn't have the might.

If they had simply waited till the feds attacked them they might have had a different outcome.

lazs

Toad · « **Reply #168 on:** June 07, 2006, 07:13:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The supreme court acts slowly. That was the first time the court dealt with seccesion as far as I can find.

[/b]

It didn't act on secession at all during the war. It dealt with it post facto 3 years after the war was over. You think the SC was going to tell the Union vets and bereaved families of the deceased that Lincoln didn't have the right to invade the South over secession?

sue me. Far be it from me to question the authority of the Supreme Court on constitutional issues, or the state legislature of slave holding states as to why the seceeded.

Let's talk about Constitutional issues.

First one: 4th Amendment and the Constitution. It had been clearly hammerd out prior to the ratification of the Constitution that the slaves in the South were "property" and that the North was Constitutionally bound to return runaways.

So, if the North failed to return them...that would be a Constitutional issue.

Second one: Secession. The 10th Amendment says any power not specifically enumerated to the Federal Government resides in the States or the people. Prior to the Civil War there were no SC rulings on Secession; your post facto 1968 ruling has no bearing on the issue at the time of Secession. The South felt (with good Constitutional reason) that they had the right to withdraw from the Union. Lincoln, with not a shred of Constitutional support declared war on the South to "save the Union".

Once again, the 10th Amendment makes secession a Constitutional issue.

Pretty clear the Civil War was fought over Constitutional issues.

This was an "act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government"

It can also be characterised as "organized opposition to authority; a conflict in which one faction tries to wrest control from another."

These are dictionary definitions of insurrection.

Dandy little definitions to be sure; to bad they don't apply. After the South withdrew from the Union, the Federal Government had no existence in those States. Hard to act against a civil authority that has...no authority.

Again, the 10th clearly reserves to the States the power to remain in or withdraw from the Union. That power most certainly is not enumerated to the Federal Government.

nirvana · « **Reply #169 on:** June 07, 2006, 07:34:48 PM »

Shut up, the tpic is grits. Share your favorite grit recipes or why grits are unconsitituoional on the basis of the ## amendment.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #170 on:** June 07, 2006, 07:36:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Dandy little definitions to be sure; to bad they don't apply. After the South withdrew from the Union, the Federal Government had no existence in those States.

I could have sworn Ft Sumter was in South Carolina.

DiabloTX · « **Reply #171 on:** June 07, 2006, 07:45:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by nirvana
Shut up, the tpic is grits. Share your favorite grit recipes or why grits are unconsitituoional on the basis of the ## amendment.

I have a aunt that specialises in "cheese grits". It's baked grits with tons of real cheese and buttah. She typically makes it with Thanksgiving Dinner but whenever I am coming to see her she makes it especially for me.

If there's heaven in a dish, that is it.

nirvana · « **Reply #172 on:** June 07, 2006, 07:46:55 PM »

Are grits anything like malt o meal? It sounds good anyway, who could resist cheese and buttah?

Hangtime · « **Reply #173 on:** June 07, 2006, 07:47:25 PM »

Ft Sumter, SC, CSA.

What was Carolina gonna do... let them heathen yankees imprision and torture us with grits in another Quantanamo Bay?

DiabloTX · « **Reply #174 on:** June 07, 2006, 07:54:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by nirvana
Are grits anything like malt o meal? It sounds good anyway, who could resist cheese and buttah?

Malt o Meal is wheat (thus "cream of wheat" or as the Navy says, "farina"). Grits are hominy corn.

Ain't you seen "My Cousin Vinny"?????

Toad · « **Reply #175 on:** June 07, 2006, 07:59:05 PM »

Of course it is.

Read what I said again.

Sumter was attacked AFTER the SC secession. That land and the fort on it belonged to SC because...... after secession the Federal Government had no existence in those States.

Two days after leaving the Union, on December 22, 1860, South Carolina sent commissioners to Washington, D.C., to negotiate for the delivery of federal property, such as forts, within the state.

Quote

[LETTER OF THE COMMISSIONERS TO THE PRESIDENT.]
WASHINGTON, 28th DECEMBER, 1860.

Sir: We have the honor to transmit to you a copy of the full powers from the Convention of the People of South Carolina, under which we are "authorized and empowered to treat with the Government of the United States for the delivery of the forts, magazines, light houses and other real estate, with their appurtenances, within the limits of South Carolina, and also for an apportionment of the public debt and for a division of all other property held by the Government of the United States as agent of the confederated States, of which South Carolina was recently a member; and generally to negotiate as to all other measures and arrangements proper to be made and adopted in the existing relation of the parties, and for the continuance of peace and amity between this commonwealth and the Government at Washington."

In the execution of this trust, it is our duty to furnish you, as we now do, with an official copy of the Ordinance of Secession, by which the State of South Carolina has resumed the powers she delegated to the Government of the United States and has declared her perfect sovereignty and independence.

It would also have been our duty to have informed you that we were ready to negotiate with you upon all such questions as are necessarily raised by the adoption of this ordinance, and that we were prepared to enter upon this negotiation with the earnest desire to avoid all unnecessary and hostile collision, and so to inaugurate our new relations as to secure mutual respect, general advantage and a future of good will and harmony beneficial to all the parties concerned.

It wasn't the South that started the Civil War. It was Lincoln, the man that usurped powers not enumerated to the Presidency by the Constitution.

Further, this was sent during the negotiations:

Quote

To His Excellency JAMES BUCHANAN,
President of the United States:

In compliance with our statement to you yesterday, we now express to you our strong convictions that neither the constituted authorities, nor any body of the people of the State of South Carolina, will either attack or molest the United States Forts, in the harbor of Charleston, previously to the action of the Convention, and we hope and believe, not until an offer has been made, through an accredited representative, to negotiate for an amicable arrangement of all matters between the State and the Federal Government, provided that no reinforcements shall be sent into those forts, and their relative military status shall remain as at present.

JNO. McQUEEN,
WM. PORCHER MILES,
M. L. BONHAM,
W. W. BOYCE,
LAWRENCE M. KEITT.

Despite having this assurance from SC, Lincoln almost immediately moved to reinforce the forts. His diplomatic failure here lead directly to the firing of shots at Sumter.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #176 on:** June 07, 2006, 11:02:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Two days after leaving the Union, on December 22, 1860, South Carolina sent commissioners to Washington, D.C., to negotiate for the delivery of federal property, such as forts, within the state.

But you just said, (wait for it)

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Sumter was attacked AFTER the SC secession. That land and the fort on it belonged to SC because...... after secession the Federal Government had no existence in those States.

So why did SC send comissioners to Washington to negotiate for the delivery of federal property when there was no federal property?

Make up you mind.

nirvana · « **Reply #177 on:** June 07, 2006, 11:07:06 PM »

No, I thought it was corn though, sounds good, however. Somehow I don't think instant grits would do them justice....

Wolf14 · « **Reply #178 on:** June 07, 2006, 11:11:11 PM »

Grits Rock. I like mine with butter and sugar as a side to pork chops/ chicken friend steak, scrambled eggs w/ cheese, scattered hashbrowns and buttered toast.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #179 on:** June 07, 2006, 11:12:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by nirvana
No, I thought it was corn though, sounds good, however. Somehow I don't think instant grits would do them justice....

Does water soak into a grit faster on your stove than anybody elses stove? Are the laws of physics different on your stove that on any body else's stove? Are you sure it only took five minutes?