In a message dated 7/17/05 4:16:01 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a
message dated 7/17/05 11:24:16 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> Even though the American Indians
(AFAIK) don't recognize the
power
> of the Federal Government
*over themselves* they don't try to
> reclaim the properties they
sold to it, even though the US Gov't
was
> guilty of
innumerable treaty-breakings in their case. What excuse
> does
South Carolina offer? This reeks of self-serving post-hoc
>
justification to me. Though rather sympathetic to States' Rights
in
> principle (and no great fan of a bloated and arrogant Federal
> Gov't), I just lost a little more respect for the
South.
>
>
>
> It doesn't matter if the State
government had sold the fort to
the Feds. The
> Feds paid for
the fort with taxes taken from the people of South
Carolina
>
and other southern states.
And other northern states as well. The point
is, South Carolina sold
it, and received money for it. To then claim that
the Civil War was
the "War of Northern Aggression" when the feds were
simply retaining
their property, and the feds were the ones first fired
upon, seems a
bit twisted to me. I have no real problem with Rebellion per
se, and
I am not in a hurry to declare the South unjustified; I just have
a
problem with what appears to be a Southern abdication of their own
portion of the responsibility.
As I said in my earlier post,
certainly you don't
> think the British were entitled to keep the
infrastructure they
paid to
> build,i.e. roads, forts
armories, courthouses after the colonies
decided to declare
>
independence.
I don't? How do you know that?
>When southern
states seceded, they were declaring independence
> from the
United States, as the United States declared their
independence from
> Great Britain. Nobody would want an uninvited foreign power
with
a fort in
> their backyard, especially at the entrance to an
important
harbor.
The feds had been invited; South Carolina
had received moneys paid
for by the feds for the property. Suddenly
*uninviting* the feds is
a different story. However, all this is beside
the point. My only
real quibble was your calling it the War of Northern
Aggression. I
don't see how the feds' refusing to leave makes *them* the
sole
aggressors here.
Most federal
> commanders had the good
sense to surrender their commands in
states that
> seceded.
Most? Is that true?
All federal property was retained by the
states since those states
> declared themselves independent of
the federal government.
Then I suspect the states should have
offered to repay the feds the
money they took for the property, with
interest of course.
Did the United States offer to repay the British for taxes
spent on infrastructure in the colonies? Noooooooooo. Most federal properties
were surrendered peacefully at the time of secession.
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
|
- Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Targ... MDixon6569
-
