Posted on 07/06/2006 7:01:52 AM PDT by SquirrelKing
It appears that the Northern invasion of the South is complete -- at least it is on a patch of land known as Delta Plantation in Jasper County.
There, a diehard rebel named Henry E. Ingram Jr. made his last stand against the onslaught of Yankees, only to be thwarted by a man from Long Island, N.Y., and now -- gasp -- a French Canadian.
Ingram promised to keep Yankees out of Delta Plantation in Jasper County when he bought 1,700 acres there in 1998. His resolve to keep them out still is strong, but the covenants he put on the land don't seem to have any teeth.
Those covenants did, however, scare Canadian-raised Bluffton resident Louise Legare a bit as she was close to signing a contract to buy a three-bedroom, two-bathroom house on the land from Bluffton Home Builders.
The list of rules she got from the builders was missing the first pages, so she went to the Jasper County Courthouse to get the missing ones. There, she found the covenants, or rules, that Ingram demanded of buyers:
1. They could not be Yankees.
2. They could not have the last name Sherman (an obvious reference to Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman).
3. And the land could not be sold or leased to those whose last names could be rearranged to spell Sherman.
Clearly, Ingram doesn't like Northern folk.
Now, however, Legare and Bluffton Home Builders are working with Ingram's son, Ashley Ingram, to remove the covenants. The former Delta Plantation is on both sides of U.S. 17, just north of the Georgia state line.
"When (Legare) brought it to us, we all kind of had a good laugh," said Jim Hobbs, a partner in the home-building firm.
In fact, Legare is buying the land and home from Bill Cook, another partner in the company, who happens to be a native of Long Island, N.Y. No one at Bluffton Home Builders had seen the covenants before Legare found the missing pages, and no one has ever tried to enforce them, Hobbs said.
If Henry Ingram had his way, he still would keep Yankees off of the 1,700 acres he once owned. His holdings on the plantation have dwindled to 10 acres.
Ingram, now a resident of Corpus Christi, Texas, said his son and attorney, who are both local, should be looking out for his anti-northerner wishes now.
"Yankees destroy everything they have up North, then they come down here," Ingram said. "When they destroy everything (in the South), where are they going to move next? Another country?"
Legare, who grew up north of Montreal, figures her far-northern upbringing must be especially abhorrent to Ingram.
"I must be more of a Yankee," she said. "I'm the person he really doesn't want to live there."
Amazingly, Legare is a much better choice to own Southern land than a New Yorker, according to Ingram.
"French people are much better and more desirable than a Yankee," said Ingram, who once owned video-poker casinos in Jasper County. "They don't stick their noses in other people's business."
The same feature drew Legare and Ingram to the land -- nature. Ingram said he's seen Carolina panthers, bald eagles and fox squirrels on the land. It is that quiet beauty Legare is after.
"I was raised in a very nature-like environment," Legare said. "I think the nature is beautiful in South Carolina."
Ingram, who says he is leaving Texas for Costa Rica soon, cites the boorish manners of Yankees as one of his prime dislikes for them.
"They look down their little pointy noses at the people in the South because we are polite and nice to them," Ingram said. "They think people who are polite and nice are dumb."
Contact Jim Faber at 706-8137 or jfaber@islandpacket.com. To comment on this story, please go to islandpacket.com.
No I accuse you of making things up for the 5th reason, and the 5th reason alone - what you say goes against what dozens of historians have found through their research. So the choice boils down to who do I believe is wrong yet again, possibly for the 10 thousandth time - reputable historians or you. I choose the later.
"History is FICTION, popularly agreed on by tyrants & conquerers."
that too is TRUE!
It wasn't Toynbee. It was Voltaire, although Napoleon gets the credit a lot.
Only when you are relating it.
You sure do your share of writing fiction...
Sounds like a load of crap to me. The South was being snowed under by the industrial power base/abolitionists up North in Yankeeland through the push to have territories in the west admitted as free soil. The South wanted to maintain parity in Congressional seats and with the Abolitionist/industrial power base push for the "free soil" territories, once those territories achieved a political status, the Southern States would be the minority every time. The secession of the Southern States was constitutionally done under the 9th and 10th Amendments. Lincoln's view that the "Union was perpetual and in existence since the founding of the country" was WRONG. The "Union" didn't come into existence until the ratification of the Constitution by the soveriegn states, who (by the way) didn't give up all their sovereignty when they ratified it.
For the edification of you ignorant Yankees - Ratification means agreement to adopt. Federal = shared power. Thereby the United States of America was a UNION OF SOVEREIGN STATES with the Federal Government having Constitutionally limited power. The major portion of the power rested with the States, only the powers which are in Article 1 of the Constitution are what the Fed is supposed to operate under. The Bill of Rights were understood to be a prohibition against the Federal Government prior to 1867! Lincoln could not constitutionally call anything a "rebellion" nor could he call up troops. He called it a rebellion to sell a bill of goods the dumb Yankees would buy (they did) and launched an illegal war of conquest of the Southern States which by this time were their own sovereign nation. The war which you think was to free the slaves, wasn't about freeing slaves at all, it was about not letting the Southern States go. Slavery would have died a natural death within ten years of 1860 due to the inventions of Cyrus McCormick and Eli Whitney. It was a push by the fanatical abolitionists and the Yankee Industrial power that got the ball rolling. Like it or not, those are historical facts. AND while we're at it, Virginia had a clause in their Constitutional ratification document that reserved for them the right to withdraw from the Union if they saw the Fed becoming abusive of its powers. Lincoln, and the North were wrong, and if you dig enough you'll find out how wrong they were!
I might recommend a book for you to peruse though. The name is "War For What" and it was published in 1991. A great eye opener. I know the truth hurts, but you're a big boy and you'll get over it.
There is a lot of crap being slung around here, but not in here. Barwell Rhett was advocating secession as a South Carolina legislator in 1830. LAwrence Keitt, James DeBow, William Porcher Miles, Louis Wigfall, Edmund Ruffin, and all the other fire eaters were talking secession throughout the 1840's and 50's.
The secession of the Southern States was constitutionally done under the 9th and 10th Amendments.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you. The unilateral secession of the southern states was unconstitutional.
Lincoln's view that the "Union was perpetual and in existence since the founding of the country" was WRONG.
Because you say so?
The major portion of the power rested with the States, only the powers which are in Article 1 of the Constitution are what the Fed is supposed to operate under.
Again, the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Slavery would have died a natural death within ten years of 1860 due to the inventions of Cyrus McCormick and Eli Whitney.
I was right about the load of crap part. Whitney invented the cotton gin, which made cotton farming profitable and more than anything else guaranteed the growth of slavery. McCormick inveted the reaper, which is used in harvesting grain. The first practical mechanical cotton harvester wasn't introduced until the 1940's.
AND while we're at it, Virginia had a clause in their Constitutional ratification document that reserved for them the right to withdraw from the Union if they saw the Fed becoming abusive of its powers.
Like it or not, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and not the ratification documents. Where the two conflict, the Constitution is supreme. It says so right there in Article VI.
I might recommend a book for you to peruse though. The name is "War For What" and it was published in 1991. A great eye opener.
I'll look it up. I love a good comedy.
I don't disagree. So please tell us again how slavery didn't have anything to do with the Civil War.
You can't have it both ways.
By 1860, Whitney was long dead, his cotton gin invention had been in use for over 50 years and it was primarily responsible for slavery not just surviving but thriving in 1860 by making upland cotton a profitable crop. Before Whitney's cotton gin, only low land long fiber cotton was of any interest to Southern Planters. McCormick's reapers were not useful for cotton. In fact, there was no practical mechanical cotton harvesters until the 1950s. I'm old enough to remember when most cotton in the South was picked by dirt poor share croppers of migrant labor.
For such a man of the South, you seem very uninformed about the crop that built the region.
I am a semi-auto person and have carried a 1911A1 for years and years - recently got a Sig P245 for the DA feature.
But if I got a revolver to carry, it would be a .44 Special Charter Arms Bulldog. There was a superior court judge down in Early County GA who presided on the bench with two loaded .44 Specials, used one for a gavel (I hope he had an empty chamber under the hammer!) There was, however, Order in his Court!
I have a .455 Webley, but it's definitely not a carry pistol - must weigh three pounds fully loaded. At least if you run out of ammo you can club any assailant to death with one swing . . .
at least, unlike you, i don't try to dress-up my personal opinions as if they were fact.
free dixie,sw
the right of secession was NOT ceded & thus unilateral secession, despite your rather SILLY denial, was & remains LAWFUL.
your STATE can leave the union tomorrow!
free dixie,sw
that thing was AWESOME & would shoot a 2" group, unsupported, from 25 M!
thankfully, my grandfather's Colt was on my belt that day, or i would have lost it, too.
free dixie,sw
lincoln is gay
lincoln is gay
You mean The United States side vs the confederate side don't you. You have more loyalty to a failed and dead rebellion then to the country where you were born.
That's really sad for someone that swore their loyalty to the United States as an Officer and a gentleman to say.
True as that is, had she added ONE MORE clause, saying that in the event the reversion clause was ruled null and void on the grounds of being 'against public policy' or otherwise, the entire transfer would be similarly null and void, that would have been hard for the lefty court and TWU to overcome.
"The Supreme Court disagrees with you. The unilateral secession of the southern states was unconstitutional."
It's always entertaining when self-styled 'conservatives' rely upon the SCOTUS to prove that the Constitution doesn't say what it says. Is this the same SCOTUS they vilify for Dred Scott? The same SCOTUS they find so loathsome of late, in its decisions in Kelo and Hamdan?
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
I'm sure the bureaucracy thanks their lucky stars for 'conservatives' who can turn their back on plain English--otherwise, we wouldn't have a federal Leviathan.
my FIRST loyalty is to Almighty God, then to my family,then to my "comrades in arms (with whom i served), then to tribe, then to state & then to the country.
free dixie,sw
can you guess which set of rules ALWAYS wins in court.
free dixie,sw
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.