Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: TexConfederate1861
Of course, we all know that whether the property was “stolen” or not is a matter of conjecture and opinion.

The property didn't belong to them, or at least to them alone. They took it. They didn't offer to pay for it before they took it. Sure sounds like stealing to me.

622 posted on 04/20/2007 12:05:01 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 621 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur
They didn't offer to pay for it before they took it.

Apparently they did offer to pay for it, although it was a Godfather-like "either your signature goes on the contract or your brains do" sorta offer. From the letter that Buchanan's Sec'y of War sent to the SC AG:

The proposal, then, now presented to the President is simply an offer on the part of South Carolina to buy Fort Sumter and contents as property of the United States, sustained by a declaration in effect that if she is not permitted to make the purchase she will seize the fort by force of arms. As the initiation of a negotiation for the transfer of property between friendly governments this proposal impresses the President as having assumed a most unusual form.
What else is interesting here is South Carolina's admission that Sumter is, in fact, United States property.
623 posted on 04/20/2007 12:49:04 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("fyi, i CAN get you banned."--stand watie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 622 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson