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

To: FredHunter08
Was our secession from the British Empire - which included seizing property of the Crown - justififed?

Before changing the subject how about answering the question?

As much claim as New York had.

If both had a claim to it why was South Carolina justified in seizing it without compensating New York for their share?

Which becomes null and void when South Carolina no longer is in the Union and that fort was a direct and immediate threat to that State.

Based on what rule of law?

The State seceded. Therefore, that was a foreign military base

So it had a foreign owner. It was still the property of someone else. What gave South Carolina any legal claim to it?

Since much of the tax money collected in the South had been spent on infrastructure in the North, why not?

Because it didn't belong to South Carolina and the rightful owner wasn't interested in just giving it away. That's why not.

On another note, why was Jeff Davis never tried?

Still trying to change the subject? Ok. The reason was the 14th Amendment. Now it's your turn to actually answer some of my questions.

605 posted on 05/24/2007 6:55:59 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 599 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur
” Before changing the subject how about answering the question?”

Yes, it was justified. That fort was a loaded gun pointing at South Carolina.

“If both had a claim to it why was South Carolina justified in seizing it without compensating New York for their share?”

New York wasn’t under that fort’s guns.

“Based on what rule of law?”

The State was no longer under the Constitution.

” So it had a foreign owner. It was still the property of someone else. What gave South Carolina any legal claim to it?”

What gave us a legal claim to British forts on our territory? That fort was not private property. It was a military base in the territorial waters of South Carolina.

“Because it didn’t belong to South Carolina and the rightful owner wasn’t interested in just giving it away. That’s why not.”

It belonged to all the States until South Carolina seceded.

All the other forts were vacated, why not that one? Lincoln wanted a trigger.

“Still trying to change the subject? Ok. The reason was the 14th Amendment. Now it’s your turn to actually answer some of my questions.”

I prefaced that with “on another note”, sonny. The reason wasn’t the 14th Amendment. He was imprisoned without trial for 2 years. Why was he released? Oh, the 14th is a wrong answer, by the way.

609 posted on 05/24/2007 7:05:33 PM PDT by FredHunter08 (Guiliani! Come and Take Them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 605 | 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