Posted on 09/06/2003 9:14:08 AM PDT by quidnunc
Yes, but it is a fallacious argument as 2/3rds of the people who paid for the properties were from the North, and they paid 86% of the tab on them. You can't sell your property and then reclaim it keeping while keeping the money without becoming a common thief.
You've seen many times the text I used.
But you still spout your disinformation.
Walt
A little reflection will tell any honest person that the secessionists were no better than common thieves. That they are put forward as honorable is the big lie of ACW history.
Walt
Don't get me wrong, Gianni. I'm not one of those "castigate America" because she once engaged in slavery. It was the accepted norm at the time. It happened. Let the crybabies and reparations whiners take their fight to places where slavery is STILL practiced, if they truly give a darn about the issue. But they won't, or course. For a great many, it's about the money, not the principle.
That being said, slavery is never right or just, particularly in an society that demanded its own freedom from tyranny, citing inalienable rights as its source.
Although, in principle, I agree with you. We have veered far off the path of preserving Rights, by constantly chipping away at them through oppressive legislation. That is why I'm so adament about this issue; many people don't recognize the permanence of their rights, versus the transcience of government, and that lack of knowledge has cost us so very many freedoms! Too many young people today don't even know where their Rights stem from, they think "Rights" are gifts from Uncle Sam; when in fact, if our representative Republic and courts actually worked they way they should, it would be the opposite!
Quote it.
The feds wouldn't agree to construct the fort without clear title.
That was Fort Sumter. I am talking about Moultrie, Johnson, and Pinckney, which were subject of the 1805 act's conditional transfer.
No they didn't. All three of the forts that they siezed after Anderson moved into Sumter were constructed before the US army took command of any of them. Heck, Fort Johnson was built by the British back in 1708! Moultrie was in use during the revolution and Pinckney, standing on a long-recognized battery post, was completed by SC in the 1790's. They were all transfered conditionally to the feds in 1805 by the SC legislation. The transfer was without any compensation to SC for building them. The people of South Carolina owed the yankees NOTHING for those three forts when they took them. Yet they offered to pay anyway in hopes that it would bring about a peaceful settlement.
Then there was Howell Cobbs planning of the timing of secession so that he could collect the 150 million in prepayments from the North for the cotton crop of 1861, and Jefferson's Davis legislation in the early confederacy that made it 'legal' for the Confederacy to sieze these funds by any means.
Quote it.
I already did.
You tried to deceive but you got caught.
Walt
That's a lie. This is what you said:
"There is also the issue of how the federals came into ownership of the forts in Charleston to begin with. The South Carolina legislature had, over the previous decades, granted them permission by statute to occupy, maintain, and build upon the Charleston forts so long as they were kept in working condition and used for coastal defenses against foreign enemies."
Walt
Yeah. And I said it in reference to Forts Moultrie, Johnson, and Pinckney. That is why I used the plural of "forts" instead of the singular "fort," which would have been the case had I been talking about Sumter. As I have documented, Moultrie, Johnson, and Pinckney all predated the federal garrison of the region and belonged to south carolina. SC conditionally transferred them to the army in 1805 by legislative act requiring them to be maintained and garrisoned by the feds just as I said.
No you didn't. You simply claimed this to be true while offering no evidence whatsoever for either Sumter or the 1805 forts.
What should have been important was compliance with the confederate constitution. As it turned out that was a matter of no importance to the Davis regime.
the TRUTH is that the absense of a CSA supreme court during the war is a BIG ISSUE to YOU and to NOBODY ELSE
You and the rest of the sothron horde harp endlessly on what you claim are violations of the Constitution by Lincoln, yet violations of the confederate constitution is not a big issue. Bit of a double standard, don't you think?
That sounds inclusive of Ft. Sumter to me. Looks like you caught him slipping a card out of his sleeve again. Nice catch.
free dixie,sw
as for the war criminal/tyrant/cheap politician lincoln & his gang of thugs, i'm glad i don't have to try to defend their UNLAWFUL actions.the US government had been functioning for DECADES & the institutions of government could have/should have continued to function normally, except for the hatefilled/arrogant/self-righteous meddling of the lincoln clique.
that is the difference.
free dixie,sw
Thanks. That is how these neo-confederates operate. No lie is too brazen if it advances the cause of "southern" heritage.
Walt
Still, given that you think a 20 million dollar tax increase on top of a 500 million annual cost for the war was a devastating economic blow, it's easy to see how you could have developed another silly notion here.
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.