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

To: GOPcapitalist
That in no way speaks to what you claimed in #623:

"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."

You just made it up.

Walt

639 posted on 09/16/2003 11:09:26 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 636 | View Replies ]


To: WhiskeyPapa
That in no way speaks to what you claimed in #623

Yes it does, Walt. What did I say in 623? That the SC legislature had in the previous decades granted the forts to the US government conditionally. I also said that those conditions were to keep the forts in working order, upgrade them, and man them in defense of the city.

And what did the 1805 law require as those conditions? Exactly what I said: To "repair the fortifications now existing thereon or build such other forts or fortifications as may be deemed most expedient by the Executive of the United States on the same, and keep a garrison or garrisons therein"

640 posted on 09/16/2003 11:17:04 AM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 639 | 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