Replies

That was Fort Sumter. I am talking about Moultrie, Johnson, and Pinckney, which were subject of the 1805 act's conditional transfer.

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

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."

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.

There is also the issue of how the federals came into ownership of the forts in Charleston to begin with.

That sounds inclusive of Ft. Sumter to me. Looks like you caught him slipping a card out of his sleeve again. Nice catch.