Posted on 04/12/2007 9:34:54 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861
So you don't believe that the SCV website says that? Should I post the links so that everyone else can see that you're wrong again?
Bravo, Sir.
I bow to a far more astute scholar than myself.
I have had the honor to tour the forts mentioned. (Even braved snakes to check out Castle Pinckney, which is falling into ruin.)
It will be interesting to see what our resident Unionists have to say. :)
Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836
"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.
"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.
"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:
"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836
"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:
Jacob Warly, C. S.
Now, if I understand what you're saying, the words "That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, " DON'T actually mean that the state is ceding all right, title and claim. Is that about right?
I'd be glad to produce it:
Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836
"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.
"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.
"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:
"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836
"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:
Jacob Warly, C. S.
It seems very clear to me. The state did give up completely and forever, all legal claims to the property Sumter was built on, and would have no legal claim to the fort itself. No qualifiers or modifications.
The area where Ft. Sumter was to be built was totally underwater. Whether or not the state of South Carolina had the original right to “cede” any area covered by navigable water is questionable. Whether or not the Federal government had the right to begin construction before the area was subject to a valid cede was also under question.
Why would that be in question?
However it remained that the territory belonged to the State of South Carolina, while the actual fort was erected by the Federal Government under the Constitutional guarantee of protection from invasion.
The South Carolina legislature disagreed with you. They clearly gave up all claims to the land.
It is likewise guaranteed in Article IV, Section IV that the United States could only involve itself militarily within a state on application (and approval) of the State’s legislature.
False. That pertains to domestic violence. Article I, Section 8 clearly gives Congress the power to to execute the laws of the union and suppress insurrections, and no prior approval of the state is required.
Once legal notification was given, any property ceded to the general government again reverted to the ownership of the State.
Earlier you said that the federal government held the property in trust for all the states, not just the state that ceded the property in the first place. So how can the claims of one suddenly overrule the interests of the many. If the fort belonged to all the wouldn't they be entitled to some monetary compensation if one decided it wanted it back?
Once Major Anderson moved from Ft. Moultrie, he was involving his forces in the sovereign and independent actions of the State of South Carolina.
Nonsense. Major Anderson commanded all the forts in the Charleston area. He had orders which allowed him to move his men in the face of a real threat to their safety. He did not involve himself in the actions of South Carolina, which had no legal claim to the property to begin with, but instead safeguarded the lives of his men from the Charleston mob and the local militia.
As such, South Carolina was entirely within its rights as a sovereign state to order foreign aggressors from its borders, and to use whatever reasonable force was necessary in order to do so.
South Carolina was not a sovereign state since its actions were illegal. Its actions were more properly defined as rebellion, and the troops in Sumter had every right to remain at their post.
The same was true in the events of the appearance of the “Star of the West” and the “Harriette Lane”, both Federal warships attempting to interrupt the protected intercourse of the state of South Carolina.
The Star of the West was an unarmed merchantman which could not have interrupted the intercourse of the state of South Carolina if it wanted to. Yet the South Carolina batteries fired on it. Just as they fired on another unarmed merchant ship, the Rhoda Shannon, a few months later. The Harriet Lane was part of the fleet attempting to resupply Sumter and likewise did not interfere with traffic in or out of the port. In fact nobody interferred with the traffic. Nobody, except Southern batteries, fired a single shot prior to the bombardment. In fact every hostile act was made by South Carolina and the confederacy.
Despite initiating action to buy and negotiate, unfortunately, Union government policy did not afford a peaceful solution.
A nice tale, except no such offer was ever made. South Carolina demanded the fort be turned over from the beginning. No offer was made for any of the other facilities the confederate government stole. Sumter was no different. The confederacy decided that Sumter was worth a war. They got their war, and as it turns out their decision was fatally wrong.
You didn't have to wait long.
this means that you are not only a TROLL, but evidently a FOOL as well.
laughing AT you, fool/TROLL. but PLEASE rant on. (soon everyone will be laughing AT you.)
free dixie,sw
I don’t think I will have to wait long for HIS response either...:)
there is MUCH more to the process of PROVING your lineage, as i suspect you are smart enough to KNOW, but too DISHONEST to admit.
thus you are revealed to be DISHONEST. (but then everyone KNOWS that of you. that's why they won't post to you, TROLL.)
free dixie,sw
Keep celebrating a war that your ancestors LOST. It makes the rest of us laugh. ;-)
if so, "THE STUPID CLUB", a subset of the "DAMNyankee coven of lunatics, nitwits, HATERS, useful idiots & a RACIST", awaits your membership application. fyi, "Mr SPIN" is President of the club, this year.
free dixie,sw
Free Dixie and the REST of America!
This coming from a guy who’s handle is obviously taken from a mobster....and we didn’t lose genius. We wore ourselves out whipping Yankees. :)
Laugh all you like.
You people have more excuses for losing and more terms for getting your ass kicked than any other group I've ever met.
Let’s face it Noni... it isn’t like you guys tore us up....
it took you five years and we kicked YOUR ASSES every step of the way.
Southern wins in the East were a fact. So was the almost unbroken string of Southern military disasters in the west. So you can blame your loss on your claim that you wore yourself out whipping Yankees in the East if you like. In the West we whipped and we whipped and we whipped and we still had energy enough to win it all.
OK, let’s examine some Western battles:
1. Chickamauga....Confederate Victory.
2. Shiloh...A draw, and only because Albert Sidney Johnston was killed....otherwise the Union Army would have been totally destroyed.
3. Mansfield: Confederate Victory
4. Galveston: Confederate Victory
For the most part, inept Generals like Bragg, and Hood were the only reason for Confederate Losses in the West. Anytime there were competent Generals, the Confederates won.
My whole point in all of this is YES, no question that the Federals won the war, but it was certainly no brilliant victory, but rather a sheer overwhelming of the South by manpower and resources! If the South had access to the same, well, it would have been a different story.
Probably someone in North Carolina. The flags were returned a generation or two later.
furthermore, ALL of the major partisan actions in the west & trans-Mississippi were CSA victories.
had there been ANY support from Richmond, we could have held the trans-Mississippi FOREVER! (alas, there was little or no support available.)
the TRUTH is that MOST western CSA units went home UN-surrendered. my ancestor's unit for ONE!
free dixie,sw
Grant was able to establish himself permanently in the vicinity and did not withdraw -- which it had been Johnston's objective to force him to do, if he couldn't wreck Grant's force -- whereas the Confederates, driven from the field on the second day by Grant's reinforcements, retreated to Mississippi.
I've thought about Shiloh a long time, and the Confederates basically didn't have the resources to do what the lay of the field required. Grant's dispositions defended his key landing in sufficient depth to prevent the Southerners from doing what they needed to do in one day's fighting.
JMHO, if Johnston's troops somehow could have approached Grant's base area under cover and avoided Prentiss, they might have had a chance of carrying the field. But fighting through Prentiss and the Hornet's Nest/Peach Orchard line was just too much. They spent themselves before they got close to endangering Grant's lodgement at the landing.
The battle was a mismatch, with Southern forces overmatched by the job to be done and outnumbered by Union forces in the operating area. It was a significant Union victory.
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.