Posted on 04/12/2007 9:34:54 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861
[You, being a smartass] I had a feeling that you'd just eat it up.
Well, Domain Master's post does certainly cast in a different light your tautological table-pounding string of little rabbit-droppings like this one:
To: TexConfederate1861
NO....Secession = Get the Hell out and STAY OUT!
"...and leave all your property behind you."
You forgot that part. Theft is theft is theft, no matter how you try to deny it or pretty it up. The confederacy was founded on grand larceny.
593 posted on 04/19/2007 3:45:03 PM CDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 592 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Oh, you mean like The Times of London:
To slavery we have ever entertained the most rooted aversion. Not all the valour, not all the success of the South, has ever blinded us to this black spot on their fair escocheon. But even tainted as they are with this foul stain they have commanded our admiration and our sympathy from the gallantry with which they have maintained their cause, and from the obvious truth that the struggle was for separation on the one part and compulsory retention on the other, the emancipation or continued slavery of the negro being only used as means to forward the ends of the North. While it was supposed that the South could be brought back by giving every security for the continuance of slavery, the North never dreamt of emancipation. When it was found that no such conciliation was possible, the North, as a weapon of war, and not as a concession to principle, has finally decided on emancipation. That this measure is no homage to principle or conviction, but merely a means of raising up a domestic enemy against the Southerners in the midst of the Southern States, is abundantly proved from the fact that slavery, so odious in Alabama, is tolerated in Kentucky. Its abolition is a punishment to rebels; its retention is a reward to patriots; it is not the accursed thing to be rooted out at all hazards. Its abolition is the punishment of rebellion; its retention is the reward of adherence to the Union.
-- The Times, 15 January 1863
Note that The Times's use of "rebellion" is subjunctive in its conditionality, as witness simultaneously the use of "patriots" -- the policy is described as it would be seen and intended by the implementing authority in his own terms. The author of the piece is levelling, usefully for us from his detached and disengaged perspective, a larger claim of cynicism in the promulgator of the proclamation and the executive authorities responsible for the administration of the Emancipation Proclamation.
Oh my goodness, I suppose now I'm supposed to be trembling in my boots too afraid to respond?
Actually you produced a cede, not evidence of a deed. Had the Federal government bought, paid, and received deed then the land would be controlled by the government.
The definition of cede is to surrender or give up land, rights, or power, to another country, group, or person. South Carolina obviously knew that when they agreed that they were giving up "all right, title, and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter..." Sole control of the site was transfered to the federal government.
Then you offered up “Why would that be in question?” regarding whether or not the Federal Government had a right to begin construction of Ft. Sumter on an entirely underwater shoal in the middle of a river in Charleston Harbor without prior approval of the state.
"In the middle of a river in Charleston Harbor?" Which river would that be? The Ashley or the Cooper?
So, according to this ruling, the Federal Government did not have the authority to begin construction in the first place.
You are aware that Pollard's Lessee v Hagen was an 1845 case? Regardless, the state of South Carolina had ceded ownership of the property to the U.S. so even had the precedent been set your quote would be irrelevant. Construction did not start in earnest until after the state had given permission by ceding ownership.
“That, if the United States shall not, within three years from the passing of this act, and notification thereof by the Governor of this State to the Executive of the United States, 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; in such case this grant or cession shall be void and of no effect.”—(”Statutes at Large of South Carolina,” vol. v, p. 501.
The 1805 legislation? Sumter wasn't even considered until after the War of 1812. The land the fort was built on wasn't ceded until 1836. But according to you the government had until 1808 to begin construction of a fort it hadn't thought of on territory that wasn't ceded to it for another 28 years. And in spite of later legislation. Brilliant.
I believe that you well know that that contention is false. However, that is a post for another thread.
How would I know it's false? Because you say it is? Well that settles that! No need for future discussion, is there? </sarcasm>
And your point?
My point is if the fort was built on land that no longer belonged to South Carolina, with funds not provided by South Carolina, then how did it all of a sudden belong to South Carolina without the agreement of the rightful owner and without payment of any kind?
If you are speaking of his conversation with Buell, his suggestions were countermanded by the President before he left for Ft. Sumter. The administration made it clear that if there were a “real threat to their safety”, they were to surrender.
And this is based on?
Actually he did. After the Star of the West attempted to run into the harbor, Anderson threatened the governor of South Carolina by stating he would fire on any ships entering or leaving the harbor.
Anderson said that unless the governor disavowed the attack on the Star of the West he would prevent ships from entering or leaving. At the same time he sent the letter to Pickens he included a copy of it in a message to the Adjutent General. At no time did he halt traffic even though his letter to Pickens was approved of by the AGO in Washington.
Judging from your spelling and syntax errors, you are rushing into a lengthy argument to attempt to win some sort of contest. Your points are opinionated and largely unsupported.
Realizing that only your opinions are to be taken at face value, I will point out that the illegality of South Carolina's actions was also Buchanan's opinon, Lincoln's opinion, and that of the Supreme Court in their 1869 decision.
And with regard to your contention that South Carolina never offered compensation, I would suggest you look at this...
And yet they didn't wait before seizing Moultrie, Pinkney, the Charleston Armory, and anything else they could get their hands on, without payment of any kind. Impatient cusses, weren't they?
I knew you'd love it.
And yet he does use the term 'rebels' to refer to the Southerners, which is what they were. And the term 'patriots' to refer to those remaining loyal to the North, which is what they were.
From the National Park Service's Ft. Sumter website:"Not before November 22, 1841, was the Federal Government's title to 125 acres of harbor "land" recorded in the office of the Secretary of State of South Carolina."
our CSA ancestors were in the same vein as Washington, Franklin,Jefferson, Paine,et.al., in that they were REBELLING against a faraway,intrusive, power-hungry administration that was acting against their informed self-interest & which promised to become evermore dictatorial, intrusive & power-hungry.
REBELLION against "lincoln, the TYRANT & his merry band of CRIMINALS" was the ONLY honorable course in 1861, just as it was the honorable course to rebel against George III, in 1776.
the ONLY difference is that the HERO/MARTYRS to dixie FREEDOM didn't win their war of liberation, against the Leviathan out of the north.
free dixie,sw
Not for about 1/3rd of you population.
our CSA ancestors were in the same vein as Washington, Franklin,Jefferson, Paine,et.al., in that they were REBELLING against a faraway,intrusive, power-hungry administration that was acting against their informed self-interest & which promised to become evermore dictatorial, intrusive & power-hungry.
Two problems with that. The power hungry government was mainly the result of disproportionate Southern power. And Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, et.al. cared enough about their cause to win.
REBELLION against "lincoln, the TYRANT & his merry band of CRIMINALS" was the ONLY honorable course in 1861, just as it was the honorable course to rebel against George III, in 1776.
Rot.
btw, for the 1/3 of the southern population, the war was NEEDLESS as 99% of the DAMNyankees cared little/nothing about "the plight of the slaves."
you KNOW that lincoln & his merry band of CREEPS, criminals & cheap, scheming politicians cared exactly NOTHING for slaves/slavery, until it became possible that GB & France would come into the war in the CSA side. THEN & ONLY then did they LOUDLY become "abolitionists". fwiw, i think you're smarter than to believe their KNOWING, sanctimonious LIES!
free dixie,sw
President Ronald W. Reagan stated that CSA President Jefferson Davis was a "hero" to him. And the Pope admired Davis as well, even sending him a crown of thorns made by the pontiff.
!!!
Boston...come in Boston...
free dixie,sw
it's a DEN of LEFTISTS,vipers, socialists & weirdos from what i saw up there. furthermore, the city has more SEGREGATED schools than AL,GA & MS COMBINED!
DAMNyankees have ALWAYS been HYPOCRYTES.
free dixie,sw
Explain it to him, would you Mac_truck? I don't even want to try.
I’ve been watching you rant against Yankees for years. How do you think we feel? Had you won the Civil War, we’d been overrun by grits-eating illegal immigrants.
DYs have NEVER been more than 10-15% of northerners, but they are REALLY ignorant, arrogant,LOUD-mouthed & MEAN-spirited.if they didn't spend so much time HATING the south/southerners, they would be some other kind of BIGOT.
btw, are you a "rude boy"???
free dixie,sw
Yeah, I can be rude. :)
one hopes that is not your usual/ordinary deportment.
free dixie,sw
“I’ve been watching you rant against Yankees for years. How do you think we feel?”
I find it hilarious....(chuckle)
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.