To: 4ConservativeJustices
1)When did construction of the Fort begin? 1829
2)When did construction end? Further work was abandoned when the confederate government seized it.
3)When was the Fort garrisoned? Major Anderson moved his entire command there on December 26, 1860. Prior to that civilian workmen had been supervided by an Army officer.
4)What were the terms of the cession?I'm not aware that any terms were agreed to.
To: Non-Sequitur
1)When did construction of the Fort begin? 1829
2)When did construction end? Further work was abandoned when the confederate government seized it.
3)When was the Fort garrisoned? Major Anderson moved his entire command there on December 26, 1860. Prior to that civilian workmen had been supervided by an Army officer.
4)What were the terms of the cession?I'm not aware that any terms were agreed to.Would agree that the construction of the fort was not completed?
Would you agree that from inception to non-completion was a period of more than 30 years?
Would you agree that the fort had not been garrisoned until Anderson occupied it in 1860?
Pardon me, but before we progress to the terms, the preceeding should be resolved.
22 posted on
02/14/2003 1:12:32 PM PST by
4CJ
(Be nice to liberals, medicate them to the point of unconsciousness.)
To: Non-Sequitur
Sorry I took so long responging to the latter (the terms of the cession). I lost my hard drive :o( with what documentation I had. Most I had backed up, but this was newer.
In 1805 the State of SC ceded the property to the federal government with the stipulation that the property would revert to SC if the following conditions were not met:
existing fort and/or new forts had to be built (completed) within three years
fully garrisoned at all times/never abandoned
If either of these conditions were not met the properties in question reverted back to the state. This 1805 cession was referenced as applicable in the cession of the shoal were Fort Sumpter was built.
The federal government failed to abide by the terms of the cession, the properties in question legally belonged to the State of South Carolina.
42 posted on
02/21/2003 4:44:50 AM PST by
4CJ
(Be nice to liberals, medicate them to the point of unconsciousness.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson