[GOPcapitalist]

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"

[WhiskeyPapa]

Later legilsation gave the federal governmet clear title. The feds wouldn't agree to construct the fort without clear title.

You've seen many times the text I used.

But you still spout your disinformation.

Walt