Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: WhiskeyPapa
Later legilsation gave the federal governmet clear title.

Quote it.

The feds wouldn't agree to construct the fort without clear title.

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

647 posted on 09/16/2003 8:27:19 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 642 | View Replies ]


To: GOPcapitalist
Later legilsation gave the federal governmet clear title.

Quote it.

I already did.

You tried to deceive but you got caught.

Walt

651 posted on 09/16/2003 8:39:30 PM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 647 | View Replies ]

To: GOPcapitalist
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

652 posted on 09/16/2003 8:41:59 PM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 647 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson