Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Poor analogy.How can it be an act of treason when you've seceded?
Isn't that kinda like your parents trying to ground you after you've moved into your own house?
I think the cheating angle is a bad analogy...Unless you want to use it as the husband stalking you, harassing your guests, and spying on you from Ft. Sumter, after you've dumped him and moved out.Poor analogy.How can it be an act of treason when you've seceded?
Isn't that kinda like your parents trying to ground you after you've moved into your own house?
I think it might be more akin to a cheating husband who decides he wants a divorce and declares:
too bad, I'm keeping the house.
Kevin - it was OUR Fort. It belonged to the Federal Government.
South Carolina had no more right to its possession than Kentucky does to Fort Knox
And the Colonies had no more right to anything than South Carolina did to Fort Sumter.
I think the cheating angle is a bad analogy...Unless you want to use it as the husband stalking you, harassing your guests, and spying on you from Ft. Sumter, after you've dumped him and moved out.Poor analogy.How can it be an act of treason when you've seceded?
Isn't that kinda like your parents trying to ground you after you've moved into your own house?
I think it might be more akin to a cheating husband who decides he wants a divorce and declares:
too bad, I'm keeping the house.
Your analogy presumes, a priori, that secession through the means used by South Carolina is constitutionally legitimate. It isn't.How can it be an act of treason when you've seceded?
Isn't that kinda like your parents trying to ground you after you've moved into your own house?
I repeat my previous post.As soon as I finish reading War and Peace, I'll read the OP.
I was just wondering... If the South had of won the Civil War, would there be a requirement for all eating establishments to have grits on the menu? Might not be such a bad thing - just saying.
How can it be an act of treason when you've seceded?
Isn't that kinda like your parents trying to ground you after you've moved into your own house?
Buchanan had the cowardice to refuse to execute the duties of his office. South Carolina had no claim to Fort Sumter. Want proof? Here you go:We've been here before Kevin.
The South fired the first shots even before Lincoln was President.
Yes, in another act of belligerence by Lincoln's predecessor, at least he had the sense not to escalate the situation. This prior incident also shows that Lincoln knew what the consequences of his actions would be, and still went ahead and tried to resupply Fort Sumter. He knew the south would attack, and he knew he could use that to get public opinion on his side for a war with the south.As the above bill passed by the South Carolina legislature twenty-five years before clearly states, all claim of the state to the site of the fort was extinguished, and it was wholly the property of the United States federal government. South Carolinian insurgents attacked the fort without first being fired upon (from batteries that had also been given over to the federal government in like manner, I might add), which is an act of war, and since they were citizens of the United States, an act of treason as well.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.
Did the British fight for their claim to them? Why yes they did.Buchanan had the cowardice to refuse to execute the duties of his office. South Carolina had no claim to Fort Sumter. Want proof? Here you go:Yes, in another act of belligerence by Lincoln's predecessor, at least he had the sense not to escalate the situation. This prior incident also shows that Lincoln knew what the consequences of his actions would be, and still went ahead and tried to resupply Fort Sumter. He knew the south would attack, and he knew he could use that to get public opinion on his side for a war with the south.As the above bill passed by the South Carolina legislature twenty-five years before clearly states, all claim of the state to the site of the fort was extinguished, and it was wholly the property of the United States federal government. South Carolinian insurgents attacked the fort without first being fired upon (from batteries that had also been given over to the federal government in like manner, I might add), which is an act of war, and since they were citizens of the United States, an act of treason as well.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.
Yes, Fort Sumter was a federal fort, but it was also within the territory of South Carolina. I wonder how many British forts were taken by the Colonies in the Revolutionary War. Obviously they had no claim to those.
Yes, in another act of belligerence by Lincoln's predecessor, at least he had the sense not to escalate the situation. This prior incident also shows that Lincoln knew what the consequences of his actions would be, and still went ahead and tried to resupply Fort Sumter. He knew the south would attack, and he knew he could use that to get public opinion on his side for a war with the south.
These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.
Yep.Excellent research! It is always amusing to see people pretend that the war was not about slavery.
I thought this was interesting and I actually recall being told about it in school.
Sadly, there are those that still believe this idiocy.These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.
Did the British fight for their claim to them? Why yes they did.Buchanan had the cowardice to refuse to execute the duties of his office. South Carolina had no claim to Fort Sumter. Want proof? Here you go:
As the above bill passed by the South Carolina legislature twenty-five years before clearly states, all claim of the state to the site of the fort was extinguished, and it was wholly the property of the United States federal government. South Carolinian insurgents attacked the fort without first being fired upon (from batteries that had also been given over to the federal government in like manner, I might add), which is an act of war, and since they were citizens of the United States, an act of treason as well.
Yes, Fort Sumter was a federal fort, but it was also within the territory of South Carolina. I wonder how many British forts were taken by the Colonies in the Revolutionary War. Obviously they had no claim to those.
Was the newly formed United States victorious in the battle? Why yes they were.
Winning. It's what matters.
Yes, in another act of belligerence by Lincoln's predecessor, at least he had the sense not to escalate the situation. This prior incident also shows that Lincoln knew what the consequences of his actions would be, and still went ahead and tried to resupply Fort Sumter. He knew the south would attack, and he knew he could use that to get public opinion on his side for a war with the south.
So, if I amnd my hippie compatriots elected to take cut off a FEDERAL MILITARY BASE here in Maine from receiving supplies, and if we DECLARE that Maine is no longer part of the USA, you would support me, right?
You would not be calling for the FED to send in troops to take back that military base because you believe in STATES rights?
Is that what you apologists for the Southern cause really believe?
But when Might is used for Right, it shines as its own evidence in the Sunlight.Did the British fight for their claim to them? Why yes they did.Yes, Fort Sumter was a federal fort, but it was also within the territory of South Carolina. I wonder how many British forts were taken by the Colonies in the Revolutionary War. Obviously they had no claim to those.
Was the newly formed United States victorious in the battle? Why yes they were.
Winning. It's what matters.
Might doesn't make right.
