Are today's Southern Conservatives any different than Southern Conservatives from the Civil War?

[paperview]

Sure, the confederates DIDN'T really attack FEDERAL Ft Sumpter, lol


The Confederate States of America (C.S.A. or C.S.), commonly referred to as the Confederacy, was an unrecognized confederation of secessionist states existing from 1861–65. It was originally formed by seven slave states in the Lower South region of the United States whose regional economy was mostly dependent upon agriculture, particularly cotton, and a plantation system of production which in turn largely relied upon slave labor. Each had declared their secession from the United States following the November 1860 election of Republican Abraham Lincoln on a platform which opposed expansion of slavery. A new federal government was proclaimed in February 1861 before Lincoln took office in March, but was considered illegal by the remaining U.S. After war began in April, four states of the Upper South also declared their secession and joined the Confederacy. The Confederacy later accepted Missouri and Kentucky as members, although neither officially declared secession nor were ever controlled by Confederate forces.

The United States (the Union) government rejected secession and considered the Confederacy illegal. The American Civil War began with the April 12, 1861 Confederate attack upon Fort Sumter, a fort in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina. By 1865, after very heavy fighting, largely on Confederate territory, CSA forces all surrendered and the Confederacy vanished. No foreign state officially recognized the Confederacy as an independent country,

Confederate States of America - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

FUKKING CONSERVATIVES/CONFEDERATES WERE TRAITORS THEN AS TODAY!!!

I've already explained this argument is bogus about 2 dozen times, but you morons will repeat it over and over like a mantra. You don't care whether it's valid or not.

Just because a dishonest right winger SAYS Abe attacked, the truth is confederate traitors, like you, actually took over UNION forts and attacked Ft Sumpter, a FEDERAL Gov't property!

It was South Carolina Territory, moron. It doesn't matter who owned it. If China bought a piece of property in the USA, would that give it the right to station troops there?

Think before you answer and prove to everyone that you're a fool.

It was not South Carolina territory. They gave it to the U.S. to build a fort.

Fort Sumter

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 any of the land so ceded or structures to be erected upon the same and any person there being who may be implicated in 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 will 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 at Fort Sumter and adjacent land contiguous thereto and if he shall be of opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James I 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 opinion that the said title is not legal and valid that he proceed by scire facias or 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 Resolution of State Legislature passed Dec 21 1836 The foregoing resolution was recorded in book C No 11 page 310 etc in the register's office of mesne conveyances at Charleston July 9 1840​

That held up construction until 1841 when Laval's claim was resolved...

Fort Sumter - National Monument

It was not until January 1841 that work was resumed on the site of Fort Sumter. Laval's claim was invalidated by the State attorney general under act of the South Carolina Legislature, December 20, 1837. But the harbor issue remained and was complicated still further by a memorial presented to the legislature by James C. Holmes, Charleston lawyer, on that same date. 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.​

Like I said, you're fucking nuts. I wasn't kidding, ya know.

I've already posted this shit, numskull. Note the following:

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 any of the land so ceded or structures to be erected upon the same and any person there being who may be implicated in law.​

In other words, South Carolina retained legal control over the territory. It only gave up the property rights to the land, not the territorial rights. All the laws of South Carolina were still in affect within the boundaries. I've pointed this out time and time again, but you numskulls keep bringing up the same idiocy.

Please, end the stupidity!

And you were schooled on this time and again. The US owned the fort lock stock and barrel.

On November 22, 1841, the Federal Government's title to 125 acres of harbor "land" recorded in the office of the Secretary of State of South Carolina.

NPS Historical Handbook Fort Sumter

ALL issues regarding ownership were settled in 1841.

A History of Fort Sumter Building a Civil War Landmark - M. Patrick Hendrix - Google Books

 

[Flash]

Southern conservatives in 1860 were state rights Democrats. Southern conservatives today are states rights Republicans.

Many people back then were for state rights, even in the North. One of the reasons Lincoln was opposed so much was because his campaign rhetoric was to have a bigger Federal role in the government of the US. By the way, he was elected President with less than 40% of the votes.

The other thing that most people tend to forget is that slavery was legal on the Federal level almost 100 years before the Confederacy was created, stayed legal while the Confederacy existed and continued to be legal until almost a year after the Confederacy dissolved. The US is the nation of slavery.

 

[paperview]

...
But the war happened, the South lost and the history books were written so as to make the war about slavery. And the South has been the scapegoat ever since.

When the South wrote their Declarations of Causes to secede -- *they* made pretty much all about slavery. You ever read them?

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

 

[squeeze berry]

Southern conservatives in 1860 were state rights Democrats. Southern conservatives today are states rights Republicans.

is there anything wrong with "states rights" ?

is so, please explain

 

[paperview]

Southern conservatives in 1860 were state rights Democrats. Southern conservatives today are states rights Republicans.

is there anything wrong with "states rights" ?

is so, please explain

Reread what carb just wrote, take a look at the title of this thread, and think for a few minutes.

 

[squeeze berry]

Southern conservatives in 1860 were state rights Democrats. Southern conservatives today are states rights Republicans.

is there anything wrong with "states rights" ?

is so, please explain

Reread what carb just wrote, take a look at the title of this thread, and think for a few minutes.

the OP "have they changed since the days they were slave holders?"



no southern conservative has ever owned a slave

think about that for a few minutes

 

[paperview]

You're really going out of your way to be obtuse, aren't you?

 

[squeeze berry]

You're really going out of your way to be obtuse, aren't you?

the OP is full of shit if that's what you mean

 

[hadit]

Southern conservatives in 1860 were state rights Democrats. Southern conservatives today are states rights Republicans.

Right, two different things.

 

[Faun]

Sure, the confederates DIDN'T really attack FEDERAL Ft Sumpter, lol


The Confederate States of America (C.S.A. or C.S.), commonly referred to as the Confederacy, was an unrecognized confederation of secessionist states existing from 1861–65. It was originally formed by seven slave states in the Lower South region of the United States whose regional economy was mostly dependent upon agriculture, particularly cotton, and a plantation system of production which in turn largely relied upon slave labor. Each had declared their secession from the United States following the November 1860 election of Republican Abraham Lincoln on a platform which opposed expansion of slavery. A new federal government was proclaimed in February 1861 before Lincoln took office in March, but was considered illegal by the remaining U.S. After war began in April, four states of the Upper South also declared their secession and joined the Confederacy. The Confederacy later accepted Missouri and Kentucky as members, although neither officially declared secession nor were ever controlled by Confederate forces.

The United States (the Union) government rejected secession and considered the Confederacy illegal. The American Civil War began with the April 12, 1861 Confederate attack upon Fort Sumter, a fort in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina. By 1865, after very heavy fighting, largely on Confederate territory, CSA forces all surrendered and the Confederacy vanished. No foreign state officially recognized the Confederacy as an independent country,

Confederate States of America - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

FUKKING CONSERVATIVES/CONFEDERATES WERE TRAITORS THEN AS TODAY!!!

I've already explained this argument is bogus about 2 dozen times, but you morons will repeat it over and over like a mantra. You don't care whether it's valid or not.

Just because a dishonest right winger SAYS Abe attacked, the truth is confederate traitors, like you, actually took over UNION forts and attacked Ft Sumpter, a FEDERAL Gov't property!

It was South Carolina Territory, moron. It doesn't matter who owned it. If China bought a piece of property in the USA, would that give it the right to station troops there?

Think before you answer and prove to everyone that you're a fool.

It was not South Carolina territory. They gave it to the U.S. to build a fort.

Fort Sumter

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 any of the land so ceded or structures to be erected upon the same and any person there being who may be implicated in 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 will 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 at Fort Sumter and adjacent land contiguous thereto and if he shall be of opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James I 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 opinion that the said title is not legal and valid that he proceed by scire facias or 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 Resolution of State Legislature passed Dec 21 1836 The foregoing resolution was recorded in book C No 11 page 310 etc in the register's office of mesne conveyances at Charleston July 9 1840​

That held up construction until 1841 when Laval's claim was resolved...

Fort Sumter - National Monument

It was not until January 1841 that work was resumed on the site of Fort Sumter. Laval's claim was invalidated by the State attorney general under act of the South Carolina Legislature, December 20, 1837. But the harbor issue remained and was complicated still further by a memorial presented to the legislature by James C. Holmes, Charleston lawyer, on that same date. 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.​

Like I said, you're fucking nuts. I wasn't kidding, ya know.

I've already posted this shit, numskull. Note the following:

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 any of the land so ceded or structures to be erected upon the same and any person there being who may be implicated in law.​

In other words, South Carolina retained legal control over the territory. It only gave up the property rights to the land, not the territorial rights. All the laws of South Carolina were still in affect within the boundaries. I've pointed this out time and time again, but you numskulls keep bringing up the same idiocy.

Please, end the stupidity!

Who cares if you defended your idiocy on this before? If you did, that only means you're incapable of learning.

They did not retain legal control, you moron. They maintained the right to process serve criminals on the property. Other than that, they had no legal control of the property. They ceded the land and recorded the title to the federal government, which remains to this day, in their own office of the SC Secretary of state.

Savvy?

That land was, and is, federal land. The fort was, and is, federal property. You were, and are, a fucking retard. Just because SC retained the legal right to process serve individuals on the property, in no way provided them legal authority to fire upon the fort.

 

[Faun]

Southern conservatives in 1860 were state rights Democrats. Southern conservatives today are states rights Republicans.

Exactly right. You can call the Democrats back then or you can call them Republicans today. Doesn't matter. The racist south was, and is, Conservative right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

...
But the war happened, the South lost and the history books were written so as to make the war about slavery. And the South has been the scapegoat ever since.

When the South wrote their Declarations of Causes to secede -- *they* made pretty much all about slavery. You ever read them?

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

They simply pretend those documents don't exist.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Southern conservatives in 1860 were state rights Democrats. Southern conservatives today are states rights Republicans.

Exactly right. You can call the Democrats back then or you can call them Republicans today. Doesn't matter. The racist south was, and is, Conservative right.

Historically, Conservatives have opposed the expansion of rights in this country at virtually every turn, generation by generation,

issue by issue.

Why are they called conservatives, afterall?

Because they want to CONSERVE things the way they are. Or, they want to move backwards, and then conserve things the way they were.

 

[bripat9643]

There are MANY aspects of the Civil War that we don't have the frame of reference for in a post-Civil War America. And I think that is worth a great deal of consideration when trying to comprehend the times and what was actually happening. We have to realize the federal government was not outlawing slavery and the South rebelled, there had been no legislation suggesting any sort of a thing. We outlawed slave trade, the slave markets, etc., that had been done years before, it wasn't happening in America in 1860. The SCOTUS had ruled in several cases and the US law of the land said slaves were property and the fundamental right to own them rests with their owner. The Southern states didn't do this on their own. This was the actions of US Presidents and Congress all the way up to Lincoln.

So from a purely Constitutional standpoint, what power does the government have to come seize your property? It's covered in the 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. It was literally for this very reason the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the seceded states... they weren't protected by the Constitution anymore. It was well after the end of the war that Congress got around to drafting the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments rendering slavery unconstitutional.

Now, as much as there was any kind of "conservatives" back then, they were the business men who mostly favored states having the right to decide on slavery. Cotton was our #1 trade good.... King Cotton. Mills all along the Eastern seaboard were making tons of money on cotton thanks to Eli Whitney, and life was sweet. New York threatened to secede over the war because they simply didn't want to fight it. But the war happened, the South lost and the history books were written so as to make the war about slavery. And the South has been the scapegoat ever since.

The war was entirely about slavery because if you take slavery out of the equation it is impossible to envision a plausible scenario where 11 states would secede while unifying around the forming of a completely new nation,
the result being a war between that nation and the states remaining in the Union.

The war was about Lincoln invading Virginia. You turds can't stop equating secession with starting the war. That doesn't justify a war. Secession did not start the war. Lincoln did.

The above is why it's pointless to argue with numskulls like you. No matter how may times your claims are discredited, you keep repeating them

 

[bripat9643]

Southern conservatives in 1860 were state rights Democrats. Southern conservatives today are states rights Republicans.

Exactly right. You can call the Democrats back then or you can call them Republicans today. Doesn't matter. The racist south was, and is, Conservative right.

Historically, Conservatives have opposed the expansion of rights in this country at virtually every turn, generation by generation,

issue by issue.

Why are they called conservatives, afterall?

Because they want to CONSERVE things the way they are. Or, they want to move backwards, and then conserve things the way they were.

Liberal "rights" are just excuses to give people stuff while others pay for it.

 

[bripat9643]

I've already explained this argument is bogus about 2 dozen times, but you morons will repeat it over and over like a mantra. You don't care whether it's valid or not.

Just because a dishonest right winger SAYS Abe attacked, the truth is confederate traitors, like you, actually took over UNION forts and attacked Ft Sumpter, a FEDERAL Gov't property!

It was South Carolina Territory, moron. It doesn't matter who owned it. If China bought a piece of property in the USA, would that give it the right to station troops there?

Think before you answer and prove to everyone that you're a fool.

It was not South Carolina territory. They gave it to the U.S. to build a fort.

Fort Sumter

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 any of the land so ceded or structures to be erected upon the same and any person there being who may be implicated in 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 will 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 at Fort Sumter and adjacent land contiguous thereto and if he shall be of opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James I 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 opinion that the said title is not legal and valid that he proceed by scire facias or 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 Resolution of State Legislature passed Dec 21 1836 The foregoing resolution was recorded in book C No 11 page 310 etc in the register's office of mesne conveyances at Charleston July 9 1840​

That held up construction until 1841 when Laval's claim was resolved...

Fort Sumter - National Monument

It was not until January 1841 that work was resumed on the site of Fort Sumter. Laval's claim was invalidated by the State attorney general under act of the South Carolina Legislature, December 20, 1837. But the harbor issue remained and was complicated still further by a memorial presented to the legislature by James C. Holmes, Charleston lawyer, on that same date. 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.​

Like I said, you're fucking nuts. I wasn't kidding, ya know.

I've already posted this shit, numskull. Note the following:

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 any of the land so ceded or structures to be erected upon the same and any person there being who may be implicated in law.​

In other words, South Carolina retained legal control over the territory. It only gave up the property rights to the land, not the territorial rights. All the laws of South Carolina were still in affect within the boundaries. I've pointed this out time and time again, but you numskulls keep bringing up the same idiocy.

Please, end the stupidity!

And you were schooled on this time and again. The US owned the fort lock stock and barrel.

On November 22, 1841, the Federal Government's title to 125 acres of harbor "land" recorded in the office of the Secretary of State of South Carolina.

NPS Historical Handbook Fort Sumter

ALL issues regarding ownership were settled in 1841.

A History of Fort Sumter Building a Civil War Landmark - M. Patrick Hendrix - Google Books

Apparently "schooled" means your arguments were utter failures. The federal government was a land owner, just like any other land owner in the state. The document you posted that South Caroline retained legal jurisdiction over the property. It remained a part of South Carolina.

Now you've been "schooled" for the 10th time.

 

[Faun]

There are MANY aspects of the Civil War that we don't have the frame of reference for in a post-Civil War America. And I think that is worth a great deal of consideration when trying to comprehend the times and what was actually happening. We have to realize the federal government was not outlawing slavery and the South rebelled, there had been no legislation suggesting any sort of a thing. We outlawed slave trade, the slave markets, etc., that had been done years before, it wasn't happening in America in 1860. The SCOTUS had ruled in several cases and the US law of the land said slaves were property and the fundamental right to own them rests with their owner. The Southern states didn't do this on their own. This was the actions of US Presidents and Congress all the way up to Lincoln.

So from a purely Constitutional standpoint, what power does the government have to come seize your property? It's covered in the 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. It was literally for this very reason the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the seceded states... they weren't protected by the Constitution anymore. It was well after the end of the war that Congress got around to drafting the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments rendering slavery unconstitutional.

Now, as much as there was any kind of "conservatives" back then, they were the business men who mostly favored states having the right to decide on slavery. Cotton was our #1 trade good.... King Cotton. Mills all along the Eastern seaboard were making tons of money on cotton thanks to Eli Whitney, and life was sweet. New York threatened to secede over the war because they simply didn't want to fight it. But the war happened, the South lost and the history books were written so as to make the war about slavery. And the South has been the scapegoat ever since.

The war was entirely about slavery because if you take slavery out of the equation it is impossible to envision a plausible scenario where 11 states would secede while unifying around the forming of a completely new nation,
the result being a war between that nation and the states remaining in the Union.

The war was about Lincoln invading Virginia. You turds can't stop equating secession with starting the war. That doesn't justify a war. Secession did not start the war. Lincoln did.

The above is why it's pointless to argue with numskulls like you. No matter how may times your claims are discredited, you keep repeating them

Again .... Fort Sumter is not in Virgina.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Southern conservatives in 1860 were state rights Democrats. Southern conservatives today are states rights Republicans.

Exactly right. You can call the Democrats back then or you can call them Republicans today. Doesn't matter. The racist south was, and is, Conservative right.

Historically, Conservatives have opposed the expansion of rights in this country at virtually every turn, generation by generation,

issue by issue.

Why are they called conservatives, afterall?

Because they want to CONSERVE things the way they are. Or, they want to move backwards, and then conserve things the way they were.

Liberal "rights" are just excuses to give people stuff while others pay for it.

Who got free stuff when women got the right to vote? When mixed race couples got the right to marry? Or same sex couples? Or gay rights in general? Or the right to be served by a business? Or the equal rights of blacks in the military? And on and on...

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are MANY aspects of the Civil War that we don't have the frame of reference for in a post-Civil War America. And I think that is worth a great deal of consideration when trying to comprehend the times and what was actually happening. We have to realize the federal government was not outlawing slavery and the South rebelled, there had been no legislation suggesting any sort of a thing. We outlawed slave trade, the slave markets, etc., that had been done years before, it wasn't happening in America in 1860. The SCOTUS had ruled in several cases and the US law of the land said slaves were property and the fundamental right to own them rests with their owner. The Southern states didn't do this on their own. This was the actions of US Presidents and Congress all the way up to Lincoln.

So from a purely Constitutional standpoint, what power does the government have to come seize your property? It's covered in the 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. It was literally for this very reason the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the seceded states... they weren't protected by the Constitution anymore. It was well after the end of the war that Congress got around to drafting the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments rendering slavery unconstitutional.

Now, as much as there was any kind of "conservatives" back then, they were the business men who mostly favored states having the right to decide on slavery. Cotton was our #1 trade good.... King Cotton. Mills all along the Eastern seaboard were making tons of money on cotton thanks to Eli Whitney, and life was sweet. New York threatened to secede over the war because they simply didn't want to fight it. But the war happened, the South lost and the history books were written so as to make the war about slavery. And the South has been the scapegoat ever since.

The war was entirely about slavery because if you take slavery out of the equation it is impossible to envision a plausible scenario where 11 states would secede while unifying around the forming of a completely new nation,
the result being a war between that nation and the states remaining in the Union.

The war was about Lincoln invading Virginia. You turds can't stop equating secession with starting the war. That doesn't justify a war. Secession did not start the war. Lincoln did.

The above is why it's pointless to argue with numskulls like you. No matter how may times your claims are discredited, you keep repeating them

Secession was an illegal act. The states are not countries; they are part of a country, bound to it by a document that is the supreme law of the land.

 

[bripat9643]

I've already explained this argument is bogus about 2 dozen times, but you morons will repeat it over and over like a mantra. You don't care whether it's valid or not.

Just because a dishonest right winger SAYS Abe attacked, the truth is confederate traitors, like you, actually took over UNION forts and attacked Ft Sumpter, a FEDERAL Gov't property!

It was South Carolina Territory, moron. It doesn't matter who owned it. If China bought a piece of property in the USA, would that give it the right to station troops there?

Think before you answer and prove to everyone that you're a fool.

It was not South Carolina territory. They gave it to the U.S. to build a fort.

Fort Sumter

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 any of the land so ceded or structures to be erected upon the same and any person there being who may be implicated in 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 will 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 at Fort Sumter and adjacent land contiguous thereto and if he shall be of opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James I 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 opinion that the said title is not legal and valid that he proceed by scire facias or 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 Resolution of State Legislature passed Dec 21 1836 The foregoing resolution was recorded in book C No 11 page 310 etc in the register's office of mesne conveyances at Charleston July 9 1840​

That held up construction until 1841 when Laval's claim was resolved...

Fort Sumter - National Monument

It was not until January 1841 that work was resumed on the site of Fort Sumter. Laval's claim was invalidated by the State attorney general under act of the South Carolina Legislature, December 20, 1837. But the harbor issue remained and was complicated still further by a memorial presented to the legislature by James C. Holmes, Charleston lawyer, on that same date. 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.​

Like I said, you're fucking nuts. I wasn't kidding, ya know.

I've already posted this shit, numskull. Note the following:

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 any of the land so ceded or structures to be erected upon the same and any person there being who may be implicated in law.​

In other words, South Carolina retained legal control over the territory. It only gave up the property rights to the land, not the territorial rights. All the laws of South Carolina were still in affect within the boundaries. I've pointed this out time and time again, but you numskulls keep bringing up the same idiocy.

Please, end the stupidity!

And you were schooled on this time and again. The US owned the fort lock stock and barrel.

On November 22, 1841, the Federal Government's title to 125 acres of harbor "land" recorded in the office of the Secretary of State of South Carolina.

NPS Historical Handbook Fort Sumter

ALL issues regarding ownership were settled in 1841.

A History of Fort Sumter Building a Civil War Landmark - M. Patrick Hendrix - Google Books

Apparently "schooled" is a euphemism meaning your argument was a colossal fail. Allow me to quote the section of the document you keep trying to ignore:

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;
​

South Carolina retained authority over "all processes, civil and criminal." That means the legislature retained all legal authority over the property. Any other interpretation is pure sophistry.

Note: your other source mentions the following:

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.​

Why would the title of land be "recorded in the office of the Secretary of State of South Carolina" if it the land wasn't part of South Carolina?

You idiots keep banging away on this with the same old discredited claims, but everything you posit only serves to further refute your claims.

The bottom line is that you're just a gang of sleazy poltroons who would tell any lie imaginable to save the reputation of Saint Lincoln.