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

[Faun]

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.

You're a moron. SC did not retain legal jurisdiction. They retained the right to serve process papers on anyone their in violation of SC law, on civil or criminal matters. According to your idiocy, retaining legal jurisdiction would mean SC could vacate federal employees from the property, which of course, is ludicrous. The title belonged to the federal government. The land belonged to the federal government. The fort belonged to the federal government.

When the confederacy opened fire on the fort, they fired upon federal property. Those were the first shots fired in the Civil war. And I don't care how stupid you are -- you do not get to rewrite history.

 

[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!

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.

According to your own definition, you're incapable of learning. What part of the following don't you understand?:

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;

What part of "all processes, civil and criminal" don't you understand? Does that mean it only reserved the right to "process serve individuals?" What do you think "All processes" means, eh moron?

The fact that the federal government refused to evacuate the fort when the legal processes of South Carolina ordered them to leave was all the legal authority they needed to fire on the Fort.

Here's another question for you to ponder, numskull: Why would the State of South Carolina have a title file for a piece of land that wasn't part of the state? Can you explain that? Does Wyoming have a title on file for Yellowstone National Park?

Although you and paperview are incredibly stupid, I don't think you're too stupid to realize that a state can only file titles to land within its borders.

 

[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.

Sorry, but the term "conservative" is entirely meaningless in the context of the Civil War. It was entirely meaningless prior to WW II.

 

[Faun]

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.

That meant the could serve process papers to any persons there who violated SC law. They were not going to give the government that property if it meant people could break SC law and then use the fort as sanctuary to avoid prosecution.

You are completely fucking nuts.

 

[bripat9643]

...
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

Lincoln invaded Virginia. The later didn't invade Maryland.

 

[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

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.

Was it illegal? Where is that written? Prior to the Civil War, the states viewed themselves as countries. Hence the term "United States." "State" is another word for country, in case you are too ignorant to understand that.

 

[Faun]

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.

According to your own definition, you're incapable of learning. What part of 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 the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law;

Don't you understand? What part of "all processes, civil and criminal" don't you understand? Does that mean it only reserved the right to "process server individuals?" What do you think "All processes" means, eh moron?

The fact that the federal government refused to evacuate the fort when the legal processes of South Carolina ordered them to leave was all the legal authority they needed to fire on the Fort.

Here's another question for you to ponder, numskull: Why would the State of South Carolina have a title for the land on file for a piece of land that wasn't part of the state? Can you explain that? Does Wyoming have a title on file for Yellowstone National Park?

Although you and paperview are incredibly stupid, I don't think you're too stupid to realize that a state can only file titles to land within its borders.

They had no legal jurisdiction to order federal employees to vacate the fort. The section you highlighted above in no way granted them the authority to do so; and they certainly didn't have the authority because you're too fucking stupid to understand the section you highlighted.

For example ... even if the state of SC determined those federal employees had violated SC law -- the limit of SC's jurisdiction was to serve them subpoena's.

Capiche?

Or are you still stuck on stupid?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

That meant the could serve process papers to any persons there who violated SC law. They were not going to give the government that property if it meant people could break SC law and then use the fort as sanctuary to avoid prosecution.

You are completely fucking nuts.

You just admitted it yourself, bonehead. SC gave the federal government "the property." It did not cede territory to the federal government.

 

[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.

Was it illegal? Where is that written? Prior to the Civil War, the states viewed themselves as countries. Hence the term "United States." "State" is another word for country, in case you are too ignorant to understand that.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes the states and its citizens subject to the Constitution and to federal law.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

According to your own definition, you're incapable of learning. What part of 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 the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law;

Don't you understand? What part of "all processes, civil and criminal" don't you understand? Does that mean it only reserved the right to "process server individuals?" What do you think "All processes" means, eh moron?

The fact that the federal government refused to evacuate the fort when the legal processes of South Carolina ordered them to leave was all the legal authority they needed to fire on the Fort.

Here's another question for you to ponder, numskull: Why would the State of South Carolina have a title for the land on file for a piece of land that wasn't part of the state? Can you explain that? Does Wyoming have a title on file for Yellowstone National Park?

Although you and paperview are incredibly stupid, I don't think you're too stupid to realize that a state can only file titles to land within its borders.

They had no legal jurisdiction to order federal employees to vacate the fort. The section you highlighted above in no way granted them the authority to do so; and they certainly didn't have the authority because you're too fucking stupid to understand the section you highlighted.

For example ... even if the state of SC determined those federal employees had violated SC law -- the limit of SC's jurisdiction was to serve them subpoena's.

Capiche?

Or are you still stuck on stupid?

It doesn't say that, numskull. It says "all processes, civil and criminal."

 

[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

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.

Was it illegal? Where is that written? Prior to the Civil War, the states viewed themselves as countries. Hence the term "United States." "State" is another word for country, in case you are too ignorant to understand that.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes the states and its citizens subject to the Constitution and to federal law.

That's only true so long as a state remains in the union. The minute it secedes, the Constitution is null and void. There is no clause in the Constitution that says a state can't secede.

You FAIL, once again.

 

[Faun]

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.

According to your own definition, you're incapable of learning. What part of the following don't you understand?:

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;

What part of "all processes, civil and criminal" don't you understand? Does that mean it only reserved the right to "process serve individuals?" What do you think "All processes" means, eh moron?

The fact that the federal government refused to evacuate the fort when the legal processes of South Carolina ordered them to leave was all the legal authority they needed to fire on the Fort.

Here's another question for you to ponder, numskull: Why would the State of South Carolina have a title file for a piece of land that wasn't part of the state? Can you explain that? Does Wyoming have a title on file for Yellowstone National Park?

Although you and paperview are incredibly stupid, I don't think you're too stupid to realize that a state can only file titles to land within its borders.

The land IS within their borders. It doesn't make it their land. Is anyone else to blame you don't understand the meaning of the word, "cede?"

 

[Faun]

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.

That meant the could serve process papers to any persons there who violated SC law. They were not going to give the government that property if it meant people could break SC law and then use the fort as sanctuary to avoid prosecution.

You are completely fucking nuts.

You just admitted it yourself, bonehead. SC gave the federal government "the property." It did not cede territory to the federal government.

You're such a fucking imbecile. So SC did not "cede" the territory to the federal government? Then you should tell that to SC, because they think they did...

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​

 

[bripat9643]

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.

That meant the could serve process papers to any persons there who violated SC law. They were not going to give the government that property if it meant people could break SC law and then use the fort as sanctuary to avoid prosecution.

You are completely fucking nuts.

You just admitted it yourself, bonehead. SC gave the federal government "the property." It did not cede territory to the federal government.

You're such a fucking imbecile. So SC did not "cede" the territory to the federal government? Then you should tell that to SC, because they think they did...

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​

What do you think "title" means? Does it mean "territory?" Why does the state of South Carolina have the title to the property on file at the state capital?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

According to your own definition, you're incapable of learning. What part of the following don't you understand?:

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;

What part of "all processes, civil and criminal" don't you understand? Does that mean it only reserved the right to "process serve individuals?" What do you think "All processes" means, eh moron?

The fact that the federal government refused to evacuate the fort when the legal processes of South Carolina ordered them to leave was all the legal authority they needed to fire on the Fort.

Here's another question for you to ponder, numskull: Why would the State of South Carolina have a title file for a piece of land that wasn't part of the state? Can you explain that? Does Wyoming have a title on file for Yellowstone National Park?

Although you and paperview are incredibly stupid, I don't think you're too stupid to realize that a state can only file titles to land within its borders.

The land IS within their borders. It doesn't make it their land. Is anyone else to blame you don't understand the meaning of the word, "cede?"

It means it's their territory. Learn the difference between "property" and "territory."

 

[Faun]

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.

According to your own definition, you're incapable of learning. What part of 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 the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law;

Don't you understand? What part of "all processes, civil and criminal" don't you understand? Does that mean it only reserved the right to "process server individuals?" What do you think "All processes" means, eh moron?

The fact that the federal government refused to evacuate the fort when the legal processes of South Carolina ordered them to leave was all the legal authority they needed to fire on the Fort.

Here's another question for you to ponder, numskull: Why would the State of South Carolina have a title for the land on file for a piece of land that wasn't part of the state? Can you explain that? Does Wyoming have a title on file for Yellowstone National Park?

Although you and paperview are incredibly stupid, I don't think you're too stupid to realize that a state can only file titles to land within its borders.

They had no legal jurisdiction to order federal employees to vacate the fort. The section you highlighted above in no way granted them the authority to do so; and they certainly didn't have the authority because you're too fucking stupid to understand the section you highlighted.

For example ... even if the state of SC determined those federal employees had violated SC law -- the limit of SC's jurisdiction was to serve them subpoena's.

Capiche?

Or are you still stuck on stupid?

It doesn't say that, numskull. It says "all processes, civil and criminal."

To demonstrate how retarded you are -- YOU added a period to end that sentence where no such period exists. You tried to alter that resolution to meet your deranged definition of it since its actual meaning paints you as the imbecile you are.

Thanks for providing that tell.

 

[Faun]

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.

Was it illegal? Where is that written? Prior to the Civil War, the states viewed themselves as countries. Hence the term "United States." "State" is another word for country, in case you are too ignorant to understand that.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes the states and its citizens subject to the Constitution and to federal law.

That's only true so long as a state remains in the union. The minute it secedes, the Constitution is null and void. There is no clause in the Constitution that says a state can't secede.

You FAIL, once again.

The Constitution is not null and void to the United States, which enforced it.

 

[paperview]

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.

Was it illegal? Where is that written? Prior to the Civil War, the states viewed themselves as countries. Hence the term "United States." "State" is another word for country, in case you are too ignorant to understand that.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes the states and its citizens subject to the Constitution and to federal law.

That's only true so long as a state remains in the union. The minute it secedes, the Constitution is null and void. There is no clause in the Constitution that says a state can't secede.

You FAIL, once again.

Sure a state can secede. They have to do it the same way they came in, with the consent of Congress and the other states.


The confederates didn't do that, that's why they had their belligerent asses handed to them, and the question was settled with not only the Civil war, but by SCOTUS later.

 

[Faun]

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.

That meant the could serve process papers to any persons there who violated SC law. They were not going to give the government that property if it meant people could break SC law and then use the fort as sanctuary to avoid prosecution.

You are completely fucking nuts.

You just admitted it yourself, bonehead. SC gave the federal government "the property." It did not cede territory to the federal government.

You're such a fucking imbecile. So SC did not "cede" the territory to the federal government? Then you should tell that to SC, because they think they did...

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​

What do you think "title" means? Does it mean "territory?" Why does the state of South Carolina have the title to the property on file at the state capital?

Because the federal land is within their borders. Only an imbecile thinks ceded land isn't ceded because it's geographically within another party's borders.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

According to your own definition, you're incapable of learning. What part of 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 the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law;

Don't you understand? What part of "all processes, civil and criminal" don't you understand? Does that mean it only reserved the right to "process server individuals?" What do you think "All processes" means, eh moron?

The fact that the federal government refused to evacuate the fort when the legal processes of South Carolina ordered them to leave was all the legal authority they needed to fire on the Fort.

Here's another question for you to ponder, numskull: Why would the State of South Carolina have a title for the land on file for a piece of land that wasn't part of the state? Can you explain that? Does Wyoming have a title on file for Yellowstone National Park?

Although you and paperview are incredibly stupid, I don't think you're too stupid to realize that a state can only file titles to land within its borders.

They had no legal jurisdiction to order federal employees to vacate the fort. The section you highlighted above in no way granted them the authority to do so; and they certainly didn't have the authority because you're too fucking stupid to understand the section you highlighted.

For example ... even if the state of SC determined those federal employees had violated SC law -- the limit of SC's jurisdiction was to serve them subpoena's.

Capiche?

Or are you still stuck on stupid?

It doesn't say that, numskull. It says "all processes, civil and criminal."

To demonstrate how retarded you are -- YOU added a period to end that sentence where no such period exists. You tried to alter that resolution to meet your deranged definition of it since its actual meaning paints you as the imbecile you are.

Thanks for providing that tell.

Desperate.

I added a period to the sentence that contained the quote. Don't you know the most basic rules of English?