If you oppose the Confederate flag you oppose the American flag too

[Unkotare]

lincoln didn't start a war. secession started the war.

Nope. Lincoln started it. No one forced Lincoln to invade Virginia, moron.

INGORANCE, thou are conservative.

- December 1860, shortly after Lincoln was elected South Carolina adopted an ordnance declaring its secession from the United States. SC demands the U.S. Army vacate its facilities.
- January 1861, President James Buchanan sent a supply ship to Fort Sumter in Charlestown bay, which was fired on by South Carolina forces.
- The U.S. Army refused to vacate Fort Sumter, South Carolina opens fire on the fort April 12, 1861.

I mean this isn't 1953. You do know you are using a thing called the internet and information is generally freely available to anyone that wants to look yes?

Ft Sumter was South Carolina territory, so the Union had no right to occupy it or resupply it.

The problem with the liberal version of history, is that large portions of it aren't true or they are based on faulty premises.

Tell that to today's U.S. military when they try to resupply one of their bases in South Carolina. See how that goes.

How about if they try to resupply one of their bases in Japan after the Japanese government has told them to get the hell out?

Are all libturds as stupid as you? No need to answer. It's just a rhetorical question.

The confederacy was NOT a legally or legitimately separate, independent nation. Never, loser wannabe.

 

[bripat9643]

Nope. Lincoln started it. No one forced Lincoln to invade Virginia, moron.

INGORANCE, thou are conservative.

- December 1860, shortly after Lincoln was elected South Carolina adopted an ordnance declaring its secession from the United States. SC demands the U.S. Army vacate its facilities.
- January 1861, President James Buchanan sent a supply ship to Fort Sumter in Charlestown bay, which was fired on by South Carolina forces.
- The U.S. Army refused to vacate Fort Sumter, South Carolina opens fire on the fort April 12, 1861.

I mean this isn't 1953. You do know you are using a thing called the internet and information is generally freely available to anyone that wants to look yes?

Ft Sumter was South Carolina territory, so the Union had no right to occupy it or resupply it.

The problem with the liberal version of history, is that large portions of it aren't true or they are based on faulty premises.

Tell that to today's U.S. military when they try to resupply one of their bases in South Carolina. See how that goes.

How about if they try to resupply one of their bases in Japan after the Japanese government has told them to get the hell out?

Are all libturds as stupid as you? No need to answer. It's just a rhetorical question.

The confederacy was NOT a legally or legitimately separate, independent nation. Never, loser wannabe.

Wrong, numskull. It was just as legal as any other nation on the face of the Earth - probably more so.

 

[Unkotare]

INGORANCE, thou are conservative.

- December 1860, shortly after Lincoln was elected South Carolina adopted an ordnance declaring its secession from the United States. SC demands the U.S. Army vacate its facilities.
- January 1861, President James Buchanan sent a supply ship to Fort Sumter in Charlestown bay, which was fired on by South Carolina forces.
- The U.S. Army refused to vacate Fort Sumter, South Carolina opens fire on the fort April 12, 1861.

I mean this isn't 1953. You do know you are using a thing called the internet and information is generally freely available to anyone that wants to look yes?

Ft Sumter was South Carolina territory, so the Union had no right to occupy it or resupply it.

The problem with the liberal version of history, is that large portions of it aren't true or they are based on faulty premises.

Tell that to today's U.S. military when they try to resupply one of their bases in South Carolina. See how that goes.

How about if they try to resupply one of their bases in Japan after the Japanese government has told them to get the hell out?

Are all libturds as stupid as you? No need to answer. It's just a rhetorical question.

The confederacy was NOT a legally or legitimately separate, independent nation. Never, loser wannabe.

... It was just as legal as any other nation on the face of the Earth - probably more so.

It was never recognized as such by any nation on earth, loser wannabe.

 

[bripat9643]

Ft Sumter was South Carolina territory, so the Union had no right to occupy it or resupply it.

The problem with the liberal version of history, is that large portions of it aren't true or they are based on faulty premises.

Tell that to today's U.S. military when they try to resupply one of their bases in South Carolina. See how that goes.

How about if they try to resupply one of their bases in Japan after the Japanese government has told them to get the hell out?

Are all libturds as stupid as you? No need to answer. It's just a rhetorical question.

The confederacy was NOT a legally or legitimately separate, independent nation. Never, loser wannabe.

... It was just as legal as any other nation on the face of the Earth - probably more so.

It was never recognized as such by any nation on earth, loser wannabe.

Who ever said that is required to make a country "legal?" In fact, the notion of nation being "illegal" is absurd, especially before the existence of the United Nations.

 

[Unkotare]

Tell that to today's U.S. military when they try to resupply one of their bases in South Carolina. See how that goes.

How about if they try to resupply one of their bases in Japan after the Japanese government has told them to get the hell out?

Are all libturds as stupid as you? No need to answer. It's just a rhetorical question.

The confederacy was NOT a legally or legitimately separate, independent nation. Never, loser wannabe.

... It was just as legal as any other nation on the face of the Earth - probably more so.

It was never recognized as such by any nation on earth, loser wannabe.

Who ever said that is required to make a country "legal?" In fact, the notion of nation being "illegal" is absurd, especially before the existence of the United Nations.

Nobody but the criminal traitors ever pretended that nonsense was legal or legitimate, loser wannabe.

 

[Faun]

Stop lying. The territory was ceded to the U.S. How many times so you have to learn this until it seeps in?


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

The property was transferred to the federal government. SC retained legal jurisdiction over the area.

South Carolina did not maintain legal jurisdiction over that property. You are insane.


Whether you can understand this or not is quite irrelevant -- South Carolina ceded the property. That was U.S. government land.


Still is.

It was federal property, not federal territory. I've debated this issue for months with other gullible Lincoln cult members like you, and we reviewed the document granting the land to the federal government. In the document SC explicitly retains legal jurisdiction over the land.


You're just an ignorant boob who doesn't know the slightest thing about the Civil War.

If you've debated this with others, then you're clearly ineducable.

Dumbfuck9643.... read ... learn ....

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

Here's the full quote you were afraid to post:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

Why do you lie and say I'm afraid to post that? I already posted that and it's even in my quote that you replied to from earlier.

Meanwhile, your attempted deflection failed you -- despite your abject ignorance about that land being "property," I showed you that South Carolina referred to it as "territory."

 

[bripat9643]

The property was transferred to the federal government. SC retained legal jurisdiction over the area.

South Carolina did not maintain legal jurisdiction over that property. You are insane.


Whether you can understand this or not is quite irrelevant -- South Carolina ceded the property. That was U.S. government land.


Still is.

It was federal property, not federal territory. I've debated this issue for months with other gullible Lincoln cult members like you, and we reviewed the document granting the land to the federal government. In the document SC explicitly retains legal jurisdiction over the land.


You're just an ignorant boob who doesn't know the slightest thing about the Civil War.

If you've debated this with others, then you're clearly ineducable.

Dumbfuck9643.... read ... learn ....

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

Here's the full quote you were afraid to post:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

Why do you lie and say I'm afraid to post that? I already posted that and it's even in my quote that you replied to from earlier.

You deliberately ellided the portion that shows South Caronlina retained legal jurisdiction over the property. That's because you're a craven hosebag who knows the facts don't support your lies.

Meanwhile, your attempted deflection failed you -- despite your abject ignorance about that land being "property," I showed you that South Carolina referred to it as "territory."

The context of the sentence makes it clear they meant it purely in the sense of land. Notice in the last sentence it refers to the area as land, not territory.

Territory Define Territory at Dictionary.com

territory

noun, plural territories.
1.any tract of land; region or district.​

Furthermore, they refer to it in the sense meaning it's Carolina territory. Nowhere do they say the land is to become Federal territory. They only say it will become the property if the federal government.

Notice further than the first sentence says that Caroline is turning over "TITLE" to the property. If it was going to become the territory of the federal government, why would it need a title?

The state of Virginia performed a similar transaction with the federal government. The text of that agreement is as follows:

"Whereas Robert T. Lincoln, Secretary of War of the United States, has made application to this General Assembly, for its consent to the purchase by authorities of the United States of a tract of land described as follows: [legal description deleted]; therefore,
"1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia, That the consent of this state is hereby given to the purchase of said tract of land, but this consent is given subject to the following terms and conditions, to wit: That this State retains concurrent jurisdiction with the United States over said tract of land, so that courts, magistrates and officers of this state may take cognizance , execute such process, and discharge such legal functions within the same as me be not incompatible with the consent hereby given.
"2. That said tract of land and the buildings now or that may be hereafter erected thereon, and any property of the United States, on such tract, are hereby exempted from all taxes imposed by this state, or by the constituted authorities of Alexandria County, and this exemption shall be in force from the date of said purchase by the United States, …and shall continue only so long as the United States shall be and remain the owner of said tract of land; and all taxes, and county, township and district levies, due or claimed to be due, for, against or upon said real estate since the same went into possession of and has been held and used by the United States authorities, as aforesaid, are hereby released and discharged."
​

Note that Virginia also explicitly stated that it retained jurisdiction of the "land" purchased by the federal government. Note that the document also refers to the federal government as the "owner" of the land, as in any other entity owning property in the state.

Why should anyone believe that the South Carolina agreement was intended to be fundamentally different than the Virginia agreement?

 

[Faun]

South Carolina did not maintain legal jurisdiction over that property. You are insane.


Whether you can understand this or not is quite irrelevant -- South Carolina ceded the property. That was U.S. government land.


Still is.

It was federal property, not federal territory. I've debated this issue for months with other gullible Lincoln cult members like you, and we reviewed the document granting the land to the federal government. In the document SC explicitly retains legal jurisdiction over the land.


You're just an ignorant boob who doesn't know the slightest thing about the Civil War.

If you've debated this with others, then you're clearly ineducable.

Dumbfuck9643.... read ... learn ....

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

Here's the full quote you were afraid to post:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

Why do you lie and say I'm afraid to post that? I already posted that and it's even in my quote that you replied to from earlier.

You deliberately ellided the portion that shows South Caronlina retained legal jurisdiction over the property. That's because you're a craven hosebag who knows the facts don't support your lies.

Meanwhile, your attempted deflection failed you -- despite your abject ignorance about that land being "property," I showed you that South Carolina referred to it as "territory."

The context of the sentence makes it clear they meant it purely in the sense of land. Notice in the last sentence it refers to the area as land, not territory.

Territory Define Territory at Dictionary.com

territory

noun, plural territories.
1.any tract of land; region or district.​

Furthermore, they refer to it in the sense meaning it's Carolina territory. Nowhere do they say the land is to become Federal territory. They only say it will become the property if the federal government.

Notice further than the first sentence says that Caroline is turning over "TITLE" to the property. If it was going to become the territory of the federal government, why would it need a title?

The state of Virginia performed a similar transaction with the federal government. The text of that agreement is as follows:

"Whereas Robert T. Lincoln, Secretary of War of the United States, has made application to this General Assembly, for its consent to the purchase by authorities of the United States of a tract of land described as follows: [legal description deleted]; therefore,
"1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia, That the consent of this state is hereby given to the purchase of said tract of land, but this consent is given subject to the following terms and conditions, to wit: That this State retains concurrent jurisdiction with the United States over said tract of land, so that courts, magistrates and officers of this state may take cognizance , execute such process, and discharge such legal functions within the same as me be not incompatible with the consent hereby given.
"2. That said tract of land and the buildings now or that may be hereafter erected thereon, and any property of the United States, on such tract, are hereby exempted from all taxes imposed by this state, or by the constituted authorities of Alexandria County, and this exemption shall be in force from the date of said purchase by the United States, …and shall continue only so long as the United States shall be and remain the owner of said tract of land; and all taxes, and county, township and district levies, due or claimed to be due, for, against or upon said real estate since the same went into possession of and has been held and used by the United States authorities, as aforesaid, are hereby released and discharged."
​

Note that Virginia also explicitly stated that it retained jurisdiction of the "land" purchased by the federal government. Note that the document also refers to the federal government as the "owner" of the land, as in any other entity owning property in the state.

Why should anyone believe that the South Carolina agreement was intended to be fundamentally different than the Virginia agreement?

You're a ******* fruitcake.

They never retained legal jurisdiction. You're too ******* retarded to understand plain English. They ceded the territory with the provision they could have permission to process serve fugitives from the law and parties in civil cases.

The land and the fort were, and still are, owned by the U.S.. The confederacy started the war when they attacked a federal installation.

 

[bripat9643]

It was federal property, not federal territory. I've debated this issue for months with other gullible Lincoln cult members like you, and we reviewed the document granting the land to the federal government. In the document SC explicitly retains legal jurisdiction over the land.


You're just an ignorant boob who doesn't know the slightest thing about the Civil War.

If you've debated this with others, then you're clearly ineducable.

Dumbfuck9643.... read ... learn ....

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

Here's the full quote you were afraid to post:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

Why do you lie and say I'm afraid to post that? I already posted that and it's even in my quote that you replied to from earlier.

You deliberately ellided the portion that shows South Caronlina retained legal jurisdiction over the property. That's because you're a craven hosebag who knows the facts don't support your lies.

Meanwhile, your attempted deflection failed you -- despite your abject ignorance about that land being "property," I showed you that South Carolina referred to it as "territory."

The context of the sentence makes it clear they meant it purely in the sense of land. Notice in the last sentence it refers to the area as land, not territory.

Territory Define Territory at Dictionary.com

territory

noun, plural territories.
1.any tract of land; region or district.​

Furthermore, they refer to it in the sense meaning it's Carolina territory. Nowhere do they say the land is to become Federal territory. They only say it will become the property if the federal government.

Notice further than the first sentence says that Caroline is turning over "TITLE" to the property. If it was going to become the territory of the federal government, why would it need a title?

The state of Virginia performed a similar transaction with the federal government. The text of that agreement is as follows:

"Whereas Robert T. Lincoln, Secretary of War of the United States, has made application to this General Assembly, for its consent to the purchase by authorities of the United States of a tract of land described as follows: [legal description deleted]; therefore,
"1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia, That the consent of this state is hereby given to the purchase of said tract of land, but this consent is given subject to the following terms and conditions, to wit: That this State retains concurrent jurisdiction with the United States over said tract of land, so that courts, magistrates and officers of this state may take cognizance , execute such process, and discharge such legal functions within the same as me be not incompatible with the consent hereby given.
"2. That said tract of land and the buildings now or that may be hereafter erected thereon, and any property of the United States, on such tract, are hereby exempted from all taxes imposed by this state, or by the constituted authorities of Alexandria County, and this exemption shall be in force from the date of said purchase by the United States, …and shall continue only so long as the United States shall be and remain the owner of said tract of land; and all taxes, and county, township and district levies, due or claimed to be due, for, against or upon said real estate since the same went into possession of and has been held and used by the United States authorities, as aforesaid, are hereby released and discharged."
​

Note that Virginia also explicitly stated that it retained jurisdiction of the "land" purchased by the federal government. Note that the document also refers to the federal government as the "owner" of the land, as in any other entity owning property in the state.

Why should anyone believe that the South Carolina agreement was intended to be fundamentally different than the Virginia agreement?

You're a ******* fruitcake.

They never retained legal jurisdiction. You're too ******* retarded to understand plain English. They ceded the territory with the provision they could have permission to process serve fugitives from the law and parties in civil cases.

The land and the fort were, and still are, owned by the U.S.. The confederacy started the war when they attacked a federal installation.

It's obvious you will simply ignore the facts presented. What do you suppose "all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State" means? It means SC can enforce all laws passed by its legislature.

I realize that as a member of the Lincoln cult you can never admit the plain facts of the matter. All you can do is dispense ad hominems.

 

[Faun]

If you've debated this with others, then you're clearly ineducable.

Dumbfuck9643.... read ... learn ....

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

Here's the full quote you were afraid to post:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

Why do you lie and say I'm afraid to post that? I already posted that and it's even in my quote that you replied to from earlier.

You deliberately ellided the portion that shows South Caronlina retained legal jurisdiction over the property. That's because you're a craven hosebag who knows the facts don't support your lies.

Meanwhile, your attempted deflection failed you -- despite your abject ignorance about that land being "property," I showed you that South Carolina referred to it as "territory."

The context of the sentence makes it clear they meant it purely in the sense of land. Notice in the last sentence it refers to the area as land, not territory.

Territory Define Territory at Dictionary.com

territory

noun, plural territories.
1.any tract of land; region or district.​

Furthermore, they refer to it in the sense meaning it's Carolina territory. Nowhere do they say the land is to become Federal territory. They only say it will become the property if the federal government.

Notice further than the first sentence says that Caroline is turning over "TITLE" to the property. If it was going to become the territory of the federal government, why would it need a title?

The state of Virginia performed a similar transaction with the federal government. The text of that agreement is as follows:

"Whereas Robert T. Lincoln, Secretary of War of the United States, has made application to this General Assembly, for its consent to the purchase by authorities of the United States of a tract of land described as follows: [legal description deleted]; therefore,
"1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia, That the consent of this state is hereby given to the purchase of said tract of land, but this consent is given subject to the following terms and conditions, to wit: That this State retains concurrent jurisdiction with the United States over said tract of land, so that courts, magistrates and officers of this state may take cognizance , execute such process, and discharge such legal functions within the same as me be not incompatible with the consent hereby given.
"2. That said tract of land and the buildings now or that may be hereafter erected thereon, and any property of the United States, on such tract, are hereby exempted from all taxes imposed by this state, or by the constituted authorities of Alexandria County, and this exemption shall be in force from the date of said purchase by the United States, …and shall continue only so long as the United States shall be and remain the owner of said tract of land; and all taxes, and county, township and district levies, due or claimed to be due, for, against or upon said real estate since the same went into possession of and has been held and used by the United States authorities, as aforesaid, are hereby released and discharged."
​

Note that Virginia also explicitly stated that it retained jurisdiction of the "land" purchased by the federal government. Note that the document also refers to the federal government as the "owner" of the land, as in any other entity owning property in the state.

Why should anyone believe that the South Carolina agreement was intended to be fundamentally different than the Virginia agreement?

You're a ******* fruitcake.

They never retained legal jurisdiction. You're too ******* retarded to understand plain English. They ceded the territory with the provision they could have permission to process serve fugitives from the law and parties in civil cases.

The land and the fort were, and still are, owned by the U.S.. The confederacy started the war when they attacked a federal installation.

It's obvious you will simply ignore the facts presented. What do you suppose "all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State" means? It means SC can enforce all laws passed by its legislature.

I realize that as a member of the Lincoln cult you can never admit the plain facts of the matter. All you can do is dispense ad hominems.

Nah, I'm doing far more than merely dispensing ad homing .... I'm also presenting the fact that South Carolina ceded that territory to the U.S. Furthermore, the U.S. then constructed a fort which was, and still is, U.S. property; which was attacked by the confederacy, launching the Civil war.

As far as the meaning of the partial clause you posted, in toto means South Carolina was only willing to cede that territory providing they had permission to process serve parties to civil cases and arrest fugitives from the law in criminal cases.

 

[Unkotare]

Tell that to today's U.S. military when they try to resupply one of their bases in South Carolina. See how that goes.

How about if they try to resupply one of their bases in Japan after the Japanese government has told them to get the hell out?

Are all libturds as stupid as you? No need to answer. It's just a rhetorical question.

The confederacy was NOT a legally or legitimately separate, independent nation. Never, loser wannabe.

... It was just as legal as any other nation on the face of the Earth - probably more so.

It was never recognized as such by any nation on earth, loser wannabe.

Who ever said that is required to make a country "legal?"

The traitorous scum knew they had zero legitimacy. They were desperate for a European power to recognize them. No nation on earth ever did.

 

[bripat9643]

Here's the full quote you were afraid to post:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

Why do you lie and say I'm afraid to post that? I already posted that and it's even in my quote that you replied to from earlier.

You deliberately ellided the portion that shows South Caronlina retained legal jurisdiction over the property. That's because you're a craven hosebag who knows the facts don't support your lies.

Meanwhile, your attempted deflection failed you -- despite your abject ignorance about that land being "property," I showed you that South Carolina referred to it as "territory."

The context of the sentence makes it clear they meant it purely in the sense of land. Notice in the last sentence it refers to the area as land, not territory.

Territory Define Territory at Dictionary.com

territory

noun, plural territories.
1.any tract of land; region or district.​

Furthermore, they refer to it in the sense meaning it's Carolina territory. Nowhere do they say the land is to become Federal territory. They only say it will become the property if the federal government.

Notice further than the first sentence says that Caroline is turning over "TITLE" to the property. If it was going to become the territory of the federal government, why would it need a title?

The state of Virginia performed a similar transaction with the federal government. The text of that agreement is as follows:

"Whereas Robert T. Lincoln, Secretary of War of the United States, has made application to this General Assembly, for its consent to the purchase by authorities of the United States of a tract of land described as follows: [legal description deleted]; therefore,
"1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia, That the consent of this state is hereby given to the purchase of said tract of land, but this consent is given subject to the following terms and conditions, to wit: That this State retains concurrent jurisdiction with the United States over said tract of land, so that courts, magistrates and officers of this state may take cognizance , execute such process, and discharge such legal functions within the same as me be not incompatible with the consent hereby given.
"2. That said tract of land and the buildings now or that may be hereafter erected thereon, and any property of the United States, on such tract, are hereby exempted from all taxes imposed by this state, or by the constituted authorities of Alexandria County, and this exemption shall be in force from the date of said purchase by the United States, …and shall continue only so long as the United States shall be and remain the owner of said tract of land; and all taxes, and county, township and district levies, due or claimed to be due, for, against or upon said real estate since the same went into possession of and has been held and used by the United States authorities, as aforesaid, are hereby released and discharged."
​

Note that Virginia also explicitly stated that it retained jurisdiction of the "land" purchased by the federal government. Note that the document also refers to the federal government as the "owner" of the land, as in any other entity owning property in the state.

Why should anyone believe that the South Carolina agreement was intended to be fundamentally different than the Virginia agreement?

You're a ******* fruitcake.

They never retained legal jurisdiction. You're too ******* retarded to understand plain English. They ceded the territory with the provision they could have permission to process serve fugitives from the law and parties in civil cases.

The land and the fort were, and still are, owned by the U.S.. The confederacy started the war when they attacked a federal installation.

It's obvious you will simply ignore the facts presented. What do you suppose "all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State" means? It means SC can enforce all laws passed by its legislature.

I realize that as a member of the Lincoln cult you can never admit the plain facts of the matter. All you can do is dispense ad hominems.

Nah, I'm doing far more than merely dispensing ad homing .... I'm also presenting the fact that South Carolina ceded that territory to the U.S. Furthermore, the U.S. then constructed a fort which was, and still is, U.S. property; which was attacked by the confederacy, launching the Civil war.

I can't be held responsible for your delusions. Your claims are not facts.

As far as the meaning of the partial clause you posted, in toto means South Carolina was only willing to cede that territory providing they had permission to process serve parties to civil cases and arrest fugitives from the law in criminal cases.

I'm sorry you are illiterate, but that isn't what " "all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State" means. "All processes" means "ALL processes." What does that exclude that they could do in other parts of the state?

 

[bripat9643]

How about if they try to resupply one of their bases in Japan after the Japanese government has told them to get the hell out?

Are all libturds as stupid as you? No need to answer. It's just a rhetorical question.

The confederacy was NOT a legally or legitimately separate, independent nation. Never, loser wannabe.

... It was just as legal as any other nation on the face of the Earth - probably more so.

It was never recognized as such by any nation on earth, loser wannabe.

Who ever said that is required to make a country "legal?"

The traitorous scum knew they had zero legitimacy. They were desperate for a European power to recognize them. No nation on earth ever did.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[Plasmaball]

Let's face it. Southerners fought against Northern aggression and for their freedom. They were patriotic Americans sick of seeing their country going the wrong way. That's why people typically fly the Stars and Bars.
But we got over that and healed and the descendents of those Confederates went on to serve the American army and win our wars.
But those who want to censor, who want to denigrate the struggle of our Southern ancestors, who want to demonize others for holding opinions contrary to theirs are no better than jihhadis and communists, who want to ban anything contrary to their religion. They are the hater dupes of the public world.

you're ability to paint a war started to guarantee slavery as something noble is sickening.

And you thinking you can judge people that lived in a different time by todays standards is equally sickening.

so you're a moral relativist now?
those people chose to take up arms against their nation in defense of slavery. that does not make them patriots as the op would like us to believe. it makes them traitors.

Hey dumb ass, slavery was legal when the war started and there were no official moves to outlaw it at the time. In fact Lincoln said he was willing to continue to allow it if the south rejoined the union. Economics and an overbearing federal government started the war, slavery was a side issue at the time. Maybe you should learn real history instead of the leftist revisionist bullshit you seem to be buying into.

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

shut up

 

[Unkotare]

PROVEN illegal and illegitimate.

 

[Faun]

Why do you lie and say I'm afraid to post that? I already posted that and it's even in my quote that you replied to from earlier.

You deliberately ellided the portion that shows South Caronlina retained legal jurisdiction over the property. That's because you're a craven hosebag who knows the facts don't support your lies.

Meanwhile, your attempted deflection failed you -- despite your abject ignorance about that land being "property," I showed you that South Carolina referred to it as "territory."

The context of the sentence makes it clear they meant it purely in the sense of land. Notice in the last sentence it refers to the area as land, not territory.

Territory Define Territory at Dictionary.com

territory

noun, plural territories.
1.any tract of land; region or district.​

Furthermore, they refer to it in the sense meaning it's Carolina territory. Nowhere do they say the land is to become Federal territory. They only say it will become the property if the federal government.

Notice further than the first sentence says that Caroline is turning over "TITLE" to the property. If it was going to become the territory of the federal government, why would it need a title?

The state of Virginia performed a similar transaction with the federal government. The text of that agreement is as follows:

"Whereas Robert T. Lincoln, Secretary of War of the United States, has made application to this General Assembly, for its consent to the purchase by authorities of the United States of a tract of land described as follows: [legal description deleted]; therefore,
"1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia, That the consent of this state is hereby given to the purchase of said tract of land, but this consent is given subject to the following terms and conditions, to wit: That this State retains concurrent jurisdiction with the United States over said tract of land, so that courts, magistrates and officers of this state may take cognizance , execute such process, and discharge such legal functions within the same as me be not incompatible with the consent hereby given.
"2. That said tract of land and the buildings now or that may be hereafter erected thereon, and any property of the United States, on such tract, are hereby exempted from all taxes imposed by this state, or by the constituted authorities of Alexandria County, and this exemption shall be in force from the date of said purchase by the United States, …and shall continue only so long as the United States shall be and remain the owner of said tract of land; and all taxes, and county, township and district levies, due or claimed to be due, for, against or upon said real estate since the same went into possession of and has been held and used by the United States authorities, as aforesaid, are hereby released and discharged."
​

Note that Virginia also explicitly stated that it retained jurisdiction of the "land" purchased by the federal government. Note that the document also refers to the federal government as the "owner" of the land, as in any other entity owning property in the state.

Why should anyone believe that the South Carolina agreement was intended to be fundamentally different than the Virginia agreement?

You're a ******* fruitcake.

They never retained legal jurisdiction. You're too ******* retarded to understand plain English. They ceded the territory with the provision they could have permission to process serve fugitives from the law and parties in civil cases.

The land and the fort were, and still are, owned by the U.S.. The confederacy started the war when they attacked a federal installation.

It's obvious you will simply ignore the facts presented. What do you suppose "all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State" means? It means SC can enforce all laws passed by its legislature.

I realize that as a member of the Lincoln cult you can never admit the plain facts of the matter. All you can do is dispense ad hominems.

Nah, I'm doing far more than merely dispensing ad homing .... I'm also presenting the fact that South Carolina ceded that territory to the U.S. Furthermore, the U.S. then constructed a fort which was, and still is, U.S. property; which was attacked by the confederacy, launching the Civil war.

I can't be held responsible for your delusions. Your claims are not facts.

As far as the meaning of the partial clause you posted, in toto means South Carolina was only willing to cede that territory providing they had permission to process serve parties to civil cases and arrest fugitives from the law in criminal cases.

I'm sorry you are illiterate, but that isn't what " "all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State" means. "All processes" means "ALL processes." What does that exclude that they could do in other parts of the state?

If that sentence meant what your delusions tell you it means, you wouldn't have to cut off the second half. It's cute though, how you mangle that sentence to change its meaning into what you want it to mean since it doesn't actually mean what you think it does.

 

[1stRambo]

Yo, read your History, before you sling shit!!!
Causes Of The Civil War

"GTP"

 

[bripat9643]

PROVEN illegal and illegitimate.

You haven't proved jack shit, moron.

 

[ogibillm]

PROVEN illegal and illegitimate.

You haven't proved jack shit, moron.

he's got the constitution and the supreme court on his side. you have your say so. guess which one carries more weight

 

[bripat9643]

PROVEN illegal and illegitimate.

You haven't proved jack shit, moron.

he's got the constitution and the supreme court on his side. you have your say so. guess which one carries more weight

The Constitution isn't on his side and the Supreme Court doesn't mean squat in this discussion SC justices are political hacks put their to make the decisions their benefactors want them to make. The fact that a bunch of Lincoln's hand picked cronies ruled in favor of Lincoln's war didn't surprise anyone.

Your arguments are so stupid and pathetic I have a hard time any intelligent adult with self respect would dare to post them in this forum. Well, I guess none have.