April is confederate heritage month

[Orangeslice13]

Who wants to celebrate a bunch of “suckers and losers” to quote Trump?

Was Lincoln a Tyrant?

Lincoln the Tyrant “Dictatorship played a decisive role in the north's successful effort to maintain the union by force of arms... one man was the government of the united states...Lincoln was a great dictator... this great constitutional dictator was self appointed” -Historian ...

historum.com

 

[volfanhill]

The fort was federal land. SC gave it to them with conditions

"Construction dragged on because of title issues, and then problems arose with funding such a large and technically challenging project. Unpleasant weather and disease made it worse. The exterior was finished but the interior and armaments were never completed. On December 17, 1836, South Carolina officially ceded all "right, title and, claim" to the site of Fort Sumter to the United States Government. For these reasons, at the time of the bombardment, not only was this a federal fort, but also it was legally land ceded by the state of South Carolina.

Fort Sumter was covered by a separate cession of land to the United States by the state of South Carolina, and covered in this resolution, passed by the South Carolina legislature in December of 1836.

Reports and Resolutions of the General assembly, Page 115, here:

https://www.carolana.com/SC/Legislators/Documents/Reports_and_Resolutions_of_the_General_Assembly_of_South_Carolina_1836.pdf

 

[Orangeslice13]

The fort was federal land. SC gave it to them with conditions

"Construction dragged on because of title issues, and then problems arose with funding such a large and technically challenging project. Unpleasant weather and disease made it worse. The exterior was finished but the interior and armaments were never completed. On December 17, 1836, South Carolina officially ceded all "right, title and, claim" to the site of Fort Sumter to the United States Government. For these reasons, at the time of the bombardment, not only was this a federal fort, but also it was legally land ceded by the state of South Carolina.

Fort Sumter was covered by a separate cession of land to the United States by the state of South Carolina, and covered in this resolution, passed by the South Carolina legislature in December of 1836.

Reports and Resolutions of the General assembly, Page 115, here:

https://www.carolana.com/SC/Legislators/Documents/Reports_and_Resolutions_of_the_General_Assembly_of_South_Carolina_1836.pdf

And yet in 1861, South Carolina considered the fort theirs as it was within their boundaries.
So who owns the fort is a matter of Which government you believe.

In a letter delivered January 31, 1861, South Carolina Governor Pickensdemanded of President Buchananthat he surrender Fort Sumter because "I regard that possession is not consistent with the dignity or safety of the State of South Carolina."[12] Over the next few months repeated calls for evacuation of Fort Sumter[8]: 13 [13] from the government of South Carolina and then from Confederate Brigadier General P. G. T. Beauregard were ignored. Union attempts to resupply and reinforce the garrison were repulsed on January 9, 1861, when shots fired by cadets from the Citadel prevented the steamer Star of the West, hired to transport troops and supplies to Fort Sumter, from completing the task.


Furthermore if the fort was still property of the northern federal government…..the waters around it were not. The attempts to resupply the fort was illegal trespassing upon South Carolina.

 

[volfanhill]

And yet in 1861, South Carolina considered the fort theirs as it was within their boundaries.
So who owns the fort is a matter of Which government you believe.

In a letter delivered January 31, 1861, South Carolina Governor Pickensdemanded of President Buchananthat he surrender Fort Sumter because "I regard that possession is not consistent with the dignity or safety of the State of South Carolina."[12] Over the next few months repeated calls for evacuation of Fort Sumter[8]: 13 [13] from the government of South Carolina and then from Confederate Brigadier General P. G. T. Beauregard were ignored. Union attempts to resupply and reinforce the garrison were repulsed on January 9, 1861, when shots fired by cadets from the Citadel prevented the steamer Star of the West, hired to transport troops and supplies to Fort Sumter, from completing the task.


Furthermore if the fort was still property of the northern federal government…..the waters around it were not. The attempts to resupply the fort was illegal trespassing upon South Carolina.

Well surrender would imply that the Governor wanted it back. And in what I posted is where SC gave it to the feds

 

[Orangeslice13]

Well surrender would imply that the Governor wanted it back. And in what I posted is where SC gave it to the feds

They “gave it” to the feds for the defense of the people of South Carolina. They took it back for the defense of the people of South Carolina.
The problem still remains that the federal government had no rights to the waters around the fort and no legal means of access.

 

[Orangeslice13]

If you’ve never been there it’s worth going to see. It’s a really eye opening and educational experience.

 

[volfanhill]

They “gave it” to the feds for the defense of the people of South Carolina. They took it back for the defense of the people of South Carolina.
The problem still remains that the federal government had no rights to the waters around the fort and no legal means of access.

I don't know how you get pass this


“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.

 

[Orangeslice13]

I don't know how you get pass this


“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.

Because they as an independent state (which is what they were after leaving the United States 6 days earlier) can
repossess land within their territory at any time. Which is exactly what they did. And legally all they had to do was wait. The waters around the fort were never the property of the federal government. That was sovereign South Carolina territory. It only became violent when the union army attempted to resupply the fort by illegally invading and trespassing on South Carolina territory.

Not sure how you expect to get around that.

 

[volfanhill]

Because they as an independent state (which is what they were after leaving the United States 6 days earlier) can
repossess land within their territory at any time. Which is exactly what they did. And legally all they had to do was wait. The waters around the fort were never the property of the federal government. That was sovereign South Carolina territory. It only became violent when the union army attempted to resupply the fort by illegally invading and trespassing on South Carolina territory.

Not sure how you expect to get around that.

How can you repossess something you gave away? If they gave it to Georgia in 1840 can they take it back? If not then why can they from the Feds? They literally said take it.

 

[Orangeslice13]

How can you repossess something you gave away? If they gave it to Georgia in 1840 can they take it back? If not then why can they from the Feds? They literally said take it.

The same way it’s done in this country every day.
The concept is basically Eminent domain.


But once again……
How exactly is the federal government supposed to operate a fort they have (by their own standards) no legal access too.
They literally have to invade to get to the fort.

 

[volfanhill]

The same way it’s done in this country every day.
The concept is basically Eminent domain.


But once again……
How exactly is the federal government supposed to operate a fort they have (by their own standards) no legal access too.
They literally have to invade to get to the fort.

Why would they invade something given to them? The state said here take it. Then tried to change their mind. That's bs. I agree on the blockade stuff. They should be mad at their governor and legislators from the 1830's. The law they passed said here it's yours and we don't want it and give up our rights. When you cede rights you don't get to come back later and bitch. They have legal access to it bc it's theirs.

 

[Orangeslice13]

@volfanhill
We have a dispute taking place right up the street from me.
There are 5 acres that belong to a guy who is a bit of an ass. His family sold off all their property around him to other people. He has no easement so there is no legal access to the property. He’s lost in court his options are limited. Either pay taxes on land he can’t use or sell it to someone who’s property touches it and has access to a road. As you can imagine, nobody around him is offering anything close to fair value because he was an ass.

That’s pretty much what the fort was. Land in dispute with only one side having legal access too it.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Why would they invade something given to them? The state said here take it. Then tried to change their mind. That's bs. I agree on the blockade stuff. They should be mad at their governor and legislators from the 1830's. The law they passed said here it's yours and we don't want it and give up our rights. When you cede rights you don't get to come back later and bitch. They have legal access to it bc it's theirs.

Owning something, in dispute or otherwise, doesn’t give you legal access unless you also own the rights to get too it.
The union army would need permission to cross South Carolina territory to get there. They were not given permission so they are illegally trespassing at best and invading at worst

 

[volfanhill]

Owning something, in dispute or otherwise, doesn’t give you legal access unless you also own the rights to get too it.
The union army would need permission to cross South Carolina territory to get there. They were not given permission so they are illegally trespassing at best and invading at worst

Yes, but we were originally discussing who owned the fort. IMO I have shown plenty of evidence that it wasn't the state

 

[Orangeslice13]

Was Lincoln a Tyrant?

Lincoln the Tyrant “Dictatorship played a decisive role in the north's successful effort to maintain the union by force of arms... one man was the government of the united states...Lincoln was a great dictator... this great constitutional dictator was self appointed” -Historian ...

historum.com

It’s not like Lincoln gave a **** about the law or following it.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Yes, but we were originally discussing who owned the fort. IMO I have shown plenty of evidence that it wasn't the state

And I’ve shown you evidence that they gave notice of reclaiming it.
So moving to the next step.
What good does owning it do the federal government if they can’t go there?
Or do only the laws that support one side of the debate matter?

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

Fact of the matter is the confederacy should have blockaded Fort Sumter into submission instead of bombarding it. Bombarding the fort turned the Confederacy into aggressors and gave Lincoln a pretense to invade the South.

 

[GroverCleveland]

I look at it like a marriage, if a person (state) cannot freely leave what they have joined without fearing violence is it an actual union?

Also, I'd wager big amounts of money that if it was known during ratification leaving the union would result in invasion our constitution would have never been ratified.

This is a good point.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Fact of the matter is the confederacy should have blockaded Fort Sumter into submission instead of bombarding it. Bombarding the fort turned the Confederacy into aggressors and gave Lincoln a pretense to invade the South.

This I agree with but things are always way more complicated than most know about or even consider.
We are talking about a fort that was largely abandoned until the people of South Carolina decided to leave the union. It had never been completed and was in disrepair. By resupply and starting construction on the fort an argument can be made that the federal government was acting as an aggressor. Less than half the guns were installed in the fort so the longer the people of South Carolina waited the more dangerous the union army became.

Given an opportunity I would recommend everyone take the tour. There’s a lot to the history and the story that’s worth seeing

 

[creekdipper]

So would you "respect" an amazingly strategic and brave pedophile?

Do you respect Thomas Jefferson?

 

[evillawyer]

Do you respect Thomas Jefferson?

I respect him and honor him for lots of things, but not for being a slave owner or doing things to rape his slaves.

I have no issue celebrating Robert E. Lee for things he did that were not related to or of assistance to perpetuating slavery.

 

[LouderVol]

Kudos here. Nathan Bedford Forrest gets a lot of hate for founding the KKK but for the first 10 years or so of its existence, it was just a group dedicated to taking care of widows of Confederate soldiers. When it started to morph into the infamous KKK we know about today, Forrest bailed ship but he always is tagged for founding it and called out for it. Forrest was no angel with regard to how he handled racism (very few were in that time) but he did help out black people later on in his life.

I think all of you are wrong about Lincoln.

Regarding his plan to return slaves to Africa, there was already a mechanism approved even by African-Americans to return to Africa and it had been going on since the 1820s. It is why the nation of Liberia was founded. Go read the history. Lincoln would have likely tried to offer the African population to go back via that route. There was a large contingent of people at that time who thought it was in the best interest to try to have them return home (it would not have made sense in reality as the freed slaves had grown up in the USA and had no history or tie remaining to Africa).

Lincoln also cited in his biography on multiple occasions that the Union could not endure with slavery:

House Divided Speech - Lincoln Home National Historic Site (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

This was in 1858. Lincoln supported the Wilmot Provision to ban slavery in 1846.

People are arguing he was only against it for public reasons but that is not correct. He spoke against it from the very start of his political life.

Lincoln is constantly considered the BEST President in USA history (I would put him below Washington and Teddy Roosevelt).

View attachment 737265

I think it was hog88 who cited that the Union hated Lincoln. This totally goes against the fact that Lincoln won the election of 1664 for a second term.

Arguing Lincoln was some dubious character that didn't have America's interest first is like arguing the Sky isn't blue.

Was Lincoln perfect? No. He had major issues too and was a man of his time. It is true that most people in the Union only wanted their states to be "free" because they didn't want blacks there and not out of some moral objection to slavery.

It still doesn't admonish the South and its crimes in that era. I grew up in the South and heard all the "War of Northern Aggression" propaganda, watched Gone with the Wind, played Civil War games that idolized the South, and visited Stones Mountain in Georgia. I still think it is all bogus. The South was wrong and the right side won that war.

slavery was Lincoln's political ping pong ball. something to put into play, and to knock back and forth to make himself seem different from the others, but with no follow thru. It was all talk, with very little action. you can talk about letters all you want, but the Emancipation Proclamation only came 2 years into the war, and only after they won, why did he need a win to push it out? and the Proclamation only had a very limited extent, it wasn't the nation wide ban on slavery its sold as. New Jersey kept slavery throughout the war, Lincoln never ended that.

Wilmot only addressed new territories taken from Mexico, trying to ban "new" slavery there. not the existing slavery.

his reelection only won him 55% of the popular vote. and it was the first time in a while only two candidates had run, to get him that much. so the electors may have loved him, but the people did not. there were multiple bloody riots during the war in the north. and most of that was centered on "Lincoln's war".

there is so much that is overlooked to say Lincoln was one of the best. and its largely because of his assassination that they are overlooked. It would be like ignoring the Patriot Act from Bush, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to say he was one of the best because he won reelection.

he constantly fought with the supreme court, and the Constitution, argued for a "law of the masses" vs the "law of the land" ie the Constitution and actual laws. and it wasn't just on slavery. he constantly expanded federal powers, ignored property rights (beyond owning slaves), suspended habaes corpus to specifically put down rebellions in the north, and expanded it to political enemies, which almost undoubtedly helped him win the election. some of those might not sound too bad now, but at the time they were extreme.

he didn't save the union, he enforced it with a bloody fist, and pushed through many radical changes to fit his politics, rather than responding to particular cues. I know its impossible to prove one way or the other, but I believe his assassination fundamentally changed how he is remember, and much to the positive rather than an honest look back.

 

[LouderVol]

@volfanhill
We have a dispute taking place right up the street from me.
There are 5 acres that belong to a guy who is a bit of an ass. His family sold off all their property around him to other people. He has no easement so there is no legal access to the property. He’s lost in court his options are limited. Either pay taxes on land he can’t use or sell it to someone who’s property touches it and has access to a road. As you can imagine, nobody around him is offering anything close to fair value because he was an ass.

That’s pretty much what the fort was. Land in dispute with only one side having legal access too it.

are there no "Easement of necessity" in Tennessee? Here in Georgia they exist for cases like this. a judge can add an easement after the fact. the other owners would have to show that allowing the easement would deny them any use of their own property to really fight it.

usually access is required in the deed if the property gets subdivided.

the supreme court just recently made a ruling on some of the checkerboard ranch land out west, upholding access out there. granted that was to public land. but I would imagine the logic holds.

 

[hog88]

are there no "Easement of necessity" in Tennessee? Here in Georgia they exist for cases like this. a judge can add an easement after the fact. the other owners would have to show that allowing the easement would deny them any use of their own property to really fight it.

usually access is required in the deed if the property gets subdivided.

the supreme court just recently made a ruling on some of the checkerboard ranch land out west, upholding access out there. granted that was to public land. but I would imagine the logic holds.

Yes, there is. From my understanding it's a pretty high hurdle.

 

[LouderVol]

Because they as an independent state (which is what they were after leaving the United States 6 days earlier) can
repossess land within their territory at any time. Which is exactly what they did. And legally all they had to do was wait. The waters around the fort were never the property of the federal government. That was sovereign South Carolina territory. It only became violent when the union army attempted to resupply the fort by illegally invading and trespassing on South Carolina territory.

Not sure how you expect to get around that.

by giving up all rights, title, and claim, they gave up any ability to claim it back. even as an independent nation they would have been limited to whatever their borders were at the time of their separation. otherwise what's to stop them from just grabbing up other state's lands too in the same manner? they still don't have any right, title, or claim to it.

according to current maritime territory laws a little stretch of water extending out from Ft. Sumter would go out to international waters the moment south carolina separated itself. in the 1860s, including the US, the law of the time was you controlled whatever water you could fire a cannon over/at. which was typically recognised at 3 miles. so Fort sumter would have had claim to waters around them. and that claim stopped at another's similar control, so it probably would have worked out similarly back then if 1860s SC wanted to make a legal argument.

exclaves have always existed, the US has several with Canada, but right of access has never been denied. south carolina's claims are not something recognized by anyone now, or then. I haven't been able to dig up "confederate" south carolina territorial laws as being any different than their previous territory/land laws, so I don't even think they had a legal claim even in their own books. regardless of them giving up rights, title, and claim.

even if they did have the right to starve out the fort by denying water access, it still would have made them the aggressors to ever take the fort or the island itself even if the US abandoned it.