April is confederate heritage month

#376
#376
volfanhill said:
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.
Click to expand...
How do you get around the sentence that starts with provided.
 
#377
#377
LouderVol said:
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.
Click to expand...
I have no idea the particulars of the case. I know he last but Reds lawyer friend expects to win on appeal. If she can get him to stfu.
 
#378
#378
LouderVol said:
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.
Click to expand...
Again applying current law to a new nation doesn’t change the expectation of the people of South Carolina at that time.

A empty fort suddenly becomes active on your doorstep after you sent word that it’s being claimed by South Carolina.
I wonder why the shooting started.

It has a very Cuban missile crisis to it.
There’s legal ownership, which is in dispute, and then there’s what do you allow.

It’s my understanding from the tour that at the time the waters around the fort were South Carolina territory
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#381
#381
hog88 said:
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.
Click to expand...
This reminded me of a saying about the old Warsaw Pact:

The only military alliance in history whose main purpose was to invade one another.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider, Redleg68, Orangeslice13 and 1 other person
#382
#382
hog88 said:
Yes, there is. From my understanding it's a pretty high hurdle.
Click to expand...
My understanding is there is an easement to land where one's relatives are buried. We used this to cross land that was not ours when I lived in Tellico Plains. Helped that the ancestors were shared.

So he could go full butthole and reinterr some relatives on the land using a helicopter perhaps?
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#392
#392
Sultana was a commercial side-wheel steamboat which exploded and sank on the Mississippi River on April 27, 1865, killing 1,864 people in what remains the worst maritime disaster in United States history.

1745895265620.png
Because Union forces had captured Memphis in 1862 and turned it into a supply and recuperation city, numerous local hospitals treated the roughly 760 survivors with the latest medical equipment and trained personnel. Of this group, there were only 31 deaths between April 28 and June 28. Newspaper accounts indicate that the residents of Memphis had sympathy for the victims despite the ongoing Union occupation. The Chicago Opera Troupe, a minstrel group that had traveled upriver on Sultana before getting off at Memphis, staged a benefit performance, while the crew of the gunboat Essex raised US$1,000 (equivalent to $20,541 in 2024). [15]

In 1888, a St. Louis resident named William Streetor claimed that his former business partner, Robert Louden, made a confession of having sabotaged Sultana by the use of a coal torpedo while they were drinking in a saloon.[19] Louden, a former Confederate agent and saboteur who operated in and around St. Louis, had been responsible for the burning of the steamboat Ruth. In support of Louden's claim, what appeared to be a piece of an artillery shell was said to be recovered from the sunken wreck. However, Louden's claim is controversial, and most scholars support the official explanation. The location of the explosion, from the top rear of the boilers and far away from the fireboxes, tends to indicate that Louden's claim of sabotage of an exploding coal torpedo in the firebox, below the front part of the boilers, was pure bravado.[20][21] Thomas Edgeworth Courtenay, the inventor of the coal torpedo, was a former resident of St. Louis and was involved in similar acts of sabotage against Union shipping interests. However, Courtenay's great-great-grandson, Joseph Thatcher, who wrote a book on Courtenay and the coal torpedo, denies that a coal torpedo was used in the Sultana disaster.[22]

en.wikipedia.org

Sultana (steamboat) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top