Centinel
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2011
- Messages
- 2,984
- Reaction score
- 1,366
- Location
- Penn's Woods
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Says the pro-"succession" faction.
The word you're searching for is secession.
Says the pro-"succession" faction.
Stop not understanding the difference between a federation of sovereign states and a unitary government.
The word you're searching for is secession.
The word you're searching for is secession.
Can someone explain to me why the Confederates had property rights for Fort Sumter?
It's called, "sovereignty". Kinda like when the Japanese invaded Wake Island and we took it back.
When did the military sell it or relinquish it?
Just because South Carolina seceded didn't mean it wasn't their lawful property anymore.
We wanted it! It was rightfully ours!
Go occupy Wall Street or something if that's your opinion.
They relinquished it when they either abandoned it, or were forced to abandon it, the fore happened all over the south.
Who did the property belong to before it belonged to the United States???
Yeah, but the Confederacy never took it back. They lost. :lol:It's called, "sovereignty". Kinda like when the Japanese invaded Wake Island and we took it back.
Stop perpetuating the myth that those who disagree with your position don't understand it.Stop not understanding the difference between a federation of sovereign states and a unitary government.
You mean the US Army occupying their property? The gall....
We've been over this. South Carolina seceding did not represent transfer of title to Ft. Sumter.
Yeah, but the Confederacy never took it back. They lost. :lol:
I'm not sure which tribe it was. I'll have to research that and get back to you.
LOL, no. I have never had problems standing by my positions. I actually made the same argument yesterday because it's true. Property is subjective in its nature, particularly when it comes to nations and states. Consequently, who has a right to what property really just depends on which side you're coming from which is why the "right side" of civil wars (any civil
war) is always hard to decipher and is often a point of contention among historians.
Nonetheless, while I recognize the subjectivity, I still take the side of Lincoln, the Supreme Court and the Union in general simply because history does not agree with your (and the Confederacy's position). If you look at history, you'll notice a theme. The theme is that many groups declare independence, but not all of them actually acquire it. The Confederacy is one of those groups. Look at every fight for independence - we don't call those fighting "independent" unless they actually win. The Confederacy is no different. It lost. It never achieved what it set out to achieve.
The only way for you to rationalize your position is to insult me and others. This says a lot about you and the weakness of your position. It's actually a shame because your position has validity all on it's own without the cheap shots.
The EU is a federation of sovereign states. The United States is not.
Still waiting for someone to defend how the Constitution is worth about the same as Kim Kardashian's wedding vows.
The Confederate guns in Charleston pounding the hell out of Fort Sumter damn sure did, though. Major Anderson lawfully surrendered the fort to the Confederates. Pudy much made it Confederate property, at that point.
Not to mention, the fort's guns threatened the safety of civilians in Charleston.
Which they didn't do until they were fired on.
They fired the first shots in reaction to a Federal occupation.
It's called, "sovereignty". Kinda like when the Japanese invaded Wake Island and we took it back.
an unprovoked act of aggression.