Remembering Robert E. Lee: American Patriot and Southern Hero

[bodecea]

No, moron. If it was a state then no permission was required. If permission was required then that would make SC a sovereign nation. You got yourself twisted into a rhetorical pretzel.

This is true, and I'm glad you admit it. No permission was needed, South Carolina was just trying to get itself out from under having to pay to protect themselves. And not pay taxes on the land. The federal government had every authority to possess the land and turn it into a federal fort...hahahahah! You lose, again.

Yes. That line meant that SC could legitimately prosecute a violation of their own state laws against any person who was harbored within Federal property of the Fort.
It didn't have anything to do with "uncedeing" the land they had just ceded.

Wrong again. It says "Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State." That means the property is subject to all the laws of South Carolina. SC could have expropriated the property if it desired.

No.

"cede all the right, title and claim of South Carolina" seems to escape your attention.

"“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."


What you keep trying to hang your hat on is standard language (used in 1797 & 1803 as well...) It meant a lawbreaker or fugitive from South Carolina law can't use the Federal Fort and enjoy immunity. It gave South Carolina authorities the right to serve papers and arrest fugitives.

It meant that the Fort wasn't a sanctuary, not that both SC & the federal Government had dual authority over the Fort, dunce.

You're obviously full of shit. The evidence doesn't support your case so you just lie about it. "all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State" means all the laws of the state. What law would not be included in that description?

I'm done arguing with you about this subject because you refuse to admit obvious facts.

Poor boy....selling your soul for a losing, slave-holding lie.

 

[RKMBrown]

Hey dumb butt. It was a state. It had the ability to give up state land, or what they perceived to be state land, to the federal government.

No, moron. If it was a state then no permission was required. If permission was required then that would make SC a sovereign nation. You got yourself twisted into a rhetorical pretzel.

This is true, and I'm glad you admit it. No permission was needed, South Carolina was just trying to get itself out from under having to pay to protect themselves. And not pay taxes on the land. The federal government had every authority to possess the land and turn it into a federal fort...hahahahah! You lose, again.

Yes. That line meant that SC could legitimately prosecute a violation of their own state laws against any person who was harbored within Federal property of the Fort.
It didn't have anything to do with "uncedeing" the land they had just ceded.

Wrong again. It says "Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State." That means the property is subject to all the laws of South Carolina. SC could have expropriated the property if it desired.

No.

"cede all the right, title and claim of South Carolina" seems to escape your attention.

"“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."


What you keep trying to hang your hat on is standard language (used in 1797 & 1803 as well...) It meant a lawbreaker or fugitive from South Carolina law can't use the Federal Fort and enjoy immunity. It gave South Carolina authorities the right to serve papers and arrest fugitives.

It meant that the Fort wasn't a sanctuary, not that both SC & the federal Government had dual authority over the Fort or that SC retained title to the land, dunce.

Yes, but that was before SC ceded from the Union and became a sovereign state with the power to expel foreign armies, such as the Union army, and seize title of lands within it's borders, which it did.

 

[paperview]

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

Federal Government owned it lock, stock & barrel.

No, moron. If it was a state then no permission was required. If permission was required then that would make SC a sovereign nation. You got yourself twisted into a rhetorical pretzel.

This is true, and I'm glad you admit it. No permission was needed, South Carolina was just trying to get itself out from under having to pay to protect themselves. And not pay taxes on the land. The federal government had every authority to possess the land and turn it into a federal fort...hahahahah! You lose, again.

Yes. That line meant that SC could legitimately prosecute a violation of their own state laws against any person who was harbored within Federal property of the Fort.
It didn't have anything to do with "uncedeing" the land they had just ceded.

Wrong again. It says "Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State." That means the property is subject to all the laws of South Carolina. SC could have expropriated the property if it desired.

No.

"cede all the right, title and claim of South Carolina" seems to escape your attention.

"“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."


What you keep trying to hang your hat on is standard language (used in 1797 & 1803 as well...) It meant a lawbreaker or fugitive from South Carolina law can't use the Federal Fort and enjoy immunity. It gave South Carolina authorities the right to serve papers and arrest fugitives.

It meant that the Fort wasn't a sanctuary, not that both SC & the federal Government had dual authority over the Fort or that SC retained title to the land, dunce.

Yes, but that was before SC ceded from the Union and became a sovereign state with the power to expel foreign armies, such as the Union army, and seize title of lands within it's borders, which it did.

Didn't work out too well, did it?

 

[RKMBrown]

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

Federal Government owned it lock, stock & barrel.

This is true, and I'm glad you admit it. No permission was needed, South Carolina was just trying to get itself out from under having to pay to protect themselves. And not pay taxes on the land. The federal government had every authority to possess the land and turn it into a federal fort...hahahahah! You lose, again.

Yes. That line meant that SC could legitimately prosecute a violation of their own state laws against any person who was harbored within Federal property of the Fort.
It didn't have anything to do with "uncedeing" the land they had just ceded.

Wrong again. It says "Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State." That means the property is subject to all the laws of South Carolina. SC could have expropriated the property if it desired.

No.

"cede all the right, title and claim of South Carolina" seems to escape your attention.

"“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."


What you keep trying to hang your hat on is standard language (used in 1797 & 1803 as well...) It meant a lawbreaker or fugitive from South Carolina law can't use the Federal Fort and enjoy immunity. It gave South Carolina authorities the right to serve papers and arrest fugitives.

It meant that the Fort wasn't a sanctuary, not that both SC & the federal Government had dual authority over the Fort or that SC retained title to the land, dunce.

Yes, but that was before SC ceded from the Union and became a sovereign state with the power to expel foreign armies, such as the Union army, and seize title of lands within it's borders, which it did.

Didn't work out too well, did it?

No. Did not work out well for either side.

 

[Kondor3]

Robert E. Lee was a great general - keeping the Federals at-bay for nearly three years, after he assumed command of the main Confederate army in the East.

He suffered a couple of defeats, and screwed the pooch at Gettysburg, but won more than he lost, kept his casualties well below those of his Union counterparts in most of his battles, gave the Lincoln Administration a very rough time and many scares, for years, and caused Old Abe to hire and fire several generals, until they hit on U.S. Grant.

Lee hailed from an ancient and highly influential and honorable family of Old Virginia which had done great service to both the Colonies and to the United States, prior to the Revolution, during the Revolution itself, and since - as evidenced by Lee's own service in Mexico and before and after, right up to the early days of the Civil War itself.

He was soooooo well thought-of up North that the then-Commander of the Union Army (Winfield Scott), the President himself, and other members of the Administration, all wanted Bobby Lee to take command of the Union forces.

That kind of offer doesn't come along every day, nor does it come to those lacking the talent to successfully lead armies of men in such a grim business.

If memory serves correctly, the only reason that Lee resigned his commission in the US Army, and went home, to soon take-up a commission in the new Confederate Army, was because he could not bring himself to fight against his friends and neighbors and family and fellow Virginians.

How many of us ( those of us who have any sense whatsoever of personal honor and family and home loyalty, anyway ) could bring ourselves to fight against our friends and neighbors and family and fellow citizens of our home states, under similar circumstances?

Lee, ever mindful of his family's rich history and contributions to the formation of the United States and its sustenance, was a Union Man through and through, and was greatly vexed when obliged to resign his commission in the US Army, and grieved for the break between Virginia and the Union.

He was mortal and fallible, and made a number of key mistakes, but he was also a genuine military superstar and top performer who got far-reaching results, usually at a far lower cost than his adversaries.

He was an inherited-property slaveholder, but it did not sit easily on his brow, and he famously opined that he would gladly let go of all the slaves in the South to preserve the Union, if only the Union would not move militarily against the Southern States.

There was vastly more good than bad about Robert E. Lee, he was truly an American Patriot who was tragically maneuvered by fate and circumstances and developments to act against his own Union and patriotic sympathies, and he was man enough to give his best to his home State and its sisters, once he was thrust into such a role.

For the most part, he held the respect, admiration, loyalty and affection of his men throughout the Civil War, and afterwards, so long as his men had breath in their bodies - and he held the respect and grudging admiration of most of his enemies as well - a legend in the North as well as the South - and largely rehabilitated in the North after Lee died.

I am a Union Man through and through - always have been - always will be - in the context of the American Civil War.

But, like most of us, I can recognize a Great Man and a Great General when I see one - not a demigod - just a man - but a great one - and believe Robert E. Lee to be just such a man, regardless of what the revisionists and little wankers and race-card baiters and hyper-liberal scum around here would have us swallow without critique or opposition.

Bobby Lee draws the admiration of most Americans - Left, Right and Center - North and South and East and West. It takes a special breed - America-haters and socialist wankers and race-baiters and race-card players and intolerant and ignorant uber-or-hyper-liberals and shit-stirring trolls - to ignore and deny the greatness in such a man.

"...The Union, forever, hurrah, boys, hurrah..."

God bless the United States, and the shades of those who died and suffered in order to preserve the Union and to abolish slavery.

God bless the shades of those who died and suffered in the South, as well, misguided as they were at the time, as a way of reconciling and healing our beloved Republic.

And... Robert E. Lee was, indeed, an American Patriot and Southern Hero - and one of the greatest generals in American military history.

Let me simmer your mush down for you.
I love my wife and children more than anything on Earth. If a madness overtook this society and the outward manifestation was for me to go into the streets with the approval and backing of my government and kill and enslave all the whites in the country, would I go along to get along???...of course not!!! If my wife and children engaged in that vile behavior I would be forced to separate from them.
I have more courage, honor ,integrity and humanity for that.
Obviously Lee didn't.

You're wrong about Lee.

And your faux analogy is painfully simplistic and entirely lacking in an ability to appreciate multiple viewpoints in this context, almost to the point of childishness.

You are talking about someone born into a society that both morally and legally approved of slavery, and a Federal government that helped to perpetuate that, as well.

Slaves were subhuman... an inferior subspecies... or so said the philosophy and applied religion and applied science and the case law and statute of the times.

And they were pretty much viewed that way on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line... South AND North.

It's not like slaves... or Black Folk in general... were viewed as important or taken seriously... in America or many other places in the world... until the past century or so.

We are talking about events that unfolded further back than that... 150 years ago and more... and involving people that would, by now, be over 200 years old, in many instances.

People who viewed their White friends and family and neighbors as far more important than the (perceived) subhuman Black Folk who dotted their environment... not exactly a difficult or surprising choice, when you look at it objectively rather than ideologically, with modern eyes and modern filters.

Different times... different world... different perspective... so, within their own universe of perception and understanding... yes, Robert E. Lee was a patriot, and a great soldier.

 

[candycorn]

So, if Texas seceeded from the Union, Fort Hood would not be a US Army base any longer? Is that the BS that is for sale by the OP?

 

[bripat9643]

So, if Texas seceeded from the Union, Fort Hood would not be a US Army base any longer? Is that the BS that is for sale by the OP?

yes, that is exactly what would happen unless the Texas legislature came to some new agreement with the United States Congress.

 

[paperview]

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

Federal Government owned it lock, stock & barrel.

Yes. That line meant that SC could legitimately prosecute a violation of their own state laws against any person who was harbored within Federal property of the Fort.
It didn't have anything to do with "uncedeing" the land they had just ceded.

Wrong again. It says "Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State." That means the property is subject to all the laws of South Carolina. SC could have expropriated the property if it desired.

No.

"cede all the right, title and claim of South Carolina" seems to escape your attention.

"“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."


What you keep trying to hang your hat on is standard language (used in 1797 & 1803 as well...) It meant a lawbreaker or fugitive from South Carolina law can't use the Federal Fort and enjoy immunity. It gave South Carolina authorities the right to serve papers and arrest fugitives.

It meant that the Fort wasn't a sanctuary, not that both SC & the federal Government had dual authority over the Fort or that SC retained title to the land, dunce.

Yes, but that was before SC ceded from the Union and became a sovereign state with the power to expel foreign armies, such as the Union army, and seize title of lands within it's borders, which it did.

Didn't work out too well, did it?

No. Did not work out well for either side.

The Union won. You should be happy for that.

 

[Kondor3]

So, if Texas seceeded from the Union, Fort Hood would not be a US Army base any longer? Is that the BS that is for sale by the OP?

Think 'dissolution of the Soviet Union' and the way that old Soviet 'Federal' bases became the property of the various States/Successor-Republics.

 

[bodecea]

It wasn't another country. No one recognized it as such.

You can't just let states take federal property. That is property of the whole of the people.

What if Kentucky decided to just declare independence and say, hey, Fort Knox belongs to us now. Too bad.

Can't do it. Besides, as I showed earlier, South Carolina ceded all rights to Fort Sumter in 1836. It wasn't hers to just take.

Nor were the forts and military instillations or the Mint filled with Gold they seized. Or the US Ships they fired on, and captured for their own use as Man of War vessels in January 1861.

You can't just go stealing federal government property and say: hey, it's ours now. Go fuck yourselves.

Puhleeze. Foreign recognition doesn't mean a damn thing. On the one hand you turds insist secession isn't allowed, and then on the other you don't give a hoot about the heinous violations of the Constitution Lincoln committed against Southerners if that claim were true.

The hypocrisy is unbelievable. Lincoln worshippers are the lowest kind if scum there is.

Just imagine the hate these folks must hold for the sons of liberty. I mean, what vile, treasonous fucks those guys were. Bucking the established rule.

I thought when we did that and banished the tyrants, we had won. Only come to find out that tyrants are every where. once they established their own version of the King in the "United" States, they could do whatever they please and sycophants would cheer.

I imagine those who hate confederates today must hold the same disdain fro those who fought the British. Then agin, hypocrites abound!

We won against the British....that is the ONLY reason the Patriots were not labeled traitors. In fact, the British had made up a list of who they were going to hang for treason. Needless to say, most of our Founders were on that list.

 

[candycorn]

So, if Texas seceeded from the Union, Fort Hood would not be a US Army base any longer? Is that the BS that is for sale by the OP?

Think 'dissolution of the Soviet Union' and the way that old Soviet 'Federal' bases became the property of the various States/Successor-Republics.

So the residents of, lets say, Nebraska helped pay for a base in Texas that they no longer own. Does Hoover Dam become the property of the State of Nevada? The Johnson Space Center become Florida's?

 

[bodecea]

That was clearly illegal. Charging Lee with treason would not have been illegal.

Lincoln wanted war and he got it. Nobody's immune from the wars they start and their consequences.

Why did he want war?

To restore the status quo, including leaving slavery intact. Thanks for asking.

Please be a little more detailed. Restore what status quo?

Keep in mind that there would have been no war if the southern states hadn't seceded.

Bullshit! Nobody was forced to go to war by states leaving the union. That's like telling a woman, "You wouldn't cooperate with me so I was forced to rape you." Absolute nonsense!

Then I guess they shouldn't have started the war by firing on Ft Sumter, eh?

 

[candycorn]

So, if Texas seceeded from the Union, Fort Hood would not be a US Army base any longer? Is that the BS that is for sale by the OP?

yes, that is exactly what would happen unless the Texas legislature came to some new agreement with the United States Congress.

If Houston decided it wanted to leave the State of Texas could it?

 

[bodecea]

Just because you call yourself a country, doesn't make you one.

Yeah, only the British..er, the Federal, er the King er whoever is in charge gets to make that call. You're not free people, you fucks! You belong to the King Lincoln!

Right. If the King of England says the United States is not a country, then it isn't a country and it can occupy our installations at will.

And he did say that..............but he lost. Like the South did.

 

[bodecea]

The southern states wanted war long before Lincoln ever stepped into office.

They wanted to leave the union. You seriously think they wanted war even if the union let them go? Why would they?

Ask the ones who fired on Ft Sumter.....particularly Mr.Edmund Ruffin.

The best thing he did was shoot himself at the end of the war he helped start.

 

[candycorn]

So, if Texas seceeded from the Union, Fort Hood would not be a US Army base any longer? Is that the BS that is for sale by the OP?

yes, that is exactly what would happen unless the Texas legislature came to some new agreement with the United States Congress.

If Houston decided it wanted to leave the State of Texas could it?

Well, if Houston decided to leave the State of Texas, could it?

 

[bodecea]

US Senator brags about killing to spread slavery. Then kills to spread slavery. His speech should be in every US text book.

He also made it a crime to speak against slavery.


He also made it a crime -- really, we show you -- to not sign a card promising you are pro slavery. Men were arrested and tortured for not signing that card.

Lincoln shut down any newspaper the criticized his administration or his policies - over 300 hundred of them. He also threw people into concentration camps merely for not showing enough enthusiasm for his policies. Lincoln worshippers are hardly in a position to be attacking the South on free speech issues.

As usual you ignorance can't refute fact so the attempt at deflection begins.
It can't deflect from the fact that these inbred cousin fuckers fought to maintain slavery...they admit it from their own mouths.

And there it is. The demonic Left HATES country folk because we represent the goodness of America. Their socialist agena proceeds from big cities, but the resistance comes from everywhere else. No wonder they hate us.

So....you claim ownership of that term. Interesting that you admit it.

 

[bodecea]

It wasn't another country. No one recognized it as such.

You can't just let states take federal property. That is property of the whole of the people.

What if Kentucky decided to just declare independence and say, hey, Fort Knox belongs to us now. Too bad.

Can't do it. Besides, as I showed earlier, South Carolina ceded all rights to Fort Sumter in 1836. It wasn't hers to just take.

Nor were the forts and military instillations or the Mint filled with Gold they seized. Or the US Ships they fired on, and captured for their own use as Man of War vessels in January 1861.

You can't just go stealing federal government property and say: hey, it's ours now. Go fuck yourselves.

You mean we have to give back forts to the indians, british, mexicans, etc.? Who knew?

Newsflash: The South lost the Civil War.

Really? So when a state leaves a union there has to be a civil war killing millions to decide who gets the forts?

Should ask that to those who fired on Ft Sumter.

 

[paperview]

"The representatives which assembled in Philadelphia in May, 1787, to attend the Constitutional Convention met for the primary purpose of improving the commercial relations among the States, although the product of the Convention produced more than this. But, no intention was demonstrated for the States to surrender in any degree the jurisdiction so possessed by the States at that time, and indeed the Constitution as finally drafted continued the same territorial jurisdiction of the States as existed under the Articles of Confederation. The essence of this retention of state jurisdiction was embodied in Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which read as follows: "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings." The reason for the inclusion of this clause in the Constitution was and is obvious. Under the Articles of Confederation, the States retained full and complete jurisdiction over lands and persons within their borders. The Congress under the Articles was merely a body which represented and acted as agents of the separate States for external affairs, and had no jurisdiction within the States. This defect in the Articles made the Confederation Congress totally dependent upon any given State for protection, and this dependency did in fact cause embarrassment for that Congress. During the Revolutionary War, while the Congress met in Philadelphia, a body of mutineers from the Continental Army surrounded the Congress and chastised and insulted the members thereof. The governments of both Philadelphia and Pennsylvania proved themselves powerless to remedy the situation, and the Congress was forced to flee first to Princeton, New Jersey, and finally to Annapolis, Maryland. Thus, this clause was inserted into the Constitution to give jurisdiction to Congress over its capital, and such other places as Congress might purchase for forts, magazines, arsenals, and other needful buildings wherein the State ceded jurisdiction of such lands to the federal government. Other than in these areas, this clause of the Constitution did not operate to cede further jurisdiction to the federal government, and jurisdiction over unceded areas remained within the States. While there had been no real provisions in the Articles which permitted the Confederation Congress to acquire property and possess exclusive jurisdiction over such property, the above clause filled an essential need by permitting the federal government to acquire land for the seat of government and other purposes from certain of the States. Such possessions were deemed essential to enable the United States to perform the powers conveyed by the Constitution, and a cession of lands by any particular State would grant exclusive jurisdiction of such lands to Congress. Perhaps the most cogent reasons and explanations for this clause in the Constitution were set forth in Essay No. 43 of The Federalist: "The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government carries its own evidence with it. It is a power exercised by every legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy. Without it not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity, but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government for protection in the exercise of their duty might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy. This consideration has the more weight as the gradual accumulation of public improvements at the stationary residence of the government would be both too great a public pledge to be left in the hands of a single State, and would create so many obstacles to a removal of the government, as still further to abridge its necessary independence. The extent of this federal district is sufficiently circumscribed to satisfy every jealousy of an opposite nature. And as it is to be appropriated to this use with the consent of the State ceding it; as the State will no doubt provide in the compact for the rights and the consent of the citizens inhabiting it; as the inhabitants will find sufficient inducements of interest to become willing parties to the cession; as they will have had their voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them; as a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them; and as the authority of the legislature of the State, and of the inhabitants of the ceded part of it, to concur in the cession will be derived from the whole people of the State in their adoption of the Constitution, every imaginable objection seems to be obviated. "The necessity of a like authority over forts, magazines, etc., established by the general government, is not less evident. The public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, require that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular State. Nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire Union may depend to be in any degree dependent on a particular member of it. All objections and scruples are here also obviated by requiring the concurrence of the States concerned in every such establishment." Since the time of the ratification and implementation of the present U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court and all lower courts have had many opportunities to construe and apply the above provision of the Constitution. And the essence of all these decisions is that the States of this nation have exclusive jurisdiction of property and persons located within their borders, excluding such lands and persons residing thereon which have been ceded to the United States." Federal Jurisdiction

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[BlindBoo]

Another Lincoln cult member demonstrating his ignorance, I see:

ARTICLE III, Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.​

It's why I keep gleefully reminding these cultists that their god and savior was wasted by one of the thousands of men pissed off by what he did to their families and America. It really unnerves the demonic Left to be reminded that the man they worship had hot lead put into his melon.

J W Booth was a traitor to both the vanquished Confederate State and the United States.

Actually he was a hero in the South. Now you know.

No, he caused more pain in the South after he assassinated President Lincoln. He was and is reviled from one end of Dixie to the other, exceptions for the KKK types of course!

Now you're just making things up. Desperate?

Nope, the people were happy the war was over and Lincoln’s plans for amnesty and reconstruction in the South were just. That came to an end on Good Friday 1865.



Herman Melville described the situation aptly in verse:

“There is sobbing of the strong,
And a pall upon the land;
But the people in their weeping
Bare the iron hand:
Beware the people weeping
When they bare the iron hand.”

In general, the South reacted against the assassination of Lincoln. Confederate army veterans were particularly quick to express their abhorrence to the assassination. Most Southern newspaper editors also denounced the act of Booth and his accomplices. However, the Southern response was equally motivated out of sympathy for Lincoln and fears for the South, for they saw the instatement of President Johnson as a great calamity.

http://www.americancivilwar.asn.au/conf/2006/lincoln_assassination.pdf