Split Origin Story of the USA

[Toni]

Lincoln was not an “early President”. He wasn’t even born until 1809.

Lincoln was also trying to explain to his base why seceding from the Union was the right thing to do in 1776, but nowadays seceding from the Union is terrible.
Tom

The colonies, however, did not secede from Great Britain, because they were never part of Great Britain. They were colonies. The situation in 1860 was quite different.

Nope.
The colonies were part of the British empire. The wealthy WASP male folks preferred not to remain, so they seceded.
Similarly, the wealthy WASP male folks in the Confederacy decided to secede from the other states. They didn't try to take over power in northern states any more than the founding fathers tried to take power in England.
Like the British, the northern elite launched a war to force the Confederate states to submit. Unlike the British, they were not fighting any other wars and didn't have to cross an ocean to project their power. So they won and British didn't.
Tom

The North did not initiate the Civil War.

They finished it though.

 

[TomC]

The North did not initiate the Civil War.

That's the modern narrative.
As usual, the winners write the history books.

They finished it though.

Boy oh boy did they.
Mass death and destruction. But that's not a problem for most people, as long as they are among the winners.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

the United States of America, which has always elected its leaders, rather than have them seize power through dint of force

Yeah, The Revolutionary War wasn't forcible at all

Technically, the United States of America did not exist at the time of the Revolutionary War. Technically, it did not exist until the Article of Confederation in 1781.

Technically your early presidents disagreed with this, and Lincoln in particular was adamant that the US existed from the moment that the Declaration of Independence was signed. Technically.

Lincoln was not an “early President”. He wasn’t even born until 1809.

“Honest” Abe was a revisionist?

Four score and seven years ago...

 

[Politesse]

That's the modern narrative.

Also known as "having a factual basis".

 

[bilby]

the United States of America, which has always elected its leaders, rather than have them seize power through dint of force

Yeah, The Revolutionary War wasn't forcible at all

Technically, the United States of America did not exist at the time of the Revolutionary War. Technically, it did not exist until the Article of Confederation in 1781.

Technically your early presidents disagreed with this, and Lincoln in particular was adamant that the US existed from the moment that the Declaration of Independence was signed. Technically.

Lincoln was not an “early President”. He wasn’t even born until 1809.

A country that is less than two hundred and fifty years old only has early Presidents. Certainly a country that is less than a hundred years old does.

 

[bilby]

Lincoln was not an “early President”. He wasn’t even born until 1809.

Lincoln was also trying to explain to his base why seceding from the Union was the right thing to do in 1776, but nowadays seceding from the Union is terrible.
Tom

The colonies, however, did not secede from Great Britain, because they were never part of Great Britain. They were colonies. The situation in 1860 was quite different.

Also, because Great Britain is a geographical, not a political, entity. It's the largest island off the coast of Europe. The colonies seceded from England.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The violence started in the territories as pro-slavery forces resorted to
violence to impose slavery in Kansas. It was the confederates that
started the war with the assault on Fort Sumter.

 

[TomC]

That's the modern narrative.

Also known as "having a factual basis".

To what factual basis are you referring?

The Northern military invaded the Confederate port of Charleston. Is that what you are talking about, because usually that's what people mean.
If you mean something else by your vague post, feel free to explain what you meant.
Tom

 

[TomC]

The violence started in the territories as pro-slavery forces resorted to
violence to impose slavery in Kansas. It was the confederates that
started the war with the assault on Fort Sumter.

OMG, you think Fort Sumter was in Kansas?
Tom

 

[Shadowy Man]

the United States of America, which has always elected its leaders, rather than have them seize power through dint of force

Yeah, The Revolutionary War wasn't forcible at all

Technically, the United States of America did not exist at the time of the Revolutionary War. Technically, it did not exist until the Article of Confederation in 1781.

Technically your early presidents disagreed with this, and Lincoln in particular was adamant that the US existed from the moment that the Declaration of Independence was signed. Technically.

Lincoln was not an “early President”. He wasn’t even born until 1809.

A country that is less than two hundred and fifty years old only has early Presidents. Certainly a country that is less than a hundred years old does.

So you did intend to imply that Lincoln was an early President. The word “early” is vague enough that its definition will depend on the context. Since the context was the discussion of the formation of the country and the opinions of the early Presidents of said country were, I interpreted “early” to not include the 16th President, whose parents weren’t even born when the Declaration of Independence was signed.

You are free to invoke your own definition and context as you have but at least you understand how I read it.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The violence started in the territories as pro-slavery forces resorted to
violence to impose slavery in Kansas. It was the confederates that
started the war with the assault on Fort Sumter.

OMG, you think Fort Sumter was in Kansas?
Tom

No.

 

[Politesse]

That's the modern narrative.

Also known as "having a factual basis".

To what factual basis are you referring?

The Northern military invaded the Confederate port of Charleston. Is that what you are talking about, because usually that's what people mean.
If you mean something else by your vague post, feel free to explain what you meant.
Tom

Ah yes, one of those famous reverse invasions, where the people currently occupying the property are the invaders and the people trying to seize it from the outside are the "real victims" of the invasion.

 

[TomC]

Ah yes, one of those famous reverse invasions, where the people currently occupying the property are the invaders and the people trying to seize it from the outside are the "real victims" of the invasion.

"Reverse invasion"?
Fort Sumter was in Charleston Harbor. That was in the Confederate state of South Carolina.
It was an invasion by a hostile government. The Northern soldiers were the invaders. They were repelled before they managed to attack Charleston, but they were the spear point of the invaders from the north.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

the United States of America, which has always elected its leaders, rather than have them seize power through dint of force

Yeah, The Revolutionary War wasn't forcible at all

Technically, the United States of America did not exist at the time of the Revolutionary War. Technically, it did not exist until the Article of Confederation in 1781.

But, as I noted earlier, the U.S. dates its founding to July 4, 1776, and this is the position that Lincoln took, too, as well as that our true founding document is the Declaration of Independence, prior to both the Articles and the Constitution. In fact as well as legally, the U.S. began to exist when the Declaration was signed.

The US did not officially refer to itself as the United States of America until the ratification of Articles of Confederation. Hell, there were no official states until 1788!

The United States officially began to refer to itself as the United States on Sept. 9, 1776. And of course there were 13 official states at that time.

We acted like a United States. We called ourselves United States, but technically, the original states did not become states until 1787 and after. For example, the state of New Jersey says celebrated its 235th anniversary as a state in December of 2022 because it ratified the US Constitution in December 1787.

Yes, the states had to ratify the Constitution, and if states want to peg the beginning of their existence to their ratification, that’s fine. But in point of fact, the original 13 states existed at the time of the Revolution, with the same names they have today, and one can simply read the Articles of Confederation to see that from the beginning the United States thought of itself as a single republic comprising several different states which retained all sovereignty that was not assigned to the United States as a whole.

If an entity did not regard itself as a state, then it did not exist as a state.

But, the 13 entities did regard themselves as a loosely organized single republic.

 

[Politesse]

Ah yes, one of those famous reverse invasions, where the people currently occupying the property are the invaders and the people trying to seize it from the outside are the "real victims" of the invasion.

"Reverse invasion"?
Fort Sumter was in Charleston Harbor. That was in the Confederate state of South Carolina.
It was an invasion by a hostile government. The Northern soldiers were the invaders. They were repelled before they managed to attack Charleston, but they were the spear point of the invaders from the north.
Tom

See, in a normal siege, you expect the people inside the castle to be the besieged party.

 

[Elixir]

Uh… wasn’t Ft Sumter already Federal property? What right did secessionist slavers have to attack it?

 

[TomC]

Uh… wasn’t Ft Sumter already Federal property? What right did secessionist slavers have to attack it?

Not legally, according to the State of South Carolina. The government in the north had no reason to be there, except to invade the new country The Confederate States of America.

All those colonies were British property in 1775. That didn't stop the secessionist slavers from declaring their independence from The Empire.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

Bzzzt.

Fort Sumter belonged to the United States. Anyone who makes any claim to the contrary is simply wrong.

“Oftentimes you’ll see neoconfederates claiming that South Carolina owned Fort Sumter. Don’t believe that claim.

David Detzer gets into the history of how Fort Sumter came about and its construction in his book, Allegiance: Fort Sumter, Charleston, and the Beginning of the Civil War, pages 103-107.

The South Carolina statute transferring Forts Moultrie, Johnson, and Castle Pinckney to the United States can be viewed here, pages 501-502.

Notice what exactly is covered by the statute:

“All the lands reserved for fort Moultrie on Sullivan’s Island; provided, the same shall not exceed five acres, with all the forts, fortifications, and buildings thereon, together with the canal leading from the cove on the back of the fort, nearly up to the same, as delineated on the plan of Charleston harbour by Col. Senf, and is in the secretary of state’s office at Columbia.” — Note this is not Fort Sumter’s location.

“The high lands and part of the marsh belonging to fort Johnston, as delineated on the said plan of Charleston harbour; provided, the same shall not exceed twenty acres, including the present site of fort Johnston.” — Again, note this is not Fort Sumter’s location.

“The land on which fort Pinckney is built, and three acres around the same.” — Once again, this is not Fort Sumter’s location.

“A portion of the sand bank marked C, on the south easternmost point of Charleston, as delineated on the said plan of Charleston harbour, not exceeding two acres. A quantity of land not exceeding four acres, for a battery or fort, and necessary buildings, on Dr. Blythe’s point of land at the mouth of Sampit river.” — Once again this is not Fort Sumter’s location.

“The small island in Beaufort river, called Mustard island, opposite Paris’s island, and a tract of land on St. Helena island, opposite the same, not exceeding seven acres of land, as being a commanding ground suitable for a principal fort.” — Once again, this is not Fort Sumter’s location.

The statute further provided that within three years of enactment the United States had to repair the existing facilities in the areas mentioned or the act would be voided. It also provided that within three years of enactment the United States had to build forts or fortifications on the ceded grounds without existing facilities and keep garrisons in them, or the cession of those grounds would be void. Recall that none of those cessions encompassed the location of Fort Sumter. Finally, the statute provided that all civil and criminal processes issued by the state could be served on these installations, the installations would be exempt from paying taxes to the states, and the United States would compensate any property owners for any property taken as a result of this statute.

Nothing in the area covered by the statute pertains to Fort Sumter. Further, the statute was written in 1805, long before building Fort Sumter was ever contemplated, and 1808, which is three years after the statute as delineated within, was also long before Fort Sumter was ever contemplated. This statute has no relation whatsoever to Fort Sumter. You will find a number of neoconfederates who can’t understand the written English language will claim that this statute meant Fort Sumter belonged to South Carolina, not the United States. As you can see, that claim is nonsense.

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:

“The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor’s message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

“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.

“Also resolved: That the State shall 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 of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. 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 the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of 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.”

Samuel W. Crawford speaks to the ownership and construction of Fort Sumter in his book, The Genesis of the Civil War: The Story of Sumter, 1860-61, pages 1-8.

Some neoconfederates make the claim that South Carolina specified the fort had to be used in defense of South Carolina, or of Charleston, and that if it ever was not placed to that use its ownership would revert to South Carolina. As we can see from the legislation, such is not the case. As Crawford tells us, “It had been acquired and the jurisdiction yielded by the Legislature of the State in the usual way. There was no special contract between the Federal Government and this Commonwealth, nor any feature which distinguished the legal relations between them from those maintained with the other States of the Union.”

In other words, Fort Sumter belonged to the United States. Anyone who makes any claim to the contrary is simply wrong.”

 

[Elixir]

All those colonies were British property in 1775. That didn't stop the secessionist slavers from declaring their independence from The Empire.

Yeah and Russia was once part of Ukraine. Not true according to Russia.
Immediately prior to the Civil War, Ft Sumter belonged to the United States as shown above. SC can differ all it wants; it’s wrong.

 

[TomC]

Immediately prior to the Civil War, Ft Sumter belonged to the United States as shown above. SC can differ all it wants; it’s wrong.

Immediately before the First War of Succession, also known as the revolutionary war, all those colonies belonged to the British Crown.
Ask King George III.
Tom