NedBaldwin
Major
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2011
- Location
- California
In another thread it was claimed that regarding title to land, that secession caused it to change. Can someone explain this to me.
Here was one statement: "In theory, it changes hands because the government in control of the land and the nation ruled by that government have both changed, so sovereignty has changed."
Even in theory this makes no sense to me. A government owned/controled the land and the above statement said that the government had changed. Did it? I dont see that it had in the actual case being discussed or in any theoretical case either. It was the government that did not own/control the land that had changed - so how does that government magically acquire title?
This was followed by the statement "I know, if you see SC as a state in rebellion, nothing has changed with regard to Sumter, but from the Confederate point of view, they were no longer a part of the United States, so anything within their territory fell under their control."
I thnk the view of whether SC was in rebellion or not is irrelevant to this issues. Did anything in their territory really ffall under their control? Did all land title suddenly became the property of the State overnight? Under what legal principle? Under what legislative act?
Here was one statement: "In theory, it changes hands because the government in control of the land and the nation ruled by that government have both changed, so sovereignty has changed."
Even in theory this makes no sense to me. A government owned/controled the land and the above statement said that the government had changed. Did it? I dont see that it had in the actual case being discussed or in any theoretical case either. It was the government that did not own/control the land that had changed - so how does that government magically acquire title?
This was followed by the statement "I know, if you see SC as a state in rebellion, nothing has changed with regard to Sumter, but from the Confederate point of view, they were no longer a part of the United States, so anything within their territory fell under their control."
I thnk the view of whether SC was in rebellion or not is irrelevant to this issues. Did anything in their territory really ffall under their control? Did all land title suddenly became the property of the State overnight? Under what legal principle? Under what legislative act?
Bringing the