Replies

That potentially large Union army. That would seem to me to be a pretty good guarantor of fair value. :)

You criticize Lincoln for not surrendering after Fort Sumter was attacked, a deliberate act of war, and yet you suggest that he could resort to war for money?

If you had at your beck and call a gang of rowdies, I believe I would certainly make every effort to be fair to you.

You have it wrong. I have your car, legally, free and clear. I offer $5 for it. What recourse do you have?

I don't think the timing is important so long as it is understood that the issue would be addressed.

If I walk out on you taking all the community property I can get my hands on and leaving you with sole responsibility for all the debt built up while we were together then what good is "addressing" it later? I've got what I want. I've left you with all the bills. I'm free and clear. What motivation do I have to reimburse you for anything?

I think the Spanish and the Brits are still arguing over Gibraltar.

An excellent example. Great Britain has Gibraltar. They are paying nothing, reimbursing nothing, doing nothing to address the Spanish claims. And it's 310 years after the fact. So why should Lincoln believe that the Confederacy were interested in paying for anything or accepting responsibility for anything? If the Confederate delegation had, in fact, been open for discussions why should the U.S. believe anything they have to say?

The people of the South paid way more than their fair share of taxes to the federal govt prior to 1861. Nobody was stealing anything buckwheat. That pile of rocks in the Cooper River was paid for by Northern and Southerner alike.

Nice try, no sale. Nothing to see here, move along.

You criticize Lincoln for not surrendering after Fort Sumter was attacked, a deliberate act of war, and yet you suggest that he could resort to war for money?

You slice and dice what I say to imply something different. I said no one was killed in the Attack on Ft. Sumter. There existed no real threat to the Union. As for the money, Nations constantly argue about who owes what to whom for what. If it is significant enough, they can threaten war over it.

If I walk out on you taking all the community property I can get my hands on and leaving you with sole responsibility for all the debt built up while we were together then what good is "addressing" it later? I've got what I want. I've left you with all the bills. I'm free and clear. What motivation do I have to reimburse you for anything?

Apart from appeals to sense of fairness, there is always the weapon of trade. How viable would the South have been without mutually agreeable trade between the two? I dare say the South could have easily been convinced to pay legitimate debts. Trade was just too usable as a weapon against them, and the Army was always the guarantor of last resort.

An excellent example. Great Britain has Gibraltar. They are paying nothing, reimbursing nothing, doing nothing to address the Spanish claims. And it's 310 years after the fact. So why should Lincoln believe that the Confederacy were interested in paying for anything or accepting responsibility for anything? If the Confederate delegation had, in fact, been open for discussions why should the U.S. believe anything they have to say?

Given that it hasn't been all that critical to either Spain or Britain to resolve this issue conclusively, I have to wonder if it makes a whole lot of difference one way or the other if it wouldn't get resolved.

You and I both know this had really nothing to do with money. This war was about Pride, and very little of anything else.

"Those D@mn Yankees have a fort commanding the entrance to our Harbor. This is intolerable!"

"Those D@mn Rebs kicked us out of our fort! This is intolerable!"

Bunch of little children on both sides.