Posted on 03/22/2018 9:00:10 AM PDT by Kaslin
OK, so that’s another area in which you have zero credibility. Why am I not surprised?
You’ve made it clear you have no brains or credibility from the start.
Ah, the PeeWee Herman defense. Well played fool!
Moron. You’ve obviously been out of your depth and reduced to exchanging 3rd grade level insults for quite some time now.
I’ve just been trying to find a communication level equal to your, uhm, aptitude.
You’re not capable of rising to that level. You lack the intelligence.
No they didn't. The letter that Davis sent to Lincoln did not offer compensation, did not offer to discuss compensation, did nothing but demand Lincoln's surrender to his demands.
But if they made that offer then what were the specifics? How much were they offering? What was their opening bid? When did they present their proposal? And most importantly, having taken what they wanted and walked away from debt to begin with then wasn't an offer to pay for it an admission that their acts of taking it and repudiating it were illegal in the first place? Finally, looking at it from the Union side, since the rebels had stolen the goods and walked away from responsibilities in the first place why should Lincoln think that any offer to settle was sincere?
They had the right to secede as sovereign states and exercised their right.
You're going to continue to claim they were sovereign states and I'm going to continue to point out where you're wrong so let's drop that nonsense at least. It's getting nowhere.
You obviously don’t know history very well.
Save the insults for other people. I've offered a lot more that only my opinions to support my positions and all you've done is present opinion and call it fact.
OK let's cut to the chase. Where in that letter to Lincoln is there an offer to pay for anything?
No they didn’t. The letter that Davis sent to Lincoln did not offer compensation, did not offer to discuss compensation, did nothing but demand Lincoln’s surrender to his demands.
But if they made that offer then what were the specifics? How much were they offering? What was their opening bid? When did they present their proposal? And most importantly, having taken what they wanted and walked away from debt to begin with then wasn’t an offer to pay for it an admission that their acts of taking it and repudiating it were illegal in the first place? Finally, looking at it from the Union side, since the rebels had stolen the goods and walked away from responsibilities in the first place why should Lincoln think that any offer to settle was sincere?
False. Davis quite openly stated he was willing to give compensation and the Confederate Congress was in full support. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about once again.
They didn’t get to specifics because Lincoln refused to meet with them or discuss anything. and of course they didn’t “steal” anything. They exercised their sovereign right to secede.
I’m just going to continue to point out that you’re wrong, that the historical record both in the statements of various presidents, in the statements in the federalist papers, in the 10th amendment, in the state reservations of a right to secede all say the opposite of what you’re claiming.
——————————————————————————————Save the insults for other people. I’ve offered a lot more that only my opinions to support my positions and all you’ve done is present opinion and call it fact.
Here you are lying once again. I have provided several quotes and facts and sources which refute the BS you are trying to claim. I will continue to do so as long as you keep trying to claim things that are simply untrue and have no historical basis.
OK let’s cut to the chase. Where in that letter to Lincoln is there an offer to pay for anything?
They offered to negotiate compensation and sent a delegation in good faith. Its dishonest in the extreme to say they didn’t negotiate and make compensation arrangements when it was Lincoln who refused to meet with them.
Let's try this again. Where in the letter to Lincoln is there any offer to negotiate compensation?
Its dishonest in the extreme to say they didn’t negotiate and make compensation arrangements when it was Lincoln who refused to meet with them.
Not quite as dishonest as repeatedly claiming they were there to negotiate compensation.
Quote and source please?
Let’s try this again. Where in the letter to Lincoln is there any offer to negotiate compensation?
OK When did Lincoln agree to meet with them to discuss it?
No that’s completely honest. Dishonest would be claiming they were not or trying to ask an intellectually dishonest question like what they offered when Lincoln refused to meet or discuss anything.
Quote and source please?
I already provided that. See above.
I have encountered FReepers this dishonest before - but they are thankfully few and far between. There is a difference between woefully ignorant and willfully illiterate. That difference is the ability to absorb knowledge when presented.
Our FRiend here is a lost causer of the lowest variety. He reminds me of the Reagan quote, “It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.”
He doggedly holds to lost cause mythology even when presented with the truth.
In 1859 or 1860 there was broad opinion on states prerogative to secede from the union. By 1865 few still believed it. By 1869 and the Texas v. White SCOTUS ruling all doubt had been removed as to the legality of secession, especially of unilateral secession.
Of course some people feeeeeeeel that they should have the right, but rational people recognize the reality of the situation. There is no right of secession. There is no constitutional protection for secession. History records it as an illegal act. Them’s the facts folks!
There’s only two ways for a state to leave this union: bilateral consent of congress or to fight your way out. The Slavers knew this and chose to fight. In doing so they inherited the responsibility for what came next.
I don’t care how fltbird feeeeeeeels about this - that is the truth.
Your claim is that Davis made an offer to negotiate payment. When and where?
Where?
Your claim is that Davis made an offer to negotiate payment. When and where?
I already posted that and a source for it. Go back and read.
Where?
above.
FLT-bird quoting Va signing statement: "...may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression..."
New York: "...powers of government may be reassumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary..."
Like all Lost Causers, our FRiend FLT-bird discards actual history in favor of a philosophical debate over his alleged "right to secede" and the equation of 1861 with 1776.
If we could "secede" in 1776 then why not in 1861 or, indeed, today, say our Lost Causers.
FLT-bird post #153: "The main difference between 1776 and 1861 is that in 1861 there wasn’t a rival superpower willing to shovel money and supplies and guns at the secessionists and lend them troops and lend them their navy.
The other main difference is that the states were sovereign and had the right to secede while the colonies were not and did not have a legal right to secede."
So, did our Founders "secede" in 1776?
Of course not, certainly not in the sense of 1861 secessions.
Instead, by 1776 the Brits had already revoked colonies self-government, declared them in rebellion and begun to wage war against them.
In the Declaration's words:
In other words, the Brits had already declared "secession" on our Founders, there were already figurative nooses around their necks and as Franklin famously quipped:
Note above in the quote from Virginia & New York ratifications, that FLT-bird provides us, it does not claim "at pleasure secession" is legitimate, but only when necessary from "injury or oppression".
The VA & NY model here is clearly conditions in 1776 not those of 1861.
Nothing remotely resembling 1776 existed in 1861 so Confederates declared their secessions "at pleasure" which no Founder ever approved of.
So that's the first point: legitimate disunion from mutual consent (1788) or necessity (1776) is one thing, unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure is something very different.
Second point, regardless of the philosophical right or wrong of secession, secession did not cause Civil War.
Neither did forming a new Confederacy, nor ratifying a new Confederate constitution, nor declaring their new capital city, nor calling up a new 100,000 man army to oppose the Union's 16,000 men (most scattered out west).
What caused war was, in short: Fort Sumter.
Of course our Lost Causers argue Lincoln started war at Fort Sumter, but the fact remains there would have been no war had Jefferson Davis not ordered a military assault on Federal troops in the fort.
And they all knew it:
So the right or wrong of secession was irrelevant to the start of Civil War.
War started because Davis ordered it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.