Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: arrogantsob
You started your commentary with: "I realize that telling you to get your facts straight is like King Lear raging against the storm.

"There were no shots fired at Fort Pickens until after the Slaver forces attacked Ft. Sumter."

It looks like you should be more careful in your assertions.

Union troops at Ft. Pickens opened fire on Florida militia around midnight, January 8, 1861. Here

The Confederacy fired on Ft. Sumter three months later. here What is to be learned here is that if you have a preoccupation with who fired the first shots, you have been wrong up until this point.

You are also not King Lear.

"Confederations of states are forbidden in the constitution without Congressional approval. Secession was illegal."

There was no confederation of states in the Union. There is no Constitutional prohibition regarding secession. The United States Congress upheld that understanding in December of 1860. Point irrelevant.

Federal property is always federal property unless Congress allows it to be returned. Ft. Sumter was federal property in 1860.

In December of 1860, there were three commissioned, staffed, and occupied Federal posts in Charleston S. C. . Sumter was under construction and not a commissioned or posted Federal emplacement. At the time that Anderson seized it, it was nothing more than a reinforced field position.

The land had been ceded to the Federal government with stipulations regarding its improvement and occupation, which the Federal government had let expire over the 33 year history of its construction.

You may argue that Anderson's position was attacked, but his location was nothing more than a vacant building.

130 posted on 07/12/2012 2:37:28 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies ]


To: PeaRidge; arrogantsob
I knew that Fort Pickens had resisted repeated assaults by the confeds throughout the war but wasn't aware of the date of the first such assault.

It's interesting that person or persons unknown operating under no flag chose to attack a federal structure in a time of peace. Seeing as how Florida didn't make their attempt at secession until two days later this assault would constitute the textbook definition of rebellion against recognized authority. Thanks for clearing that up for us!

You may argue that Anderson's position was attacked, but his location was nothing more than a vacant building.

Even if so (which wasn't the case) it was a vacant building that belonged to the US government.

133 posted on 07/12/2012 3:26:08 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies ]

To: PeaRidge
“Local men” does not equate to “militia”. If the Vice Lords tried to take possession of my house, I suppose you would say that it was the Chicago Militia. Slaver forces did not engage in battle until months had passed after Slaver forces attacked Sumter.

The entire definition of “constitution” makes secession illegal. It isn't an arbitrary law established in a unilaterally revocable manner such as an Islamic marriage.
No state can take back its ratification outside of a Constitutional amendment.

Ft. Sumter was not vacant when attacked by the Slaver forces. It was occupied federal property. Slaver revolutionaries had for weeks been seizing federal arms and properties all over the South treasonously placed in their grasp by secessionist traitors within Buchanan's cabinet. Lincoln, wisely and rightly, made sure that did not happen to Sumter.

150 posted on 07/14/2012 12:47:13 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Obama must Go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson