Posted on 05/04/2018 6:42:25 AM PDT by Bull Snipe
Another liberal hair-splitting exercise? The way the rebels went about it certainly qualified as an act of war.
His/her/its premise was so profoundly dishonest that I didn’t think it worthy of rebuttal.
YMMV
Yeh, but I'm not certain who controls Lost Causer orthodoxy and whether that controlling authority would ever permit a poster like J. Effersondem (;-) to contradict it.
My understanding is that Lost Causers are required to claim that Confederates were fully justified in starting war at Fort Sumter, but in fact they didn't, Lincoln did, with his vast "war armada" intended to "attack" or even "invade" Charleston.
I might be wrong on this, but will not hold my breath while waiting for their disagreement. ;-)
To see if there is any common ground, I'll ask a question. Yes, it is a trick question so be careful.
Under the 9th and 10th amendments, do you believe that states have the right to regulate the size of mud flaps on big trucks driving on state roads?
As always, DiogenesLamp failed to read his own source material.
Fox himself said that even without Powhatan, he had "plenty of volunteers" to resupply Fort Sumter on the 13th, if Anderson had held out that long.
So what caused Lincoln's mission to fail was not misdirecting Powhatan, but rather Anderson's too-quick surrender.
Which DiogenesLamp would well understand, if he'd ever read his own sources.
Years ago there were other posters who'd claim to have "spanked" someone when in fact they'd only embarrassed themselves.
Such posters were also great for doing their end-zone victory dance, in their own end-zones!
It appears now that DiogenesLamp went to the same school for internet trolls.
Again, DiogenesLamp hasn't read his own material.
Fox clearly indicated his use of force was only authorized if war had already begun, which he immediately noted it had.
Confederates were firing on Fort Sumter!
So much for peaceful resupply.
Sure, Fox lamented Powhatan's absence, but that was not critical, he could still complete his mission if Maj. Anderson held out long enough, but he didn't.
All of which DiogenesLamp would understand with just a little more effort and a little less Lost Causer bias.
Great post. It simply shreds much of the nonsense posted here. And all of that took place well before Mr. Lincoln’s inauguration. There have got to be some red faces around here.
Totally false as my detailed reviews of events in posts #1,037, 1,054 & 1,055 amply demonstrate.
When the Virginia deal fell apart, so did Lincoln's willingness to withdraw from Fort Sumter, and so he advised SC Governor Pickens of the coming resupply mission.
As for what newspapers of that time reported, well... you do understand, I'd assume, the concept of "fake news"?
No, it wasn't first invented by President Trump.
In your F150? Is that where you chivvy your tally books, or tally-book your chivvies?
That is not likely to happen anytime soon. He refuses to read anything that conflicts with his preconceived notions. He can’t even understand that Welles (who ran the Fort Sumter operation) and Seward (who ran the Fort Pickens operation) both thought they had the Powhatan available to them, for their separate missions. He bends over backwards to attribute this to the maniacal genius of Pres. Lincoln’s trickery. It is time for DL to turn on his lamp.
I think he got hung up on his own “bollix”.
Except that in 1787 freed-blacks could vote in Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, Massachusetts & Pennsylvania, while none could vote in the 1861 Confederacy.
So "consent of the governed" meant something very different to Confederates than it did to our Founders.
jeffersondem: "The Castros do not have a legitimate claim to govern under any theory other than they have a majority of the bayonets."
Amazingly, the same theory used to maintain slavery in the Confederacy.
And we'll ignore for now the fact that Castro was very popular among average Cubans, in the beginning.
jeffersondem: "But, go ahead and play the Marxist card."
Marxist historical dialectics emphasizing economics and class warfare, to the exclusion of all other human motives, seem to be the specialty of our Lost Cause mythologizers.
The original slave states were New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Delaware and Maryland.
Oh yes, Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia were slave states too.
Of the original 13 states, 13 were slave states.
None of the slave states allow slaves to vote. And all the original states voted to enshrine slavery into the United States constitution.
Wouldn't you agree that bombarding a fort into rubble is?
War started after U.S. Navy vessels were sent on the prod in the Gulf of Tonkin incident. I mean, the Ft. Sumter incident.
How are the two alike?
You have never mentioned it, so I was shocked to learn what the Lincoln administration was doing to black soldiers as late as 1864. This was long after the Gettysburg address in which Lincoln is reported to have embraced the concept that “all men are created equal.”
“In November 1863, Sergeant William Walker of the 3rd South Carolina Infantry took dramatic action to express a grievance shared by thousands of African American troops in the Union Army.
“The 23-year-old former slave “did unlawfully take command” of Company A and march the troops to his commanding officer’s tent. There, as court-martial specifications later documented, he “ordered them to stack arms,” and when asked what this meant, replied, “We will not do duty any longer for seven dollars per month.” Walker refused an order to return to duty and told his company “to let their arms alone and go to their quarters.” They did, and “thereby excited and joined in a general mutiny.”
“The young sergeant would pay for his defiance with his life. Despite a plea that he and his comrades had “only contemplated a peaceful demand for the rights and benefits that had been guaranteed them,” a military tribunal found Walker guilty of mutiny. He would be executed by firing squad on February 29, 1864.”
It is surprising you would return to those smoking craters where you staked and lost your reputation.
“Wouldn’t you agree that bombarding a fort into rubble is?”
I don’t know if I ever said anything, but the Ft. Sumter incident reminds me of the homeowner who found the former owner of the property despoiling the place.
The homeowner asked the despoiler to leave. Instead, the despoiler pointed a weapon at the new owner in a threatening manner.
The new owner fired first resulting in the expulsion of the despoiler. Turns out no one was injured during the ruckus.
The whole thing was controversial at the time. Progressives argued the person firing first is always wrong, no matter what.
Most reasonable people believe the new property owner was in the right because he first sought a peaceful end to the intrusion and when that failed, used reasonable and proportional force to defend his family.
But unlike Lincoln, who didn't even take office before Deep South states declared secession & began waging hostilities against the Union, King George provoked & goaded Americans for many years (as spelled out in the DOI), including:
DiogenesLamp: "The fact that the people from whom power and control is being removed, will refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the people taking back their power, makes no difference under the principles upon which this nation was founded."
But no Founder ever supported unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure, meaning without reasons equivalent to theirs in 1776.
DiogenesLamp: "It is the right of the people to alter or abolish 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.