The war between North and South

BostonGlobe ^ | May 9, 2006 | PETER S. CANELLOS

[Non-Sequitur]

As the military installations were given to the federal government BY the States, the States have every right to ask for them back by a declaration of intent.

And if Congress says no? Then you think it's OK to shell the fort into surrender?

[MamaTexan]

And if Congress says no?

If Congress says 'no' without the express authority to do so, it is an unconstitutional act, and therefore null and void by law.

----

Then you think it's OK to shell the fort into surrender?

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter
On December 26, 1860, five days after South Carolina seceded, U.S. Army Major Robert Anderson abandoned the indefensible Fort Moultrie and secretly relocated his two companies (85 men) of the 1st U.S. Artillery to Fort Sumter. Over the next few months, repeated calls for Union surrender from Confederate Brigadier General P.G.T. Beauregard were ignored, and Union attempts to resupply and reinforce the garrison were rebuffed. On April 12, 1861, at 4:30 a.m., Confederate batteries opened fire, firing for 36 straight hours, on the fort. It has been said that Edmund Ruffin, a soldier and secessionist from South Carolina, fired the first shot, although that is under some debate. The garrison returned fire, but it was ineffective, since Major Anderson did not allow his men to use cannons that had a high possibility of being hit by the Confederate attack. On April 13, the fort surrendered and was evacuated.

---------

Do you know what the casualty list for Ft Sumner was?

http://fax.libs.uga.edu/E468x7xM647/1f/photographic_history_of_civil_war_vol_1.txt
12 and 13.—Bombardment of Fort Sumter, S. C. Union 1st U. S. Art. Confed. S. C. Art. No casualties.

14.— Evacuation of Fort Sumter, S. C., by U. S. Losses: Union I killed, 5 wounded by premature explosion of cannon in firing a salute to the United States flag.

There were no casualties during the battle and one during the evacuation because of a mishap with a cannon. If you find contrary evidence, please let me know.

Now what were the legal justifications for war again?

[Non-Sequitur]

If Congress says 'no' without the express authority to do so, it is an unconstitutional act, and therefore null and void by law.

Fort Sumter was built on property deeded to the government free and clear by the South Carolina legislature on December 31, 1836. In the legislation, the state ceded all rights, title, and claim of South Carolina to the site. That seems pretty cut and dried. The Constitution says that Congress shall exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over places obtained for forts, arsenals, etc. That too seems pretty cut and dried. So it would appear to me that since South Carolina had no legal claim to Sumter then they could request the Congress return the fort to them, but that Congress was under no obligation to do so. It belonged, after all, to the federal government. Regardless of whether you accept the legality of southern secession or not, it's clear that federal property was federal property and could only be disposed of by Congress. And Congress had the express authority to say "No".

Yes.

And you don't look on that as an act of war?

On December 26, 1860, five days after South Carolina seceded, U.S. Army Major Robert Anderson abandoned the indefensible Fort Moultrie and secretly relocated his two companies (85 men) of the 1st U.S. Artillery to Fort Sumter.

As the commanding officer of all the Army posts in the Charleston area, Major Anderson was responsible for Fort Moultrie, Castle Pinkney, the Charleston Armory and Fort Sumter. He was under orders to act as he saw best to safeguard his command, orders given to him by Major Don Carlos Buell. He was well within his authority to move to Sumter.

Over the next few months, repeated calls for Union surrender from Confederate Brigadier General P.G.T. Beauregard were ignored...

But it was a U.S. fort. Major Anderson was an army officer manning his post. Why should he surrender the fort to people who had no legal claim to it?

There were no casualties during the battle and one during the evacuation because of a mishap with a cannon. If you find contrary evidence, please let me know.

So if, for example, the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor but had managed not to kill anyone then would you say that it wasn't an act of war? The fact that the southern marksmanship was that bad does not alter the fact that their intent was to bombard the fort into surrender, and if that meant killing every man on the island then they would gladly have done that.

[stand watie]

because it would be UNTRUE!

BOTH GENs LEE & JACKSON were "very advanced" (for their day) in race equality. BOTH because they were TRULY Christians. (i could NOT say that for lincoln, the TYRANT!)

remind me sometime to tell you about the day that Christ Church's "Lord's Supper" got "desegregated" by a former slave AND GEN Lee.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

for ONE thing, had i been in lincoln's, the SHYSTER lawyer & TYRANT,shoes, i would NOT have started a NEEDLESS war of conquest that cost about a MILLION lives for NOTHING but $$$$$$$$$ & POLITICAL/PERSONAL POWER.

the war was ONLY for MORE $$$$$ & POWER for the northeastern social/intellectual/financial/business elites. it was NOT to "end slavery". (any person who has an IQ "higher than average room temperature" can figure that out by reading the original documents.)

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

i suspect that "donmeaker" is just another "victim of duh gubmint pubic screwls sistim".

the BILGE that he posts is straight out of the REVISIONIST tradition at "poison ivy league schools", like harvard, yale,etc.

PITY that he doesn't KNOW that he's been LIED TO & "made a fool of".

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

stick to posting your usual DUMB-bunny bilge & silly cartoons AND leave the serious attempts at conversation to your intellectual betters. fwiw, that's almost EVERYBODY on FR!

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

lol AT you!

don't you get tired of being RIDICULED as the WORST & DUMBEST of the DAMNyankee coven of lunatics, weirdos & fools???

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

sadly, "mr. SPIN" is NOT a child (though he is certainly a FOOL!), though he is childISH & filled with HATE. i fear he is also a RACIST, as well based on his notorious post #645.

free dixie,sw

[MamaTexan]

Fort Sumter was built on property deeded to the government free and clear by the South Carolina legislature on December 31, 1836. In the legislation, the state ceded all rights, title, and claim of South Carolina to the site.

True as a condition of the Constitutional compact, the state ceded the forts of the federal government.....but

Once South Carolina gave it's legal notice that it was leaving the compact, all lands ceded returned to the ownership of the state.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendXs7.html
But until the time shall arrive when the occasion requires a resumption of the rights of sovereignty by the several states (and far be that period removed when it shall happen) the exercise of the rights of sovereignty by the states individually, is wholly suspended, or discontinued, in the cases before mentioned: nor can that suspension ever be removed, so long as the present constitution remains unchanged, but by the dissolution of the bonds of union. An event which no good citizen can wish, and which no good, or wise administration will ever hazard.
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries 1:App. 185--87

Federal forces occupied the fort 5 days AFTER South Carolina gave it's intent to dissolve the bonds with the US government. The State was NO LONGER under the terms of the Constitution.

The Confederacy was bombarding their own installation unlawfully occupied by federal forces.

----

The fact that the southern marksmanship was that bad does not alter the fact that their intent was to bombard the fort into surrender, and if that meant killing every man on the island then they would gladly have done that.

Your opinion.

In mine, they weren't trying to kill anyone, they just wanted them to leave.

[Pelham]

Good to see that you managed to find an 1866 document to help you get your hate on. Which further indicates that you have a few screws loose.

[donmeaker]

Lee was not advanced. His father in law's slaves were granted their freedom in his will. Rather than setting them free, he trucked them all over, renting them out to squeeze the last drop of forced labor from them.

Wesley Norris testified that he was tortured at Lee's direction, for the crime of running away when he had already been granted his freedom by the will of his owner.

Lee's slave Nancy has several children, also slaves. We don't know if Lee was their father, or if he has separated the family for his profit.

Nice guy, huh?

[donmeaker]

It was immoral for the Southrons to incite rebellion. It was immoral for Southrons to open fire on federal installations. It was immoral for the Secretary of War under Buchannan, Floyd, to move federal property to the south so it could be stolen by the rebellion.

It is immoral to ignore immoral acts by others.

[donmeaker]

Spend some time defending this country, from enemies, foreign and domestic, and I may think you worthy of debate.

[donmeaker]

The war was not created by Lincoln, but rather by the Slavers.

The rebels opened fire on US troops. Davis called for troops before Lincoln. The rebels stole US weapons.

The South resorted to the draft before the Union. All the things that you condemn, you will find that the so called "Confederacy" did all of them before the Union. Lincoln was almost passive as the country was torn apart, hating to initiate the steps that would lead to war. The southern hot heads rushed to it, knowning that they had no legal case, and only a quick military win would give them any legitimacy.

The manly courage of the Union, to include its many thousands of loyal soldiers raised from the southern states, won out over the greed, treachery, and hubris of the southern slavers.

[usmcobra]

So all the deaths of the Civil War were justified because the eradication of slavery wasn't happening fast enough to suit those in power?

And yet you would have us believe that to maintain slavery in the south they had the right to wage war against the US governemnt...

you asked me if I believe this is a nation of laws or a nation of men, perhaps I was to quick to answer.

Nazi Germany was a nation of laws.

The Soviet Union was a nation of laws.

North Korea is a Nation of laws.

Iran is a nation of laws, etc, etc, etc....

Being a nation of laws does not mean that the laws are just or moral, it just means that there are laws to be enforced.

The confederacy was a nation of men, I can easily say that without fear of reprecussions since all the little confeder-buddies believe that the men that ran the Confederacy were the greatest men that ever walked this continent, and that they were without sin.

Maybe ancient Greece was also a nation of men, as well as fuedal Japan and China under the Khans.

Being a nation of men does not mean that the men that rule are just or moral, it just means that their rule is enforced.

But I would submit that The United States of America is not merely a nation of laws or a nation of men, it is perhaps the first great nation of Ideas, because no other nation was ever formed based upon the ideas and moral principles as our founding fathers laid out from the beginnings of this nation.

Those ideas and principles molded and shaped this nation and the men that made it great.

Those southern democrats in their search for the ever illusive "states rights" and their myoptic defence of slavery turned away from the very ideas and principles that created this nation. And sadly because of it a great many died for those few in the south who refused to live by the ideas and principles that still move and shape this nation today.

Lincoln swore an oath to defend the Constitution and the Nation from all enemies both foreign and domestic, and when southern democrats rose up in armed rebellion to sever themselves for this nation and to become the bitterest of enemies to ever wage war against the United States and the constitution,how could Lincoln not act to save the United States from being torn in half?

We expect nothing less from any president of this country.

[M. Espinola]

"It is so much easier to condemn others than it is to defend their own."

The die-hard disciples of DeLorenzoism have appallingly mastered the self inflicted art of slithering behind the mask of neo-confederate Civil War & post Civil War revisionism, deception & rehashed, brazen bundled lies.

Losing sides of similar instigated unjust wars tend to manifest in this disgraceful manner.

[stainlessbanner]

Using your Jap-US analogy implies the US and CSA are soveriegn , independent entities. Please continue.

[M. Espinola]

Excellent points of fact.

When rabid neo-confederates feebly attempt to either defend pre-Civil War slavery, and or Jim Crow segregation as being some how fully justified - since it was "legal", well, so were the Nuremberg Laws under the savage Nazi régime.

Racial segregation was "legal" Nazi Germany ...too.

Racial segregation was "legal" in the 'Old South .... too.

In Nazi Germany this was also "Legal"...too.

"Nazi Germany was a nation of laws."

"The Soviet Union was a nation of laws."

"North Korea is a Nation of laws."

"Iran is a nation of laws, etc, etc, etc...."

Castro's Cuba is a nation of laws."

Saudi Arabia is a nation of laws."

Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe is a nation of laws.

Assad's Syria is a nation of laws

Putin's Russia is a nation of laws

Hugo Chavez's Venezuela is a nation of laws

Red China is a nation of laws etc, etc, ....