Posted on 02/05/2021 11:55:38 AM PST by Kevmo
Shall we call that a long view? I will read it later.
The differences. Lincoln sent 4 warships, one merchant ship and a couple of steam tugs, 200 artillerymen thousands of rounds of ammunition, fuses and 4 months provisions to fort Sumter. Davis could easily see this as something more than a “reprovisoning” mission, that Lincoln had written to Pickens about. Davis chose to prevent the resupply of the fort. Did the presence of reinforcements, ammunition’s provide extenuating or mitigating circumstances to the Confederate President for this actions Screw analogies, this is the reality of the situation in April 1861
After reading every word of your reply, I realize you are saying... nothing.
You are either incredibly long winded or you’re some kind of AI bot.
Pick ONE point. Develop it. Then pick a second point, and so on. It should not have taken this long for someone to tell you this stuff.
No we will not ‘screw’ analogies. This incident serves as an analogy for CW2.
The first to draw blood is who started the fight.
True in grade school. True in history.
If the blue cities secede and leave the rest of us alone, we should be just fine.
Civil War 1 taught us that those in power do not secede.
oops, one sentence was mysteriously deleted....
Something about the same principle applying to the revolutionary war of 1776.
BTW, it seems an appropriate time to generate a secessionist ping list, whether pro or con.
It’ll be contentious. Perhaps we should suggest that they only be generated inthe Smoky Backroom.
If it is that important to you to satisfy your love of analogies, I will concede the point. In my opinion the dearth’s of 700,000 men, the destructions of cities and the ruination of thousands of lives cannot be reduce to a juvenile analogy. But if that is your Schick be my guest.
Cool, then you concede the point that the confederacy secessionists drew first blood in the conflict between the north and the south. Pretty simple.
In your opinion.... this stuff cannot be reduced to analogy. But it ALREADY is, already has happenned, already is a part of history. So it is a simple historical analogy. I’m glad you accept it as such.
Looking at the CW1 analogy, do you acknowledge that the south could have seceded without violence? That is the current plan for a quiet Civil War 2.
If it is an excellent question, then what is the excellent answer?
Perhaps “Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, Give unto God that which is God’s.”
That is the current plan for a quiet Civil War 2.
That was the plan for before Civil War 1. Davis did not want a war. Lincoln did not want a war. But that is what happened. It would not be much different today. What The leadership wants, is not always what the Leadership gets.
The difference today is nukes and Mutually Assured Destruction.
It is enough of a deterrent to prevent violence.
You presume that the U.S. Government would leave nukes in a state that was making serious moves to secede.
Not only can it happen fast that nukes are left behind, but the knowledge isn’t that special. Anyone who has taken the classes can do this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Aristotle_Phillips
Did he actually build and deliver a nuclear weapon? Building a nuclear weapon on paper is easy. Building one for real is a whole different ball game.
You think that no nukes will be left behind. That is naive.
Even without nuke material, the knowledge will be left behind.
Life is compicated.
Look at what happened with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It happened fast.
Plenty of nukes ended up on the open market. And plenty of KGB colonels as wells as GRU experts as well.
After a while the USA told them to stay in place and accept monthly stipends for information. There were simply too many defectors.
I’m starting to get that you’re a simple pasquinade. Thanks.
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.