Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Non-Sequitur; cowboyway
Your post was a superficial attempt at logic, but it fell very short of the truth.

You admit that the Confederacy sent peace commissioners to Washington in the early days of the Lincoln administration to negotiate peace and organize payment to the Federal government for any property or debt for which it had responsibility.

Somehow, you want to draw the conclusion that the word “surrender” applies to that.

Since there was no war at that point, there was no issue of surrender. Since the Confederacy was not asking for anything that belonged to the other states, nothing was being taken.

The status quo was peace, which the Confederacy was attempting to reinforce through diplomacy.

Lincoln's position from the beginning had been the forceful retention of two federal posts on Southern property. To say that they were not interested in his position is correct.

To say that they were not interested in Lincoln's alternative to peace was correct.

But they remained loyal to the concept of peaceful existence with the Union, and made every effort to enable that to happen.

The great statesman, politician, freedom loving Lincoln made sure that death replaced peace and offers of compensation turned into seized, trampled, and burned property.

543 posted on 02/27/2010 6:52:16 AM PST by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies ]


To: PeaRidge
Your post was a superficial attempt at logic, but it fell very short of the truth.

Because you say so? Whoop-de-do.

You admit that the Confederacy sent peace commissioners to Washington in the early days of the Lincoln administration to negotiate peace and organize payment to the Federal government for any property or debt for which it had responsibility.

I admit nothing of the kind, that is your imaginative interpretation. Based on the letter of introduction sent to Lincoln by Jefferson Davis, there is no evidence they were there to do anything but present his demands - recognize the legitimacy of Southern secession. They were not there to negotiate, the letter doesn't say they were there to negotiate. Negotiation requires that the positions of both sides be discussed, and Lincoln's position wasn't on the table. There was no indication that they were prepared to discuss debt or payment for stolen property, the letter mentions nothing of the kind. Only a vague offer to 'agree, treat, consult, and negotiate' but only on 'matters and subjects interesting to both nations'. So if payment for debt wasn't of interest to Davis then it wasn't open for discussion. If payment for stolen property wasn't of interest then it wasn't open for discussion.

Call the letter what it was; an arrogant demand. An ultimatum. But it wasn't an offer to negotiate and it wasn't an offer to pay for anything. That is the myth you build into it, not me.

Somehow, you want to draw the conclusion that the word “surrender” applies to that.

And what was the outcome that they were there to get? Recognition of confederate independence. A complete cave in to rebel demands. Not Lincoln's position - an end to secession and return to the rule of law. So how did they imagine that they could get what they were demanding if not through a complete surrender to their ultimatum on the part of Lincoln? Calling it a surrender is calling it what it is.

The status quo was peace, which the Confederacy was attempting to reinforce through diplomacy.

The confederates were not interested in the status quo. If they had been then they wouldn't have forced the issue at Sumter. They would have allowed the peaceful resupply of food and allow the status quo to continue. Instead they chose war and are responsible for all the death and destruction that followed.

Lincoln's position from the beginning had been the forceful retention of two federal posts on Southern property. To say that they were not interested in his position is correct.

So? They belonged to the federal government. The South had no legal rights to them, or any of the other federal property they had stolen. You are blaming the crime on the owner of the property and not the thief.

To say that they were not interested in Lincoln's alternative to peace was correct.

So how can you say they were there to negotiate?

But they remained loyal to the concept of peaceful existence with the Union, and made every effort to enable that to happen.

By demanding that the Union cave in to their demands and then by bombarding a fort for 36 hours. Some peaceful existence.

The great statesman, politician, freedom loving Lincoln made sure that death replaced peace and offers of compensation turned into seized, trampled, and burned property.

Cue the violins. The great Southron myth machine is at full power once again.

545 posted on 02/27/2010 7:20:17 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 543 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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