Replies

What are you saying, that US forces WEREN'T shelled at fort Sumter, only the fort?

MY understanding of physics and biology says if shells hit troops, then the result is X number of casualties. The story of the next four years tell me both sides were pretty good at killing each other when they wanted to. I guess the most logical answer though is the South just reeeeealy wasn't on their game those first 20 hours and couldn't hit their targets.

Seriously, you're embarrassing yourself here. The "Report and Resolutions of the Hartford Convention" was published the day after the convention closed, on January 5, 1815.

Apologies...months after the end of the war.

Talking about a flag and sending a report to the president requesting certain amendments is not the same as announcing yourself no be no longer part of the United States. Apparently that distinction escapes you, though.

Well, a legal "attempt" would involve the meeting, planning and codification of resolutions in anticipation of secession. If they actually followed through with it, I no longer think "attempt to secede" would be a very good description.

In case anyone's counting though, we can add Teddy Roosevelt to the list of people you're smarter than since you ignore his conclusion on Hartford. Or maybe that quote's just as imaginary as the NYT piece that's mysteriously become your personal key to unlocking 150 years of truth. We'll probably never know since you're proving your impotence at honest research.

Apologies...months after the end of the war.

Try again. You might want to look at when news of the Treaty of Ghent reached the US, when the Battle of New Orleans took place, and when the treaty was actually ratified, officially ending the war.

Well, a legal "attempt" would involve the meeting, planning and codification of resolutions in anticipation of secession.

I see. So in your mind a group that discusses the idea that secession might become necessary if their request for X, Y and Z isn't met, but who don't actually secession in that request constitutes a "legal attempt" at secession that can actually go before the courts. Yet another of your curious legal theories, I guess. Most laws require someone to actually do something, but just talking about it among yourselves without taking any action constitutes a legal attempt in your book.

Or maybe that quote's just as imaginary as the NYT piece that's mysteriously become your personal key to unlocking 150 years of truth.

No, but it has become the key to understanding just how full of crap you are. Your persistent refusal to back up your claim with a simple link speaks for itself.

Have you figured out the problem in your Sumter chronology yet?