Replies

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?

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

(Sigh)

- When Roosevelt writes that the Hardford delegates' resolutions were written "as to justify seceding, or not seceding, as events (Madison's response to their concessions) turned out", contrary to your assertion otherwise;

- When Congressmen and statesmen repeatedly plead the case to let the South leave peacefully and avoid war, contrary to your assertion otherwise;

- When there was no legal ruling DELEGATING the right to leave the contract of the Constitution to the common governemnt, but the opposite DID exist - written ratifications and a 10th Amendment reserving the right to the States (or the people of the States of you will), contrary to your assertion otherwise;

- When we've all provided countless names, links, books, etc. to support our claims, contrary to your assertion otherwise;

How does that make ME "full of" anything? Because I've tired of providing links for you to ignore? Because the number of Northerners who cried for piece even if it meant disunion doesn't meet your ever-changing quota (we've established 3, 10 and 36 are all too small, even though 3 was your magic number)? Because I've met your "challenges" to provide sources too many times already, only for you to repeatedly ignore them and deflect to a new subject?

You comically like to focus on topics what you won't research yourself (despite providing enough information to find the PDF on google like I did), topics also COMPLETELY irrelevant to the discussion since you've ignored every other point presented. How does this conversation pivot on whether or not I hand your YET ANOTHER free piece of research you claim doesn't matter anyway? Guess what, it doesn't. You'll dismiss it, since you've proven that to be to be your obtuse expertise, while blaming me for not playing your game anymore.

Well, congrats, no one here enjoys your "game" anymore. Honest Americans take their history seriously, not as a game, but you haven't matured to that point yet. If you'd like start addressing the dozens of points you've read but couldn't find anything to refute so you dismissed, then we can get back to talking like grown-ups.

Or you can go back to being "too cool" to address anything, since it is a Monday night after all and the cool kids are all too busy for the internet.