Posted on 11/21/2006 5:23:06 AM PST by SJackson
Really? I can easily see why he'd lie in order to justify southern aggression against the fort. Of course, I can see why you'd lie, too.
as for 33+ hours of bombardment, the bombardment such as it was, occurred over that period but evidently was neither continuous or great in numbers of rounds fired.
Over 4000 rounds of artillery were fired, 2500 from Ft. Moultrie alone.
In what way?
Assuming for the sake of arguement that South Carolina's secession was legal, what rule of law miraculously transferred ownership of Sumter to South Carolina? Without congesssional approval. Without compensation. Without the owner of the property having any say whatsoever in the transaction.
I already explained that.
When secession occurred, all public lands reverted back to S.C.
Saying so doesn't make it true. What rule of law is this claim based on? What is the legal basis for your statement? Not the Constitution, that's for sure. It clearly states that only Congress can dispose of federal property. Sumter was indeed federal property, so even with your odd idea of state sovereignty that would still mean Sumter belonged to all the states and not just South Carolina. Wouldn't they be entitled to payment for their share?
and you can PROVE your allegation????
i think NOT!
just out of curiosity, can you figure out that you've swallowed a bunch of DY apologist nonsense, hook/line/sinker????
free dixie,sw
i think NOT. furthermore, i think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. i think you know better.
otoh,, since you are ONLY a PROPAGANDIST & nothing more than that, i'm not even sure if you believe that NONSENSE (or for that matter, anything else you rant about.)
free dixie,sw
SECESSION is just ONE of those "reserved" powers.
NO state would have FREELY joined a union from which they couldn't just as FREELY depart. even YOU should be smarter than to believe the stupid garbage that you routinely post. otoh, perhaps you think or HOPE that your readers are dumbER than you seem to be.
laughing AT you & your IGNORANT bilge.
free dixie,sw
States were already in a perpetual Union even before the Constitution. States in 1787 knew they could not exist by themselves and that without the Union they would become part of the Empires surrounding them.
After the original 13 states didn't JOIN they were CREATED by Congress.
It has been answered everytime it arises but you don't care since the answer is not what you WANT to be true.
Nonsense. There is more in the Constitution than just the few things mentioned. It doesn't mention an Air Force so it must be unconstitutional.
Texas is a special case but likely it could not secede either. Most of the assertions you guys make are easily shown not to be supported by fact.
Even if there were a right to secede that did not mean the Fort stopped being federal property. South Carolina gave up any right to the island when it handed the deed to the feds.
Should Virginia get back all the lands it gave the feds in the 1780s?
lol AT you!
free dixie,sw
lol AT you.
free dixie,sw
I made no allegation. I merely stated that I can easily come up with a reason that a South Carolinian would lie about the status of the fort's food supply.
given lincoln' s COLD-BLOODED LIES about NOT trying to resupply the fort
When did he say he wouldn't try to resupply the fort? In the first inaugural he clearly says that he will attempt to hold the fort. In the letter he sent to Governor Pickens on April 8, he says that he's going to attempt to resupply the fort. In what document, and to whom did he say the opposite?
Since Texas v. White is SPECIFICALLY about Texas secession, I'd say you're right.
I can't imagine what international law applies. Perhaps you can put the whole matter to rest and quote the appropriate statute.
i think NOT. furthermore, i think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. i think you know better.
No, I don't know better. I do know that once again you have no idea what you're talking about.
Texas was not a special case. Texas was a state, entitled to the same rights and subject to the same restriction as every other state. The idea that they had the ability to do things that other states could not is blatantly unconstitutional.
As a member of the avant-garde who is capable of perceiving the conspiracy before it is fully obvious to an as yet unaroused public, the paranoid is a militant leader. He does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish. Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated-if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention. This demand for total triumph leads to the formulation of hopelessly unrealistic goals, and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoid's sense of frustration. Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes.The enemy is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman-sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving. Unlike the rest of us, the enemy is not caught in the toils of the vast mechanism of history, himself a victim of his past, his desires, his limitations. He wills, indeed he manufactures, the mechanism of history, or tries to deflect the normal course of history in an evil way. He makes crises, starts runs on banks, causes depressions, manufactures disasters, and then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced. The paranoid's interpretation of history is distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as the consequences of someone's will. Very often the enemy is held to possess some especially effective source of power: he controls the press; he has unlimited funds; he has a new secret for influencing the mind (brainwashing); he has a special technique for seduction (the Catholic confessional).
It is hard to resist the conclusion that this enemy is on many counts the projection of the self; both the ideal and the unacceptable aspects of the self are attributed to him. The enemy may be the cosmopolitan intellectual, but the paranoid will outdo him in the apparatus of scholarship, even of pedantry. Secret organizations set up to combat secret organizations give the same flattery. The Ku Klux Klan imitated Catholicism to the point of donning priestly vestments, developing an elaborate ritual and an equally elaborate hierarchy. The John Birch Society emulates Communist cells and quasi-secret operation through "front" groups, and preaches a ruthless prosecution of the ideological war along lines very similar to those it finds in the Communist enemy. Spokesmen of the various fundamentalist anti-Communist "crusades" openly express their admiration for the dedication and discipline the Communist cause calls forth. ...
A final characteristic of the paranoid style is related to the quality of its pedantry. One of the impressive things about paranoid literature is the contrast between its fantasied conclusions and the almost touching concern with factuality it invariably shows. It produces heroic strivings for evidence to prove that the unbelievable is the only thing that can be believed. Of course, there are highbrow, lowbrow, and middlebrow paranoids, as there are likely to be in any political tendency. But respectable paranoid literature not only starts from certain moral commitments that can indeed be justified but also carefully and all but obsessively accumulates "evidence." The difference between this "evidence" and that commonly employed by others is that it seems less a means of entering into normal political controversy than a means of warding off the profane intrusion of the secular political world. The paranoid seems to have little expectation of actually convincing a hostile world, but he can accumulate evidence in order to protect his cherished convictions from it. ...
"The Paranoid Style in American Politics"
Richard Hofstadter
Harper's Magazine, November 1964
We'll hear the old ex-post facto whine soon.
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.