So, just for the sake of being thorough, here goes:
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "South Carolina offered to pay for Fort Sumter.
Unlike the colonists however, they offered to pay for it before they acted, not as an afterthought.
Lincoln however wasn’t interested.
He only wanted to resupply it (which South Carolina said they would not allow), and so thus force the South to act."
In fact, there was never an offer to pay for anything, and one reason was: neither outgoing President Buchanan, nor incoming President Lincoln, nor Lincoln's Secretary of State ever officially met with emissaries or commissioners from the Confederacy.
Yes, they did meet frequently with intermediaries such as South Carolina congressmen (before secession), a Supreme Court justice and Virginia unionists (before the assault on Fort Sumter).
These intermediaries sometimes misunderstood the Presidents' diplomatic language to mean he would agree to their demands.
That happened when President Buchanan first met with South Carolina congressmen, in early December 1860, and again when Secretary Seward met with Supreme Court Justice Campbell.
In fairness, Seward himself may have been unclear as to the President's intentions, but what's 100% certain is that Seward wanted to buy time, and so told Justice Campbell what Campbell wanted to hear: that Lincoln would surrender Fort Sumter.
And indeed, Lincoln's original intention was to withdraw Union troops from Fort Sumter, but only as part of a grand-bargain: a fort for a state, and not just any state, but Virginia.
Lincoln wanted the Virginia secession convention to adjourn and go home, not to return.
In exchange, Lincoln would withdraw troops from Fort Sumter.
But the Virginians would have none of that...
Delegates to the Virginia secession convention were, roughly, 1/3 strong unionists (Western Virginians), 1/3 strong secessionists (the Slave Power) and 1/3 weak unionists who could be easily turned in the event of any military action, regardless of who was the aggressor.
In short, the weak unionists were waiting for, and looking for, an excuse -- any excuse -- to turn and vote for secession.
Lincoln's proposed grand-bargain did not interest them in the least, they refused to adjourn, and so Lincoln reluctantly ordered necessary supplies sent to Fort Sumter.
It's important to emphasize that all discussions between Buchanan, Lincoln or Seward on one side and intermediaries on the other involved one question only: secessionists demand that Fort Sumter be surrendered, or there would be war (not payment!).
Finally, we need to note again that the US Constitution (Article 4, section 3) is explicit and clear on this matter:
- "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States"
Both President Buchanan and Lincoln insisted that secessionist commissioners must talk to Congress about Federal property, and that the Confederates refused to do.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Cuba has leased that land to the Federal government.
If, however, in the future they decide that the US has breached the treaty, it would be difficult to deny their right to reclaim their own land."
In fact, Communist Cuba has demanded for years that the US surrender Guantanamo Bay, and has refused to accept US lease payments.
But if the Communists were to assault Guantanamo, force its surrender and seize it, that would be an act of war, as certainly as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and the Confederate assault on Fort Sumter.
So, should I take DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis's claim here to be an expression of sympathy with the Cuban Communists?
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "I think you are missing the big problem that the South had with the 14th amendment.
Their big problem was that it denied Confederate veterans the right to vote or hold office, thereby ensuring that the state governments of the South after the war would never be truly representative governments (just what the North wanted)."
You really should read it someday.
In fact nobody was restricted from voting, and the only people restricted from holding public office were those who had previously left their government positions to join the Confederacy.
Yes, in effect it required a new generation of Southern leaders, which seems to me entirely appropriate.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "It also made everyone born in the United States a United States citizen, and thus changed the nature of the Federal Government. Before that, people were citizens of their sovereign states only, not citizens of the Federal government."
In fact, what it says is simply:
- "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Sorry, but I fail to see how that language can be a problem for any reasonable person.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "You must be losing the argument if you have to resort to calling your opponent a racist."
I was commenting not on you, personally, but on your choice of friends -- buddies -- since you claimed, "we lost the war".
So who is that "we" Kemosabe?
The simple fact is that you cannot honestly defend the Confederacy without defending the First Principle it stood for: slavery.
Those who try end up making ridiculous, unhistorical claims, such as those you've posted here.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "...so many Northern states passed laws forbidding blacks from entering and living there."
Pre-Civil War!
Indiana and Illinois had such laws, other states did not.
But I would suggest that the law's actual effect was less to expel freed slaves, than to reduce slave-catchers roaming their states in search fugitives they could return South.
This law allowed those northern states to officially declare: "no fugitive slaves for you to catch here".
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "According to the 10th amendment, states would also have the right to ban abortion and homosexual marriage within their boundaries.
Tis a pity the Federal government has run roughshod over these rights or things today just might be more conservative."
Agreed.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "I don’t drink. And I am not a man."
Well, that explains some things, glad to meet you mam.
I commend you for your unusually even temper, and for taking as much time on this as you have.
It's much more fun when I'm not having to bat away barrages of insults! ;-)
But as with all propagandists for the pro-Confederate cause, what you think you know of history is pure fantasy.
It just didn't happen the way you've been told.
In reality, it was all about, indeed only seriously about protecting slavery from Ape Lincoln and those evil Black Republicans.
Because of that, there's just no honest way to turn such a sow's ear into a silk purse.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "...in case you have not noticed many conservatives nowadays are somewhat lacking in spine.
But you can still see some standing against federal overreach."
Agreed!
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "As fun as our discussion have been, I’m gonna have to bring it to a close.
I am currently working three jobs and don’t really have the time to spend writing any more long responses."
I also have many obligations which often call me away for long periods.
And yes, I have enjoyed this exchange, and appreciate the considerable effort you put into it.
But seriously, you need to learn some real history for a change, and pro-Confederate propaganda ain't it, dear.
So, let me suggest two books, the second I've read, studied & relied on, the first am just starting:
William Freehling 2007, "The Road to Disunion, Secessionists Triumphant"
Russell McClintock 2008, "Lincoln and the Decision for War"
Have a great day!