Posted on 06/11/2020 7:44:12 AM PDT by Olog-hai
Agree with this, and the bulk of what you wrote above it.
And the Ft. Sumter unpleasantness?
Had Lincoln simply left them alone, there would have been no bloodshed.
Well, unless some poor American soldier was killed by a Confederate shell during the bombardment.
Your position is if Lincoln ignored the attack and allowed the South to steal US property everything would have been alright?
Anderson shouldn't have seized that fort under cover of darkness after Union officials had promised it was to be turned over to South Carolina, for who's defense it was built anyways.
Also, Lincoln shouldn't have sent a fleet of warships to attack the confederates there. He should have ordered it's evacuation.
Well, unless some poor American soldier was killed by a Confederate shell during the bombardment.
No one was killed in the bombardment. I think a mule or a horse was killed, but no Union soldiers were killed as a consequence of the bombardment.
Your position is if Lincoln ignored the attack and allowed the South to steal US property everything would have been alright?
My position is that Lincoln struck first. He sent a fleet of warships with orders to attack if they were resisted.
This is what triggered the bombardment of the fort.
And it wasn't US property when South Carolina seceded any more that Ft. Ticonderoga is still British property. The land belongs to the people who occupy it. Lincoln himself said this in 1848, and again in 1852.
By 1861 he had clearly changed his mind.
Why?
Just to abandon US property to terrorist insurgents?
My position is that Lincoln struck first. He sent a fleet of warships with orders to attack if they were resisted.
This is what triggered the bombardment of the fort.
So Trump's going to be the aggressor if he sends troops to resist CHAZ, right?
The warlord would be justified in making an armed attack on Seattle city hall?
That's the analog to the bombardment of the fort - the rightful owner asserting dominion.
Several reasons.
1. The place was built to defend the City of Charleston. It had absolutely no legitimate purpose but to defend Charleston from an attacking fleet.
Northern newspapers of the day urged the government to turn the guns around and shell Charleston until they complied with US Tariff requirements. According to Captain Abner Doubleday who was in Sumter along with Major Anderson, there was discussion among the officers about doing this very thing.
2. The land ceased to be the property of the USA when the state of which it was a part declared independence. Lincoln himself said that the land belongs to those who reside on it.
3. The property was of no legitimate use to the North, and indeed during a cabinet meeting, they were worried that the Confederates would let them stay there and they would have the embarrassment of a bunch of soldiers sitting in a fort doing nothing for month after month, and with the prospect of having to resupply the thing again in a few months. They feared the Confederates would ultimately get it anyway if the Confederates simply did nothing at all.
4. The Union government told the people of Charleston that it and all the other forts surrounding the Entrance to the harbor would be turned over to them. Captain Doubleday admits this in his account of the attack.
Just to abandon US property to terrorist insurgents?
You badly misstate the actual history here. The "terrorist insurgents" were the force under the command of Major Anderson. In the fall of 1860, the Union secretary of war, John B. Floyd informed the people of Charleston that fort Moultrie and fort Sumter would be turned over to them.
Instead, in the middle of night in December, Anderson spikes and burns the cannons at fort Moultrie, commandeers a ship and holds it's captain hostage, forces the captain to carry his troops to Fort Sumter where in the dead of night they seize the place and capture all the workers there and hold them as potential hostages.
The people of Charleston woke up to burning gun carriages in fort Moultrie, and a foreign force occupying a fort that could directly threaten their city, and their shipping and which indeed northern newspapers had urged to be used in this manner.
So Trump's going to be the aggressor if he sends troops to resist CHAZ, right?
South Carolina held a statewide election to vote on the issue of secession. The people of South Carolina as a whole group chose by democratic process to leave the coalition of states known as the United States.
And you are comparing this to a bunch of spoiled brat momma's boys who've intimidated people with clubs and rocks, and taken over a tiny little piece of nowheresville only as a result of the fecklessness of local politicians keeping law enforcement from beating the stupid out of them?
The Declaration of Independence says that states have a right to "to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another." The citizens of South Carolina constitute a "people", and the nation recognized their right as a state to secede from Britain, and if it were consistent in it's principles, it would have recognized their right to secede from the USA too.
That's the analog to the bombardment of the fort - the rightful owner asserting dominion.
That is an analog that is as childish as ANTIFA. It is not something I would have expected to see as a comparison by a reasonable man.
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.