Posted on 01/19/2004 7:25:39 AM PST by TexConfederate1861
Prediction Five:
I haven't quite figured out when the resultant Afro-Hispanic War will begin, but begin it will and will be a sight to behold.
Why?
No, I don't. Sumter was a federal facility. It did not belong to South Carolina. It had made not a single threatening move towards Charleston. Lincoln made clear his intent that he planned on landing food only unless opposed. Had Lincoln been able to reprovision the fort then nothing would have changed. Charleston would still not be threatened. South Carolina would still be in rebellion. So why did Davis see the need to fire except to start a war?
How did that automatically mean that Sumter became the property of the confederacy? What legal basis do you have to support this?
Fell apart right there. South Carolina was not the legal landlord. Fort Sumter was built on land deeded to the federal government free and clear by an act of the South Carolina legislature. Constitutionally it could not have been otherwise. Therefore, South Carolina had no legal claim to the property at all.
...therefore any installations on THEIR property became THEIR property by default.
Based on what rule of law?
Based on what?
A nation cannot have an armed fort manned by another country sitting in the middle of it's biggest harbor. That would be ludicrous in the extreme.
So by your way of thinking then, if Cuba shelled the naval base at Guantanamo Bay into surrender then you would be out there supporting their position?
You must also keep in mind that Commissioners tried to arrange for a PEACEFUL transfer of the property. Buchanan, and later Lincoln snubbed them, strung them along, and delayed, etc.
If you read the legislation authorizing the so-called peace commissioners, you would find that their instructions were to establish relations between independent countries, and only then to discuss differences. In other words, unless Lincoln and Buchanan were willing to recognize the success of the southern rebellion and the legitimacy of the Davis regime then there was nothing to talk about. Well, given that precondition, there was nothing to talk about.
Yes, the shot was fired by the Confederacy, but the first act of war was committed by Lincoln.
Nonsense, the first acts of war had been committed by the southern states in the months prior to Sumter, seizing federal property, ships, mints, munitions, etc. in an attempt to force the issue. They fired on merchant ships on not one, but two prior occasions in an attempt to start the war. Sumter was southern frustration at the unwillingness of the Lincoln and Buchanan administrations to resort to armed conflict.
And Sumter did not sit in the middle of Richmond harbor. Sumter sat in Charleston harbor, the third busiest port in the south and Guantanamo Bay Naval base sits astride the entrance to the harbor of Guantanamo City, one of the busiest ports in Cuba. The situation is similar.
. Gitmo was leased by agreement from the Cuban Government.
And Sumter was built on land deeded to the government by the South Carolina legislature. When Castro took over the government he repudiated the treaty. When Davis took over the government you seem to claim that he repudiated the agreement, although none of y'all have been able to point to a single piece of legislation that explicitly did that. Once again, the situations are similar.
Since secession was legitimate...
The legitimacy of the Castro government far exceeds the legitimacy of the Davis regime, since Castro won and virtually every nation in the world recognizes his government. Davis, on the other hand, was recognized by nobody.
But..I digress...
Yes, you do. So let's return to the original question and answer why you would cheer the firing on Sumter but would have a problem with bombarding Gitmo since the situations are, by your definition, almost identical - U.S. base in a foreign territory that doesn't want them there.
A. Richmond isn't a harbor town. Hence, no similarity.
Richmond is on the James River and in 1860 was accessable to the sea. In 1859-60, Richmond actually was the 7th busiest port out of the top 11 southern ports in terms of tariffs collected. Besides, your original post called Charleston the confederacy's biggest harbor. It was, in fact, second in terms of tariffs collected and fifth in terms of exports.
Castro didn't have the guts or means to drive out the United States. The Confederacy did have the means, and they USED THEM.
But if Castro did have the guts and means you would be out there cheering him on, right? After all, he would be in the right, according to your standards.
Close, but no cigar. The south lost at Antietam. Recognition didn't happen. The confederacy went on to their inevitable defeat.
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.