America Remembers Robert E. Lee

NewsMax ^ | 1/19/05 | Calvin E. Johnson Jr.

[Non-Sequitur]

Lincoln's refusal to meet with SC envoys and his refusal to uphold Buchannan's agreement of a truce on hostilities at Sumter was a clear sign of war.

Nonsense. Lincoln was inaugurated until March, long after the south had organized iteself into the confederacy and several weeks after Davis had been installed as president, so the claim that South Carolina was acting on it's own is ridiculous. The idea that ther was a truce with the Buchanan administration is also false. There was an agreement not to reinforce Sumter so long as the South Carolina militia did not seize federal facilities in Charleston but that had been violated by South Carolina back in January.

Charleston was a ready to ignite for months. Lincoln dropped the match.

The only match that was dropped was the one Jeff Davis dropped on the touchhole of the first cannon in Charleston Harbor.

[Non-Sequitur]

Lemme get this straight. If Davis had just stood fast, Lincoln would NOT have invaded the South?

Lincoln lacked the political or popular support to force the issue through military means. So no, had Davis not fired on Sumter then Lincoln could not have sent troops to force a reunion. Or if he had then the south would have been able to claim that they were the injured party. Status quo worked for Davis far more than it did for Lincoln. Had the south held fire then it's likely that the confederate sovereignty would have been recognized by default by the summer.

Is that what you are saying?

Yes.

[Non-Sequitur]

But, but, but, I thought you were saying Lincoln was just invading his own country and asking countrymen to attack one another, not that he was invading separate sovereignties! Which was it?

Since I never said any of that then I guess it's none of it. But for the record, no, Lincoln didn't invade anyone. You invade other countries not rebellious sections of your own. And Lincoln took no military actions against the southern rebellion at all until the south started hostilities at Sumter.

OK?

[Non-Sequitur]

Balkanized like 1861 New York City Mayor Fernando Wood openly advocating secession to remain a neutral party in dealing with north and south.

Stainless, why do you keep dredging up Fernando Wood and his call for New York City secession without also mentioning that his idea was dismissed by the city council, Wood was tossed out of office at the next election, and that after the south initiated hostilities he changed his mind and became a supporter of the war?

[Non-Sequitur]

Lincoln orders blockade proclamation of North Carolina and Virginia on 27 April, 1861.

Virginia sent its militia to seize the arsenal at Harpers Ferry on April 17, and began organizing them for that task before the Virginia convention voted for secession. North Carolina seized the U.S. Mint in Charlotte on April 21 and the federal arsenal in Fayetteville on April 22. Virginia organized her army and appointed commanders in violation of the Constitution by April 26. And you want us to believe that they were not participating in the rebellion? In light of those actions, Lincoln's including them in the blockade made perfect sense.

[Non-Sequitur]

It is equally plausible that the North, understanding their folly and the limitations of federal power written into the constitution would have come around to the correct (constitutional) way of thinking and later reaffirmed the 10th amendment and reconciled with the South without war.

What do you base that on?

[RFEngineer]

"What do you base that on?"

The same foundation of sand as the hypothesis I was responding to........NOTHING. That was kinda the point.

[stainlessbanner]

On May 31, 1787, the Convention considered adding to the powers of Congress the right: "to call forth the force of the union against any member of the union, failing to fulfil its duty under the articles thereof."29 The clause was rejected after James Madison spoke against it:

"A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."30

Source

[stainlessbanner]

Wood shows secession is not just a "southern" thing. It also shows how divided sentiments in the Union ran.

[Non-Sequitur]

Wood shows secession is not just a "southern" thing. It also shows how divided sentiments in the Union ran.

Yes. And it also shows just how much those sentiments changed once the south initiated hostilities at Sumter. Wood himself took the lead in raising the 40th New York Volunteer Infantry, known as the 'Mozart Regiment' after his political factionm in the days following the attack.

Forgot to mention that part, huh?

[stainlessbanner]

Just as Lincoln planned it. He knew an attack on Sumpter would rally Union men, so he provoked it.

[Non-Sequitur]

The clause was rejected after James Madison spoke against it...

But the power was later given to the president under the terms of the Militia Act. And nowhere does the Constitution say that troops cannot be called out against a state in rebellion against the federal government.

[Non-Sequitur]

Just as Lincoln planned it. He knew an attack on Sumpter would rally Union men, so he provoked it.

Gee, I thought we were talking about Fernando Wood, that stalwart supporter of the southern rebellion? Now you bring Lincoln in. Well, I suppose it's useless to point out to you that nobody forced Davis to take the bait. He could have held his fire and that nefarious plot by that mean 'ol Lincoln would have come to naught. Doesn't Davis deserve any accountability for his actions?

[af_vet_1981]

What part of "the right of the people to..." don't you understand?

Tanks, aircraft, missiles, and WMDs

Where do you keep yours ?

[Gondring]

Where do you keep yours ?

Oh come on now...why not cannons, too? After all, that's what the colonists were trying to protect at Lexington and Concord.

[Wampus SC]

Hey there, N-S. Too bad you didn't accept that offer to have the slaves' descendants and documentation mailed to you.

I didn't expect you to this time either, but I beleive in giving even you a fair chance and mutiple opportunities. Like always, like all of your DU in Blue Crew, you clamor for documentation, but are scared you'll actually get it. When it's provided as an online link, you brush it off, and run from it. This shows you'll run away from it when offered a chance to have firsthand source documents *in person* - by someone who has tried to get it to you at their own expense. Several times. Several ways.

Oh well. What you're about has to be demonstrated periodically.

(I have this mental image of someone holding up a sign with the words "TRUTH" and "EVIDENCE" on it, and N-S reacting like Dracula seeing a crucifix...

[Wampus SC]

Shermanolatry: America's homegrown version of holocaust denial.

"ROTFLMAO. How long did it take you to think that one up?"

Much less than one second. It doesn't take that much time to state the blatantly obvious.

[Wampus SC]

Nope, there was nothing inconsistant in your spin about it. You're gonna get dizzy...

[Wampus SC]

"Horse hockey. Slavery was the only reason the south seceded. it is in the declarations of secession of the states.

Lincoln's election scared them into thinking the time was at hand and the advancing free-state additions would eventually causes them to lose political power in this area."

Sing along with me.

Almost heaven, WEST VIRGINIA.........

[Wampus SC]

I s'wan, it sho' sound like Walt. Lawd a mucy.

If that's not Wlat, then it could be a case of Wlat posession.

Can that be exorcised with 2x4's?