Skip to comments.Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz: Obama Suspends the Law. What Would Lincoln Say?
Posted on 08/19/2013 9:27:39 AM PDT by don-o
click here to read article
I’ve noticed the Coven has been fairly quiet about post 21. Maybe during tonight’s seance, you could channel the Ape and ask his opinion.
Or maybe we're deliberately ignoring it and instead are having fun watching you run around in circles and making bets on how long it takes for your head to explode? We're kind of devious that way.
Of course one way to maintain most friendly relations would be to not interfere with unarmed supply ships and not to fire on US forts, not to steal US cannon, etc.
Lincoln’s Sumter expedition was designed to be too small to be a threat, and thus not justify being fired on.
Of course by the simple expedient of starting a war, the pretended confederacy could double its size and population.
So the slave power started their war. Then they lost it, and ever since they have tried to blame their error on Lincoln’s mind control powers.
What is slavery besides theft of another’s work, and coveting his work in the future?
Well there is the rape of the women and the torture or murder of any who resist.
I figure the 10 commandments have it pretty well covered.
Lincoln is the great hero of all liberals.
Congress delegated the power to act when it was not in session via the 1795 Militia act.
In accordence with that, Lincoln declared the insurrection and acted to begin to put it down.
Further, Congress voted to confirm his acts after they returned to session.
Yea and jeff davis is the great hero to all the cross-dressers so neener-neener ;-)
“The SC Commissioners left Washington on April 11 charging the Lincoln Administration with “gross perfidy” over the Sumter evacuation.”
Now there is an unbiased source.... lol
fixed it for you.
Buchanan authorized a relief expedition of supplies, small arms, and 200 soldiers.....
Instead, it seemed prudent to send an unarmed civilian merchant ship, Star of the West, which might be perceived as less provocative to the Confederates.....
As she approached the harbor entrance on January 9, 1861, Star of the West was fired upon by a battery on Morris Island....
Major Anderson prepared his guns at Sumter when he heard the Confederate fire, but the secrecy of the operation had kept him unaware that a relief expedition was in progress and he chose not to start a general engagement.....
Beauregard made repeated demands that the Union force either surrender or withdraw and took steps to ensure that no supplies from the city were available to the defenders, whose food was running low....
The South sent delegations to Washington, D.C., and offered to pay for the Federal properties and enter into a peace treaty with the United States. Lincoln rejected any negotiations with the Confederate agents because he did not consider the Confederacy a legitimate nation and making any treaty with it would be tantamount to recognition of it as a sovereign government. However, Secretary of State William H. Seward, who wished to give up Sumter for political reasonsas a gesture of good willengaged in unauthorized and indirect negotiations that failed.”
Various extracts from Wikipedia.
And noone else ever treated them as soverign either.
So far as I can tell it was two days. The troops didn't get there until another five days or so had passed. That was already 10 days or so after the attack on Sumter, so there really wasn't much surprising or startling about the timing.
Indeed, Governor John Andrew was readying the Massachusetts militia back in January, before Lincoln even took office. He also urged the other New England governors to mobilize well before Lincoln became president. The troops were ready to go and no secret meeting was necessary.
General Winfield Scott called out the Washington militia a day or so before the attack on Sumter.
I'm not sure what that would have entailed. How big would Washington militia be? And why is that any sort of a problem? The South Carolina militia was active and apparently mobilized months before, back in 1860. With such a momentous crisis wouldn't it have been surprising if measures weren't taken to secure the capital?
Lincoln knew sending the fleet to Sumter would provoke a shooting war. IMO, that basically was his intention.
Just your opinion. Others disagree. And of course, any war would require Davis's cooperation.
That is why he planned his expedition to Sumter in secret and did not reconvene Congress until July. He did not want Congress to interfere with his plans.
No commander-in-chief wants legislators meddling in real-time military or diplomatic maneuvers, if he can help it.
It's probably time to get beyond your assumptions, though. In crisis situations there are various gambits and maneuvers available to presidents and generals. The notion that a mild resupply mission demanded a violent response just doesn't work any more, given all that we've learned about stand-off situations over the years.
But this is a bit confusing. It was the most momentous moment in the country's history and Congress wasn't in session? They adjourned for some reason or other of their own and you'd expect Lincoln to summon them back into session to interfere in a delicate situation?
A bit of an exaggeration. It might be more accurate to say that the South sent a delegation to deliver their demands to be recognized. Only if Lincoln caved was there a vague offer to discuss "matters and subjects interesting to both nations." So if paying for the stuff they stole wasn't interesting to the Confederacy then it wasn't open for discussion.
I know editing wikipedia is plowing the sea, but sometimes it has useful information.
Hope someone who knows more than me edits it to put that in.
Have you ever been to Charleston? That fort would stop all shipping.
By moving to Fort Sumter Anderson in effect broke Buchanan's promise and Anderson's last instruction from the Secretary of War (dictated by Buchanan).
That was the breach of faith; a faith made by Buchanan, a lying Democrat slaver himself? A lie made to his cabinet in order to keep cabinet members? That is Rich!
Buchanan slumped into a chair. "My God!" he cried wearily. "Are calamities ... never to come singly! I call God to witness -- you gentlemen better than anybody else know that this is not only without but against my orders. It is against my policy."
And Buchanan, the Democrat slaver President didnt bother to dismiss Anderson, the man who supposedly was responsible for the war.
LOL. Perhaps you don't know that the New York Times was a thoroughly Republican newspaper back then
Totally unbelievable considering the NYT article you source is so sympathetic to the Democrat slavers cause.
or that on many matters the Republican and Democrat Parties (and the NY Times) have switched political philosophies, with the exception of race, since those times.
Yeppers, Ill agree with you somewhat there; except they have not switched; both Parties have gotten worse. The Republicans have grown spineless in support of their philosophy; with the exception of most Tea Party members. The philosophy of the Democrats slavers is now a, I reiterate, anti-God, anti Bible, slaughter the unborn by the millions, etc., a straight up evil Party.
President Lincoln in deciding the Sumter question had adopted a simple but effective policy. To use his own words, he determined to "send bread to Anderson"; if the rebels fired on that, they would not be able to convince the world that he had begun the civil war."
So what this tells me is that Lincoln also wanted to win the propaganda war that the Democrat slavers started; thank you for proving my point.
I repeat, think about it; you are defending Democrat slavers of today by defending the Democrat slavers history. You would do better to remind Democrat slaver of their history of not only slavery, but of their racism, their KKK, their Progressive to socialists, communism, their hatred for god and Bible, their holocaust of babies, etc. Before I respond to anything else, I have but one question for you; why would you want to defend the Democrat slavers of then and now?
Only a fool views the 19th century thru a 21st century microscope. Lincoln was a racist of the highest order. Today he would be in line with the Klan.
So, fool, then why are you judging Lincoln by 21st century standards of racism?
LOL! That is rich. So what does that make of the Democrat slavers? Or do you wish to keep on defending their history, and so defend today's Democrat slavers?
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.