Tammy Bruce: Lincoln vs. Obama -- The incredible tale of two libraries

Once you step in it you can’t scrape it off.

Chuck your shoes in the ditch and run for it!!

lol

‘You act like that little bit you quoted actually refutes something or other.’

it did; it refuted the specific statement you made about Anderson getting ready to evacuate...

Fact: Sumter was the property of the U.S. government and the South had no legal claim to it.

All of the colonies were the property of U.K. government and the Colonists had no legal claim to it.

See how this works? We have to be consistent in how we apply whatever principle it is that we are applying.

What was the standard that Abraham Lincoln advocated?

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which, we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.

If you thought he was unclear about this point, he reiterated it again in 1852.

Resolved, 1. That it is the right of any people, sufficiently numerous for national independence, to throw off, to revolutionize, their existing form of government, and to establish such other in its stead as they may choose.

So in other words, he was "for it before he was against it", which is about what you would expect from a Race Obsessed Liberal Lawyer from Illinois.

Fact: the garrison at Sumter took no hostile actions against the Confederacy until they started the bombardment.

Other than leading them to believe all the forts were to be turned over to them, then in the middle of the night, spiking all the cannon and burning all their carriages while creeping in the dark to the never before garrisoned fort and taking it over.

The act of spiking and burning the cannons is something one does to an enemy. This was an overt acknowledgement that the Confederates were at that time viewed as enemies of the US Army. The confederates immediately saw it as a belligerent act.

The officers of the Union army also discussed turning Sumter's cannons on Charleston.

This in spite of at least two prior occurrences of rebel batteries firing on ships and in the face of the rebel attempt to starve them into surrender.

It wasn't "batteries", it was a bunch of Kids with a single cannon at the Citadel on the one occasion, and on the other occasion, it also wasn't "batteries", and those responsible were redressed for it. Some of the blame for that needs to fall on the stupid captain of the "Rhoda H. Shannon."

Fact: Lincoln made his intentions clear to Governor Pickens before the resupply effort sailed.

The Harriet Lane sailed at 10:00 on the morning of April the 8th. The letter to Governor Pickens was delivered after 6:00 PM on April the 8th.

Your "fact" is incorrect.

Only food and supplies would be landed and no men and munitions unless the resupply was opposed.

But they were taking along six ships armed with cannons, at least 200 riflemen, Mortars, powder, shot, rifles, and various other reinforcements of men and material. (According to one source, it amounted to "two hundred eighty-five guns and two thousand four hundred men".)

Winfield Scott's order explicitly states that the mission will be to reinforce Sumter.

Since the Confederates had been lied to/misled about the disposition of Ft. Sumter, why should they trust anything the Lincoln government said?

And on every occasion what you prefer things to be is, coincidentally, what you recognize them to be.

You have the cause and effect vice versa. I prefer things to be recognized as what they are. I prefer to not be manipulated by what people wish me to believe, but instead by what can be objectively seen as the truth.

‘So did you know about warships sailing to attack the Confederates?’

this is merely your opinion; if it is an ironclad fact, then prove the documentation, with Lincoln’s signature, saying so...you have not yet, and cannot...

‘So what would you do?’

what I wouldn’t do is fire upon someone who, though armed, has made no overtly hostile action towards me, because I was of the opinion that he might sometime later do so...and then whine about how I was ‘provoked’ into starting the hostilities...by the way, who is responsible for the long quote in your post; I didn’t see that you mentioned it...

this is merely your opinion; if it is an ironclad fact, then prove the documentation, with Lincoln’s signature, saying so...you have not yet, and cannot...

Seriously? This is the ground upon which you wish to make your stand? That 8 Ships with cannons and supplies decided to go to Sumter to there force a confrontation with the Confederates without Lincoln's direction?

The Orders to most of the ships were issued by members' of Lincoln's cabinet, and with his full authorization. The order for the Powhatan was issued specifically by Lincoln himself, and while we will likely not ever know what was his secret orders to Lieutenant Porter*, his order to relieve Captain Mercer of command is indeed possible to read.

what I wouldn’t do is fire upon someone who, though armed, has made no overtly hostile action towards me, because I was of the opinion that he might sometime later do so

When you know the ships have orders to use force against you, the probability moves towards infinite.

by the way, who is responsible for the long quote in your post; I didn’t see that you mentioned it...

https://books.google.com/books?id=_H0KAQAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

.

*Lieutenant Porter (two ranks below Captain in that era) apparently interpreted Lincoln's secret order as requiring him to disguise the Powhatan to the extent that people who knew her well could not recognize her, Put up a British Flag, sail her far out into the Atlantic, well away from any chance encounters with other US Navy ships, and then head for Florida where if he hadn't been stopped by Captain Meigs, he would have started a war there.

‘Other than leading them to believe all the forts were to be turned over to them’

if the Confederates were so easily duped, that’s their problem, isn’t it...? though it’s again nothing more than a matter of opinion, as everything is with you, as to whether Lincoln led them to believe any such thing...

‘The act of spiking and burning the cannons is something one does to an enemy.’

uh, not when you do it to your own guns...

‘The confederates immediately saw it as a belligerent act.’

so, what you’re basically stating is that the Confederacy, thinking themselves to be in mortal danger because they hadn’t been fired upon by the gunboats, and in the case of Moultrie could not physically be fired upon, and because they were angered after being duped by Anderson’s desperate gamble of occupying Sumter, decided to kick off a civil war by firing the first shot...does that about sum up your argument...?

‘That 8 Ships with cannons and supplies decided to go to Sumter to there force a confrontation with the Confederates without Lincoln’s direction?’

prove that statement beyond all doubt (which you will not, and indeed, cannot) and you will have won the argument; failing that, mere conjecture on your part, like the rest of the nonsense you post...and I see that none other than Alexander Stephens, Jeff Davis’ errand boy, made that quote; wow, you sure have convinced me now...

See how this works? We have to be consistent in how we apply whatever principle it is that we are applying.

So you're saying the South launched an armed rebellion and illegally seized the property belonging to the U.S.?

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which, we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.

Yeah you all love dredging that quote up and twisting the meaning far from what Lincoln intended. But pleased as I am at you admitting that the Southern actions were, in fact, a rebellion I would point out that the South may have been inclined to rise up and shake off the existing government, they lacked the power and the desire to win.

Other than leading them to believe all the forts were to be turned over to them, then in the middle of the night, spiking all the cannon and burning all their carriages while creeping in the dark to the never before garrisoned fort and taking it over.

Acting in the face of hostile intentions on the part of the rebels in Charleston, denying them the use of arms they planned to steal, and moving to a fort which was part of Anderson's command.

The act of spiking and burning the cannons is something one does to an enemy.

So is threatening an assault on a federal facility. Regardless, they spiked and burned their own equipment, not equipment belonging to South Carolina. How is that something done to an enemy?

This was an overt acknowledgement that the Confederates were at that time viewed as enemies of the US Army. The confederates immediately saw it as a belligerent act.

It was acknowledgement of the hostile intent of the Charleston mob, which would be seen as a belligerent act as well. One predating the burning and the spiking.

The officers of the Union army also discussed turning Sumter's cannons on Charleston.

So you say. But did they?

It wasn't "batteries", it was a bunch of Kids with a single cannon at the Citadel on the one occasion, and on the other occasion, it also wasn't "batteries", and those responsible were redressed for it. Some of the blame for that needs to fall on the stupid captain of the "Rhoda H. Shannon."

Not the idiots in charge of the rebel batteries? All he did was sail into port. How was he to know that rebels were looking for an excuse to perform yet another belligerent act?

The Harriet Lane sailed at 10:00 on the morning of April the 8th. The letter to Governor Pickens was delivered after 6:00 PM on April the 8th.

The Baltic and Pawnee left on the 9th. The Pocahontas left on the 10th. They carried the supplies and the men.

But they were taking along six ships armed with cannons, at least 200 riflemen, Mortars, powder, shot, rifles, and various other reinforcements of men and material. (According to one source, it amounted to "two hundred eighty-five guns and two thousand four hundred men".)

Stephens also claims there were eleven ships. But of the ships headed for Charleston, the Pocahontas carried 6 cannon, the Harriett Lane carried 6 cannon, the Baltic was unarmed, and the Pawnee carries 10 cannon. Where were the other 263 cannon? Not to mention the 2400 men?

Winfield Scott's order explicitly states that the mission will be to reinforce Sumter.

Lincoln's orders were to land supplies.

You can look up something you want, but you are incapable of looking up the orders in the official record that you don't want to see?

And I should take you seriously why?

if the Confederates were so easily duped, that’s their problem, isn’t it...?

Well let's see. According to Abner Doubleday, we had the Secretary of War John Floyd telling them that the forts were to be turned over to them, We had Seward saying so, and we had one or two Supreme Court justices telling the Southern delegates that the fort would be evacuated. Additionally, the "National Republican" newspaper announced on March 11 that the fort would be evacuated.

Yes, they are pretty stupid to believe all those people about turning over the forts to them.

uh, not when you do it to your own guns...

When you have been telling people that they will be their guns, it has a different effect. One effect is that they think you are a liar about the one thing or the other, perhaps both.

so, what you’re basically stating is that the Confederacy, thinking themselves to be in mortal danger because they hadn’t been fired upon by the gunboats, and in the case of Moultrie could not physically be fired upon, and because they were angered after being duped by Anderson’s desperate gamble of occupying Sumter, decided to kick off a civil war by firing the first shot...does that about sum up your argument...?

Since you think the only thing that matters is the "first shot", I will now inform you that the Harriet Lane fired the first shot (32 pounder) against the "Nashville" before any shots were fired against Sumter.

I think having one of your ships shot at by another ship known to be part of a belligerent expedition in force is a pretty good indication that those ships are coming with hostile intent.

So you're saying the South launched an armed rebellion and illegally seized the property belonging to the U.S.?

You just keep trying to force truth to bend to your will.

What I am saying is that the legal authority of ownership for the property is the same for the Colonists as it was for the Confederates.

You would have us use one standard for the Colonies, and a completely different, made up standard for the Confederates.

If the Colonists were legally entitled to the Property that used to belong to King George, then the Confederates were legally entitled to the property that used to belong to their rulers in Washington DC.

Yeah you all love dredging that quote up and twisting the meaning far from what Lincoln intended.

I think Lincoln can speak for himself. He said he believed any people anywhere had a right to independence and had a right to the land which they inhabited. Trying to insert the meaning "except for South Carolina" is just another of your attempts to bend reality to your will.

But pleased as I am at you admitting that the Southern actions were, in fact, a rebellion

Now you are attempting to shove Lincoln's words into my mouth. I've long maintained that the "rebellion" was denying the fundamental foundation of our own government as outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln was the "rebel."

a rebellion I would point out that the South may have been inclined to rise up and shake off the existing government, they lacked the power and the desire to win.

I would point out that they put up a far greater fight, and with far greater sacrifice than did the colonists in their effort to get King George III to leave them alone. They just had a more dictatorial adversary than did the Colonists.

Acting in the face of hostile intentions on the part of the rebels in Charleston, denying them the use of arms they planned to steal, and moving to a fort which was part of Anderson's command.

When you tell them this material will be turned over to them, and then you burn it, "they" are not the ones doing the stealing.

So you say. But did they?

Why don't you read the messages yourself? You can start here. You'll have to go through them until you find it, but i'm not going to look it up for you.

The Baltic and Pawnee left on the 9th. The Pocahontas left on the 10th. They carried the supplies and the men.

The Harriet Lane was carrying some of the cannons, and it was the first to open fire on the other side. Also what need of 200 riflemen would a "resupply mission" require?

I believe the ordinary complement of the Powhatan was something around 300 men.

Stephens also claims there were eleven ships.

So far as I can tell, he is wrong about that, but given the fact that I keep getting surprised about details that have been ignored in the official narrative, I shall not be surprised to find out there is some basis for his statement. I suspect he is adding up the ships for the Pickens expedition with the Sumter expedition, but I don't know for sure. The List of potential ships originally supplied to Lincoln was far more extensive than what was actually used.

Lincoln's orders were to land supplies.

Oh, you've found Lincoln's order? Well then turn it over to "Irish Brigade" because he's been asking for it. The only order that came from Lincoln of which I am aware regarding those ships was the order relieving Captain Mercer from command of the Powhatan and the secret order giving Lieutenant Porter command of it.

So far as I know, all other orders issued to the ships came through cabinet members.

Those said to use force if necessary.

When I first became interested in politics, I researched various subjects and their history in politics. I found out that virtually all of our terrible Supreme Court decisions kept tracing back to the 14th amendment.

Were they really all terrible decisions?

The 14th amendment was virtually used to justify every liberal wet dream the Black Robed kooks could dream up.

It's possible to argue that the amendment could have been drafted better or applied better, but I don't think you understand the history involved.

Why did we get the 14th Amendment? And why did it become so significant 50 or 60 years ago (90 or 100 years after the Civil War)?

Were they really all terrible decisions?

Abortion? 1973, Roe v Wade? Was that a terrible decision?

Yes, I think so. It was a horrible decision.

Gay Marriage? Yes, that was a horrible decision, and it was based on the "equal protection clause" of the 14th amendment.

Banning prayer in public schools? Horrible decision based on the incorporation doctrine of the 14th amendment.

Anchor babies? Terrible decision, based on the 14th amendment citizenship.

Wrecking "natural born citizen"? Yes, the 14th did that.

I used to have a better memory, and I could tell you more bad decisions and how they came out of the 14th, but I have forgotten much of what I used to know. Anyways, pretty much every rotten decision that came out of the Supreme Court was a consequence of the 14th amendment.

It's possible to argue that the amendment could have been drafted better or applied better, but I don't think you understand the history involved.

I've read the debates on the 14th in congress. Some of their earlier draft verbiage is better than what they ended up with. Yes, the main problem with the 14th is it is badly worded and badly thought out.

It may have been intended to have a noble purpose, but they botched the writing of it. The Civil Rights act of 1866 was better worded and clearer in meaning.

Why did we get the 14th Amendment?

I used to believe we got the 14th because people were doing something noble for the downtrodden, but I have become so cynical I now believe that it was written to insure a newly created voting block could continue to reliably vote for the people in power at that time.

And why did it become so significant 50 or 60 years ago (90 or 100 years after the Civil War)?

Because the later parts of it were so badly written and so badly thought out that activist Judges could drive a truck through it. They could enact their own personal opinions, and claim it was justified because of the incorporation doctrine of the 14th.

They could get anything they wanted out of the verbiage merely by construing what they wanted as a result out of the broad canvas of power it provided.

any relation to Paul Ryan??

Anyways, pretty much every rotten decision that came out of the Supreme Court was a consequence of the 14th amendment.

Was Brown v. Board of Education rotten?

And were Dred Scott v. Sandford or Plessy v. Ferguson good decisions?

Because the later parts of it were so badly written and so badly thought out that activist Judges could drive a truck through it. They could enact their own personal opinions, and claim it was justified because of the incorporation doctrine of the 14th.

The right answer to why we got the 14th Amendment and why it became so important is "segregation," but the judges would settle for "lynching."

Was Brown v. Board of Education rotten?

I do not normally contemplate Brown v. Board of Education. My recollection from what I have read is that the legal reasoning behind it is pretty terrible, and it's pleading by Thurgood Marshall was won on emotion only.

Given what an idiot he turned out to be on later court decisions, I can believe his arguments in Brown were not very well thought out.

But emotion often wins minds where reason cannot.

And were Dred Scott v. Sandford or Plessy v. Ferguson good decisions?

Of the two, only Plessy v. Ferguson was after the 14th amendment, and it set up the ridiculous "separate but equal" doctrine. Dred Scott v. Sandford was essentially correct for the law at that time, but was erroneous in stating that blacks could not be citizens. That part was clearly wrong.

The right answer to why we got the 14th Amendment and why it became so important is "segregation," but the judges would settle for "lynching."

I think most of that had to do with this group of people constantly voting to keep Republicans in power, and most of the people in the South at that time saw them (the Republicans) as the people who were responsible for killing about 28% of their friends, relatives and acquaintances, and who were at that time keeping their foot on everyone's necks.

I have become cynical. I don't think either the Republicans or the Democrats gave a sh*t about black folk, they just used them as weapons in their ongoing war.

I don't think either the Republicans or the Democrats gave a sh*t about black folk, they just used them as weapons in their ongoing war.

Or maybe that's just you.

*

You ever notice how some people have a knack for cutting through all the chaff and chatter and reducing things down to their purest essence? And then there are those like DegenerateLamp who are compelled to reduce it another step to unintelligible goo?