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.
Finding the truth in your posts is a never-ending struggle.
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.
There was no legal authority for the colonists. They launched a rebellion against the crown and any British assets they seized were spoils of war. Legal ownership was not established until the Treaty of Paris.
So again, are you saying the South launched a rebellion and illegally seized federal property?
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.
If they had the power to win their rebellion. You keep forgetting that part.
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."
You are entitled to your own opinions, of course. But "rebellion" is defined as "open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government." It obvious that the Southern actions meet that definition.
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.
Or was it that the Colonists had a better motivation for their rebellion - governing themselves - than the Southerners had for their's - slavery?
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.
If I tell someone that you are going to turn your house over to them and then you point out that I didn't have the right to speak for you and that you aren't obligated to follow through on my promise then are you stealing your house?
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.
Of course you won't. Documenting your claims has never been your strong suit.
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?
Yes, six of them. And the troops were their for reinforcing the fort if the resupply effort was opposed. It's all there in the letter Lincoln sent to Pickens.
I believe the ordinary complement of the Powhatan was something around 300 men.
Roughly. So take the 289 men on the Powhatan and the 200 troops on the Baltic and you're only about 1900 men shy of the claimed amount. Where were they?
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.
But right on the hundreds of cannon and thousands of men?
Oh, you've found Lincoln's order?
His intent is right there in the Pickens letter.