BroJoeK: What's wrong with "me too"? You should try it sometime. its boring and not informative....posting to post rather than for any other reason.
BroJoeK: Now that's just pure slothful ignorance on your part, you don't get away with that. Which Adams? Which states? What date? What circumstances? FYI: I've never seen a quote from any Adams on any date recommending secession for any states under any circumstances. Indeed, I'd almost guarantee that whatever quote you think you have is certainly phony baloney, plastic banana, good time B.S.
Jesus H. Christ. Try reading rather than just responding to respond some time. https://www.loc.gov/item/14020002/ This is not the first time I've posted it.
BroJoeK: And almost nobody in 1860 recommended military action just to stop secession. As Lincoln said, Confederates could only have war if they themselves started it.
No, what he said was to hand over tax money or he'd use violence against them.
BroJoeK: Only if Confederates chose to take it that way, which of course they did.
Your money or your life. There will be no violence unless you refuse to hand over your money. See? I didn't start it, Officer. I'm innocent.
BroJoeK: It's true, Lincoln did not recognize secession as legitimate and so the Federal government must continue to function in those states. But he did promise the Union would not start Civil War which I think offered a genuine chance for peace.
The same chance for peace I offered you above. Your money or your life. I really DO mean there will be no violence so long as you hand your wallet over to me. See? I gave you a chance for peace.
BroJoeK Some points here: Lincoln never considered Confederates a "sovereign power". Lincoln did not think his resupply mission to Fort Sumter "assailed" much less "attacked" Confederates. Lincoln did consider Jefferson Davis' attack on Fort Sumter an act or aggression and rebellion.
Well of course HE claimed it wasn't aggression, HE claimed sending a heavily armed fleet was merely a "resupply mission" and claimed firing to drive an armed invader away was aggression. Surprise Surprise.
BroJoeK: Jefferson Davis, by his own words, intended to start war at Fort Sumter or Pickens, or both, based on "other considerations", namely flipping Virginia and the Upper South.
No he didn't. He would have been perfectly happy to go along on his merry way without ever firing a shot had Lincoln not sent a heavily armed fleet into the CSA's sovereign territory in an effort to collect taxes from them.
BroJoeK: He promised there'd only be violence if Confederates started it. Once again we should note that excluding New Orleans, tariffs collected at Confederate ports accounted for less than 2% of Federal revenues. With New Orleans included, that rises to 6%, hardly a matter of life & death for the Union.
Riiiight. And there will only be violence if you do not hand over your wallet to me. Therefore I'm not the aggressor. Oh and you have GOT to be kidding in thinking that the percentages of where the tariffs are collected in any way reflects the value generated in that port. In other words, were the CSA to go its own way - even just the original 7 seceding states - the amount of exports generated for the USA would be dramatically slashed. Thus also the amount of tariffs paid in New York would correspondingly be slashed. EVERYBODY knew this. I've posted umpteen articles and quotes by historians, politicians at the time, Northern newspapers etc all saying it.
BroJoeK: Many sovereign countries have tolerated foreign presence on their soil without resorting to war to remove it. Most notably, the United States tolerated dozens of British forts and trading stations in US territory, some for decades after the 1783 Treaty of Paris. This map shows only some and they were decidedly hostile, supporting Indians and leading to arguably the greatest defeat in US history, St. Clair's Massacre, 1791. My point is: our Founders decided not to declare war on Britain despite British forts & support for Northwest Indians. By contrast, Confederates decided to go to war over a small unit of Union troops doing them no harm.
If you mean to imply that George Washington or that the 13 colonies would have tolerated the British maintaining a large garrison in the middle of New York Harbor - along with an expressed objective of collecting taxes from the colonies at said fort - I will to ask that you submit to a drug test before posting further.
BroJoeK: Lincoln intended to resupply Fort Sumter peacefully, if possible, and to learn from that if Jefferson Davis intended to start war. Turns out, he did.
Lincoln intended to start a war. His letter to his naval commander, his letter to a friend and the words of his personal secretaries all confirm this.
"Lincoln and the First Shot" (in Reassessing the Presidency, edited by John Denson), John Denson painstakingly shows how Lincoln maneuvered the Confederates into firing the first shot at Fort Sumter. As the Providence Daily Post wrote on April 13, 1861, "Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor" by reprovisioning Fort Sumter. On the day before that the Jersey City American Statesman wrote that "This unarmed vessel, it is well understood, is a mere decoy to draw the first fire from the people of the South." Lincoln's personal secretaries, John Nicolay and John Hay, clearly stated after the war that Lincoln successfully duped the Confederates into firing on Fort Sumter. And as Shelby Foote wrote in The Civil War, "Lincoln had maneuvered [the Confederates] into the position of having either to back down on their threats or else to fire the first shot of the war."
Had they not fired, Lincoln would have only sent more and more expeditions to occupy more and more forts until he was able to control all ports and strategic locations. It was very obvious at the time even to Northerners that Lincoln was the one who really started it.BroJoeK: But you draw the wrong conclusion -- Lincoln's point is not that he intended his resupply mission to fail, but rather that even if it failed, it was still a valuable effort. Why? Because it smoked out Jefferson Davis' intentions regarding war & peace.
it was valuable to Lincoln because it started the war he wanted. Without that, Sumter would have been handed over peacefully, the original 7 seceding states would have gone their separate way peacefully and there would have been no war.
BroJoeK: Most of which didn't leave port until after Davis ordered his assault on Fort Sumter, None of which arrived before Beauregard demanded Anderson's surrender -- an act of war. None of which were visible, miles off shore at night, before Confederate gunners were ordered to "reduce" Fort Sumter. Only two were on site as the sun rose April 12: 1) the Revenue Cutter Harriet Lane, 734 tons, six small guns, crew of 95, no troops, and 2) Fox's transport SS Baltic, 2,700 tons, no guns, about 200 troops. Neither ship became involved in the action at Fort Sumter. That makes claims they were instrumental totally bogus.
Lincoln let it be known he was sending a heavily armed fleet to force its way into South Carolina's sovereign territory. He then sent it. You do not have to wait until the burglar has actually set foot in your house to start defending yourself. Once he comes onto your property armed and starts breaking down your front door, you are perfectly within your rights to defend yourself. Firing a warning shot which doesn't hurt him but scares him off hardly makes you the aggressor.
BroJoeK: Nonsense, and that kind of talk is just you Democrats doing what you Democrats always do -- accuse Republicans of your own worst impulses. In fact, Davis' own words show he planned to start war at Fort Sumter or Fort Pickens or both. Lincoln's goal was simply to maintain the forts and give Davis the opportunity to show if he wanted war. Turns out, he did.
Horse crap. That is just what you Leftists doing what you always do - lie obfuscate and then project - accusing others of exactly what you yourselves are guilty of. Lincoln's goal was to start a war and that's exactly what he did.
BroJoeK: So the Lost Cause's ludicrous argument is that Lincoln somehow "tricked" Davis into starting war when in fact Davis knew perfectly well what he was doing and would have started war anyway, regardless of what Lincoln did or didn't do.
Several historians have said the same as did both of Lincoln's personal secretaries as I posted above. It is rather you PC Revisionists who try to deny the obvious - that Lincoln knowingly started the war and that he did it for money.
BroJoeK: Sure, the anti-Republican media will always put the worst possible spin on a Republican president. But this remains the "Lincoln tricked Davis" argument and the facts show Davis was in no way "tricked" but knew exactly what he was doing. Davis' only real mistake was in not realizing that two Illinoisians -- Lincoln & Grant -- would make a mess of Davis' war plans.
Funny how you automatically claim all of the voluminous quotes from Northern newspapers I cited were anti Lincoln....and you conveniently leave out a lot of those quotes whenever you pick one to respond to. IMO, I wouldn't say Lincoln "tricked" Davis so much as "forced" Davis to act in his country's defense. Davis had no choice here.
BroJoeK: Sure, from the Confederate perspective, but from Lincoln's it was the opposite. In order to maintain President Buchanan's pledge to defend Fort Sumter, Lincoln had to resupply Maj. Anderson, or surrender. As Jefferson Davis put it: "There would be to us an advantage in so placing them that an attack by them would be a necessity, but when we are ready to relieve our territory and jurisdiction of the presence of a foreign garrison that advantage is overbalanced by other considerations." Those "considerations" being Davis' need to bring more states to the Confederacy.
From the perspectives of historians, from the perspectives of Northern newspapers at the time, from the perspectives of Lincoln's own personal secretaries - not just from the Confederates' perspective.
Lincoln started the war. He did so knowingly and deliberately. He did so for money. President Davis and the original 7 states of the CSA would have been perfectly happy to depart in peace. It was Lincoln who chose to make war.
BroJoeK: I agree that Confederates took that as a "declaration of war" because like all Democrats they put the worst spin possible on Republican words. But they didn't have to, they could have found a more conciliatory approach. Of course if you ever did such a thing, then you wouldn't be true Democrats, now would you?
Its just like you Leftists to project your own faults/crimes onto others.....to attribute the evil motives to others that you yourselves harbor. Lincoln chose to start a war. He did so knowingly and he did it for money.
BroJoeK: There's that word "tricked" again, but nobody was "tricked" because Davis knew exactly what he was doing, and chose a war that was not strictly necessary.
As I've said, I don't agree with the word "tricked" either. "forced" is a much more accurate description.
BroJoeK: As for "reeking havoc" that's the most ludicrous argument of them all. In fact, revenues from Charleston Harbor amounted to two tenths of one percent of total tariff revenues, so it would cost Washington more to collect those revenues than they were worth. As for Fort Pickens in Florida, there were no revenues there. So your claims here are pure nonsense.
You really do outdo yourself in failing to understand economics. The Southern states were generating the vast majority of the cash crops that were exported. Exports were exchanged for imports. That those imports first landed in New York does not mean New York generated that trade. It was merely where the goods were shipped from and the tariffs collected. Had the Southern states gone their own way and shipped out of their own port and imported back into their own ports instead...ie exactly what they would have done....NY and the US would have been out a huge amount of trade and a huge amount of tariff money. I've posted a bazillion sources - including Northern ones - all saying this. Oh and Fort Pickens sits on Santa Rosa Island which is controls access to Pensacola. That was a much more important port at the time than it is now.
BroJoeK: Curious there's no date or specific edition for this alleged editorial, looks dubious to me. But even if we accept it as "pro-Lincoln propaganda", it is just as nonsensical as others because the amount of actual revenue coming from Charleston Harbor was miniscule. Indeed, except for New Orleans, the entire Confederacy had supplied under 2% of US tariff revenues and with New Orleans included it was just 6%. So in no way was that loss the disaster this editorial claimed.
One can only bow before your towering ignorance of economics.
BroJoeK: Of course, when Fire Eaters declared secession they said at the time it was indeed "all about slavery". Economic issues months later don't change that.
Of course this is false. Only 4 states issued declarations of causes. Of those, 3 of the 4 went on at length about the economic reasons even though that was not unconstitutional (and in the case of Texas failure to provide border security as well) while refusal to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the constitution was unconstitutional. The Upper South seceded only AFTER Licoln started the war and ordered them to provide troops to attack other states.
BroJoeK: Absolutely false. This link and this link give long lists of quotes on reasons Davis needed war in April 1861. There's plenty enough to demonstrate that Davis was in no way "tricked" into war.
I agree, he wasn't tricked. He was forced. The notion that the original 7 seceding states somehow "needed" others is absurd. They were generating a huge portion of the total exports of the whole country. They knew they stood to gain a lot of money were they independent and no longer subject to the taxes levied on them to line Northerners' pockets.
FLT-bird:
"Jesus H. Christ." Somehow I doubt if He will help you when you address Him like that.
FLT-bird: "No, what he [Lincoln] said was to hand over tax money or he'd use violence against them."
Lincoln promised to do his job as President, a matter of some importance to those who elected him.
He also promised there'd be no use of force:
"While the strict legal right may exist in the government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable with all, that I deem it better to forego, for the time, the uses of such offices."
So there was an olive branch for anyone who wanted to accept it.
FLT-bird: "Your money or your life.
There will be no violence unless you refuse to hand over your money.
See? I didn't start it, Officer. I'm innocent."
Federal revenues from Charleston Harbor were miniscule, a matter of negotiation for anyone who wanted peace.
FLT-bird: "The same chance for peace I offered you above. Your money or your life.
I really DO mean there will be no violence so long as you hand your wallet over to me.
See? I gave you a chance for peace."
Nonsense.
Our Internal Revenue Service does insist I pay up, but it'll never threaten my life unless I go insane and start killing them.
FLT-bird: "Well of course HE claimed it wasn't aggression, HE claimed sending a heavily armed fleet was merely a "resupply mission" and claimed firing to drive an armed invader away was aggression.
Surprise Surprise."
But there was no "heavily armed fleet" when Jefferson Davis ordered Fort Sumter be "reduced", so that's all nonsense.
FLT-bird on Jefferson Davis: "No he didn't.
He would have been perfectly happy to go along on his merry way without ever firing a shot had Lincoln not sent a heavily armed fleet into the CSA's sovereign territory in an effort to collect taxes from them."
Lincoln's resupply ships had nothing to do with tax collection.
So your words are typical Democrat lies, because you refuse to read & comprehend what Davis actually said, now posted several times on this thread alone.
Davis clearly intended to capture both Sumter and Pickens, by force if necessary, even if Davis had to attack them.
Here is another example where your Lost Cause Myth is simply a fact-free zone.
FLT-bird: "you have GOT to be kidding in thinking that the percentages of where the tariffs are collected in any way reflects the value generated in that port."
In 1860 about one tenth of one percent of US tariffs were collected at Charleston Harbor.
There's no reason to think that number would be any different in 1861 or later.
So taxes were irrelevant to events at Fort Sumter.
FLT-bird: "In other words, were the CSA to go its own way - even just the original 7 seceding states - the amount of exports generated for the USA would be dramatically slashed.
Thus also the amount of tariffs paid in New York would correspondingly be slashed.
EVERYBODY knew this"
Right, you'd think exports would decline about 50% with the loss of Confederate cotton.
And, in 1861 US exports did decline from lost cotton, but it wasn't 50% decline, only 35% and the reason is other commodities increased their exports.
By 1865 Union tariff receipts had doubled over 1860.
Point is, Fort Sumter wasn't "all about money".
Money was a secondary issue at best.
FLT-bird: "If you mean to imply that George Washington or that the 13 colonies would have tolerated the British maintaining a large garrison in the middle of New York Harbor - along with an expressed objective of collecting taxes from the colonies at said fort - I will to ask that you submit to a drug test before posting further."
You might want to check your own blood-alcohol levels, because General Washington certainly did tolerate the British in New York for years after their "unconditional surrender" at Yorktown and for months after they agreed to withdraw by treaty.
Further, Fort Sumter had nothing to do with collecting taxes, so forget that.
The real distinction is that Fort Sumter was totally harmless to Confederates whereas British forts in Ohio & Michigan supplied & supported Indians who attacked American settlers & militia.
St. Clair's defeat in 1791 cost ~1,000 US lives, the largest bulk of the US Army at that time.
No battle in the Revolutionary War exceeded the US numbers killed in St. Clair's defeat and no battle in American history exceeded the percent killed vs. total US Army.
And yet, our Founders didn't declare war over those British forts.
Instead years later they sent John Jay to Paris negotiate their withdrawal, in 1796.
So our Founders could no-way be happy about British forts on US territory, but they did not insanely start a war they couldn't win over it.
This map shows nearly a dozen British forts in New York, Ohio and Michigan after the 1783 Treaty of Paris.
FLT-bird: "As the Providence Daily Post wrote on April 13, 1861, 'Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor' by reprovisioning Fort Sumter."
Of course anti-Republicans, Democrats always put the worst spin possible on whatever a Republican President does.
But that was not in fact Lincoln's intention.
FLT-bird: "Had they not fired, Lincoln would have only sent more and more expeditions to occupy more and more forts until he was able to control all ports and strategic locations."
Not necessarily, peace could have produced surprising results, enough to support those who wanted to, ahem, "give peace a chance."
FLT-bird: "Without that, Sumter would have been handed over peacefully, the original 7 seceding states would have gone their separate way peacefully and there would have been no war."
A complete lie since Davis already ordered Bragg to start war at Fort Pickens, regardless of what happened at Sumter.
FLT-bird: "Lincoln let it be known he was sending a heavily armed fleet to force its way into South Carolina's sovereign territory.
He then sent it."
Right, Davis ordered Fort Sumter be "reduced" not because Fort Sumter fired on Confederates, not because a "war fleet" arrived in Charleston Harbor, not because a "war fleet" had even set sail, but because Davis received Lincoln's notification that Lincoln intended to resupply Fort Sumter.
It was a simple piece of paper that drove Davis insane.
Typical Democrat.
FLT-bird: "Several historians have said the same as did both of Lincoln's personal secretaries as I posted above.
It is rather you PC Revisionists who try to deny the obvious - that Lincoln knowingly started the war and that he did it for money."
Jefferson Davis never claimed he was "tricked", that should matter to you.
After the war Davis also said the next time they'd wait for the Union to start it.
Are you calling Davis a liar?
As for "he did it for money" that is only a fantasy of Lost Cause liars and other Marxists.
FLT-bird: "Funny how you automatically claim all of the voluminous quotes from Northern newspapers I cited were anti Lincoln....and you conveniently leave out a lot of those quotes whenever you pick one to respond to. "
Sorry, I thought I'd methodically demolished all your alleged quotes.
So please feel free to point out any in inadvertently missed.
Now I'm out of time, must run...
