Replies

Union fort, Union troops, Union resupply mission.

And there is the crux of it; The fundamental disagreement around which all else revolves.

If you believe, as the Declaration of Independence clearly states, that people have a right to "dissolve the political bonds" then the property belongs to the people who reside there.

If you believe that the Declaration of Independence is incorrect, then the property remains that of whatever entity was the current governing authority.

Now BroJoeK doesn't want to admit that he believes the Declaration of Independence is incorrect. He uses the dodge that it didn't specify "at pleasure", while I point out "consent of the governed" (which it does explicitly state) is factually equivalent to "at pleasure."

To shore up his weak argument, he uses the "sour grapes" technique, and claims the Declaration of Independence was a document with no legal standing, and therefore it is irrelevant what it says. (The grapes were sour anyways.)

Bro, you are wrong on both counts. You just want to believe what you wish to believe, and you will fudge or massage any factual information to fit into the framework of your belief system.

I've said many times, you have no objectivity, and so it is literally pointless to engage in discussion with you.

Oh, and it wasn't a "resupply mission". It was a military confrontation mission that the master of politics repeatedly described as a "resupply" mission.

To quote his own words " Just because you call a tail a leg, doesn't make it so."

DiogenesLamp: "If you believe, as the Declaration of Independence clearly states, that people have a right to "dissolve the political bonds" then the property belongs to the people who reside there. "

Sorry, FRiend, but you just cannot make your case without lying, and your lies begin right here.
The truth is neither the 1776 Declaration nor any Founder every claimed an unlimited "right to secede" at pleasure.

The legal analogy is clear and simple.
You have an absolute right, recognized in every law, to defend yourself against attack.
But it must be a real, actual attack, not just a snowflake's response to microaggressions.

Consider an example: a man is killed and another charged with premeditated murder.
The defendant pleads "not guilty" on grounds of self defense, "he attacked me".
But what exactly was the "attack" -- did he attack with a gun, a knife, a baseball bat?
No, says the defendant, "he micro-aggressed and I felt discriminated against".

Ladies & gentlemen of the jury, what is your verdict?

That's exactly the way our Founders felt about disunion and it's why they went to such lengths to explain it for the "opinions of mankind".

DiogenesLamp: "If you believe that the Declaration of Independence is incorrect, then the property remains that of whatever entity was the current governing authority."

Total nonsense, the Declaration is not "incorrect", only DiogenesLamp is!
You have only projected your own fantasies onto our Founders and their documents.

DiogenesLamp: "Now BroJoeK doesn't want to admit that he believes the Declaration of Independence is incorrect.
He uses the dodge that it didn't specify "at pleasure", while I point out "consent of the governed" (which it does explicitly state) is factually equivalent to "at pleasure." "

And yet more nonsense.
"Consent of the governed", just like "all men are created equal" is their ideal, not their justification to the "decent respect to the opinions of mankind".
Their justifications for disunion begin with words like "necessary", "destructive" and "a long train of abuses and usurpations" and include a long list of legally actionable items, most notable:

"He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people."

That is legally just-cause for disunion, that makes our "murder" of the King's government a matter of self defense.
And nothing remotely similar existed in 1860.

DiogenesLamp: "To shore up his weak argument, he uses the "sour grapes" technique, and claims the Declaration of Independence was a document with no legal standing, and therefore it is irrelevant what it says. (The grapes were sour anyways.) "

And your lies just keep on coming!
That is total fantasy, I've never made an argument remotely similar.

DiogenesLamp: "Bro, you are wrong on both counts. You just want to believe what you wish to believe, and you will fudge or massage any factual information to fit into the framework of your belief system. "

FRiend, you are lying about everything!
You haven't posted even one sentence here which is even a little bit truthful.
So you live in a fantasy world of your own creation and I'm telling you, it's a form of mental illness.
You just must, must begin telling the truth.

DiogenesLamp: "I've said many times, you have no objectivity, and so it is literally pointless to engage in discussion with you. "

I am 100% objective, FRiend, it's you who live in the fantasy world of lies and self-deception.

DiogenesLamp: "Oh, and it wasn't a "resupply mission".
It was a military confrontation mission that the master of politics repeatedly described as a "resupply" mission. "

In February 1861, President Buchanan announced -- after secessionists demanded Fort Sumter's surrender and fired on his peaceful Star of the West resupply mission, forcing its failure -- Buchanan announced publicly that he would not give up Fort Sumter without a fight.
So Jefferson Davis was warned in February that his attempts to seize Fort Sumter would start a war.

And what did Davis do in response?
Two things: first the Confederate Congress authorized calling up 100,000 Confederate Army troops to oppose about 16,000 Union troops, most scattered in small forts out west.
Second, Davis ordered Confederate General Beauregard to begin preparations to seize Fort Sumter by force.

So, before Lincoln was even sworn into office, Davis had accepted President Buchanan's warning and begun preparations to start the war he already knew must follow.
Lincoln's resupply mission was hoped to repeat the 1858 show-of-force Paraguay mission, which accomplished its goals without firing a shot.
But Jefferson Davis needed war to grow his 7-state Confederacy and would not let this opportunity to start one pass:

"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."

"Other considerations" include: how does Davis get Virginians to flip from Union to Confederacy?
Answer: by starting war at Fort Sumter.