Replies

...that Lincoln arrested Supreme Court Justices who didn't agree with him - is clearly wrong and I would like to challenge you to name those that he did arrest...

No, I think I'll stand by that statement because I made it in response to your claim that justices - plural - who disagreed with Lincoln were thrown in jail. In fact, Taney spent not a moment in prison is due to the fact that he was never in any danger of arrest. The stories that Lincoln swore out an arrest warrent are based on Ward Lamont's stories. I have never seen a copy of the warrant or any solid evidence that it ever existed. Now what other Supreme Court justices were jailed?

The commander at Sumter had informed Washington in March that he would have to surrender within 6 weeks if his command was not reprovisioned. What little food was coming from shore ended on the orders of the confederate government on April 2nd. Your claim is false.

I think that I'll stick by this claim, too, because it is supported by numerous books and websites. Lincoln's own correspondence to Winfield Scott on March 9th, to William Seward on March 15th, and to Major Anderson through Simon Cameron on April 4th all reference supplies. If dry stores were scarce to begin with, and Major Anderson's correspondence seems to indicate that they were, then fresh supplies would not last long after they were cut off. Ending the supply of food to the fort on April 2nd would have put the garrison on very short rations within a week or so.

Davis' departure speech

That speech was made on January 21 before Davis was faced with the task of building his so-called nation. In light of the fact that he ignored the advice of Robert Toombs, who accurately identified the affect that firing on Sumter would have, would indicate that Davis didn't care about that reaction and would, in fact, relish it.

Second claim?

Yeah, second claim. First claim was that South Carolina was independent. Second claim was that Lincoln arrested justices. One, two. Let me guess, southern school system graduate right?

In a way, but by way of your analogy, I think any reasonable person can see that I have just demonstrated that it fails the test of application disasterously.

In your opinion, perhaps. But your analogy is based on unsupported claims of South Carolina offers to purchase the fort and the contention that their actions were legal and that they were, in fact, a soverign nation. Why would South Carolina choose to pay for this one fort when they and the other southern states simply appropriated the other federal facilities? Sumter was a federal facility, it was not an outpost in a foreign shore. It was not hundreds of miles away from the United States it was three miles off shore of the United States. South Carolina's actions were not legal in the eyes of Lincoln and, later, the Supreme Court. Lincoln was not in the wrong in hanging on to Sumter.