Posted on 11/06/2003 7:31:54 PM PST by republicanwizard
Fort Moultrie was out of range of the Star of the West; they soon ceased firing because their shots were going wild.
"Meanwhile, firing from the battery on Morris Island continued with precision, but most of the balls passed over the ship. The guns were depressed to shorten their range, and soon the ship was hit near the rudder and the bow." (The Siege of Charleston 1861-1865 by E. Milby Burton)
It was a legal statute. Statutes can be repealed by their originator - even those that claim to be unrepealable. South Carolina repealed its statutes with the United States by act of secession. That would seem to include the Fort Sumter statutes.
Yes it was. You have demonstrated nothing except that both letters gave, as the primary purpose of the expedition, the peaceful landing of supplies only and that force was to be used on if such a landing was opposed.
Wrong. I have demonstrated that one used active and conditionally explicit language. The other used passive and intentionally vague language. One said "if they don't let you in you are to open fire right then and there." The other said effectively "Let us in and we aren't going to open fire anytime soon." If you cannot see the difference between those statements then you are dishonest, willfully obtuse, or just plain stupid.
Yes you do. The burden of proving guilt under the common reading of law is always on the accuser. As it stands you have not satisfied this burden. Thus your claim of having established a crime is a false one.
You are neglecting the first rule of diplomacy. In negotiations practically everything is on the table no matter how adamant one side or the other is about a given position. That doesn't mean a side will cave, but it does mean that there is always room to work. Applying your horrendous illogic, one could similarly say that by Lincoln's declarations that secession would not be permitted, the confederates had no reason to seek out a meeting with him for negotiation. Yet they did because they, being wiser than Lincoln, saw it a worthiable aim to at least attempt peace.
Along the same lines as your claim that the southerners would fairly compensate for property already seized Not at all. They had the papers and expressed every intention of paying.
a claim not included in the mandate approved by the confederate congress BTW.
Your timeline is out of order. The confederate congress did not even exist yet when the first team of negotiators arrived in Washington with sanction from their states to negotiate payment.
Curious claim. The version I read indicates that the Star of the West indicates that a shot "struck us in the fore-chains, about two feet above the water line."
Sumter was built on a man-made island constructed from granite shipped in from New England. It doesn't belong to South Carolina and never has.
The second rule is to follow instructions. According to the instructions approved by the confederate congress, the men sent by the Davis regime had no power to negotiate anything but recognition of the legitimacy of the southern rebellion. They had no room to work. If Lincoln had suggested that the question of ending the rebellion and returning as states then the group would have gone home. Since that was off the table then, again, what was there to negotiate?
They had the papers and expressed every intention of paying.
Nonsense. Their instructions said nothing about paying for anything. Just vague suggestions about amicable solutions.
Nonsense. The agreement said nothing about title being in affect until the legislature decided otherwise. The title was transferred permanently to the U.S. without reservation, without condition. Any other arrangement would have violated the U.S. Constitution, not that South Carolina had any problems with that.
I have demonstrated that one used active and conditionally explicit language.
You have demonstrated nothing except that both, I repeat, both letters clearly and unequivocally state that the primary purpose of the expedition was the peaceful resupply of Sumter, and that force would be used only if the resupply was opposed. You can hold it upside down, play it backwards, look for hidden meanings all you want but you cannot change plain English.
The fort sits on an underwater sand bar that is inside Charleston Harbor. Are you arguing that the harbor and its seafloor does not belong to South Carolina?
For the purpose of establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States, and reposing special trust, &c., Martin J. Crawford, John Forsyth, and A. B. Roman are appointed special commissioners of the Confederate States to the United States. I have invested them with full and all manner of power and authority for and in the name of the Confederate States to meet and confer with any person or persons duly authorized by the Government of the United States being furnished with like powers and authority, and with them to agree, treat, consult, and negotiate of and concerning all matters and subjects interesting to both nations, and to conclude and sign a treaty or treaties, convention or conventions, touching the premises, transmitting the same to the President of the Confederate States for his final ratification by and with the consent of the Congress of the Confederate States.Given under my hand at the city of Montgomery this 27th day of February, A.D. 1861, and of the Independence of the Confederate States the eighty-fifth.
Jefferson Davis
Ultimate sovereignty rests with the United States.
Walt
So statutes can't be repealed by the body that made them?
The agreement said nothing about title being in affect until the legislature decided otherwise.
Lots of laws say nothing about being repealed and in fact some of them even say that they can't be repealed. But in legislative terms that means virtually nothing as all it takes to repeal one statute is another voiding it.
You have demonstrated nothing except that both, I repeat, both letters clearly and unequivocally state that the primary purpose of the expedition was the peaceful resupply of Sumter, and that force would be used only if the resupply was opposed.
If you believe that then you are either fibbing or you do not understand the intricacies of the English language. One said force WILL be used right then and there if they weren't allowed entrance. The other said force WILL NOT be used if that expedition were permitted to proceed, but said not a word about when or how it would be used if the expedition was denied.
You can hold it upside down, play it backwards, look for hidden meanings all you want but you cannot change plain English.
Take that one to the mirror and repeat.
Wrong. As you earlier admitted, they also had the power to negotiate differences between the two sides.
Nonsense. Their instructions said nothing about paying for anything.
Wrong. These so-called "instructions" you keep referring to didn't stop Davis from sending them with bank papers to carry out payment if necessary.
The authority of constitutions over governments, and of the sovereignty of the people over constitutions, are truths which are at all times necessary to be kept in mind. (James Madison)
No, it's more like having given up all claim to a piece of property then they can't unilaterally change their mind.
If you believe that then you are either fibbing or you do not understand the intricacies of the English language.
And both said that first and foremost the purpose of the expedition was the peaceful landing of supplies, and that force was to be used only if the landing was opposed. You keep ignoring that fact in your attempt to twist the meaning into something it wasn't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.