Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GOPcapitalist
The 1805 law governing Moultrie, Johnson, and Pinckney did.

The 1836 state law transferring ownership did not.

Impossible. The resupply never happened because it was preempted.

A fact that became clear to the ships once they approached Sumter in daylight.

False.

Nonsense. In both cases the instructions were clear. The primary purpose was a peaceful landing of supplies only, with no force to be used and no men or munitions to be landed unless the resupply was opposed.

363 posted on 11/11/2003 10:04:19 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur
The 1836 state law transferring ownership did not.

The law transfering sumter was effectively voided by the secession ordinance.

A fact that became clear to the ships once they approached Sumter in daylight.

Wrong. The ships saw the bombardment happening in the distance and even debated whether or not to reinforce the fort during it. It was decided that without the Powhatan the endeavor would be too risky and could incur large casualties.

Nonsense. In both cases the instructions were clear.

No it wasn't. One used active and consequential language. The other used passive and intentionally vague language. There is no way around that simple fact.

368 posted on 11/11/2003 10:40:47 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson