[detsaoT]

To establish relations between countries, first and foremost, to the exclusion of all else. In other words, either Lincoln agreed to recognize the legality of the southern acts of secession or there was no reason for the commissioners to be there, because all other matters were secondary. Well, why should Lincoln have agreed to an ultimatum like that?

Please re-read both letters again in their entirety, rather than inferring what you wish from a limited citation. If you have any familiarity at all with Southern writings of the era, you'll know that it's common to write in a fairly indirect, though extremely polite, manner. It's clear from the highlights made in both of the letters I had provided that the Confederate government sought nothing more than to resolve the matter peacefully. It was not a matter of ultimatum, but one that could possibly have been avoided should Washington have taken the time to receive and hear the gentlemen dispatched for that purpose.

What I am interested in is that if, in your world, states can come and go from the Union at will then what are they obligated to do. They have walked out, are no longer part of the Union, regardless of the wishes and desires and interest of the remaining states. So why should they be obligated to anything to do with the country that they just walked away from? Why should they care about debt or treaty obligations or the rights of the states remaining with the country they left? In your scenario they are obligated to do nothing. And the remaining states have no recourse whatsoever except the ultimate one of war. And how can you believe that the founding fathers would agree to that?

I have answered this question as eloquently as I can in my previous posts, including the matter of settling differences via civilized war. Please look at 343 again to review my reply—particularly about the difference between war to redress grievances such as debt incurred and uncivilized war for the sole purpose of conquest. All of the evidence I have seen related to the time period clearly indicates to me that the latter is the path chosen by the North—the path of subversion and subordination.

There are also a number of other questions and assertions I've made towards you that have yet to elicit a response from you. I would be greatly interested in hearing your thoughts on these issues, most prominently on the topic of your previous claim that the States have no inherent Sovereignty. If you get a chance, could you go back and take a look at these questions in a little bit more detail, and perhaps honor your humble servant with a response to some of them, by any chance?

I look forward to hearing more from you,

Regards,
~dt~

[Non-Sequitur]

Please re-read both letters again in their entirety, rather than inferring what you wish from a limited citation. If you have any familiarity at all with Southern writings of the era, you'll know that it's common to write in a fairly indirect, though extremely polite, manner. It's clear from the highlights made in both of the letters I had provided that the Confederate government sought nothing more than to resolve the matter peacefully. It was not a matter of ultimatum, but one that could possibly have been avoided should Washington have taken the time to receive and hear the gentlemen dispatched for that purpose.

I've read both letters, front to back, several times. And I've read the legislation authorizing the commissioners in the first place. And both the legislation and the message from Davis state that the purpose of the commissioners is to negotiate friendly relations between the confederacy and the United States. First thing listed in both, then one says that the commissioners are to settle questions of disagreement while Davis says that they are only to settle matters and subjects of interest. Well, what if the subject of interest was a reunification of the states with the U.S.? That was out of the question, given the primary purpose of the commissioners. Now they may have wanted to settle matters peacefully, they may have even been sincere in that desire. But the one issue not on the table was an end to secession, and unless Lincoln accepted that and recognized the legitimacy of the Davis regime then nothing else was on the table either. The letters were an ultimatum, nothing more or less.

have answered this question as eloquently as I can in my previous posts, including the matter of settling differences via civilized war.

With all due respect you answered nothing, offered nothing to back up what are nothing more or less than your opinions. What places the obligation of redressing grievances if not the Constitution? And if the states have already walked away from their obligations then how does the Constitution apply to them? You claim that they would want to peacefully settle matters, but the confederate actions at Sumter indicates how little tolerance the south had for solutions not made on their time line and to their liking.

I would be greatly interested in hearing your thoughts on these issues, most prominently on the topic of your previous claim that the States have no inherent Sovereignty.

I disagree with your contention that I believe states have no inherent sovereignty. I have pointed out that they are sovereign within their own borders and controlling their affairs. I have completely disagreed with your claim that they trump the Constitution or that the federal government exists only at the whim of the states and when it is convenient for them.