[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.

[detsaoT]

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.

I disagree that the intent of those letters was an ultimatum, but lacking the documentation to dispute it, I'll have to table the topic for now. I'm confident that there is evidence out there pointing to the intent behind this Commission, but for the moment, I do not have it collected.

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 apologize sincerely and profusely for not being able to back up my arguments with concrete evidence. While I have been familiar with the school of thought from which I'm arguing, I am rather new to actually researching and documenting it. I will assure you with the utmost sincerity, that I have reached the conclusions I have by a careful and reasoned study of the philosophy surrounding the creation of the Federal government, and the history of the Royal Colonies which brought it about, but I have not spent as much time in the contemporary writings surrounding these events as I would like.

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.

My sincerest apologies once again. I had you mixed up with another FReeper, who had made statements to that effect. You are obviously more correct in your portrayal of our Federal system than he is.

I do promise that I will continue to research these matters, and if I find evidence to support my position, I will continue to collect it and present it to you. In the mean time, it is truly my honor to cede to you the debate for now. You have done a most superb job in keeping me honest, and it has really been a great pleasure to discuss these matters with you.

Regards,
~dt~