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

To: SkyDancer

Firing on Ft. Sumter, etc. was an act if war. But not just any war. The North was by no means empowered to conquer the Confederacy and reintegrate secessionist stated because they stole federal property. Taking back the forts and demanding retribution and reparations, that’s what Sumter justified, if that. Not total war, unconditional surrender, and occupation which in a sense persists to this day.

As for the notion that the South invaded the North, lol. Who are you kidding? Even if we take your point about Bull Run on its face, that was only after the blockade of Southern ports, which SCOTUS later pinpointed as the start of the war, and Lincoln’s (unconstitutional) call for volunteers, not to defend Washington but obviously to crush the “insurrection.”


147 posted on 11/13/2012 9:13:48 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]


To: Tublecane

Okay, well then let’s us just say it was the war to keep slavery in the South war. The South wanted to keep slaves and they attacked the North because of it. So the issue was the South wanted to keep slaves.


149 posted on 11/13/2012 9:18:20 PM PST by SkyDancer (Live your life in such a way that the Westboro church shows up at your funeral)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | 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