Lincoln Statue Subjected to Unusually Undignified Vandalism

Oh my goodness, am I now supposed to throw up my hands and say, "Jiminy Crcket, I've been wrong all along!"

It would not be unreasonable for you to do so considering that you have been holding out the historically contradicted assertion that Lincoln was, all his life, unwaveringly anti-slavery and pro freedom for black people.

"But to be plain, you are dissatisfied with me about the negro. Quite likely there is a difference of opinion between you and myself upon that subject. I certainly wish that all men could be free, while I suppose that you do not." 8/23/63

That's a nice quote and all, but still it's doesn't get you past the quote where he says that blacks and whites can never be equal, and that he is committed to ensuring that whites maintain the superior position in the relationship.

Your position will not stand the most cursory glance at the complete record.

Quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur. Consider your above statement negated. Walt

Lincoln's position towards blacks was nowhere near as moral, equality based, freedom oriented, or anti-slavery as you have repeatedly asserted it to be.- ME

But it was. - WALT

If that is the case, then why are you unable to reconcile it with, much less address, either of the following statements by Mr. Lincoln himself?I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." - Lincoln, 8/17/1858. So much for BEFORE the war, but what about DURING the war? "You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races." - Lincoln, 8/1862

As I said of your position earlier, I shall say again: Quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur.

Sure you can; you can also pervert that record, which is pretty much what you have done.

Quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur. And that is definately supported by the record.

But the slave holders knew that was unlikely; in any event, their investments were threatened, so they bolted.

So I take it then that you believe Lincoln's pro-slavery amendment would not have done what it specifically directed to be done?

I am still waiting for some quotes from all those books on his website.

Why? You have already made up your mind that you will not pay attention to a word of any of them anyhow. So why waste his efforts and time by making such a request other than to be absurd, which I am becoming increasingly convinced that you are by your very nature.

I am still waiting for some quotes from all those books on his website.

Why? You have already made up your mind that you will not pay attention to a word of any of them anyhow. So why waste his efforts and time by making such a request other than to be absurd, which I am becoming increasingly convinced that you are by your very nature.

Indeed.

The wicked flee when no man pursues.

Zing! BOOM!

Romeo Delta Bravo Tree 29-Echo 1 Papa Victor 8 -- Out!

Well, in the first place I think that your analogy is way off base. Nothing was purchased and South Carolina property was not siezed.

Actually, South Carolina had even made attempts to compensate the yankees when they assumed control of fortresses on their land

A more appropriate analogy would be if your neighbor had a shed on his property next to

How would that be an appropriate analogy? It fails you from the get go. In no reasonable way can you honestly assert that the yankees were "neighbors" right "next to" South Carolina. There are 3 states and several hundred miles separating South Carolina from the nearest true northern state, Delaware.

Your neighbor would, quite rightly, refuse to vacate his shed and might, in fact, move more tools into it to make his point.

That's nice and all, but completely inapplicable. The north was not south carolina's "neighbor" in any sense of the word, unless you adopt the absurd position along the lines that your aunt in cleveland is a "neighbor" to you in Atlanta.

You then claim that the shed threatened your flower bed and set fire to it.

Yet another inconsistency. The shed in your analogy was never armed with munitions. Sumter was.

And for that matter, the shed does not militarily control the entrance into your house. Sumter controlled the entrance into the port.

Because in the end it boils down to which of the two different viewpoints you hold to.

In a way, but by way of your analogy, I think any reasonable person can see that I have just demonstrated that it fails the test of application disasterously.

You claim that South Carolina had a right to secede and to sieze federal property within it's borders.

Yep. Especially considering that the north had no use for that property other than to obstruct the flow of commerce into and out of south carolina (yet another thing that your shed did not do to your house, but sumter does to charleston)

I agree with that position and so did the Supreme Court in 1869.

Indeed they did...4 years after the war, during which the union controlled the entire washington government, and 8 years after Lincoln had the justices that issued rulings in disagreement with his policies arrested.

So what were South Carolina's motives? Surely none of this came as a surprise to them. On his way to Washington for his inaguration Lincoln had, in speeches in Indanapolis and New Jersey and Philadelphia, made it clear that he intended to hold on to federal property in the south and resupply it if necessary.

And that precisely was the problem.

This was no secret.

Whoever said it was? The only person who tried that little scheme was Lincoln himself when he disingenuously sent warships under the guise that they were simply bringing food, of which Sumter had more than enough coming in regularly from charleston on which to survive.

In private correspondence to Seward and Chase and Winfield Scott and Major Anderson he repeated his intention to hold Sumter if at all possible.

Yes. He did. And that is precisely the problem. He camped out in south carolina's driveway and refused to move when they kindly asked him to move and fed him dinner. He responded to that kindness by pledging to fight witht he guns inside and inviting in the hick relatives with even more guns, though he simply called them guests and pretended they were there only to bring food though everybody knew otherwise.

The Davis administration had been appointed a month before Lincoln was inagurated so they would have known this. They would also have known that the idea of military force to put prevent secession was not popular with the majority of the Northern press and much of the political leadership.

Yeah, and so did Lincoln. That's why he had the northern press shut down and the northern politicians who were critical put in prison.

So the south really had the opportunity to wait out Lincoln if they really were interested in a peaceful solution to the crisis.

And all the while sit by waiting it out as he stocked their harbor full of guns, soldiers, and warships? Not to mention on top of that, while he did it all disingenuously by claiming it was to bring "food" to the garrison even though everybody knew otherwise. . Why not? Again I'll point out that the troops in Sumter were in no position to threaten the confederacy or to harm Charleston much.

And I'll point out again that I think your assertion to be incorrect, as Sumter could have definately harmed Charleston, and they certainly weren't there to be friends and party. In addition I will point out that they had no business being there other than alterior motives to the detriment of that which they controlled the entrance to.

Shutting the port at Charleston wouldn't have harmned the confederate economy.

Are you sure about that? Under that reasoning, could we also say that if, all of a sudden, I decided to close the port of New Orleans as in right now, that it would not harm the American economy any? Cause if that is the case, why not try it and save all the people who work to get things to that port the effort, since shutting it down won't change anything.

Indeed, had the troops in Sumter shut down the port that would have placed the onus for the first hostilities on the North and would have weakened Lincoln's political support even further.

Exactly. Now take that a step further. If Lincoln absolutely did not want to fire the first shot, and if Lincoln held an unreasonable position that he knew the confederates would NEVER accept (i.e. allowing him to maintain garrisons in their front yard even though his country was hundreds of miles away and had no business being there), what is it that Lincoln could have wanted more than all else? To provoke the other side into firing the first shot.

Yes I do, and cite specifically that Lincoln had no reservations endorsing an amendment to extend and protect slavery as evidence of my position, which is contrary to your above statement.

Well, you were a busy little beaver last night.

But-Why don't you demostrate that Lincoln had NO reservations over endorsing this amendment.

That ought to keep you busy for a while.

Oh, and can you 'cite'your specifics?

Thanks.

Walt

The Star of the Westwas not a tug boat.

Technically, no it was not. It was a two masted MERCHANT side wheeler. Figuratively, that's not much more than a tug boat.

Then you made a misstatement of fact. I just want the record to show that.

Walt

Lincoln opposed slavery by words and deeds his whole life. Do you disagree with that statement?

Yes I do, and cite specifically that Lincoln had no reservations endorsing an amendment to extend and protect slavery as evidence of my position, which is contrary to your above statement.

I like this.

Where, specifically did you cite that Lincoln had no reservations about this amendment?

You mean in this thread?

Well, this is a long thread, so if you could refer me to the number of the note, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

Walt

And why should the fact that SC state trops fired on her -not- constitute the start of the war?

If bouncing a few pellets off the side of your little (figurative) tugboat constitutes war, then the fact that the star of the west was secretly delivering 200 armed infantry and ammunition to Sumter could similarly be characterized as an act of war - moving a hostile organized military force onto land that does not belong to them for the purpose of occupying that land and defending it as their position with military force.

Then your answer is yes. Good deal.

No, the war generally is thought to have begun with the firing on Fort Sumter.

How did we get off on this? I forget.

Too, the land did clearly belong to the federal government because SC ceded it to the feds in an 1836 act of the legislature. You have just as much right to sieze your neighbors house as SC did to sieze the fort.

Walt

Note too, that in this case, the slave holders fired the first shot.

Did they? Do you know for a fact that the person who fired that shot owned a slave?

Edmund Ruffin is often considered to have fired the first shot in the Civil War. He was definitely a slave holder. He was also, as I recall, an innovator in husbandry. But I digress. Consider:

. "But, I thought it worth mentioning for anyone not aware, there is some controversy over attributing the first shot of the CW to Edmund Ruffin.
Ruffin may have fired ONE of the first shots, but it seems unlikely that he fired THE first shot.

Robert Hendrickson, in "Sumter, The First Day of the Civil War," goes so far as to state, "What is absolutely certain is that old Edmund Ruffin, full of fleas from sleeping in his uniform on the sand, did not fire the first shot of the Civil War as so many historians have claimed." A number of Confederate accounts place the "honor" upon Captain Geroge S. James, including an account in the Southern Historical Society papers. A book by Colonel Alfred Roman's, "The Military Operations of General Beauregard," states, "From Fort Johnson's mortar battery at 4:30 a.m. issued the first shot of the war. It was fired not by Mr. Ruffin from Virginia, as has been erroneously supposed, but by Captain George S. James of South Carolina."

Abner Doubleday, on the receiving end of those shots, wrote in his "Reminiscences of Forts Sumter and Moultre in 1860 - 1861," that "The mortar battery at Cummings Point opened fire on Fort Sumter in its turn, after the signal shell from Fort Johnson, having been preceded by mortar batteries on Sullivan's Island and and the mortar battery of the Marion Artillery..." Edmund Ruffin was with the Palmetto Guard at Cummings Point, and their firing was "preceded" by firing from other batteries, so, Doubleday's account would seem to indicate that it would not have been possible for Ruffin to have fired THE first shot. Maury Klein, in his "Days of Defiance," states "James claimed the honor for himself," (he offered the first shot to Roger Pryor who declined), " at 4:30 a.m. he sent a 10 inch mortar shell soaring over the harbor. It burst above the fort and announced to a sleeping nation that war had come." Boatner's "The Civil War Dictionary," entry for "Ruffin" states that "Sometimes credited with firing the first shot, although it would probably be more accurate to say that after Captain James had fired the signal gun, Ruffin fired the first shot from the Stevens Battery. Even that is questionable." "Who is Who in the Confederacy," by Stewart Sifakis allows Ruffin, "...to fire one of the first shots at Fort Sumter," but not specifically the first. "Who was Who in the Civil War," edited by Crescent Books, notes under "Ruffin," that "some sources erroneously state he fired the first shot."

It is worth noting that the 67 year old Ruffin's legendary ability with artillery continued after Sumter. At first Bull Run it was alleged that he fired the shot that blocked Cub Run bridge, commencing the Union rout. It may be more accurate, in future incarnations of the CWQ to amend the question to, "one of the first shots of the Civil War."

--From the ACW moderated newsgroup

I don't know if this James person was a slave holder or not.

But it is beyond hair splitting to say that the slave holders didn't open the war.

Walt

Actually, South Carolina had even made attempts to compensate the yankees when they assumed control of fortresses on their land.

You continue to make simple errors of fact. I suppose this is due to the fact that you simply are not that familiar with the record.

In point of fact, SC had ceded the property the fort was built on to the federal government in perpetuity.

COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL RELATIONS

In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House: T. W. GLOVER, C. H. R.

IN SENATE, December 21st, 1836

Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order: JACOB WARLY, C. S.

The State of South Carolina was no better than common thieves to demand anything of Major Anderson--you have just as much right to force your next door neighbor out of his house at the point of a gun.

Walt

We can argue analogies all day long or we can call it what it was. Fort Sumter was a federal Army post located in Charleston harbor. It was built on a man-made island, funded out of the U.S. treasury, and manned by U.S. Army troops. It was not, and would never be a part of, South Carolina and for South Carolina to insist otherwise was patently false. By the time that Lincoln was inagurated it was also one of two federal posts that the south had not siezed. As such, and given the public statements that Lincoln had been making ever since South Carolina rebelled, Lincoln had little choice in the matter. He could either allow the rebellion to succeed or hang on to Sumter by whatever means necessary.

Sumter was also a symbol for Davis and his government as well. Davis was not interested in a peaceful resolution to the situation unless it included southern independence. This is evident by their boycott of the Washington Peace Conference called by Virginia. They sent commissioners to see Lincoln not, as you claim, to offer to pay for the federal facilities they had seized, but to get the Lincoln stamp of approval on the division of the country. And they began mustering an army of 100,000 men - over 5 times the size of the U.S. Army. Davis was also aware of the precarious position that the 7 confederate states were in. He needed Virginia and North Carolina and Tennessee desperately if his country was to survive. But he had a problem. Those states weren't buying his line of baloney. Letcher of Virginia and Johnson of Tennessee were the border south leaders and they supported staying with the Union. Letcher, in fact, was the organizer of the Peace Conference that Davis blew off. Davis needed a spark to ignite a war that he believed - rightly as it turned out - would cause the wavering border south states to come over to the confederate side. He needed a war as badly, or even more so, than you claim Lincoln did.

One voice of reason in all this was Robert Toombs, confederate secretary of state, who warned Davis against his actions. Toombs pointed out, "Friring on that fort will inagurate a civil war greater than any the world has yet seen...At this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North...It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal." If Toombs could see that then why couldn't Davis? Or was it because Davis DID see that and didn't care? He needed war more than he needed Toombs. Why did Toombs believe that it wasn't necessary, seeming to agree with me that the confederates could wait Lincoln out without fear of jeopardizing their security? Why was Toombs afraid about alienating Northern friends while Davis couldn't have cared less? Why indeed, unless Davis only wanted war?

Let me offer corrections to some of your more glaring errors.

Indeed they did...4 years after the war, during which the union controlled the entire washington government, and 8 years after Lincoln had the justices that issued rulings in disagreement with his policies arrested.

It took until 1869 for the matter to come to the Supreme Court. What is your point? Supreme Court always rules on the legality of actions after the fact. It cannot, by law, issue advisory rulings on pending actions. Your second claim - that Lincoln arrested Supreme Court Justices who didn't agree with him - is clearly wrong and I would like to challenge you to name those that he did arrest.

The only person who tried that little scheme was Lincoln himself when he disingenuously sent warships under the guise that they were simply bringing food, of which Sumter had more than enough coming in regularly from charleston on which to survive.

The commander at Sumter had informed Washington in March that he would have to surrender within 6 weeks if his command was not reprovisioned. What little food was coming from shore ended on the orders of the confederate government on April 2nd. Your claim is false.

...what is it that Lincoln could have wanted more than all else? To provoke the other side into firing the first shot.

And as I pointed out earlier, war was even more important for Davis

I am still waiting for some quotes from all those books on his website. Why? You have already made up your mind that you will not pay attention to a word of any of them anyhow.

Because it was purported that these books would show a dffernt side to the story; as yet, they have not.

The clear implcation is that they will not, and cannot refute the sovereign nature of United States and all the rest of the readily avialble record that N-S, X, myself and others have put up.

Walt

You can split these hairs all you like.

Indeed I can. And you can respond by shouting "you're wrong and i'm right!" at the top of your lungs all you want. But that alone doesn't make it so.

I do often provide data from the record to support my positions, but whatever.

I really try and maintain an even tone and avoid personal attacks, as the website specifically enjoins us to do.

You do often strike my funny bone though.

Walt