Replies

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.

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.

If someone fired on you, would that be an act of war?

No. It would be an isolated act of violence. And if that person fired on me for attempting to enter his store to rob him with a weapon concealed under my jacket, he would probably have good cause to have fired.

We can split these hairs all you like Technically we could, but for some reason I do not think you are even honest enough to do that.

but you are simply wrong.

Quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur.

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? If not, on what grounds do you make your assertion? Just curious.

But the war, --in a sense--

And the question is what sense. I maintain that a war is not a war until one organized force engages in a significant attack upon another. And no, shooting a pop gun at a tug boat does not constitute a battle.

began when South Carolina hauled down Old Glory. And they got what was coming to them.

Do I take it then that you admit the north acted in aggression against South Carolina for taking an action (hauling down the flag) that the north, in that particular case, disagreed with? Or do you mean something else when you say "they got what was coming to them"

The point remains that almost nothing you've said in this particular segue will hold water

Quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur. Accordingly, your above statement has been rejected.

, but you continue to dig yourself in deeper and deeper.

I would tend to think that you would be well served to purchase a mirror as it is you, not me, who stands deeply in something unpleasant of your own creation at this point in the debate. Let's consider what has happened so far...

1. I quoted lincoln's endorsement of the said amendment.

2. You responded by essentially ignoring the quote and then telling me that I am somehow wrong because what my quote demonstrated conflicted with what you asserted lincoln to be.

3. I again responded in defense of my quote, and you responded to that with # 2 again, and again, and again. In the meantime brief discussions have emerged about subtopics, in which case you have acted in a similar manner by attacking my facts on the grounds that they are inconsistent with what you say by your own authority and therefore must be wrong.

4. Eventually you realized you were getting nowhere so you built a straw man, attributed it to me, and attacked it.

5. I responded by calling you on your straw man

6. You responded to that by denying your straw man and altering the context and order in which that straw man was stated by exchanging it with another quote.

7. I corrected you again and demonstrated how the record clearly showed the order of our conversation and how, in that order, you engaged in a straw man.

8. You responded by attempting to casually shove off your straw man in hopes that it would go away and nobody else would notice.

9. That brings us to just before this post, where now you are arbitrarily telling me that I am wrong yet you give no proof why other than simply saying it.

10. Since that which is asserted without proof may be rejected without proof, I have again rejected your statement as it has not been proven, nor have you even attempted to prove it.

And that leaves us where we stand.