Posted on 03/07/2003 9:35:10 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa
Not true. They put the matter to a public referendum held a month later.
The first hostile act was seizing the government arsenal at Harpers Ferry.
Not true. Individuals supporting secession seized the arsenal, but the act of secession was not taken by the state until a month later.
But after Virginia voted to secede and committed the first hostile act by seizing the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry.
Virginia did not vote to secede until May 23rd. The Lincoln's blockade of Virginia was issued on April 27th. April 27th comes before May 23rd, Non-Seq. You cannot change that.
Not plausible at all because that wasn't what happened.
Why not? It seems to be the simplest explanation and, given you have no evidence of the conspiratorial explanations you tend to favor, it would appear that as an explanation it is the most likely.
The Shannon entered the harbor with the Stars and Stripes prominently displayed. The confederate forces fired on it.
Yeah, cause they mistook it for an attempt by The Lincoln to reach Sumter.
The confederate forces must have considered themselves at war with the U.S.
There's no must about it. It was a simple case of mistaken identity for the confederates and mistaken navigation for the ship.
Does that mean that if Cuba shelled and occupied Gtimo then you wouldn't consider the U.S. within its rights to respond?
Your analogy is still faulty. Gitmo is an acknowledged historical agreement between the two nations that has to date been generally honored without dispute. Nor has the U.S. announced any intentions that it be used to impede access to Cuba. The same cannot be said of Sumter, therefore your analogy is false.
I've shown that the south fired on the U.S. on several occasions.
Yet none demonstrates a necessary connection.
The south fired on Sumter in spite of the fact that no hostile action had been taken by the fort.
The south did not fire on the fort until the seige though. They fired on two ships - one that tried to sneak in troops under false pretenses, and the other that was a case of mistaken identity. They finally fired on the fort at the last minute when they knew a hostile fleet was arriving to attempt entry into the harbor.
The south obviously considered themselves at war as early as April 4, otherwise why would they have fired on the Shannon.
Your entire position is a complication of speculative nonsense. They fired on that ship out of a case of mistaken identity and mistaken navigation. I suppose it was unfortunate, but it does not mean anything remotely what you imply it to be.
The south was the aggressor.
The bombardment at Sumter occurred only because The Lincoln instigated it. Had The Lincoln not instigated it and instead attempted a more diplomatic path, that bombardment would not have happened as it did. Had The Lincoln not sent his fleet of warships, the bombardment of Sumter would not have happened as it did. Therefore The Lincoln holds a central claim to being the aggressor at Sumter.
As for the war, it only occurred because The Lincoln marched troops against the southern states to coerce their obedience. Had he not invaded, there would have been no war. Therefore The Lincoln holds claim to being the aggressor in the war itself.
Have you added this one yet? As to your observations, ditto
Now look Walt, I know you've probably got a Worldwide Socialist Party meeting to go to (God knows Jimmy MacP loves 'em so why wouldn't you?) but you're kicking on Reagan here. And admittedly the Bush father/son duo could have made some different decisions. But kicking a great man because he raised money illegally is calling the kettle black don't you think? For God's sake, your worthless idol created federal money, instituted a federal tax (first one in national history) to prosecute his tariff war, and stole $2,000,000 out of the Treasury without even asking Congress for it
I'm saying that I have voted for democrats based more on the idea that I saw them as less undesireable personally than the Republican they faced.
Granted, the Bush family could have stuck a little closer to the Constitution, but just in the past ten years, you're stating that a President who was later impeached, attacked Christians and conservatives, and a man who'd rather hug a tree, raised money illegally (something you fault Reagan with), and promised to raise taxes if elected better?!? Good grief man!! Who's left of you? Stalin?
...and troops and munitions in the inevitable situation that they be denied entry into the harbor.
Troops and munitions were to be landed only if they were opposed.
...which was inevitable and known by The Lincoln to have been inevitable. He knew this to be inevitable because the south had already adopted a policy of denying the yankee ships from landing at the fort. To pretend that this case would have been any different is, at best, naive and more likely an influence on The Lincoln's desire to instigate war.
The south chose to oppose it.
The south only chose to oppose the invasion of a hostile military force. To that end, war occurred. But that war occurred not out of the inevitable southern "choice" to simply defend itself against the guy charging at it with a gun but to the aggressive northern choice to invade and coerce. You can declare yourself King of the United States. That doesn't make you de facto royalty unless someone calls you 'Your Majesty'.
Your analogy is, as always, false. The south declared their independence by way of the legal statutory procedures of their own properly elected and legitimate governments. That is a far cry from a person arbitrarily declaring himself king.
That is not so. Diplomatic relations were never established and the confederacy was never dealt with as an independent country, not by the Vatican, not by anyone.
Yes they were. The Vatican recieved a confederate diplomat in October 1863 to hear the confederate case for recognition. In December the Pope addressed his first letter to Jefferson Davis addressing him by his title "President of the Confederate States of America," thus signifying recognition of his title and the CSA.
And not even that! The only reason Congress didn't get their rear ends handed to them on Iran Contra by the supreme court, acting under INS v. Chadha's ruling against the legislative veto, is because they did not want to make the thing into a showdown in the federal court system and thus risk having their scheme to smear Reagan exposed and their precious war powers act thrown out with it.
Thanks!! Now I've got to get a new monitor!!
wiping diet Sundrop off the screen now
But the issue was in doubt until the French and other European powers recognized the independence of the former colonies and provided assistance. Had that not happened the revolution might well have failed and the independence of our country delayed for a century or more.
The pope is the sole governmental leader of the Vatican and Papal State. I was aware of that recognition, and another poster noted a few days ago that Britain (via the Queen & Treasurer?), France (Napoleon), and several other European nations recognized the Confederate States as a belligerent party in the war.
The Pope may have referred to Davis as 'President Davis' in a letter, and Gladstone may have made a speech about how the confederates 'made a nation' but when it comes to recognizing the confederacy as an independent nation and dealing with it as such, exchanging ambassadors and signing treaties, not a single nation in the world did so. None of them ever recognized the confederacy as a sovereign nation. Not one. Great Britain and the European powers officially stayed out of the situation. They officially recognized the blockade and refused to violate it. There was no diplomatic recognition for the south.
There is a very good book on the subject by Dean Mahin called "One War At A Time: The International Dimensions of the American Civil War".
And waiting...and waiting...and waiting...
Inevitable only because Jeff Davis wasn't to be denied his war.
The south only chose to oppose the invasion of a hostile military force. To that end, war occurred.
The south had been opposing peaceful merchantmen and lost ice-carrying schooners for some time. They had begun their war months before firing on Sumter. It just took them a few months to push the government into firing back.
Yes they were. The Vatican recieved a confederate diplomat in October 1863 to hear the confederate case for recognition. In December the Pope addressed his first letter to Jefferson Davis addressing him by his title "President of the Confederate States of America," thus signifying recognition of his title and the CSA.
No they were not. European countries had received representatives of the confederacy since the beginning of the rebellion. But none of them responded with their own diplomatic representation or established embassies or treated with the south as an independent nation. Not one.
Are you saying that the Virginia legislature did not pass an ordinance of secession on April 17, 1861?
Not true. Individuals supporting secession seized the arsenal, but the act of secession was not taken by the state until a month later.
Individuals representing Virginia, using units of the state militia, and acting with the full knowledge and support of Governor Letcher. You don't get much more official than that.
Virginia did not vote to secede until May 23rd. The Lincoln's blockade of Virginia was issued on April 27th. April 27th comes before May 23rd, Non-Seq. You cannot change that.
The confederate congress admitted Virginia as a state on May 7, 1861. May 7th comes before May 23rd, you cannot change that. The question of Virginia's joining the confederacy, regardless of the referendum, was never in doubt. Since Virginia voted to secede, since Virginia forces had committed the first hostile act by siezing the federal facility at Harpers Ferry, since Virginia was mobilizing her armed forces and appointing commanding generals, then it was clear that she had joined the rebellion and her inclusion in the blockade was justified.
Why not? It seems to be the simplest explanation and, given you have no evidence of the conspiratorial explanations you tend to favor, it would appear that as an explanation it is the most likely.
A small ship flying the American flag is immediately fired upon? It is not intercepted and questioned as to purpose, despite the fact that a South Carolina revenue cutter, a confederat warship, was anchored not 600 feet away from Sumter and was available for the job? It doesn't take a conspiracy theory to explain the reason for the confederate actions. They considered themselves at war with the United States and acted accordingly. They fired the second shots of the war over a week before your claim that the Lane fired the first shot.
It was a simple case of mistaken identity for the confederates and mistaken navigation for the ship.
No mistaken identity at all. The confederate forces knew it was an American vessel. The captain of the Shannon was flying the Stars and Stripes in an attempt to attract a pilot vessel. The confederates knew exactly what they were firing on. It took a small boat from Sumter, rowing out to the Shannon, to explain what was going on and suggesting that she move on down the coast. The confederates never made an attempt to determine the situation. They obviously considered themselves at war and acted accordingly.
Gitmo is an acknowledged historical agreement between the two nations that has to date been generally honored without dispute. Nor has the U.S. announced any intentions that it be used to impede access to Cuba. The same cannot be said of Sumter, therefore your analogy is false.
The land that Sumter sat on was deeded to the United States by the South Carolina government. The current Cuban government does not recognize the agreement and refuses to cash the rent checks yet the U.S. remains. And while Gitmo was never used to block traffic in and out of the port neither was Sumter. The only opposition to traffic, the only units ever to prevent a ship from entering the port, was the confederate batteries.
The bombardment at Sumter occurred only because The Lincoln instigated it.
Sumter occured because The Davis wanted it. The Davis ignored the advice from his own secretary of state, The Toombs, and instead ordered The Beauregard to take the fort. The Davis wanted the war. The Davis needed the war. The Davis got the war. The Davis lost the war.
ROFLMAO!!
Walt
There has never in the history of the USA been someone as undesirable as Komrade Klinton.
That wasn't clear in 1992.
I knew that Bush Sr. lied about his role in Iran-Contra. I knew he stumbled into a completely avoidable war in the Gulf. What Perot said made sense to me. Clinton was the default. But I'd vote for Clinton again, knowing what I knew in 1992.
Walt
Do you know who you sound like?
No, I suppose you don't. I'm just going to have to spell it out:
Invasion ofthe southAfghanistan did not have to happen as a result ofSumterthe 9/11 Massacre. The events have no necessary connection between each other - only a relationship of proximity and indirect influence upon other direct causes. Rather, the war itself, which occurred by way thenorthernAmericanan invasion ofthe southAfghanistan, was a necessary consequence of only the choice that made it so - the choice to invade.. That choice was made byAbraham LincolnGeorge W. Bush, who thus bears ultimate responsibility for the war's occurrence.
No they are not.
I never said I voted for Mondale OR Dukakis. There was no way Mondale could win. I didn't vote in '84. I didn't vote for Dukakis, either. I skipped both those elections. Mondale looked like a chicken; Dukakis was a joke.
Walt
I am from Ga. and I will vote for the Stars and Bars, and so will just about everybody I know ... I guess that's what the Dims are afraid of, the people actually participating in govenment, instead of allowing liberal politicians special interest groups to tell us what is best.
Have -you- seen "Gods and Generals" yet?
Did you notice how Robert E. Lee accepted his commission from the so-called Virginia legislature to lead troops against the United States --- while he was wearing the uniform of a U.S. Army colonel?
Walt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.