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

To: GOPcapitalist
Regardless, Virginia had not seceded.

Virginia had voted to join the rebellion and took the first hostile action.

A blockade is an act of war, and by extending the blockade to Virginia even if to counter the activities of some within that state, Lincoln declared war on the state itself as a whole.

The blockade was a tool used by the Lincoln Administration to combat the rebellion. He was within his powers as president to do so.

As for the Rhoda Shannon, it is simply absurd to describe it as an effort to start a war. A ship got off course, showed up at the wrong port, was mistaken for a hostile yankee ship attempting a sneak landing and, in the spur of the moment, fired upon.

To consider an unarmed schooner hostile merely because it was flying the Stars and Stripes must mean that the confederacy considered itself at war with the United States. What other reason could there be for reacting to the U.S. flag in that manner? They fired on it without trying to find out what its purpose was. And this was not a single shot across the bow like the Lane fired. This was salvo after salvo directed at the ship and hitting it. The fact that the Shannon was not sunk is more a tribute to the wretched confederate gunnery than through any deliberate attempt. The confederates were itching for a war. Their actions on April 4th showed that. Sumter refused to accomodate them until they fired directly on the fort.

As you have been shown repeatedly, no connection necessitating war as a consequence of Sumter exists, nor have you or anyone else ever shown any.

Your claim would be like saying that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor needn't have resulted in a war. Or if the Cubans bombarded and overran the naval base at Guantanamo Bay then there is no reason for the U.S. to react. Firing on the fort and forcing it to surrender was a deliberate act of war, the third such act on the part of the confederates. Davis attacked and forced the surrender of a U.S. facility. Once he started that then there was no other recourse than to accept the war that he wanted.

68 posted on 03/10/2003 2:40:32 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur
Virginia had voted to join the rebellion

Not so. The vote did not occur until May 23, 1861. Lincoln extended the blockade to Virginia a month earlier on April 27th.

and took the first hostile action.

The first hostility by a government was Lincoln's blockade, an act of war.

The blockade was a tool used by the Lincoln Administration to combat the rebellion. He was within his powers as president to do so.

Call it whatever you like. It is still an act of war and it still occurred before Virginia seceded.

To consider an unarmed schooner hostile merely because it was flying the Stars and Stripes must mean that the confederacy considered itself at war with the United States.

Not at all. A far more plausible explanation is that they saw an unidentified and unexpected ship in the distance heading into their port at a time when they were fearful, with reason, of a yankee attempt to reach Sumter. They apparently believed it to be a sneak attempt to reach the fort, when in fact it was a civilian vessle that had gone off course.

What other reason could there be for reacting to the U.S. flag in that manner?

The one that I described above.

Your claim would be like saying that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor needn't have resulted in a war.

Nonsense. Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack by an expansionist power upon a U.S. Navy sitting without hostility in its own due territory. Sumter was an announced attack upon a hostile military northern installation sitting within the southern borders and instigated to another hostile effort to reach that installation with ships of war for the purpose of making war. Your analogy is simply not comparable.

Once he started that then there was no other recourse than to accept the war that he wanted.

As you have been show, that is simply not so. No necessary connection exists and you have yet to demonstrate otherwise despite being given ample opportunity. I may thus conclude that you are engaging in an act of willful and intended dishonesty when you insist, in violation of the law of causality, that the war was a necessary result of Sumter.

72 posted on 03/10/2003 2:58:37 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]

To: Non-Sequitur
"Firing on the fort and forcing it to surrender was a deliberate act of war, the third such act on the part of the confederates. Davis attacked and forced the surrender of a U.S. facility. Once he started that then there was no other recourse than to accept the war that he wanted."

It is comforting to know that in an inconstant world, there are some things that are unchanging - like your bullshit.

79 posted on 03/10/2003 5:56:53 PM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | 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