Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: muawiyah
Strange how the shooting started at Ft Sumter in South Carolina, five MONTHS after South Carolina seceeded (12/20/1860 to 4/12/1861). (Hint: SC is 470 miles from the Mason-Dixon line, at the southern edge of PA.)

I guess if China sends troops into Indiana, and the US finally gets fed up months later and starts shooting, then we're the "aggressors".

Interesting world you live in.

(Also mighty coincidental how every group of people that wishes to peacefully leave a political boundary is soon attacked by the leaders they are trying to escape... and yet in only one case in History are those who seek independence called the "aggressors". Hm.)

1,090 posted on 05/11/2010 12:05:18 PM PDT by Teacher317 (It's Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Teacher317

Also mighty coincidental how every group of people that wishes to peacefully leave a political boundary is soon attacked by the leaders they are trying to escape... and yet in only one case in History are those who seek independence called the “aggressors”. Hm
_______________
Amazing, isn’t it?


1,092 posted on 05/11/2010 12:25:35 PM PDT by mojitojoe (banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1090 | View Replies ]

To: Teacher317
I guess if China sends troops into Indiana, and the US finally gets fed up months later and starts shooting, then we're the "aggressors".

We are if China owns the fort they happen to be in. Sumter was the property of the federal government. It was built with federal funds on land deeded to the federal government free and clear by act of the South Carolina legislature. South Carolina's secession, even had it been legal, didn't change that. They had no legal claim to it and the troops in the fort had taken no hostile actions against the confederacy, so their attack was one of pure aggression.

1,117 posted on 05/11/2010 2:16:14 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1090 | View Replies ]

To: Teacher317
Also mighty coincidental how every group of people that wishes to peacefully leave a political boundary is soon attacked by the leaders they are trying to escape... and yet in only one case in History are those who seek independence called the "aggressors".

Have you never heard of an 8 year period of unpleasantness known as the American Revolutionary War?

1,118 posted on 05/11/2010 2:17:23 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1090 | View Replies ]

To: Teacher317

Seven states seceded shortly after the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860; even before he was inaugurated:

South Carolina (December 21, 1860) "The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy."

On January 9th (1861) an unarmed merchant ship, Star of the West, arrives in Charleston Harbor with troops and supplies to reinforce Ft. Sumter. The ship is fired upon and retreats.

The attackers were out of reach for anyone at Fort Sumter to return fire upon them.

http://civilwarcauses.org/gwill.htm

-----------------------------------------------------

Speech of Alexander H. Stephens, Nov. 14, 1860.

"The first question that presents itself is, shall the people of Georgia secede from the Union in consequence of the election of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency of the United States? My countrymen, I tell you frankly, candidly, and earnestly, that I do not think that they ought. In my judgment, the election of no man, constitutionally chosen to that high office, is sufficient cause to justify any State to separate from the Union. It ought to stand by and aid still in maintaining the Constitution of the country. To make a point of resistance to the Government, to withdraw from it because any man has been elected, would put us in the wrong. We are pledged to maintain the Constitution. Many of us have sworn to support it. Can we, therefore, for the mere election of any man to the Presidency, and that, too, in accordance with the prescribed forms of the Constitution, make a point of resistance to the Government, without becoming the breakers of that sacred instrument ourselves, by withdrawing ourselves from it? Would we not be in the wrong?"

...

"I do not anticipate that Mr. Lincoln will do anything, to jeopardize our safety or security, whatever may be his spirit to do it; for he is bound by the constitutional checks which are thrown around him, which at this time render him powerless to do any great mischief. This shows the wisdom of our system."

...

"There were many amongst us in 1850 zealous to go at once out of the Union -- to disrupt every tie that binds us together. Now do you believe, had that policy been carried out at that time, we would have been the same great people we are today? It may be that we would, but have you any assurance of that fact? Would we have made the same advancement, improvement, and progress, in all that constitutes material wealth and prosperity, that we have?

-----------------------------------------------------

To Alexander H. Stephens

For your own eye only.

Springfield, Ills.

Dec. 22, 1860

Hon. A. H. Stephens--

My dear Sir

Your obliging answer to my short note is just received, and for which please accept my thanks. I fully appreciate the present peril the country is in, and the weight of responsibility on me.

Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears.

The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington. I suppose, however, this does not meet the case. You think slavery is right and should be extended; while we think slavery is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us.

Yours very truly

A. Lincoln

http://civilwarcauses.org/aleck.htm

-----------------------------------------------------

"[W]e divide upon [all our constitutional controversies] into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority....Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy." - Abraham Lincoln (First Inaugural Adress: March 4, 1861)

1,136 posted on 05/11/2010 11:18:49 PM PDT by RasterMaster (The only way to open a LIEberal mind is with a brick!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1090 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson