Posted on 12/21/2004 7:01:52 AM PST by cougar_mccxxi
Based on what rule of law?
Ah Colt .45. Clueless as ever.
Please explain to me how a US Fortification on Southern soil in 1861, with no treaty recognizing it by the Confederate Government AS AN AUTHORIZED FOREIGN MILITARY FORTIFICATION was legally exempted from being fired upon?
I guess it isn't, if you are out to start a war. Which is what the Davis regime did.
No, it was Lincoln's attempts to re-supply and reinforce the fort which were the cause of it. Being fired upon was only the effect. But then the Yankees always played by two sets of rules. One for themselves, and a completely different set for everyone else. Now days we call this type the liberal left.
The confederate forces had been firing at anything flying the U.S. flag long before Lincoln's resupply effort. On at least two prior occasions they had tried to initiate hosilities by firing on unarmed ships. In the end, they came to the conclusion that the only way to get their war was to bombard the fort itself.
Concurring bump.
BTTT.
Notice that author Williams is at George Mason University. Mason was one of the greatest of the Antifederalists, as were Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry. Also, for a long time, John Hancock of Massachusetts, although the Federalists finally won him over (having made winning him over a major project).
Overcharacterization for polemical effect -- how well you do it.
The Southerners were concerned only with the possibility -- the probability (about which they guessed aright) that Lincoln had been lying to them and would attempt to reinforce the garrison with more troops. He did.
In the end, they came to the conclusion that the only way to get their war was to bombard the fort itself.
Oh, I'm sorry, but "getting their war" was Lincoln's purpose -- and will you insist I quote Lincoln's personal secretary, John Nicolay, to you to prove it?
Starting a war was Lincoln's idea. I think he wanted a war all along --ever since 1856, when he finally concluded that there was no constitutional way to abolish slavery. (So, he decided on an unconstitutional one -- a civil war.)
Thank you for your support! Non-Sequential will always try to attempt to re-establish some moral high ground where there is none.
Yeah we do. Now try telling that to all the Bush suckups and Big Stupid Government Excusers here on FR.
I'm sick of this BS government.
To keep the equities of the American Civil War straight, it's only necessary to remember a) there was no rebellion, b) there was no insurrection, c) the People, not their servant officeholders, are Sovereign and answer only to the ineffable Who Am, and d) who invaded whom.
Everything else is excuses and eyewash -- excuses for killing 620,000 men in the field, and almost a million people overall, over politics.
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. "
Art4 Sec4 U.S. Constitution
I think you have a point.
Brewing up a pot of Columbian and can't wait to dive into dessert for breakfast!
God Bless Walter Williams and Merry Christmas BTTT
They had fired on the Star of the West and the Rhoda Shannon.
The Southerners were concerned only with the possibility -- the probability (about which they guessed aright) that Lincoln had been lying to them and would attempt to reinforce the garrison with more troops. He did.
It didn't have to happen. Lincoln's intentions to reinforce only if the resupply effort was opposed was made cleart to Governor Pickens and Major Anderson.
Starting a war was Lincoln's idea. I think he wanted a war all along --ever since 1856, when he finally concluded that there was no constitutional way to abolish slavery. (So, he decided on an unconstitutional one -- a civil war.)
Overcharacterization for polemical effect -- you do it well yourself. Ending slavery was never an overriding goal of the Union. Preserving it was an overriding goal of the confederacy.
Moral high ground? Are you claiming the moral high ground for the Davis regime? Once again we see where Colt .22 insists on laying blame everywhere except where it is due.
The southron myth machine at work yet again. Yes, there was a rebellion. Yes there was an insurrection. Whatever the hell 'c' means. You don't invade your own country so nobody invaded anyone.
When you don't have a Constitutional government in America, you have, in essence, a shadow of a government.
Watch the shadows...
One of those things FReepers never seem to get sick of.
But defense of the institution of slavery was by far the single most important reason why the south began the War of Southern Rebellion in the first place.
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.