Posted on 08/27/2007 1:37:39 PM PDT by BnBlFlag
No, the government did not default. Do you know why, and what caused the difference?
I do. And if that makes me intelligent and educated then what does the fact that you cannot recognize the truth say about you?
I can hardly wait for you to tell us.
free dixie,sw
Why don’t you include the complete story:
You said of Lincoln’s intent:
“He said no attempt would be made to land men or munitions unless the resupply was opposed. The exact words were, ‘...an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only, and that if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition, will be made, without further notice, or in case of attack.” It’s right there.
Well, here is Lincoln’s order. The difference between his carefully worded message to Pickens, and the direct orders to the Naval command was that there was no question they were on the way to land in force.
April 4, 1861
To: Lieut. Col. H.L. Scott, Aide de Camp
This will be handed to you by Captain G.V. Fox, an ex-officer of the Navy. He is charged by authority here, with the command of an expedition (under cover of certain ships of war) whose object is, to reinforce Fort Sumter.
To embark with Captain Fox, you will cause a detachment of recruits, say about 200, to be immediately organized at fort Columbus, with competent number of officers, arms, ammunition, and subsistence, with other necessaries needed for the augmented garrison at Fort Sumter.
Signed: Winfield Scott
My pleasure. As a side note, I’d like to say how much good stuff is turning up via Google book search. In a few years that’s going to be an amazing resource.
SIR: It having been determined to succor Fort Sumter, you have been selected for this important duty. Accordingly, you will take charge of the transports provided in New York, having the troops and supplies on board, to the entrance of Charleston Harbor, and endeavor, in the first instance, to deliver the subsistence. If you are opposed in this you are directed to report the fact to the senior naval officer off the harbor, who will be instructed by the Secretary of the Navy to use his entire force to open a passage, when you will, if possible, effect an entrance and place both the troops and supplies in Fort Sumter.I am, sir, very respectfull, your obedient servant,
Simon Cameron, Secretary of War
OR-Navies, Vol. 4, pg. 232
Nobody much got along with anyone else up here.
But I was talking about basic civil rights -- the right to vote, the right to a fair trial, protection from mob violence, non-descrimination in public facilities and employment.
It's a hypothetical question, but do you really think we'd have come as far as we have if the Confederates had won?
But I remember the north had it's riots also. BTW that was before the ones in the 1960's began. Like the turn of the century perhaps or a decade or two afterward?
There were race riots during and after the first World War in Northern cities. What's curious is that people generally are aware of riots that happened in Chicago, Detroit or New York. For a long time, earlier race riots in Wilmington NC and Atlanta were forgotten.
But my point was that it's a mistake to pretend that it was only Lincoln or the Civil War or Reconstruction that complicated and embittered relations between Blacks and Whites. Even if Whites had fond feelings for specific African-Americans they knew, they resisted mixing and sharing power.
I suppose that was true in both North and South, but the ugly side was more pronounced in the South. Maybe that's because Blacks were more numerous in the South. Anyway, you have to take the good with the bad: close personal relationships, together with a good deal of oppression.
Mr. MADISON moved to amend the next part of the clause so as to read "reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, under the rank of General officers"
Mr. SHERMAN considered this as absolutely inadmissible. He said that if the people should be so far asleep as to allow the most influential officers of the militia to be appointed by the Genl. Government, every man of discernment would rouse them by sounding the alarm to them.
Mr. GERRY. Let us at once destroy the State Govts. have an Executive for life or hereditary, and a proper Senate, and then there would be some consistency in giving full powers to the Genl. Govt. but as the States are not to be abolished, he wondered at the attempts that were made to give powers inconsistent with their existence. He warned the Convention agst. pushing the experiment too far. Some people will support a plan of vigorous Government at every risk. Others of a more democratic cast will oppose it with equal determination, and a Civil war may be produced by the conflict.
Mr. MADISON. As the greatest danger is that of disunion of the States, it is necessary to guard agat. it by sufficient powers to the Common Govt. and as the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them, by an effectual provision for a good Militia.
What they were voting on wasn't secession, but the means of choosing military officers. It looks like they were talking about officers in the militia, but they weren't voting on secession. Madison's comments were a response to Gerry's bringing up the possibility of civil war. It's not what the convention was voting on.
There was a lot of talk at the convention about "coercion" of "delinquent states." The Founders were in a difficult position. They needed a federal government that was strong enough to enforce the laws. But they didn't want to the federal government to be too powerful or to explicitly endorse federal coercion of state governments that refused to obey the laws.
So they punted, and simply ignored the question. Some thought that they could get around the problem by direct taxation: the federal government wouldn't have to ask the states for the funds it needed. Clearly, that didn't do away with the problem. At some point the federal government and a state would come into serious conflict. In my understanding the supremacy clause would prevail in such a case.
Notice I said "to the degree to which we do."
So the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is unbearable oppression. And slavery, segregation, and lynching were what? Trivial abuses? Temporary inconveniences?
Uh, Lincoln believed that that his grandfather was of Quaker descent, and for all I know he was.
Go here for more on Lincoln, the Friends, and the Confederacy.
btw, speaking of the LEFTIST/SOCIALIST northeast, IF the southland seceded NOW, we wouldn't have to fight, as the northeast is NOW "sissified" to the point that a "dear friend" in CT is planning to come SOUTH to look for a MANLY husband!!! (A___________ says all the single men she meets in her profession are "gay" or "metrosexuals", who are about as feminine as she is!!!)
Couldn't you just invent an imaginary boyfriend for your imaginary friend?
No, except to point out that your posts don't pass any kind of test at all. They just smell.
A tough one but quite possibly yes. Some of the more radical groups formed after the war may have never taken hold. There were some owners pre war who were tyrants but that wasn't as much a black white issue more than it was a slave owner issue. The owner could have been black, white, or whatever. A lot of the slaves were considered family to the owners. When the war ended many returned to where they had lived. Many of the owners were destitute themselves at that point.
I live in a county that was a Union strong hold myself. Yet in the 1950's the high school was bombed because of a hand full of persons who did not speak for the majority. It was over forced integration. I have never though segregation was right and I'm old enough that as a kid I remember it. My wife who moved from this area in her childhood to within an hours drive of Greeneville, MS remembers it but she got along with black kids. Actually a black family lived on their property. That was in the 1950's BTW.
2. I don’t think any place needs any “we need no outside idiots/bigots/leftists/REVISIONISTS/fools..” . However the greatest “outside diots/bigots/leftists/REVISIONISTS/fools” are in fact the muslims who intend to make any discussion of the US Civil a completely moot point as they intend for us not to have any history other than Allah’s.
Armed and Vigilant Regards,
Boiler Plate
it's GREAT to see that you're still posting your USUAL ignorant NONSENSE & SILLINESS, so that you make "the DAMNyankee coven" look DUMBER than they usually do.
laughing AT you, FOOL.
free dixie,sw
sorry, but doing that just makes you look clueLESS.
perhaps you should apply for membership in "the DAMNyankee coven of REVISIONISTS,lunatics, NITWITS, "useful idiots", south-HATERS, fools & BIGOTS". (N-S is "the maximum leader".)
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
as the saying is:
in the south they don't care how CLOSE you are, as long as you aren't "too big". in the north they don't care how BIG you are as you aren't "too close".
btw, "x" when are you DYs going to get around to DESEGREGATING your "one-race schools"??? (should we send you some southern "freedom riders" to show you how to desegregate???)
laughing AT you, FOOL.
free dixie,sw
Never argue with an idiot unless of course you are one.
Best Wishes,
Boiler Plate
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.