Do you think not letting the south secede was a good thing?

[Rogue 9]

If Lincoln was trying to avoid hostilities he wouldn't have tried to resupply Fort Sumter knowing that the south would stop that from happening.

Once again for the stupid and insane. All Federal Forts were FEDERAL property. The fort in question was probably deeded to the US in the late 1700's shortly after the Federal Government came to be. South Carolina had no claim on it and had no right to blockade it. Nor any right to fire on supply ships supplying it nor the Garrison.

Sumter was deeded to the federal government in 1836, actually, which is still early enough. The island that it sat on was artificial; it didn't exist in the 1790s.

Well you can't have it both ways. Lincoln knew resupplying the fort would lead to war, which is exactly what he wanted.

"But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, 'Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!'" - Abraham Lincoln, February 27th, 1860

No one's trying to have it both ways except Southern partisans. The garrison at Sumter was set to starve, and it was the army's (and therefore the commander in chief's) absolute duty to bring in supplies to the men. No one fired cannons at Fort Sumter except the rebels; it was not Lincoln's hand at the ignition hole.

 

[bodecea]

If Lincoln was trying to avoid hostilities he wouldn't have tried to resupply Fort Sumter knowing that the south would stop that from happening.

So, you are saying that if some country takes over our military property, it would be the RIGHT THING TO DO to let them steal it in order to avoid bloodshed?

BTW...who fired first?

They only took it over after Lincoln tried to resupply it, which tells me they were more than willing to allow a peaceful transition but not to have a permanent Union fort within their borders. Not to mention that nobody was killed in the attack, and all Union troops were allowed to return home. If they were interested in starting a war they would have kept those troops.

And only hot heads LOOKING for a fight would consider "resupplying" a fort that ALREADY BELONGS to the Federal Government an excuse for firing upon that fort. While RGS and I disagree on many things, he is spot on with this issue.

 

[bodecea]

If Lincoln was trying to avoid hostilities he wouldn't have tried to resupply Fort Sumter knowing that the south would stop that from happening.

Once again for the stupid and insane. All Federal Forts were FEDERAL property. The fort in question was probably deeded to the US in the late 1700's shortly after the Federal Government came to be. South Carolina had no claim on it and had no right to blockade it. Nor any right to fire on supply ships supplying it nor the Garrison.

The South was preaching war through out the South as soon as the election process began for President. They not the North organized militias and drilled and armed for war. They not the North had daily editorials and stories about FIGHTING the North and of beating them. They not the North seized Federal property and stole land and equipment that did not belong to them. And still Lincoln refused to call up the Militia or increase the Army. While the South raised armies Lincoln did nothing but ask for calm until Congress could reconvene. He had ever right and RESPONSIBILITY to maintain control of all Federal Forts and Garrisons. It is the JOB of the President to do so.

Lincoln did NOTHING until the North was fired on. He had less then 16000 troops under arms and did nothing while the South raised armies, armed them, drilled them and trained them. You have not got a leg to stand on. The SOUTH wanted WAR. And they got it. And they paid for their own stupidity.

Because of that stupidity we will never know what Congress may have done. I for one am glad the South forced the issue. I suspect the Congress would not have done so. The South insisted on and forced war and paid the price for their ignorance and stupidity.

Well you can't have it both ways. Lincoln knew resupplying the fort would lead to war, which is exactly what he wanted.

So, you support the U.S. government setting upon a course of appeasement a la Chamberlain at Munich. I see.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If Lincoln was trying to avoid hostilities he wouldn't have tried to resupply Fort Sumter knowing that the south would stop that from happening.

Once again for the stupid and insane. All Federal Forts were FEDERAL property. The fort in question was probably deeded to the US in the late 1700's shortly after the Federal Government came to be. South Carolina had no claim on it and had no right to blockade it. Nor any right to fire on supply ships supplying it nor the Garrison.

Sumter was deeded to the federal government in 1836, actually, which is still early enough. The island that it sat on was artificial; it didn't exist in the 1790s.

Well you can't have it both ways. Lincoln knew resupplying the fort would lead to war, which is exactly what he wanted.

"But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, 'Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!'" - Abraham Lincoln, February 27th, 1860

No one's trying to have it both ways except Southern partisans. The garrison at Sumter was set to starve, and it was the army's (and therefore the commander in chief's) absolute duty to bring in supplies to the men. No one fired cannons at Fort Sumter except the rebels; it was not Lincoln's hand at the ignition hole.

If the troops there were going to starve, and you truly wanted to avoid a conflict, then pulling those troops out of Fort Sumter would have been the logical idea. But Lincoln didn't want to avoid a conflict.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So, you are saying that if some country takes over our military property, it would be the RIGHT THING TO DO to let them steal it in order to avoid bloodshed?

BTW...who fired first?

They only took it over after Lincoln tried to resupply it, which tells me they were more than willing to allow a peaceful transition but not to have a permanent Union fort within their borders. Not to mention that nobody was killed in the attack, and all Union troops were allowed to return home. If they were interested in starting a war they would have kept those troops.

And only hot heads LOOKING for a fight would consider "resupplying" a fort that ALREADY BELONGS to the Federal Government an excuse for firing upon that fort. While RGS and I disagree on many things, he is spot on with this issue.

So if China owned a fort within the borders of the U.S. you'd have no problem with them supplying it with Chinese troops and ammunition and the like, right?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Once again for the stupid and insane. All Federal Forts were FEDERAL property. The fort in question was probably deeded to the US in the late 1700's shortly after the Federal Government came to be. South Carolina had no claim on it and had no right to blockade it. Nor any right to fire on supply ships supplying it nor the Garrison.

The South was preaching war through out the South as soon as the election process began for President. They not the North organized militias and drilled and armed for war. They not the North had daily editorials and stories about FIGHTING the North and of beating them. They not the North seized Federal property and stole land and equipment that did not belong to them. And still Lincoln refused to call up the Militia or increase the Army. While the South raised armies Lincoln did nothing but ask for calm until Congress could reconvene. He had ever right and RESPONSIBILITY to maintain control of all Federal Forts and Garrisons. It is the JOB of the President to do so.

Lincoln did NOTHING until the North was fired on. He had less then 16000 troops under arms and did nothing while the South raised armies, armed them, drilled them and trained them. You have not got a leg to stand on. The SOUTH wanted WAR. And they got it. And they paid for their own stupidity.

Because of that stupidity we will never know what Congress may have done. I for one am glad the South forced the issue. I suspect the Congress would not have done so. The South insisted on and forced war and paid the price for their ignorance and stupidity.

Well you can't have it both ways. Lincoln knew resupplying the fort would lead to war, which is exactly what he wanted.

So, you support the U.S. government setting upon a course of appeasement a la Chamberlain at Munich. I see.

I support the U.S. government avoiding pointless wars.

 

[Rogue 9]

"But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, 'Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!'" - Abraham Lincoln, February 27th, 1860

No one's trying to have it both ways except Southern partisans. The garrison at Sumter was set to starve, and it was the army's (and therefore the commander in chief's) absolute duty to bring in supplies to the men. No one fired cannons at Fort Sumter except the rebels; it was not Lincoln's hand at the ignition hole.

If the troops there were going to starve, and you truly wanted to avoid a conflict, then pulling those troops out of Fort Sumter would have been the logical idea. But Lincoln didn't want to avoid a conflict.

I can do no better than to quote an earlier (and by you, ignored) point:

So, you are saying that if some country takes over our military property, it would be the RIGHT THING TO DO to let them steal it in order to avoid bloodshed?

There would be no conflict if the Deep South had not gone into open rebellion. It's about as open and shut as any historical matter can possibly be.

And only hot heads LOOKING for a fight would consider "resupplying" a fort that ALREADY BELONGS to the Federal Government an excuse for firing upon that fort. While RGS and I disagree on many things, he is spot on with this issue.

So if China owned a fort within the borders of the U.S. you'd have no problem with them supplying it with Chinese troops and ammunition and the like, right?

Not comparable. The United States owned a fort within the borders of the United States and was supplying it. There was no foreign country involved. This is similarly not difficult to understand.

Well you can't have it both ways. Lincoln knew resupplying the fort would lead to war, which is exactly what he wanted.

So, you support the U.S. government setting upon a course of appeasement a la Chamberlain at Munich. I see.

I support the U.S. government avoiding pointless wars.

The Civil War was not pointless. It is the constitutional duty of the president to enforce the law, and the law was being flagrantly violated by the state governments of the states purporting to secede.

It is not within state power to withdraw from the Constitution. The Constitution derives its authority from we the people of the United States, not the states assembled. At the time of the Constitution's adoption, this was exactly the point of contention; anti-federalists campaigned against the Constitution precisely because it was not a compact of the states, while federalists explicitly defended this point. Then the Constitution was adopted by popular convention, not state legislature, without any point affecting that debate changed. This is thoroughly documented here, starting on the sixth page (though I recommend reading the entire thing).

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, 'Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!'" - Abraham Lincoln, February 27th, 1860

No one's trying to have it both ways except Southern partisans. The garrison at Sumter was set to starve, and it was the army's (and therefore the commander in chief's) absolute duty to bring in supplies to the men. No one fired cannons at Fort Sumter except the rebels; it was not Lincoln's hand at the ignition hole.

If the troops there were going to starve, and you truly wanted to avoid a conflict, then pulling those troops out of Fort Sumter would have been the logical idea. But Lincoln didn't want to avoid a conflict.

I can do no better than to quote an earlier (and by you, ignored) point:
There would be no conflict if the Deep South had not gone into open rebellion. It's about as open and shut as any historical matter can possibly be.

Not comparable. The United States owned a fort within the borders of the United States and was supplying it. There was no foreign country involved. This is similarly not difficult to understand.

So, you support the U.S. government setting upon a course of appeasement a la Chamberlain at Munich. I see.

I support the U.S. government avoiding pointless wars.

The Civil War was not pointless. It is the constitutional duty of the president to enforce the law, and the law was being flagrantly violated by the state governments of the states purporting to secede.

It is not within state power to withdraw from the Constitution. The Constitution derives its authority from we the people of the United States, not the states assembled. At the time of the Constitution's adoption, this was exactly the point of contention; anti-federalists campaigned against the Constitution precisely because it was not a compact of the states, while federalists explicitly defended this point. Then the Constitution was adopted by popular convention, not state legislature, without any point affecting that debate changed. This is thoroughly documented here, starting on the sixth page (though I recommend reading the entire thing).

Actually there was a foreign country involved, as South Carolina had seceded from the U.S. and was now a separate nation.

The original wording in the Constitution was "We the States..." however. It was only changed when it was realized that all the states may not ratify the Constitution. Also, it was absolutely ratified by the states, and not the people as a whole. If it were ratified by the people rather than the states then all of the states would have joined the Union at the same time. Since that's not the case it's apparent that it was the states that ratified the Constitution. That it was by special convention rather than their legislatures doesn't change that fact.

As for it not being within state power to withdraw from the Union, the 10th Amendment makes it clear that any powers not forbidden to the states in the Constitution are powers of the states. Secession is not forbidden and is therefore a legitimate power of the states.

 

[Rogue 9]

Actually there was a foreign country involved, as South Carolina had seceded from the U.S. and was now a separate nation.

The original wording in the Constitution was "We the States..." however. It was only changed when it was realized that all the states may not ratify the Constitution. Also, it was absolutely ratified by the states, and not the people as a whole. If it were ratified by the people rather than the states then all of the states would have joined the Union at the same time. Since that's not the case it's apparent that it was the states that ratified the Constitution. That it was by special convention rather than their legislatures doesn't change that fact.

As for it not being within state power to withdraw from the Union, the 10th Amendment makes it clear that any powers not forbidden to the states in the Constitution are powers of the states. Secession is not forbidden and is therefore a legitimate power of the states.

Jesus. You just didn't read what I wrote, did you?

First, the Tenth Amendment reserves powers to the states or the people. Confederate apologists tend to forget that part for some reason. Second, Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 grants power to regulate and dispose of the territory of the United States to the Congress, not the states, making that power not one that isn't delegated to the United States, meaning the 10th Amendment does not apply to it in any case.

Ratifying the Constitution was not a function of the states in their corporate capacity; that is why it was adopted by convention and not by legislation. The United States is a government of the people, not of the states, as ruled by the Supreme Court in McCulloch v Maryland way the hell back in 1819 and laid out before that by the framers of the Constitution in the Federalist Papers and acknowledged by the antifederalists in their arguments against it.

The government proceeds directly from the people; is "ordained and established" in the name of the people, and is declared to be ordained,

in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure [p404] the blessings of liberty to themselves and to their posterity.​

The assent of the States in their sovereign capacity is implied in calling a convention, and thus submitting that instrument to the people. But the people were at perfect liberty to accept or reject it, and their act was final. It required not the affirmance, and could not be negatived, by the State Governments. The Constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the State sovereignties.

Really, there is no valid argument in favor of the view that the Constitution is a treaty of the states rather than a government of the people. It was not enacted by act of the state legislatures and it wields broad sovereign powers over the states; such an assertion is ludicrous.