The Touchy Subject of Black Confederate Soldiers

[Unkotare]

Again, tell me how the Constitutional Right of Secession was argued before the Supreme Court?

...

Read it, dumbass.

 

[rightwinger]

And when you start a war on the other people's land, that which you built is lost.

As I have said, Sumter reverted back to S. Carolina because they didn't finish it in the 3 year period required. Then, secession reverted the land back to S. Carolina.

You can build all you want on other peoples land, but that's a risk when you start a war with them. You lose. Sorry about your luck.

Quantrill

Nonsense

Even the Confederacy acknowledged it as US property to be negotiated

 

[rightwinger]

When did the North invade the South? Was it when Anderson moved troops to Sumter from Moultrie? Or, was it when the Star of the West was sent to reinforce Sumter. Or was it when Lincoln sent the Naval fleet to reinforce Sumter all the while lying that he was going to evacuate?

Please be specific.

Quantrill

US has a right to supply its fort.
If the South had done it, there would be no need for Lincoln to do so
They abandoned Moultrie because it was indefensible not as an act of aggression.

 

[EdwinAMartin]

Blockading ports are acts of war. Lincoln knew exactly what he was doing when he refused to vacate Sumter. Buchanan had tried it, and Lincoln hoped for the same result.

 

[Quantrill]

Except it wasn't a key point of the Constitution, it was just "allowed". In fact, the word "Slavery" appears nowhere in the Constitution.

The South had no legal right to secede to settle a political argument.

What a stupid response.

On that basis the Bill Of Rights was not a 'key point' as it was argued against... that it wasn't necessary, just allowed.

What a shame that all who wrote the Constitution knew what it said. And all who were against it in the Constitution knew what it said. And all who changed the Constitution knew what it said.

So, why are you so dumb?

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Read it, dumbass.

I have read it. I don't see it. So show me where 'secession' was ever argued before the Supreme Court.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Nonsense

Even the Confederacy acknowledged it as US property to be negotiated

No, the negotiations were not about whether or not the property belonged to the U.S. It was about the manner in which the Federal government would leave and remove it's troops and armory from the forts.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

US has a right to supply its fort.
If the South had done it, there would be no need for Lincoln to do so
They abandoned Moultrie because it was indefensible not as an act of aggression.

Not during the negotiations. Abandoning Moultrie and moving to Sumter was an act of war because during negotiations no troops or arms were to be moved either from or to any place.

Food was not cut off from Sumter by the South till it was evident that Lincoln was dealing deceptively with them. At one time Anderson even refused the offer of food from the South.

Thus moving secretly during the night to Sumter was an act of war. South Carolina could have started shelling the fort at that time. But now the negotiations were based upon the removal of Anderson from Sumter.

All Lincoln had to do was order Anderson out of Sumter. And then negotiations could continue on the removal of troops and arms from South Carolina and other forts.

Quantrill

 

[rightwinger]

Not during the negotiations. Abandoning Moultrie and moving to Sumter was an act of war because during negotiations no troops or arms were to be moved either from or to any place.

Food was not cut off from Sumter by the South till it was evident that Lincoln was dealing deceptively with them. At one time Anderson even refused the offer of food from the South.

Thus moving secretly during the night to Sumter was an act of war. South Carolina could have started shelling the fort at that time. But now the negotiations were based upon the removal of Anderson from Sumter.

All Lincoln had to do was order Anderson out of Sumter. And then negotiations could continue on the removal of troops and arms from South Carolina and other forts.

Quantrill

Shows the stupidity of the South

Sumter was no threat to the Charleston Harbor. If they started to attack ships entering the harbor, THEN they would be justified to pummel it with artillery.
They should have offered to supply the fort with food and any needed services while they negotiated. Then Lincoln didn’t need to send ships to supply it.

But the hotheads insisted that if they don’t give us Sumter, we will take it …….an act of war

 

[rightwinger]

No, the negotiations were not about whether or not the property belonged to the U.S. It was about the manner in which the Federal government would leave and remove it's troops and armory from the forts.

Quantrill

The U.S. thought differently
Our fort, we built it, Federal Property is not state property.

Your Lost Cause excuses do not match history

 

[JoeB131]

What a stupid response.

On that basis the Bill Of Rights was not a 'key point' as it was argued against... that it wasn't necessary, just allowed.

What a shame that all who wrote the Constitution knew what it said. And all who were against it in the Constitution knew what it said. And all who changed the Constitution knew what it said.

So, why are you so dumb?

Quantrill

Naw, dumb is fighting a war you can't win so a few rich people can keep owning slaves.

That's dumb. I mean, seriously, it was moronically stupid.

 

[rightwinger]

Naw, dumb is fighting a war you can't win so a few rich people can keep owning slaves.

That's dumb. I mean, seriously, it was moronically stupid.

We can lick them Yankees!

 

[EdwinAMartin]

Every state used the threat of secession at some point in time, especially the New England states. No one thought it was illegal, and there was never a SC case deciding it was illegal. And in fact, a proposed clause in the Constitution giving the Federal govt. the right to use force against a state, proposed by Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, was specifically struck down at the Constitutional Convention, thanks to James Madison.

More on Pinckney and the Constitution here:

Charles Pinckney at the Constitutional Convention (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

 

[Unkotare]

I have read it. ...

No, you haven't.

 

[Unkotare]

"Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), is a landmark Supreme Court case ruling that the U.S. Constitution created an "indestructible Union" and states cannot unilaterally secede. The Court decided that secession was illegal, Texas remained a state during the Civil War, and its Confederate-era actions were invalid."

 

[Quantrill]

Shows the stupidity of the South

Sumter was no threat to the Charleston Harbor. If they started to attack ships entering the harbor, THEN they would be justified to pummel it with artillery.
They should have offered to supply the fort with food and any needed services while they negotiated. Then Lincoln didn’t need to send ships to supply it.

But the hotheads insisted that if they don’t give us Sumter, we will take it …….an act of war

Shows your stupidity. It doesn't matter if Sumter was a threat or not. It was South Carolina's property.

The South did allow food supplies to Sumter till they found that Lincoln and his staff were lying.

All Lincoln had to do is to evacuate.

As I already showed you, Andersons move from Moultrie to Sumter was the act of war. Started by the North.

Again, shows your stupidity.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

The U.S. thought differently
Our fort, we built it, Federal Property is not state property.

Your Lost Cause excuses do not match history

Sorry. As I said, that's the price you pay for building on someone else's land, and then acting like an asshole.

You haven't proven any lost cause history as wrong. You just flap your lips.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Naw, dumb is fighting a war you can't win so a few rich people can keep owning slaves.

That's dumb. I mean, seriously, it was moronically stupid.

No, as I said, what is dumb is your understanding of history. You can't keep to the truth of history because you don't know it. All you can do is flap your lips just like rightwinger. And for some reason yall think it means something. It doesn't.

Your opinion means nothing without historical record to back it up.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

"Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), is a landmark Supreme Court case ruling that the U.S. Constitution created an "indestructible Union" and states cannot unilaterally secede. The Court decided that secession was illegal, Texas remained a state during the Civil War, and its Confederate-era actions were invalid."

Texas vs White was not a case where secession was argued before the Supreme Court. Where did you get that idea?

And why do you give a quote without giving where it came from?

Quantrill

 

[rightwinger]

No, as I said, what is dumb is your understanding of history. You can't keep to the truth of history because you don't know it. All you can do is flap your lips just like rightwinger. And for some reason yall think it means something. It doesn't.

Your opinion means nothing without historical record to back it up.

Quantrill

All you can do is repost Lost Cause revisionist history