Was the South justified in firing on Ft Sumpter

Discussion in 'History Forum' started by Salty, Feb 19, 2007.

  1. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,123
    Likes Received:
    220
  2. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,123
    Likes Received:
    220
    FORT SUMTER I know, I know I spelled it wrong, in the OP, I meant to hit " preview post", to double check the spelling , but instead I hit "submit reply":tonofbricks:, do you all forvige me?:1_grouphug:
     
  3. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Considering the plethora of OP subject line typos, I'm sure one more won't hurt us. (Btw...you spelled "exactly" and "forgive" wrong as well ;) ).
     
  4. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Better watch it! You are treading on the beat of Language Cop! :laugh: :smilewinkgrin: :eek:

    Ed
     
  5. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,074
    Likes Received:
    102
    All of which points to the role of anachronistic chivalry in the mindset of the Southern aristocracy and its thralls.

    How the did the South propose that a president could "honorably" cede federal territory?

    I honestly hope such a tripe-filled curriculum is not foisted upon schools.
     
    #5 rsr, Feb 19, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 19, 2007
  6. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    How does this matter?


     
  7. blackbird

    blackbird
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    11,898
    Likes Received:
    2
    rsr----there are many, many "Gray Coats" out there who may not fully understand the graphics of the said above post----for the benefits of not resurrecting the actual war itself----please simplify

    Though Blackbird does not lay all the blame of the blasted war on the bearded President from Lincoln, IL

    Part of the blame is layed upon one of Blackbird's decendants who was at the fort at the time-----with an itchy trigger finger---lookin' to start somethin'!!!!
     
  8. dwmoeller1

    dwmoeller1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    0
    His opening assertion is highly misleading on the first part and demonstratably false in the last.

    1. The only way the Republican platform could be reasonably construed as wishing to abrogate the guarentees of the Constitution is in regards to the issue of slavery within the territories. The South took the position that it was a Constitutional right to have slaves in the territories - the Republican party denied this. But, the Republican party platform specifically affirmed the rights of the States to order things withing their borders as they wished. So, his initial statement is highly misleading as it presumes that the issue of slaves in the territories was clear cut.

    2. The latter part about the platform stating the intention to deprive them of property or continued prosperty is flatly false. Read here the platform and see for yourself. Note particularly resolution #4.
     
    #8 dwmoeller1, Feb 21, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 21, 2007
  9. dwmoeller1

    dwmoeller1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is no conflict. Lincoln simply had a better understanding of the concepts which form our Constitution. To the writers of the Constitution, the concept of 'people' was national, not state designation. So, Constitutionally, the members of one or several states (esp. a minority of states) did not constitute 'the people'. Lincoln's statement is that he maintained the right of the people of the United States as a whole to do away with the Constitution and form a new government. This does not mean he felt individual states had this right.
     
  10. dwmoeller1

    dwmoeller1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    0
    No such knowledge existed. It was asserted by various states at various times, but this concept was never granted in the Constitution or by the framers of the Constitution. The opening phrase of the Constitution would argue against this concept in fact. After all, it is not "We the states..." it is "We the People...". The states aren't party to the Constitution.
     
  11. dwmoeller1

    dwmoeller1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    0
    An armistice between the not yet seceeded SC government and the Federal government? I would like to see the source and details for that.

    Is he just a poor writer or is he purposefully trying to be misleading. This paragraph implies that Lincoln had something to do with the move to Ft Sumter. Yet that took place several months before he took office.
     
  12. dwmoeller1

    dwmoeller1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    0
    So SC ceded the area on which Fort Sumter was built to the Federal government. The Federal government paid for its construction with tax monies paid from all over the US. Then the SC government wanted something back that they had ceded and other had paid for?

    Given that it had been ceded to and paid for by the Federal government, firing on Ft. Sumter could be nothing else but an act of war on the Federal government.
     
  13. dwmoeller1

    dwmoeller1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is a much more balanced and factual site regarding the move to Ft. Sumter. Comare that with the OP's site and see how the author twists and misappropriates the facts.
     
  14. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now Brother Blackbird,

    Either you are very very old, or you meant to say "upon one of Blackbird's ancestors who..." (descendants come after you and anscetors came before you).:laugh:
     
  15. AAA

    AAA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2007
    Messages:
    524
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the south is to have justifacation in the sight of our GOD, then it will have to come by HIS Grace, through His Son (Jesus) and his BLOOD, and through the power of the Holy Spirit.............

    :godisgood:
     
  16. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Or, maybe he is hoping....:laugh:
     
  17. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    I posted this previously on the politics forum:

    Lincoln needed an excuse to start his war of aggression, because Congress did not want war and would not declare war of its own volition. The most likely hot-spot in which Lincoln could start his war was Charleston Harbor, where shots had already been fired in anger under the Buchanan administration. But the newly-elected governor of South Carolina, Francis Pickens, saw the danger--that Lincoln might, as an excuse, send a force of U.S. Navy warships to Charleston Harbor supposedly to resupply Maj Anderson's Union force holed up in Fort Sumter. So Gov Pickens opened negotiations with Maj Anderson, and concluded a deal permitting Anderson to send boats safely to the market in Charleston once a week, where Anderson's men would be allowed to buy whatever victuals they wished. (This arrangement remained in effect until a day or so before the U.S. Navy warships arrived at Charleston). Maj Anderson wrote privately to friends, saying that he hoped Lincoln would not use Fort Sumter as the excuse to start a war, by sending the U.S. Navy to resupply it.

    Before his inauguration, Lincoln sent a secret message to Gen Winfield Scott, the U.S. general-in-chief, asking him to make preparations to relieve the Union forts in the South soon after Lincoln took office. Lincoln knew all along what he was going to do. President Jefferson Davis sent peace commissioners to Washington to negotiate a treaty with the Lincoln administration. Lincoln refused to meet with them; and he refused to permit Secretary of State Seward to meet with them. After Lincoln assumed the presidency, his principal generals recommended the immediate evacuation of Maj Anderson's men from Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor--which was now located on foreign soil. To resupply it by force at this point would be a deliberate act-of-war against the C.S.A.

    It turned out that Lincoln's postmaster general, Montgomery Blair, had a brother-in law, Gustavus V. Fox, who was a retired Navy-captain, and wanted to get back into action. Fox had come up with a plan for resupplying Fort Sumter which would force the Confederates to fire the first shots -- under circumstances which would force them to take the blame for the war.

    Source
     
  18. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
  19. Ralph III

    Ralph III
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Messages:
    274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Very Interesting and informative.




    I would argue against your assumption. The quote from the source which you take issue with is actually pretty accurate and the States ARE party to the Constitution.

    The Founders understood tyranny and in forming the new Government and is something which was heavily considered! The Constitution set up our new Government but it supposedly limited it. It also insured the People and States would retain certain rights despite or against the Federal Gov. The States authority, thus respective People's values, was considered more important and above what was to be a loose, per say, Federal authority. There was of course some who argued for a stronger Federal Gov. and such can be seen with the various Parties views at the time.

    However, numerous of the Founders, including George Washington, conveyed the right to dissolve or break away from the Constitution or Government, if such was no longer Representative or had become harmful etc. There is an excellent quote from George Washington in this specific regards.

    Whereas the States playing part in the Constitution. The Constitution would not have been ratified had not the States and the People's authority/rights been recognized. The Bill of Rights is the Rights guaranteed to the People and the States, against the Federal Gov. as stated in the Constitution. Though as powerful a Fed. as we have today you would never know at times. Perfect example is with Freedom of Religion at times and/or widely varying gun restrictions between States. What is legal in one State, ownership/possession, may get you arrested in another State. In regards to the latter, the Constitution should settle the matter, but due note Amendment X.


    Though I am as Southern as you can get, I have always been thankful the Union was preserved in the Civil War. However, with the way things are going in some respects, it makes you wonder how some things now would have been handled with a Southern Gov. Especially in regards to God/Country and traditional Family.

    Take care. :jesus:
     
    #19 Ralph III, Mar 8, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 8, 2007
  20. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,123
    Likes Received:
    220
    Interestisng question. Some time ago, I saw an article about how the US Senate voted on certian issues. Basically it stated that Southern Senators voted more conservtive on many issues.
    Therefore, if the CSA existed today, many laws in the CSA would be more conserative ( ie abortion, homosexual marriage, parent authority, and ect. In the Union, much more liberal causes would have been passed.

    Salty
    wonder if anybody has heard of that article and / or google it:praying:
     

Share This Page

Loading...