Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
If your beloved 'historians' could have ever been 'bothered', then I would not have to do for free what they get paid to miss!
I'll think about it... The WAR CONSPIRACY site has some of it. The dispatches themselves are pretty STOP BYPASING THE SWEAR FILTER.
I'll take a little while to collect them, and after all, I believe it was you, Ole, who tried to get me into a
copyright hassle for dropping and dragging the RISE AND FALL thing across....
Have to be careful! There are spies, everywhere!
I'll think about it.
Beowulf
Ole was looking out for the site, he did not try to get you into trouble. The site has had copyright issues before. It's generally considered polite to cite where something is cut and pasted from.
The site I chose has one requirement; that is to list their rather lengthy disclaimers if you use their name.
If I don't list their name, (which they don't have a problem with, either), then I don't have to list their disclaimer. At least, this was my understanding when I used their site.
If I am to bring over this material he seeks, instead of just the address for it, then I shall have to check on the requirements for usage and the like.
As to the SWEAR filter, it is a bit rigid in its condemnation of words. I cannot use the letters F, A, R and T in any sequence (such as ****her) without being asterisked!
The use I made of the term 'for condemnation' was not, I did not think, a swear word, used as such.
I shall cease to use it, seeing as how it offends!
Just more of the same: empty rhetoric designed to avoid confronting what the South actually did. As noted, even the Confederacy's own Secretary of State told them it was a fatal mistake when they voted to attack Ft. Sumter. They decided to do it anyway, and four years of war proved that the Secretary of State was right. But here we are in 2008 and you can't even acknowledge the facts from almost 150 years back.
Tim
So you think that allowing the resultant bloodshed at Charleston harbor when an admittedly hostile enemy force shows up to reinforce a fort hostile to South Carolina's
safety... this was sound policy for the Confederacy?
Read the dispatches yourself...
Get all the facts, and then see if you feel the same way.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings to all revisionists....But, there was never a Confederate States of America, there was never a President of a CSA, there was never a gov't of a csa.
Southern states were never out of the Union; there were people in a state of rebellion against the legal and lawful gov't of the USA, but their rebellion was unsuccessful and was crushed.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings to all revisionists....But, there was never a Confederate States of America, there was never a President of a CSA, there was never a gov't of a csa.
Southern states were never out of the Union; there were people in a state of rebellion against the legal and lawful gov't of the USA, but their rebellion was unsuccessful and was crushed.
Lincoln, despotic leader of the regime known as 'federal union,' violated the Constitution on numerous occasions thereby making it an illegal government ruled by outlaws.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
According to Revisionists, the fact that the south lost the war did not make the reason for their starting the war, wrong, then logically, if the north had lost the war it does not follow that Lincoln's reason for fighting the war was wrong either.
But, in Fact, it was the south that, with various methods of setting the issues of state's rights and secession available, chose, with cool deliberation and much forethought, War as the arbiter of the rightness of their cause and the North accepted their choice as the final solution to state's rights and secession .
If the south did not want war to settle the issue, they should not have started a war.
So you think that allowing the resultant bloodshed at Charleston harbor when an admittedly hostile enemy force shows up to reinforce a fort hostile to South Carolina's
safety... this was sound policy for the Confederacy?
Clearly it was NOT "sound policy" for the Confederacy: they started a war they lost badly, a war that they could have avoided, and their society and homeland was battered and leveled as a result of their folly. They chose to use force and violence; they lost and complained of the consequences of their own actions. Reconstruction was certainly no picnic, but it was actually fairly mild when measured against comparable situations in the nineteenth century.
But note the clear desire to distort what happened in your post: the Confederacy was not "allowing the resultant bloodshed at Charleston harbor". The Confederacy was causing the violence, firing the shots, trying to seize property that was not theirs, violating their own state laws as they did so, not to mention the oaths they had made to the Federal Union.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
Read the dispatches yourself...
Get all the facts, and then see if you feel the same way.
Beowulf
More empty rhetoric. I would guess I know far more about the relevant documents that you do, and have probably spent far more time and effort on researching them than you have. But you appear to ignore all facts that might get in the way of your contentions, so I don't think I'll worry much about it.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Lincoln, despotic leader of the regime known as 'federal union,' violated the Constitution on numerous occasions thereby making it an illegal government ruled by outlaws.
Abraham Lincoln was many things, but perhaps foremost among them he was a man of law. You might not agree with his opinions on the law, and he might have been unable to win his points in court in the long run if he had lived -- but he provided far more in the way of legal reasoning for his actions than any other President in US history, and based his actions upon it. I know he was more knowledgeable and precise about the law than I am, and more than you are. I know that the Supreme Court generally upheld his actions. This leads me to a conclusion that Abraham Lincoln was more likely to be right on the law than you are in your criticism of him.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Warships entering the territorial waters of another country without permission is a provocation...especially in this situation with the known intent to support and sustain a garrison of troops violating that same territory.
More false statements.
From December of 1860 to April of 1861 there was no other government in the world that recognized the existence of the Confederacy or of any of the individual states as sovereign and independent from the United States. One tried, Mexico, sending an emissary to Montgomery to discuss the matter. Jefferson Davis refused to meet with him, thinking it would be embarassing to have treated with Mexico for recognition should he lead an invasion of their country within a couple of years or so.
What this means is that the Confederacy is not a country, although they want to be. To become one, they need to establish the viability of their venture, and to get recognition of their status from other nations. That is simply the way international law works.
Until they do that, the world would think of them as a province in rebellion against legitimate authority. That is also the way international law works.
There is NO violation of territory by the US under international law. There is not even a case to be made under South Carolina law, since Ft. Moultrie, Castle Pinckney, and Ft. Sumter were all US property according to the South Carolina records when the state decided to seize them.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
