The predicted outcome of resupplying Ft. Sumter


Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,559
Location
Midwest
Without a court decision, all we got is your opinion on how a court would rule.
and your opinion, which was that
Had the CSA won, all its actions would be legal, effectively recognized in US law by the treaty.
which contradicts your initial assertion that
It was legal to take Fort Sumter both under CSA law and military law.
So either it was legal to invest Fort Sumpter the minute it was taken or not until later when (and if) the CSA had won and it was recognized in US law by treaty. Can't be both.

To invoke CSA "military law" as that which made it legal from the start contradicts that
...The CSA takes Sumter by force without recognizing either SC or US sovereignty in the matter.
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,548
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
and yours, which was


which contradicted your initial assertion


You don't get both: Either it was legal to invest Fort Sumpter the minute it was taken or not until the CSA had won and it was recognized in US law by treaty.

You could invoke "military law," but that would contradict
My opinion is simply that there is no evidence except victory at Appomattox.
 
Joined
Jul 15, 2018
Messages
172
Location
Pittsgrove,NJ
Legal this and legal that - Everything Hitler did in Germany was legal !!!

Nothing has changed in 158 years. The unionist still don't want to hear us. ( Your Law Your Constitution )

- A Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets has no charm for me.



I got into this community by a voluntary act and I will leave it with the same.


( The Union Is Dissolved )
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,559
Location
Midwest
... The unionist still don't want to hear us. ( Your Law Your Constitution )...I got into this community by a voluntary act and I will leave it with the same...(The Union Is Dissolved )
We have to conclude that "us" means yourself and others who are no longer with the Union, the United States. You wouldn't be playing us on that, would you? Because we admire the level of conviction it takes to give up the priveledges of U.S. citizenship, the cush life, for a higher cause.

Today I'm just sorry that y'all can't vote.
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,548
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
We have to conclude that "us" means yourself and others who are no longer with the Union, the United States. You wouldn't be playing us on that, would you? Because we admire the level of conviction it takes to give up the priveledges of U.S. citizenship, the cush life, for a higher cause.

Today I'm just sorry that y'all can't vote.
One of the interesting legal maneuvers of the Lincoln administration was that by declaring the CSA a combatant, they also removed the rights of citizenship from Southerners en mass. That allowed them the position of States did not leave the Union, but also able prosecute a war without Constitutional encumbrances.
 

Mortari

Corporal
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
387
You make good points but I would like to address this.

Without arbitration, adjudication or legislation this means war. All of the debates about the legality of secession in general and Sumter, in particular, can be summed up simply as a trial by combat initiated by the secessionists and lost by the same.
Correct. Without any legal changing of the rights to those properties the only way to assume them is to take them over via force. Same way any citizen can taken any military base, federal wildlife refuge, bank, etc.
 

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,548
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
With all of the professional advice Lincoln received advising against re-provisioning Fort Sumter, and the potential long-term risks ( bloody Civil War ) versus only a temporary extension in the federal ability to successfully occupy the fort,
it would seem Lincoln opted to initiate an action which caused the expected reaction on the part of South Carolina. The subsequent attack on Ft. Sumter gave Lincoln the moral high ground in the North and provided a justifiable excuse to call up 75,000 men to put down the "insurrection".
OYOH had Lincoln's gambit not been accepted, then he'd look incompetent. A good leader knows when to refuse a provocation.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
161
Location
Northern Illinois
OYOH had Lincoln's gambit not been accepted, then he'd look incompetent. A good leader knows when to refuse a provocation.
Yes,unfortunately South Carolina took the bait as it seems Lincoln hoped. I would add to your point, a good leader also doesn’t provoke needless bloodshed when there is still hope for peace.
 

Lost Cause

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
3,029
One of the interesting legal maneuvers of the Lincoln administration was that by declaring the CSA a combatant, they also removed the rights of citizenship from Southerners en mass. That allowed them the position of States did not leave the Union, but also able prosecute a war without Constitutional encumbrances.
Duality of the situation: Using the Constitution as a permissible or obligatory defense (excuse) for entering the war, yet “prosecute the war without Constitutional encumbrances.”
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
161
Location
Northern Illinois
And when no hope is offered?
I don’t believe it was a hopeless situation at the point where Lincoln
decided to replenish Ft . Sumter’s supplies. Even after the attack on the fort a peaceful resolution wasn’t an impossibility, no lives were lost. Granted it would have taken great restraint not to call in the military to
quell the rebellion. Also, both parties must want to avoid war, but once Lincoln called for 75,000 men to end the rebellion, yeah then it was hopeless.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,409
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
I don’t believe it was a hopeless situation at the point where Lincoln
decided to replenish Ft . Sumter’s supplies. Even after the attack on the fort a peaceful resolution wasn’t an impossibility, no lives were lost. Granted it would have taken great restraint not to call in the military to
quell the rebellion. Also, both parties must want to avoid war, but once Lincoln called for 75,000 men to end the rebellion, yeah then it was hopeless.
It was hopeless the very second South Carolina seceded from the Union.

Sam Houston knew this, Alexander Stephens knew this, Toombs knew this, Sherman knew this, along with others.

The minute a free and fair election under the US Constitution was disputed and ignored, it was too late.

The instant Confederate commissioners showed up in Washington, D.C. only wanting recognition before negotiation, it was too late.

The day Southern States began seizing US forts, arsenals, payrolls, mints, ships, custom houses, etc., it was too late.

The day civilian resupply ships were fired on, it was too late.

The day US soldiers were taken prisoner, it was too late.

LONG before Ft. Sumter was fired on, it was way too late for negotiation.

Because, in the end, the South wanted no negotiation, it wanted capitulation.

Unionblue
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,050
Location
Denver, CO
The President preferred that the confrontation occur in South Carolina. That would keep Harper's Ferry and the Norfolk out of the war for a few more days, and keep the west Virginians out of harms way.
If the war had not started at Fort Sumter it could have started somewhere else.
Or Lincoln could have just hung to the border states for 8 months and prepared for the war by calling home the naval vessels and refilling the authorized regular army.
However once the Confederates made a call for troops the sand was running through the hour glass. The northern politicians of both parties expected something to be done.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
161
Location
Northern Illinois
It was hopeless the very second South Carolina seceded from the Union.

Sam Houston knew this, Alexander Stephens knew this, Toombs knew this, Sherman knew this, along with others.

The minute a free and fair election under the US Constitution was disputed and ignored, it was too late.

The instant Confederate commissioners showed up in Washington, D.C. only wanting recognition before negotiation, it was too late.

The day Southern States began seizing US forts, arsenals, payrolls, mints, ships, custom houses, etc., it was too late.

The day civilian resupply ships were fired on, it was too late.

The day US soldiers were taken prisoner, it was too late.

LONG before Ft. Sumter was fired on, it was way too late for negotiation.

Because, in the end, the South wanted no negotiation, it wanted capitulation.

Unionblue
I respectfully disagree. Jonl51
 



Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top