- Joined
- May 17, 2019
- Messages
- 20,649
- Reaction score
- 2,465
- Location
- Idaho
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
That's why there's diplomacy first(wink)Dont care. Dont fire on US troops if you dont want a war
That's why there's diplomacy first(wink)Dont care. Dont fire on US troops if you dont want a war
Dont care. Dont fire on US troops if you dont want a war
Dont care.
They didnt use diplomacy. They fired at us troopsThat's why there's diplomacy first(wink)
Dont careSounds like a dictator
Because the union poo pooed diplomacyThey didnt use diplomacy. They fired at us troops
Yep, that's what dictators/tyrants say?Dont care
Opinion noted and dismissedYep, that's what dictators/tyrants say?
Too badBecause the union poo pooed diplomacy
Dictators/Tyrants say that as wellToo bad
In your opinion...which is noted and dismissedDictators/Tyrants say that as well
Opinion noted and dismissed
I am the god of all things
Happy to remind youYes, I forgot
The Constitution also does not permit unilateral secession either. So if that wasn't in there how exactly was Lincoln to abide by and honor something in the Constitution that does not exist. Except in you fervent mind?
To be honest, I have no ****ing idea what it is you're trying to say here. Care to translate?
Lincoln was open to permitting slavery to continue to exist in those states where it had previously existed. He said as much in his inaugural address; “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
Secession must be agreed to by both parties. And even if agreed to the US has a right to defend itself from a hostile country
If the south has not fired 3000 rounds at US soldiers we may have never had a warHad Lincoln believed that the Confederacy was a separate country, he would have withdrawn forces rather than temporizing.
The Constitution is essentially a contract. A social contract with the American people. You do know that Lincoln was lawyer before entering into politics, don't you? And by all accounts a damn good one too. So I think he knew a lot more about contact law than you. And after having demonstrated herein a complete ignorance of even the most basic tenets of contract law I would refrain from commenting on it any further if I were you.Lincoln reacted to secession as if the Constitution forbade it, making a fallacious comparison with contract law.
Hubris and stupidity.Clearly the South didn’t believe the new President’s protests. How do you account for that?
??? Yeah okay then, just what the heck was the question?My answer remains, “because the South had been suffering political attacks for over 50 years” btw.
In the eyes of the federal government they had never left the US.It doesnt matter if they ceded it when they were part of the US. When they left the US, it became a political issue.
The fort was of limited military value and expensive to maintain. That's why South Carolina ceded it.Clearly an island in the middle of a river in a country is that countries, not some foreign country. Its entirely impractical for the US to have a military base in the middle of SC.
No the South chose to go to war. Lincoln made his position to hold and occupy federal property very clear.They attempted to settle it peacefully and the union chose to instead go to war.
During the actual battle, no. But in the cannon salutes to the end of the battle one soldier on each side died as result of cannon misfiresIn the end, nothing happened, no one got hurt, and the union left.
The federal government leased this camp from Puerto Rico in 1940. In 1967, the U.S. Government licensed the camp to the Puerto Rico National Guard. So the terms of that license would be what I suppose would dictate whether the federal government or the commonwealth of Puerto Rico owns it. But it would appear that Puerto Rico may have a rightful claim to it. But I don't know for sure.If Puerto Rico became independent, would we still own Camp Santiago?
If you had been nicer to the south and let them keep their slaves a little longer, maybe they wouldn't have brutalized black people for so long after the civil war. I don't think the slaves would have been particularly pleased with your "argument."No one will ever know what might have happened had Lincoln abided by the Constitution and honored secession. Personally I think that after a few years an independent Confederacy would have foundered economically,
forcing them to compromise on Union
membership much as the independent state of Texas had. Modern Libs assume that a nation devoted to slave labor would have set some sort of inalterable precedent, which is why they virtue signal by showing utter abhorrence to the idea. But what if the nation had been permitted to exist long enough to fail? Could a few more years of legalized slavery have led to a compromise that MIGHT have obviated the South’s Black Codes?
Not that I expect an answer beyond “I reject slavery, so I’m virtuous.”
Sooner or later, Lincoln would have taken direct action, given his absolute determination to keep the Union together. Total tolerance on his part does not fit what we know of his actions during the conflict.If the south has not fired 3000 rounds at US soldiers we may have never had a war
And as I've pointed out previously, a contract that does not spell out the rights and responsibilities of the signatories is a contract that leaves itself open to interpretation.The Constitution is essentially a contract. A social contract with the American people. You do know that Lincoln was lawyer before entering into politics, don't you? And by all accounts a damn good one too. So I think he knew a lot more about contact law than you. And after having demonstrated herein a complete ignorance of even the most basic tenets of contract law I would refrain from commenting on it any further if I were you.
Hubris and stupidity.
??? Yeah okay then, just what the heck was the question?
In the eyes of the federal government they had never left the US.
The fort was of limited military value and expensive to maintain. That's why South Carolina ceded it.
No the South chose to go to war. Lincoln made his position to hold and occupy federal property very clear.
"In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices."
As to who would hold the responsibility for going to war Lincoln was equally as clear.
"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to “preserve, protect, and defend it.”
During the actual battle, no. But in the cannon salutes to the end of the battle one soldier on each side died as result of cannon misfires
The federal government leased this camp from Puerto Rico in 1940. In 1967, the U.S. Government licensed the camp to the Puerto Rico National Guard. So the terms of that license would be what I suppose would dictate whether the federal government or the commonwealth of Puerto Rico owns it. But it would appear that Puerto Rico may have a rightful claim to it. But I don't know for sure.
Obviously slaves would have continued to escape the South during a hypothetical Confederacy, and this time the North would have no obligation to return them. That in itself would have contributed substantially to an economic downturn for the cotton-dependent South.If you had been nicer to the south and let them keep their slaves a little longer, maybe they wouldn't have brutalized black people for so long after the civil war. I don't think the slaves would have been particularly pleased with your "argument."
more confederates were killed per capita and your economy was more devastated. ClownAlso known as the Civil War.
ThAts a guess. What we KNOW is the south fired firstSooner or later, Lincoln would have taken direct action, given his absolute determination to keep the Union together. Total tolerance on his part does not fit what we know of his actions during the conflict.
Because the union poo pooed diplomacy