revisiting the war between the states … reprint of bmews comments cos they belong here
on 07/18/2015 at 05:19 AM
Thank you. But do please note that was not my original work. I fully plagiarized that from the source linked therein.
Posted by Mark Matis
07/18/2015 at 11:17 AM
Plagiarized or not, it is an interesting viewpoint. Interesting, but I am not so sure that it is applicable whatsoever.
I will admit that this tariff was new to me, so I’ve only done a quick bit of research. Mostly at Wiki, which I take with a large tablespoon of salt, not merely a grain or two.
Ok. The Morrill Tariff doubled the import duties on things like ironworks, finished cloth, and other manufactured items.
The South could have avoided nearly all the impact of it by either embracing local industry or by buying those products from the Northern states. They chose neither, and instead imported things from Europe as usual. The Tariff itself was originally built to inspire the creation of industry anywhere in the nation.
American import tariffs were some of the world’s lowest at the time, by far. Raising them by a significant amount brought them back into parity with other nation’s tariffs. I don’t have too much sympathy for those who formerly got off Scot-free now having to pay about as much as everyone else. “Oh, grow up”, comedienne Joan Rivers used to say.
The Merrill tariff itself may be almost entirely moot, as it was held up in committee for the better part of a year (by Dems), and didn’t go into action until AFTER more than half of the Southern states had seceded, followed within 2 months by the rest of them. So how much extra did the South pay because of it? Probably almost nothing.
The problem I see with the argument Mark Matis posted (as I covered more in depth earlier) is that it focuses only on what Lincoln said.
This is a damning problem, because like I covered earlier. Lincoln didn’t start the war. The “War of Northern Aggression” label is utter balderdash on a purely strategic level (the North was not the aggressor, even if it spent most of the war on the attack; the Confederacy- or elements associated with it- were the aggressors
The fact of the matter is that the war didn’t even start on his watch. It started under that of James Buchanan- his predecessor- by rebelling Southern state governments that would go on to form the Confederate States.
And what The Themselves defined as the reasons why they fought say a lot more.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
Slavery was what the Confederate leadership saw at the heart of their cause. They don’t mention a great deal about thigns like Tariffs (I don’t want to act like slavery was the only cause that made anybody fight for the CSA; but the tariffs were not that important in 1861; Jacksonian Nullification Crisis is another matter....).
Yes, it is true that Lincoln was not perfect PC as far as his opinions of Blacks went (though given the time and even location he was hardly bad by any measure). He was primarily a white freesoiler who preferred that free Blacks settle back in Africa. And he did not fight first and foremost to end slavery. But again, his quote is a fig leaf. Because it’s not important.
And the claim that he didn’t care about it until it became politically expedient in the middle of the war is nothing less than a willful falsehood. Lincoln viewed slavery as a moral evil for decades and had made himself very outspoken about it.
He just didn’t push for abolition when he became president (initially) because he saw his duty as preserving the legal Union, including the slave states (many of whom had remained loyal). And for that he made compromises. But it’s damn impossible to claim he didn’t care about it.
March 3, 1837
At the age of 28, while serving in the Illinois General Assembly, Lincoln made one of his first public declarations against slavery.
The following protest was presented to the House, which was read and ordered to be spread on the journals, to wit:
March 3, 1837
“Resolutions upon the subject of domestic slavery having passed both branches of the General Assembly at its present session, the undersigned hereby protest against the passage of the same.
They believe that the institution of slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy; but that the promulgation of abolition doctrines tends rather to increase than to abate its evils.
They believe that the Congress of the United States has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the different States.
They believe that the Congress of the United States has the power, under the constitution, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; but that that power ought not to be exercised unless at the request of the people of said District.
The difference between these opinions and those contained in the said resolutions, is their reason for entering this protest.”
Dan Stone,
A. Lincoln,
Representatives from the county of Sangamon
Ironically, the Confederate states- through their declarations of slavery- made the war about savery long before Lincoln wanted it to be.
Anyway....besides that, what does everybody make fo the game I linked?
Posted by Turtler
07/18/2015 at 03:23 PM
The North was INDEED the aggressor. The South seceded on December 20, 1860. Lincoln STARTED the war by invading South Carolina to resupply Fort Sumter. Or do you go along with the Progressive meme that illegal aliens are not invaders, but deserve to take WHATEVER they want from you and your family???
http://www.us-civilwar.com/sumter.htm
And the Cherokee people recognized what damnable swill was running the US government:
http://www.civilwarhome.com/cherokeecauses.htmPosted by Mark Matis
07/18/2015 at 03:40 PM
And for what it’s worth, the South did NOT go to Africa and buy their slaves. The bulk of the slave ships were owned by New England swill, who were only to glad to buy slaves from the ragheads in Africa, transport them across the ocean, and sell them to anyone who would buy:
http://slavenorth.com/profits.htmNote that their damnable spawn, who PROFITED greatly from this trade, were among the most outspoken to end slavery once they had their money counted. And had NO intention of reimbursing the Southerners who had bought from them. Much like most of the Northeast today. How little things change!
Posted by Mark Matis
07/18/2015 at 03:55 PM
Rock On gentlemen, you do discussion good.Links and all that shit.
And isn’t it nice we don’t have any resident Trolls to muck up perfectly good chats like this.
@Mark Matis
Watch your tongue and re-read the analysis.
The North was INDEED the aggressor.
Endlessly repeating something does not make it true; contrary to the “Big Lie” mythology.
Let’s go define what “aggressor” is , for an impartial point of comparison.
How is Meriam-Webster?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aggressor
“: a person or country that attacks another : a person or country that starts a fight or war”
Full Definition of AGGRESSOR
: one that commits or practices aggressionNow for the definition of “Aggression.”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aggression
“: angry or violent behavior or feelings
: hostile action against another country, government, etc.”
“Full Definition of AGGRESSION
1
: a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master
2
: the practice of making attacks or encroachments; especially : unprovoked violation by one country of the territorial integrity of another
3
: hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook especially when caused by frustration “Can we agree on those definitions? Alright.
The South seceded on December 20, 1860.
No, the South did Not secede on December 20th, 1860.
SOUTH CAROLINA- and South Carolina ALONE- seceded on December 20th- as the first state to do so- through a Declaration of Secession.http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/south-carolina-declaration-of-causes-of-secession/ (note the reasons cited).
The other to-be-Confederate States did not on December 20th. In fact, none of them made the formal declarations before the New Year in 1861 (though it was obvious what way some of them would go for well before then). As you can see through this.
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/active_learning/explorations/south_secede/timeline_secession.cfm
So Strike One. Basic Chronology screwup.
And let me say this: if you make such a basic, BASIC mistake as this, how would you have anyone else trust what you have to say on the matter?
Lincoln STARTED the war by invading South Carolina to resupply Fort Sumter.
No, No he did not.
Let’s start with what the alleged “invasion” consisted of. Namely, an unarmed resupply mission to provide food and water to the Federal American Army garrison of what was legally a Federal American Fort.
(A)n attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only, and that if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made without further notice, [except] in case of an attack on the fort.
Now, does this fulfill the definition of “Aggression?” Does it even fill the definition of “Invade”?
Let’s find out.
Was it an:
( person or country that attacks another : a person or country that starts a fight or war")
NO, it was not an attack, or an attempt to start a fight. That would have involved harming the Confederates/people or armed forces of South Carolina. Which usually entails military action.
This was not it. There was no effort to attack South Carolina or its’ soldiers, just an attempt to feed American soldiers and do that only. The only way that would constitute a hostile action would be if we assume that somehow, the presence of American soldiers on American property (which Fort Sumter was acknowledged to be before secession) constituted some kind of harm against South Carolina. As if it were harmed by their mere existence. Or alternatively, that it was in a state of siege.
The former does not deserve dignifying. So I will not. If our Founding Fathers tolerated martial law in Boston without regarding it as necessary for war, South Carolina could put up with some noncombat personnel. So onto the second case.
But if we assume that Fort Sumter (reasonably0 was under Confederate siege, that would mean that there was a status of war (in fact if not in law) already existing between the Confederacy and the Union, and that *The Confederates initiated it.* Under no other circumstance would it be considered as such.
Did it really constitute an effort by Lincoln to Invade? Let’s see…
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invade
: to enter (a place, such as a foreign country) in order to take control by military force
No, it wasn’t. Lincoln did seek to do that later in the war and likely would have sought to do it later even without an attack on Fort Sumter. But a noncombat supply mission to support pre-existing troop dispositions is not invading on a very objective level.
: to enter (a place) in large numbers
Again, there weren’t even any reinforcements, or military supplies that were intended to be landed. So forget “large numbers”, there were not even “small numbers.”
: to enter or be in (a place where you are not wanted)
This much is indisputably true. But that is not a legally binding or strategic definition in almost any sense. Every troop ship that goes into Guantanamo Bay is entering a place where they are not wanted (according to the Castro regime). But even they haven’t called it an invasion.
Which brings up the point that the Castros behaved less aggressively than the Confederacy and assorted militias and state governments. Think about that.
1
: to enter for conquest or plunderAgain, not applicable. They weren’t entering anywhere but Fort Sumter, and they weren’t entering that for conquest or plunder.
2
: to encroach upon : infringeAgain, infringe on what?
See above regarding the “attack”. This would assume that the mere presence of pre-existing American troops (as agreed to even months before secession) constituted some kind of newfound “infringement.”
This logic was not what the Founding Fathers intended, and even the Castros haven’t used it.
a : to spread over or into as if invading : permeate <doubts invade his mind>
Again, nothing to spread over unless we’re talking about hardtack biscuits invading Fort Sumter.
b : to affect injuriously and progressively <gangrene invades healthy tissue>
Somewhat off topic. But ties in to my previous point. If we allow this definition to stand, we assume that the mere, pre-agreed positioning of American troops in Fort Sumter constituted an injurious offense to South Carolina.
Which raises the question of “why?”
So, under which definition(s) do you justify your claim that the North and Lincoln were the “aggressor” that “invaded” South Carolina to resupply Fort Sumter (when they had no intention of doing so and believed creating a conflict there would have been counterproductive to said resupply mission)?
With that being said, let’s go through the timeline leading up to the Siege of Fort Sumter.
November 6: Abraham Lincoln wins the election of 1860- one of the most thoroughly dysfunctional elections in American history- because of a completely divided country that split his rivals more than his own. He is set to take office as a minority president for the Free Soil Republicans, who were not even on many Southern ballots. This immediately leads to a frenzy of panic throughout the anti-Republican parts of the country (mostly the South) over real and exaggerated knowledge of the anti-slavery of Lincoln and his party. This turns out to be the decisive thing that shifts the Confederacy to secede.
November 6 to Mid December 1860: Secessionist and radical Pro-Slavery dissension in the South (and elsewhere, like New York City) reaches a new fever pitch, while the South Carolinian State government goes through the motions to formalize a declaration of secession from the Union. Various armed militias and groups of both camps start mobilizing across the country (including the nucleus of the Confederate Army), and a wave of violence breaks out from both sides, mostly targeting Unionists and Abolitionists in the deep South.
December 20, 1860: South Carolina publishes a formal declaration of secession from the Union on the basis that the election of Lincoln alone constitutes something South Carolina will not live in Union with (as you can see if you read between the lines of the formal declaration). Furthermore, they judge that in the event of secession they unilaterally receive ownership of all Federal property in South Carolina (a formulation that the other seceding states adopt).
South Carolina state militia and assorted forces start seizing it- Nationalizing, to use more leftist parlance- (starting in the capitol around the time of the declaration and fanning out) without waiting for declaration. Even when it involves invading what would constitute American soil (as the extraterritoriality of some federal officers and the harbor forts constituted).
ALL OF THIS would ALREADY constitute Confederate aggression against either fellow Americans or foreign nationals, and would be a justifiable Cause For War.
Amongst the Federal Property in South Carolina include a number of forts in Charleston Harbor containing skeleton garrisons of American Federal troops under the command of Major Anderson. He commanded around 100 men at the most, and initially had his position at Fort Moultrie. However, the massively indefensible nature of Moultrie and the increasingly encroaching behavior of secessionist troops (including threats to open fire) meant it was indefensible in a battle.
The governor of South Carolina and President Buchanan (who claims that secession is unconstitutional but the Federal government cannot legally stop it) try to massage tensions, with Buchanan using diplo speak to claim that he would not occupy Fort Sumter- by far the strongest fort in the area- “Immediately.”December 20-25: Statewide mobilization of South Carolinian militias for the secessonist cause continues, as does bloodless encroachment on Moultrie and other fortresses. The South Carolina government demands the turnover of the fortresses while Anderson and the Federal government refuse, while at the same time Anderson begins thinking of an attempted withdrawal.
Night of December 26-27: After lasting six days in what is claimed to be a hostile county’s coast, Anderson and the garrisons withdraw from Moultrie and the others to Fort Sumter. In the immediate aftermath secessionist troops occupy the forts and the South Carolinian Governor- due to the implication of the disputed “immediately” comment from Buchanan- perceives that he’s been had.
December 30: Secessionist troops forcibly nationalize the Federal arsenal at Charlestown, equipping themselves with the weapons taken from it. Which are quickly put to use by their new owners, including tightening the encirclement of the American troops at Sumter. This is especially notable because it- coupled with some transports from elsewhere- are the first major deployment of secessionist artillery to Charleston Harbor, which will eventually prove decisive in the bombardment and the crises leading up to it.
In effect, this is not only *widespread theft* but use of it to threaten American soldiers. If any other nation in the world did this we would consider it a declaration of war and rightfully so.
First week of January, 1861: South Carolina’s “Time Alone” starts coming to an end as more states begin preliminary work for declarations of secession. The sinking of vessels in Charleston harber and the increasingly angry demands for surrender mean this can be officially called a siege. Similar crises to Sumter break up more or less all along the Atlantic seaboard of the South.
January 9, 1861: A resupply sloop- Star of the West- arrives in Charleston harbor with the intent of resupplying the garrison, and is *fired upon* without cause by the Secessionist Artillery at Morris Island and Fort Moutrie. There was no harm, and the ship turned around and sailed back.
Again, This would already constitute an attack,and another cause for war.
Mississippi secedes from the Union, followed by four other states before January is over
January 31th, 1861: The Confederate governor of South Carolina issues a formal demand to President Buchanan that Fort Sumter surrender. Unsurprisingly, this is refused. Texas secedes the next day.
February, 1861: Impasse as both sides struggle to position themselves better, the Confederacy starts being formed in earnest, and the Union government struggles with how to grapple with it.In particular, news of the food crisis for the defenders becomes acute,.
March 1, 1861: Brigadier General Beauregard takes command of all secessionist forces stationed in Charleston Harbor, and immediately demands the surrender of Fort Sumter. Something he would repeat frequently. He then codifies measures to starve the defenders out (one of the hallmarks of a siege), and starts moving the Harbor troops into an aggressive footing.
In particular, as a gifted artillery savant (taught by Anderson), he improves the positioning of the Secessionist artillery.
March 4, 1861: Lincoln is (Finally?) Inaugurated (after dodging an assassination plot in Baltimore). He pledges that the secessionist states shall be reintegrated into the Union and Federal property defended, but that he will not strike the first blow.
April 4, 1861: Lincoln concludes from supply reports that the provision situation is critical, and so decides that Fort Sumter must be resupplied. After debates about provoking open war, it is decided to be non-combat supplies only (..rather like the toothless supplies we have sent Ukraine).
April 6, 1861: Lincoln notifies the Governor of South Carolina of his intents, as mentioned above.
April 9, 1861: Jefferson Davis- as newly elected Confederate President- and the fledgling Confederate cabinet in Montgomery (AL) order Beauregard to demand the fort be surrendered again, and if it is not that it was to be attacked and seized before the food could arrive.
April 11, 1861: Beauregard sends several couriers to carry the ultimatum for the surrender.
April 12, 1861: Last minute negotiations for potential evacuation go on, but are found to be “too conditional” for the Confederate command. So after a one hour warning, the Confederate artillery opens fire on Fort Sumter. The resulting bombardment lasts for nearly two days until Anderson is forced to give in to the Confederate troops in exhange for evacuation.
It was only AFTER this attack on American military personnel and pre-existing American military property that Lincoln declared an effective state of war and begin mobilization. After all, it was a reaction to repeated and increasingly dangerous aggression.
Now, if you still want to claim that this was somehow “Northern Aggression”, point out to me Exactly what is wrong with my above summary. Or failing that, what I was conveniently leaving out.
I will be waiting.
Or do you go along with the Progressive meme that illegal aliens are not invaders, but deserve to take WHATEVER they want from you and your family???
This is a worthless strawman, and a poor substitute for an actual argument.
Don’t waste my time.
That said, I do find it ironic that the person justifying the armed seizure of American territory and property by (self-claimed) foreigners is trying to pull the illegal immigrant card on me.
Posted by Turtler
07/18/2015 at 06:23 PM
Why not use YOUR OWN definition above:
“: hostile action against another country, government, etc.”Using YOUR OWN TIMELINE above, Fort Sumter was told it was an illegal occupation IN MARCH. Through the goodness of his heart, General Beauregard gave its commander MANY opportunities to vacate its premises. The damnable swill occupying that territory of the South REFUSED to do so, and in fact conspired with the filthy POS Lincoln to entrench themselves.
Talk about “a worthless strawman, and a poor substitute for an actual argument”, YOU are damn good at that. Your filthy swill had invaded and refused a POLITE request to vacate their ill-gotten gains. Don’t waste MY time. But then what else would one expect from an apologist for the foul swill who STARTED the war.
Si se puede, mofo!
Posted by Mark Matis
07/18/2015 at 06:46 PM
And your “pre-existing American military property” was NO LONGER AMERICAN PROPERTY as of 20 December 1860. Time for that “monument” to the filthy POS who STARTED the war to be wiped off the landscape in DC.
Posted by Mark Matis
07/18/2015 at 06:51 PM
All I’m doin’ is bringin’ food to my HOMIES! How can you be so hateful???
Posted by Mark Matis
07/18/2015 at 06:57 PM
And for what it’s worth, the South did NOT go to Africa and buy their slaves.
Yes, yes, yes. I am well aware.
By the time of the Civil War the Transatlantic Slave Trade was essentially dead, and had been dying since the “Great Emancipation” by the British in 1807. The prohibition of “The Trade” was even written in the Confederate Constitution, as I showed earlier.
In terms of actual tonnage, you are correct that the South did not own a lot of slave ships (they didn’t have the industry or shipbuilding resources for it, tying in to what Drew said).
Most of the American slave ships were at least built out of the North and operated out of it prior to the British emancipation and a few years after (where it shifted to quick Southern smugglers- like the slave trade in general did). And even then the majority of slave ships were not American at all, but- especially after 1807- Spanish, Portuguese, and Brazilian.
But all of this is blatantly irrelevant to the point.
By the time of “Bleeding Kansas” slavery was all but extinct in the North both directly and indirectly, and the Transatlantic Trade had been killed by the Royal Navy (like almost everything else in the 19th century). When Confederate leadership issued declarations of secession identifying themselves “the slaveholding states” they understood that to be the main dividing line between them and the North.
The bulk of the slave ships were owned by New England swill,
Wonderful. Because apparently, racism is oh so cool!
But let’s strip away the stupid regional prejudices to talk about the stupid factual muckup.
http://www.slavevoyages.org/tast/assessment/estimates.faces
As you can see from these figures, the entire US- let alone the “New England Swill"- didn’t come ANYWHERE CLOSE to owning “most of the slave ships”, as I mentioned before. And especially by this period with the Royal Navy cracking down, it was essentially a trade for the Spanish, Portuguese, Brazilians, and smugglers. With the entire history of US Slave shipping being a *FRACTION* of those Brazil did in 25 years.
To the extent that the South dabbled in the Transatlantic Trade, they usually did it either by smugglers, or by buying from “Foreign” nationals (Spanish, Portuguese, Brazilian, or “Metropolitan” British).
who were only to glad to buy slaves from the ragheads in Africa,
Firstly, learn some geography. The “Ragheads” were generally on the other side of the continent in the East and North.
The Transatlantic trade generally targeted the Animist South and West (and even the Catholic Kingdom of Kongo), and the relatively few Muslims that were snatched up in the Northwest generally weren’t “ragheads.”
Note that their damnable spawn, who PROFITED greatly from this trade, were among the most outspoken to end slavery once they had their money counted.
I want to emphasize how repugnant this quote is.
“Damnable Spawn”? Why?
Because they advocated for abolition (for whatever reasons)? Or because they committed the horrible crime of being born as sons (or grandsons) of slave-traders?
I want to know why you think you have the justification to go slinging that term around indiscriminately. But either of the above possibilities would be worrying.
But beyond that, it seems like you don’t know a great deal about why the Abolitionist movement came about or where. Or failing that, you have been told that it was a purely economical advantage to prey on the poor South (as if that would be worth giving up a highly valuable trade alone).
I would suggest you do some more research.
And had NO intention of reimbursing the Southerners who had bought from them.
Do you have a habit of making recklessly broad statements, or is it just this subject?
For starters, it has abysmally low chance of being true.
The US Banned the international slave trade in 1808. The average life expectency of a slave at birth was under thirty years.
Do the math.
There would have been essentially no slaves in the Southern States come 1860 that would have been taken across by New England shippers (unless they were smugglers, which was risky, unprofitable, and generally a Southern or “foreign import” business) unless they were sixtyplus years old.
The overwhelming majority of the slaves present in the South at that time (that absolutists like Garrison were advocating emancipation of without reimbursement) were either smuggled across by people other than New Englanders, or were *Native Born To The South.*
Secondly, you state it as if every Northerner and New Englander who supported abolition (or even every abolitionist on the whole?) had no intention of reimbursing Southerners for freed slaves. Let’s bring that statement around again.
And had NO intention of reimbursing the Southerners who had bought from them.
This means that I can say you know Very, Very little about actual, non-strawman abolitionists. The reality is that compensated v. noncompensated abolitionism was a major issue that divided abolitionists across the world (as well as abolition itself). it is all a very complicated and personal debate lasting nearly a century- if not more- that would take a lot of time and effort to go into… but which I know you haven’t even looked at.
Also, it’s worth noting that Lincoln- the dread Northern Aggressor Lincoln (with his invading army of Crackers)- was one of the main supporters of compensated emancipation, especially for those regions that remained loyal to the Union (while the uncompensated emancipation of rebel states was punishment for the revolt). It just generally wasn’t voted up save in DC itself.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/dc_emancipation_act/
And this is before I even get into the issue of “compensated” emancipation, and whether it would be truly just to give people more compensation over already exploiting the sweat, blood, and lives of slaves. Which was another complicated dilemma that- again- divided abolitionists.
Ironically, it was the Confederacy’s secession and attack on the rest of the Union- as well as the costs of the war- that led to uncompensated emancipation being forced in the occupation. Had the Confederacy not waged war on the rest of the US or had but been defeated in-say- a year it probably would not have happened.
But this brings us back to the main point I have to say about this post:
It’s misdirection. It doesn’t matter much.
There is this continuous feeling amongst those who feel they must whitewash the Confederacy- not only to justify or defend it, but to claim that it did nothing wrong or was in the right. That the Confederacy was the Victim in spite of being the one to launch military attacks first, and that it was not fighting for slavery in spite of the rhetoric and declarations of its’ leadership pointing to that as the defining line and reason for secession.
But it does not matter. Any more than the nature of the Transatlantic slave trade decades before we are talking about.
It changes absolutely nothing about the fact that South Carolina’s state government- and others- unilaterally broke the bonds of Union (and its’ obligations under those laws). It does not change the fact that it unilaterally claimed the right to nationalize the property of the US Government and “foreign” ctiizens from the non-secessionist states.
It does not change the fact that it tried to besiege and starve out American soldiers on American Federal property (as recognized by treaty between the US Federal government and the states that claimed to be the legal basis for the Confederacy) in an undeniable act of war.
It does not change the fact that the Confederacy spent months making a flurry of threats, ultimatums, and military maneuvers (often with said stolen equipment) to attack.
It cannot stop the fact that it was Confederate artillery crews that bombarded Fort Sumter without Cassus Belli. That it invaded the neutral state of Kentucky when even the oh-so-aggressor Lincoln avoided doing so.
And that ultimately, the war should be called- to the extent we should call it anything- the “War of Confederate Aggression.”
I wonder if you’d approve of Mexican illegals talking about the “Guerra de Gringo Agresión” as justification for them coming over the border to seize property with thin pretexts.
Oh wait. I know. They already are (especially given how they villify Polk and the Texans). I live in California so I have to deal with that scum and their enablers day in and day out.
And if I’m not going to take their excuses, why should I take those of the esteemed artillerymen and deputized looters of Antebellum South Carolina?
Posted by Turtler
07/18/2015 at 07:04 PM
Let me put it in a way that even a Left Coast hive dweller should be able to understand.
Illegal alien squatters OVERSTAYED THEIR LEASE and refused to move out for OVER THREE MONTHS. In fact, after the date of their final eviction notice, they had their MS13 buddies bring in MORE SUPPLIES so they could stay longer. Run that one by your local constabulary and let me know how THAT works out.
And your illegal buddies out there in the land of fruits and nuts and flakes SOLD that land to the US. Even though you and your buds out there in California are enthusiastically GIVING IT BACK TO THEM. Whereas there was NO “treaty” with South Carolina to transfer that property.
And if the war WAS about slavery, WHY did the Emancipation Proclamation NOT FREE THE SLAVES IN THE NORTH AS WELL???
The whitewash is by you and your sycophants. Bless your little hearts!
Posted by Mark Matis
07/18/2015 at 07:22 PM
Using YOUR OWN TIMELINE above, Fort Sumter was told it was an illegal occupation IN MARCH.
Illegal occupation according to what grounds?
The forts were owned by the Federal Government according to the treaties between it and the State of South Carolina. The same State of South Carolina that the secessionists claimed was the sovereign power after secession. And thus by any half-arsed lawyer’s definition would still be legally binding.
So now you’re going to let them talk out of both sides of their mouths? That on one hand they were a sovereign state that entered into the Union and could enter out of it (and thus had to respect the treaties and arrangements it went into...), or that South Carolina was non-governing ("Occupied" even?) and cannot be expected to have lived up to its’ Pre-Existing Obligations?
Through the goodness of his heart, General Beauregard gave its commander MANY opportunities to vacate its premises.
It takes a “unique” mind to claim that the person pointing guns at you and who ultimately decided to unconditionally attack you because your agreement (which fit in with the previous demand he had made) was “too conditional” is acting through “the goodness of his heart.”
I suspect that if a small force of illegal Mexicans led by someone whose great grandfather claimed title to your home came in and did the same, you would be less focused on the “goodness of their heart” in giving you chances. And more on the outrage of some illegal thugs trying to seize something by force without justification.
The damnable swill occupying that territory of the South REFUSED to do so,
Damnable Swill?
Anderson was sympathetic to the Confederate cause (especially regarding South Carolina), as were many of his men. They just believed they were duty bound to serve the Federal government and protect Federal property from being vandalized or stolen. How do you explain that?
But apparently that isn’t enough. If they weren’t up in arms trying to claim it by force, they aren’t good enough.
and in fact conspired with the filthy POS Lincoln to entrench themselves.
“Conspired… to entrench themselves?”
Do you realize how idiotic that sentence is?
You don’t NEED to conspire with ANYBODY to entrench oneself, and they didn’t either. That is one of the main things soldiers do, especially when left to their own devices. Entrench.
The fact is that Fort Sumter was nearly completed, and most of the supplies were already there. So- UNSURPRISINGLY- the garrison decided to do what soldiers do and build it up further so that they’d have something between them and the huge honking guns pointed at them.
They didn’t “conspire” with Lincoln to fortify Sumter, they *couldn’t* have conspired with him to do it even if both wanted to; as I detailed above the government didn’t get any supplies to them. So they only worked with what they had.
As ANYBODY but an IDIOT or Suicide Case would have.
Talk about “a worthless strawman, and a poor substitute for an actual argument”, YOU are damn good at that.
Then shut up and prove it.
With proof.
Don’t just yammer on with me about it. Point out where I am wrong and provide proof. I could do it (or fake it, as you believe).
So why not you?
Your filthy swill had invaded and refused a POLITE request to vacate their ill-gotten gains.
Already debunked this tripe before; not going to do most of it again.
But one specific point. “Ill-gotten gains”?
If making lawful treaties with the state of South Carolina (which is what the secessionists claimed they were) is “ill gotten”, that means that you regard any agreement with the State of South Carolina as being “Ill Gotten.”
So unless you think that anybody gaining something through LEGITIMATE negotiations with SC has gotten them “illly”, you’ve phrased it wrong.
And if by chance you do think that is the case, then you will understand if the civilized world decided to shun South Carolina like a plague carrier for being backbiting oathbreakers (not unlike how the world doesn’t do too much business with Belarus).
Don’t waste MY time.
Apparently, I am.
Too bad.
And I’m going to keep doing it.
What are you going to do?
I’ve been on this site longer than you have, I’ve contributed (such as I can), and I don’t have to Plagerize to make my posts.
So if you don’t want to deal with me, Then Go.
If not, deal with it.
But then what else would one expect from an apologist for the foul swill who STARTED the war.
Rule to the wise:
Vary your insults. It’s already bad form to resort to them so much without anything to back them up. But endlessly repeating “swill” makes you one of the more boring knaves I’ve dealt with.
Secondly: I suppose you think the Poles started WWII because they refused to vacate from their legally guaranteed holdings in the Free City of Danzig?
No matter what the other side does, it is the side that starts using the tools of death (hunger, bullets, and explosives) that starts the war.
And your “pre-existing American military property” was NO LONGER AMERICAN PROPERTY as of 20 December 1860.
I already said this before. On what grounds?
If the State of South Carolina could not honor its’ legal agreements, then why should it be regarded as a valid or responsible state or government?
Time for that “monument” to the filthy POS who STARTED the war to be wiped off the landscape in DC.
Go on. Just try.
Posted by Turtler
07/18/2015 at 07:25 PM
You keep referencing “treaties” that were signed by South Carolina. Would you care to provide a LINK to any of them???
Posted by Mark Matis
07/18/2015 at 07:31 PM
Let me put it in a way that even a Left Coast hive dweller should be able to understand.
AH, delusions of superiority.
As if I’ve never experienced that in this wretched hive.
Illegal alien squatters OVERSTAYED THEIR LEASE and refused to move out for OVER THREE MONTHS.
Except this is Bullshit. The “Lease” that the US Government had with the SC State Government did not cite a date to leave (like the Anglo-Chinese Hong Kong one did).
It was the akin of a new gang’s slum lord taking over the neighborhood and deciding to force those living in his “hood” to clear out well ahead of date “Or Else”.
In fact, after the date of their final eviction notice, they had their MS13 buddies bring in MORE SUPPLIES so they could stay longer.
Except for the fact that this analogy fails miserably again.
The lease wasn’t overstayed illegally, and nobody succeeded in bringing in new supplies. In fact, they even asked for the permission of the (Separatist) Governor of the state to do it.
Run that one by your local constabulary and let me know how THAT works out.
Why would I waste their time with that?
Even given my low opinion of California police, I don’t hate them so much as to maliciously waste their time.
And your illegal buddies out there in the land of fruits and nuts and flakes SOLD that land to the US.
A: They are not my friends. Anything but it.
And B: Yes, the Mexicans did.
Like how the South Carolina government agreed to give the forts in Charleston (and other state governments did elsewhere) to the Federal government. And to obey the laws of the Union.
And like the La Raza Scum, the South Carolina fireeaters insisted that the legal agreement they signed was somehow invalid, and theycould take it all back free of charge.
Because Reasons.
Even though you and your buds out there in California are enthusiastically GIVING IT BACK TO THEM.
Sadly true.
Whereas there was NO “treaty” with South Carolina to transfer that property.
Hogwash.
I’m not even going to dignify this with my time and do your legwork for you. Just dig up the reasons under which there were US Army troops in Charleston bay in the first place and it will collapse that claim like a deck of cards.
And if the war WAS about slavery, WHY did the Emancipation Proclamation NOT FREE THE SLAVES IN THE NORTH AS WELL???
Because you have a very convenient sense of reading.
The Confederate States seceded and went to war to protect slaver from real and perceived threats from the newly elected Lincoln.
The North went to war first and foremost to protect the Union. The North in fact tried to ignore and dance around the issue of whether or not it was about slaves for years (Lincoln in particular did so, to the rage of radical abolitionists like Garrison and Douglass).
The Confederacy believed that unlimited ability to retain and expand slavery was the main point of its’ war, and would not settle for anything less until it was on the way to defeat.
The Union wanted to rebuild itself, even if it meant slave and free states co-existing.
Also, I love how you are ignoring how while the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t free slaves in the Unionist slave states, the “Emancipation Amendments” passed by Lincoln and his successors during the last year or so of the war DID.
Posted by Turtler
07/18/2015 at 07:36 PM
You keep referencing “treaties” that were signed by South Carolina. Would you care to provide a LINK to any of them???
Up to a few minutes ago I would have been willing to.
But by the time I was done with this latest reply, I figure I’ve had more than enough of this tripe. I’ve been putting links and sources to you all through these comments.
Now it’s time for you to do some of your own critical thinking.
So I’ll quote myself on that demand.
“ Hogwash.
I’m not even going to dignify this with my time and do your legwork for you. Just dig up the reasons under which there were US Army troops in Charleston bay in the first place and it will collapse that claim like a deck of cards. “
So go on. Do it.
Prove to me that the continued occupation of the Charleston Forts by US Army forces was illegal. In spite of it being based on consensus between both the US Government and the State of South Carolina, which were both the nominal parties in the 1860-1 dispute and (supposedly) would be the legal heirs.
I’ve proven my case many times over. Now it’s time for you to do it. Bonus point sif you can do it without- to quote yourself- “Plagiarizing” a post.
Posted by Turtler
07/18/2015 at 07:40 PM
It is YOU who have that “very convenient sense of reading”. Your fine amendment was RATIFIED in December 1865, almost EIGHT MONTHS after the surrender at Appomattox. Your “Union” wanted to leech tax dollars from the South, just as your hives do today. And YOU were the one claiming “treaties”, but it’s MY job to find them? Quelle surprise!
Posted by Mark Matis
07/18/2015 at 07:43 PM
Your fine amendment was RATIFIED in December 1865,
By the States, as the final leg of its’ passage.
But it was passed by the Senate and House (2/3rds of the Amendment process) by February 1865.
AKA “Two months before Appomattox.”
And this is before I get into the question of when you expected the Confederacy to pass its’ own process that would emancipate Slavery.
But regardless, this confirms exactly what I have been saying about you. You will conveniently omit or twist facts you don’t like.
And this latest attempt at a “Gotcha” just shows how wrong headed that approach is.
Your “Union” wanted to leech tax dollars from the South
And?
The South wanted to leech tax dollars form the Union, as well as protection.
That was THE LEGAL AGREEMENT that the states entered into as far back as the Continental Congress. It’s kind of hard to be crying victim then after enjoying the system for so long with no regrets (see: Franklin Pierce).
And YOU were the one claiming “treaties”, but it’s MY job to find them? Quelle surprise!
No, YOU were claiming that the continued US Army presence in the Charleston facilities was illegal. It’s your job to prove it. With evidence.
It’s also your job to show you’re actually willing to argue this honestly. Given your latest track record, that is in doubt.
I’ve provided my evidence and reasonings thus far. But now I’m calling your bluff. So give me the reasons why the US Army was allowed to be present in Charleston harbor up to then (as EVERYBODY agrees they were), and explain why the secession somehow nullified that.
Maybe you can get to how that all justifies the Confederacy launching the first indisputable acts of war against the rest of the country through starvation and artillery bombardment afterwards. But I’ll settle for babysteps.
Posted by Turtler
07/18/2015 at 07:52 PM
Well, what a turn of events. On the one side a well reasoned and albeit long treatise on the Facts as we know them. On the other, a rather emotional amount of reasoning,bordering on psychopathy, with just enough truth to make a worthy yet weak argument to the contrary.
You guys are a fun lot. Thanks for the show. 
@Rich K
Glad you enjoyed it at least. You also try out Civil War General 2 by chance?
Posted by Turtler
07/19/2015 at 01:27 AM
You refuse to provide a link to back your claim. How special, but how unsurprising. Let me tell you WHY the fort was built. To protect the United States. And South Carolina. As of 24 December 1860, that purpose was no longer valid. South Carolina politely asked the United States to vacate the fort that was now being run under false pretenses. The treasonous swill you worship refused.
The United States also had a base agreement with the Philippines for Subic Bay. They asked the United States to leave in 1991. Shrub I was honorable enough to accept that request.
The United States also had a base agreement with Japan for Futenma Air Base. Japan asked the United States to close it down in 1996. Clinton agreed.
The United States had an embassy agreement with Cuba. The United States asked Cuba to close down their embassies in 1961. Castro was honorable enough to accept the request.
Isn’t it special that Shrub I, Slick Willy, and Castro were far more honorable than the swill you worship, who not only refused to close the base and remove its personnel, but in fact insisted on resupplying it well after the request had been made?
You insist that the War was about slavery, even though Lincoln’s own words show it wasn’t.
You insist that the War was about slavery, even though Lincoln’s cabinet member’s own words show it wasn’t.
You insist that the War was about slavery, because the Constitutions of their states “enshrined” that right, even though the United States Constitution ALSO enshrined that right at that same time. And your trope about how “both Houses of Congress passed the 13th Amendment by 2/3 vote in February 1865, while conveniently ignoring the six other amendments passed by such a vote in both Houses of Congress that were never later ratified by the states.
You insist that the war was about slavery, even though thousands of blacks volunteered to serve with the Confederate army against Lincoln’s treason:
http://thomaslegion.net/blackconfederatesandtheamericancivilwar.htmlYou insist that the war was about slavery, even though the Cherokee people swore allegiance to the Confederacy as a result of Northern aggression and perfidy:
”In States which still adhered to the Union a military despotism has displaced the civil power and the laws became silent amid arms. Free speech and almost free thought became a crime. The right to the writ of habeas corpus, guaranteed by the Constitution, disappeared at the nod of a Secretary of State or a general of the lowest grade. The mandate of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was set at naught by the military power, and this outrage on common right approved by a President sworn to support the Constitution. War on the largest scale was waged, and the immense bodies of troops called into the field in the absence of any law warranting it under the pretense of suppressing unlawful combination of men. The humanities of war, which even barbarians respect, were no longer thought worthy to be observed. Foreign mercenaries and the scum of cities and the inmates of prisons were enlisted and organized into regiments and brigades and sent into Southern States to aid in subjugating a people struggling for freedom, to burn, to plunder, and to commit the basest of outrages on women; while the heels of armed tyranny trod upon the necks of Maryland and Missouri, and men of the highest character and position were incarcerated upon suspicion and without process of law in jails, in forts, and in prison-ships, and even women were imprisoned by the arbitrary order of a President and Cabinet ministers; while the press ceased to be free, the publication of newspapers was suspended and their issues seized and destroyed; the officers and men taken prisoners in battle were allowed to remain in captivity by the refusal of their Government to consent to an exchange of prisoners; as they had left their dead on more than one field of battle that had witnessed their defeat to be buried and their wounded to be cared for by Southern hands.”The treasonous swill you support insisted on declaring the voluntary Union had become a permanent prison, and spit on his very oath of office to the Constitution by invading the Southern states without any Constitutional authorization to do so. And in fact in DIRECT violation of the 10th Amendment which forbade him to do so without Constitutional authority. The treasonous swill you support would fit in quite well with Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg, who ALSO do not need words in the Constitution to work their perfidy.
Is there something in the water out there which leads you in this manner? Or is it the drugs? Whatever the cause, you are a perfect fit for Kalifornia, and indeed you and Moonbeam are as two peas in a pod.
It is interesting to note that your current pResident styles himself as another Lincoln. In all ways, the resemblance is truly amazing and uncannily accurate.
At this point, I am tired of trying to teach a pig to sing. I bid you adieu. Enjoy your life. You so truly deserve it.
Posted by Mark Matis
07/19/2015 at 06:39 AM
Ok gents, time to put the sabres away and retreat to your corners.
We’ve had a formidable debate, and Prof. Turtler has given us a semester’s worth of reading with all the links. Mr. Matis has shown us the unending vehemence behind his and others similar viewpoints.
Isn’t it interesting, how hopped up we all still get over this, when it was so long ago that we are nearly at the point where no one is still alive who knew someone who lived then. We are already mostly past the point (1845-1940=95, 1920-2015=95) where anyone now living actually could have had some semi-adult cognizance of a veteran, as opposed to “that old guy who sat in front of the store when I was a small kid”. I would say we are at or past that point for anyone who was actually a slave. No one living now has any real memory of what any of them were actually like.
I do not think any history is completely honest. It’s always written to garner support or sympathy. Until we invent a time machine to go back to 1815 and live the next 50 years in about two dozen cities and rural locales simultaneously, we will never gleen the entire big picture. That said, reading documentation of the day could be very helpful, IF we understand it was an era of wild yellow journalism, faith based initiatives, and vituperative ad hominem attacks on those who disagreed with you. So we could be fudged, right there. But I’m willing to keep an open eye and an open mind.
Mark’s diatribes remind me of something I’ve noticed before on this one: a Northern child will be “like, uh, um, Civil War? 1800s? Lincoln maybe, and slavery?” whereas a Southern child will take the podium for hours to rage on and on about That Rattlesnake-Franged Demon AntiChrist Nazi Lincoln and His War Of Aggression, with maps, plans, songs, and enough real memorabilia for Show & Tell to have to come in on pallets from his dad’s trailer.
Seems that half of us have learned nothing, and the other half have learned hatred.
And That is why Drew runs the store here, able to see the big picture through all the smoke.
Nicely Done buddy.
Damn it.... I shouldda said what Rich said but said it first.
I always seem to be behind Rich.
Ok...as usual Drew. I second that .Sharp minds think alike P man, I’m just a tad quicker on the trigger,,,,
