Confederate flag?
- Thread starter Rebel Gunman HK
- Start date
- Status
joab
Member
I posted the recounted version of a charleston resident call him a liar. I also deleted that within a couple of minutes
But I guess that makes you a liar when you said that the union troops were legally in the fort even though they had to sneak in at night in violation of the assurances of the sitting president
But I guess that makes you a liar when you said that the union troops were legally in the fort even though they had to sneak in at night in violation of the assurances of the sitting president
Cortland
Member
No kidding. But you said the Confederates were not justified in their actions. Are you telling me that the colonists are justified because they won, but the Confederates were in the wrong because they lost? I fail to see how the Confederates were any less justified than the Colonists. Sure the Confederates lost, but that's not relevent if the question is "who was right and who was wrong?"
joab
Member
Joab, please try to stick to reality when debating. I said the territory was legally owned by the US, now whether or not Buchanan promised to maintain the status quo, does not change the fact that Sumter was US territory. It also does not change the fact that Major Anderson had a responsibility to protect the men at Fort Moultrie. Anderson moved 84 men into Sumter from Fort Moultrie in an effort to avoid a violent confrontation with the Confederate soldiers who had surrounded the men at Moultrie. That is much different than attacking an unarmed, civilian supply ship on January 9, 1861, and much different than attacking the supply ships on April 12th 1861.
No lie on my part, just the facts. Fort Sumter was the property of the US, and the US had every right to protect both that property, the soldiers within, and the other US soldiers who were vulnerable to attack at Fort Moultrie.
No lie on my part, just the facts. Fort Sumter was the property of the US, and the US had every right to protect both that property, the soldiers within, and the other US soldiers who were vulnerable to attack at Fort Moultrie.
joab
Member
Cortland
The winner writes the history books and enforces the their version of history on the school systems And outlaws teaching the other sides facts. Just as they did "The War of Northern Agression" school books
I still have my copy of the "Southern History of The War" which was written before during and shortly after the war.
This is also why it's now know as the "Civil War" , which it never was instead of the "War for Southern Independance" which is what it was
The winner writes the history books and enforces the their version of history on the school systems And outlaws teaching the other sides facts. Just as they did "The War of Northern Agression" school books
I still have my copy of the "Southern History of The War" which was written before during and shortly after the war.
This is also why it's now know as the "Civil War" , which it never was instead of the "War for Southern Independance" which is what it was
The Confederacy had no legal claim to that property. It was postulated that it was in fact territory that belonged to the state, and they had the legal right to evict the Union troops, and this is incorrect. The Colonist too no legal ground to stand on, and would have surely suffered far greater penalties under the King had they lost, than the Confederates suffered after the Civil War.
Now subjectively opinions vary on the moral justification for each cause. It is my OPINION that the colonists were morally justified, although violating established law, in fighting British rule. However, it is also my opinion that the South had no moral justification for attacking Sumter. There was no great moral goal that the South was seeking by attacking Sumter. It was foolish pride that took the South into a war it could not win, when they attacked Sumter. Davis knew Lincoln wanted an excuse to fight for reunification, and he gave it to him.
joab
Member
Depends on who you talked to at the time. Thats the knid of difference of opinion that makes horse races and starts wars
Also doesn't change the fact thatAnderson was under the control of the CIC who had pledged not to take such actions. Nor the fact that he refiused to vacate the fort becasue he was under orders to keep it. If he had left he may have been discharged and have had to go home to the slaves he owned but was supposedly fighting to free
On Jan. 7, 1861, news reached Charleston that the Star of the West had departed New York with armed troops bound for Charleston. The expensive first order Fresnel lens was removed from the lighthouse and buried on Morris Island. The Charleston Light was converted to a lookout tower for the cadets from the Citadel, South Carolina's military college. Cadets were also positioned on Morris Island, out of range of Federal troops in Fort Sumter, manning a battery of four 24-pounder field howitzers to guard the main ship channel.
Ships carrying military men and material are not considered civilian
At least we can agree on something
joab
Member
If nothing else DMF
I'd say the passion of our opinions on this matter will help Rebel Gunman and others see why that symbol is not well recieved in many circles
And why it is and should be discouraged , if not banned, as appropriate school wear.
I'd say the passion of our opinions on this matter will help Rebel Gunman and others see why that symbol is not well recieved in many circles
And why it is and should be discouraged , if not banned, as appropriate school wear.
"Lincoln's first innagural address..."
The point of your bringing that up is?
Confederate states seceeded BEFORE Lincoln was sworn into office.
"The south had legally seceeded..."
Under what mandate did it "legally seceed?
No Constitutional provision gave it that ability, it was never recognized by any other government.
If the claim of secession is considered to be "legal," then forced reunification through suppression of the rebellion must also be considered legal.
"The Confederate constitution prohibited importation of slave the U.S...."
Incorrect.
The importation of slaves into the United States from Africa was outlawed in 1808.
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eight, it shall not be lawful to import or bring into the United States or the territories thereof from any foreign kingdom, place, or country, any negro, mulatto, or person of colour, with intent to hold, sell, or dispose of such negro, mulatto, or person of colour, as a slave, or to be held to service or labour."
That's extracted from the act, passed in 1807, that made it illegal to import slaves after January 1, 1808.
Grant's wife owned slaves, Grant did not prior to the his marriage to her.
Given the laws of the day, the wife's property became the husband's.
Grant's family never owned slaves -- his Father was an abolitionist.
Grant did own one slave in the late 1850s, apparently a grant from his father in law.
Robert E. Lee's wife owned slaves, he freed them around 1850.
By the way, Robert E. Lee was opposed to southern secession, believing it to be wrong, both legally, economically, and morally.
The point of your bringing that up is?
Confederate states seceeded BEFORE Lincoln was sworn into office.
"The south had legally seceeded..."
Under what mandate did it "legally seceed?
No Constitutional provision gave it that ability, it was never recognized by any other government.
If the claim of secession is considered to be "legal," then forced reunification through suppression of the rebellion must also be considered legal.
"The Confederate constitution prohibited importation of slave the U.S...."
Incorrect.
The importation of slaves into the United States from Africa was outlawed in 1808.
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eight, it shall not be lawful to import or bring into the United States or the territories thereof from any foreign kingdom, place, or country, any negro, mulatto, or person of colour, with intent to hold, sell, or dispose of such negro, mulatto, or person of colour, as a slave, or to be held to service or labour."
That's extracted from the act, passed in 1807, that made it illegal to import slaves after January 1, 1808.
Grant's wife owned slaves, Grant did not prior to the his marriage to her.
Given the laws of the day, the wife's property became the husband's.
Grant's family never owned slaves -- his Father was an abolitionist.
Grant did own one slave in the late 1850s, apparently a grant from his father in law.
Robert E. Lee's wife owned slaves, he freed them around 1850.
By the way, Robert E. Lee was opposed to southern secession, believing it to be wrong, both legally, economically, and morally.
Not my forum, but I'm calling this one.
We've been here before, and this issue'll likely never be resolved. As a general rule there might be an appropriate forum for refighting the war of northern agression, but THR ain't it.
We've been here before, and this issue'll likely never be resolved. As a general rule there might be an appropriate forum for refighting the war of northern agression, but THR ain't it.
- Status