Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not just an aggressor. The South was an aggressor that was trying to use force of arms to overturn a lawful election. The secession was the most anti-democratic act in US history.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lincoln sent a supply ship. They all knew that Sumter had to resupply and they didn't want them to do it.

That still doesn't change the fact that the South was the aggressor.

Leaving troops in a state that seceded wasn't an aggressive act? One ship to resupply, or even two, would be hard pressed to be considered an aggressive act...ships to include war ships with additional troops...not a big leap to assume more than supply.

sloop-of-war USS Pawnee,
steam sloop-of-war USS Powhatan, transporting motorized launches and about 300 sailors
armed screw steamer USS Pocahontas,
Revenue Cutter USRC Harriet Lane,
steamer Baltic transporting about 200 troops,
three hired tug boats with added protection against small arms fire to be used to tow troop and supply barges

All set to arrive on April 11, 1861. What date was the first shot fired?

Lincoln had one focus above all else...saving the union. Not everyone in the north agreed and we know the south wasn't on board. He also had states that had slaves that hadn't joined the Confederacy that he didn't want to swing...such as Maryland...so perception was very important.

Do I think Lincoln was the aggressor here? Sure. Do I think what he was attempting to do, on many levels beyond the ability to convey in this forum, was right? Sure do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lincoln sent a supply ship. They all knew that Sumter had to resupply and they didn't want them to do it.

That still doesn't change the fact that the South was the aggressor.

Not just an aggressor. The South was an aggressor that was trying to use force of arms to overturn a lawful election. The secession was the most anti-democratic act in US history.

Anonymous wrote:

Not just an aggressor. The South was an aggressor that was trying to use force of arms to overturn a lawful election. The secession was the most anti-democratic act in US history.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lincoln sent a supply ship. They all knew that Sumter had to resupply and they didn't want them to do it.

That still doesn't change the fact that the South was the aggressor.

Anonymous wrote:Lincoln sent a supply ship. They all knew that Sumter had to resupply and they didn't want them to do it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lincoln sent a supply ship. They all knew that Sumter had to resupply and they didn't want them to do it.

That still doesn't change the fact that the South was the aggressor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lincoln sent a supply ship. They all knew that Sumter had to resupply and they didn't want them to do it.

That still doesn't change the fact that the South was the aggressor.

Anonymous wrote:Lincoln sent a supply ship. They all knew that Sumter had to resupply and they didn't want them to do it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^Ah, the candidates positions and the law?

Here are the ones who to date have been too chickenshit to take a firm position on the Confederate flag:

Rubio
Santorum
Cruz
Huckabee
Jindal
Carson
Fiorina

Some, like Jindal, aren't even willing to admit Dylann Roof's massacre of 9 blacks was racially motivated.

What's a firm position to you? That it's racist? That it's not? That it's history? That it's the flag of the KKK?

It seems you simply want a parrot of your particular beliefs, otherwise they are 'chickenshit'.

Taking ANY POSITION AT ALL would be "firm" - that's something none of them have done... Just mealy-mouthed wishy washy stuff like "It's up to South Carolina" as though they have zero personal opinion on it, or "They should do the right thing" - while not telling us what they think "the right thing" is...

Really zero leadership or courage among any of the candidates in that list...

Most of the other GOP candidates weren't much better, most of them waited for Nikki Haley to say something first. No opinion? None whatsoever? You needed Nikki Haley to make up your mind for you?

Saying it's a state's issue is indeed a firm answer. It's also a correct one.

South Carolina was also the first state to secede from the United States of America. I guess you evidently must hate the USA too.

Contrary to Lincoln's position that it was, secession wasn't against the law. The SCOTUS didn't rule on it until 1869. Slavery was an abomination...but so many have little to limited, and even no knowledge, about what was and was not during that time.

The fact that SCOTUS ruled on it in 1869 does not make it legal in 1860. And frankly, Fort Sumter made it a war, secession or not.

It isn't that simple. To really understand history you have to have an understanding of the time. And there is no way I can possibly explain the ruling in 1869, what it was about and the fact that the original 13 states, among other aspects, had been called by Jefferson...free and independent states. States rights was a powerful thing then and to understand that one has to go back to their Declaration of Independence and subsequent fear of their right to self determination being taken away by a powerful central government.

If they thought this was their legal right, they would have made the challenge in the courts and not gone straight to war.

SC seceded in December 1960...the first shot wasn't fired until the Union troops hadn't left Fort Sumter and word came that Lincoln was sending ships, ostensibly to resupply, to the fort. Again, as to the issue of states rights and what they believed was their right why go to court? Would a war have broken out anyway? One would have to believe that the south was willing to invade the north...but consider that didn't happen early on and when it did it was a tactic designed to elicit response from the citizens in the north in hopes they would sue for peace...it is possible it wouldn't have been initiated from the south. Now, consider that Lincoln was determined to do whatever was necessary he might have provoked it by sending those ships.

BTW...that wouldn't have been the first time a president took an action, or inaction, designed to bring about a conflict.

I am not arguing that the south was right, nor that slavery was right, nor that what is considered to be the Confederate flag, even though it never was, should fly. I think it is the right of an American to fly it if they want to but not the right of any government entity to do so.

So, your contention is that the North "started" the war by not vacating its forts fast enough. Well, isn't that a nice re-interpretation.

Well,the troops in Charleston were pulled so why not Sumter. Is it not plausible that Lincoln knew that sending ships might provoke a reaction?