Really?? That is nice. You think we don't know anything about history? Your history can still faulty. You are most welcome.
FSL -- health care sounds about the same. The South forced slavery on the North??? Well that is a new twist. So why shouldn't property be returned??
The Dred Scott decision was as good of a decision as the healthcare, which forces new taxes on us to pay for something we don't want. What would youwamt them to rule??? Property is property slavery was leagl.
Which convention 1st, 2nd or 3rd???
The persons name is George Purvis, it is not hard to remember just read the name at the top of the post your are replying too. ForInstance I can plainly see your name is Kate Halleron Well your history is either flawed or you have a biased opinion. Fort Sumter was under treaty at the time of the firing, Anderson made the first aggresive move. Let's see your original sources.
At any rate --
"The forts in the South were partnership property; and each State was an equal party in ownership. The Federal government was only a general agent of the real partners — the States — which composed the Union. The forts were designed to protect the States, and in case of withdrawal of a State the forts went with the State.
* * * * *South Carolina could not deprive New York of her forts, nor could New York deprive South Carolina of hers. The seceding States were perfectly willing to settle matters in a friendly way. They were striving only to resume the powers they had delegated.(1)
Such was sound reasoning. South Carolina had freely ceded property in Charleston Harbor to the federal Government in 1805, upon the express condition that "the United States... within three years... repair the fortifications now existing thereon or build such other forts or fortifications as may be deemed most expedient by the Executive of the United States on the same, and keep a garrison or garrisons therein." Failure to comply with this condition on the part of the Government would render "this grant or cession... void and of no effect."(2) The State then appointed commissioners and paid for the land to be surveyed out of its own treasury.(3) Work on Fort Sumter did not begin until 1829 and had still not been completed by 1860. Unfinished and unoccupied for over thirty years, the terms of the cession were clearly not fulfilled. Consequently, the fort was never the property of the United States Government, as Lincoln claimed in his First Inaugural Address, and, upon secession from the Union, the only duty which South Carolina owed, either legally or morally, to the other States was "adequate compensation... for the value of the works and for any other advantage obtained by the one party, or loss incurred by the other."(4) In the words of Stephen Douglas:
We certainly cannot justify the holding of forts there, much less the recapturing of those which have been taken, unless we intend to reduce those States themselves into subjection. I take it for granted, no man will deny the proposition that whoever permanently holds Charleston and South Carolina is entitled to Fort Sumter.... Whoever holds the States in whose limits those forts are placed, is entitled to the forts themselves, unless there is something peculiar in the location of the same particular fort that makes it important to the general defense of the whole country, its commerce and interests, as in the case of Forts Taylor and Jefferson at Key West and Dry Tortugas. But Fort Sumter and other forts, in Charleston harbor; Fort Pulaski on the Savannah River; Fort Morgan and other forts in Alabama, were intended to guard the entrance to a particular harbor for local defense.(5)
Such being the case, the occupation of Fort Sumter by U.S. troops was technically an act of invasion and the Confederate forces in Charleston were wholly justified in firing upon them when it became evident that Lincoln intended to use military force against the State. However, taking into account the scheming mindset of those in possession of political power at the North, the destruction of Fort Sumter was "a political blunder almost incredible, a disaster to southern hopes more serious than the loss of many battles," for in doing so, the Confederate Government "did for the Lincoln administration what it could not do for itself — set and solidify the wavering and divided spirit of the North."(6) During a Cabinet meeting on 9 April 1861, Jefferson Davis' Secretary of State Robert Toombs had argued against the assault, warning, "The firing on that fort will inaugurate a civil war greater than any the world has ever seen. Mr. President, if this is true, it is suicide, it is murder, and will lose us every friend at the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountains to ocean; and legions, now quiet, will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary, it puts us in the wrong. It is fatal."(7) Toombs' prediction could not have been more accurate. As one Northern periodical observed a few years after the Sumter incident, "The eyes of the whole nation were turned on Fort Sumter. One day a fleet of United States vessels appeared off the bar of Charleston, and the first gun was fired on the fortress. In one day, the whole North declared for war. The peace men were overborne; and, henceforth there was nothing heard of but vengeance, subjugation, and, if need be, extermination and annihilation, for the rebels who had dared fire upon the American flag."(8)
Lincoln, who made up in political savvy what he lacked in personal integrity, could not have been handed a more golden opportunity by the Confederates. As he told his old friend Senator Orville H. Browning of Illinois, "The plan succeeded. They attacked Sumter — it fell, and thus did more service than it otherwise could."(9) Presidential secretaries and Lincoln biographers John G. Nicolay and John Hay admitted that the episode was ordered so that "the rebellion should be put in the wrong."(10) Even the Pittsburg Daily Gazette openly admitted that "Lincoln used Fort Sumter to draw [the Confederates'] fire," and that Jefferson Davis and his subordinates "ran blindly into the trap."(11)
*In a speech delivered in the Senate on 2 March 1861, Joseph Lane of Oregon warned of Lincoln's policy to "inveigle the people of the North into civil war, by masking the design in smooth and ambiguous terms."(12) Such was precisely what happened the following month. The general public in the North, ignorant as to who had really initiated the hostilities, was masterfully led by Lincoln to view the capture of Fort Sumter as the unprovoked attack upon the United States Government which he had previously left in the hands of the Southern States in his first Inaugural Address. In his address to Congress on 4 July 1861, Lincoln complained:
It is thus seen that the assault upon and reduction of Fort Sumter was in no sense a matter of self-defense on the part of the assailants. They well knew that the garrison in the fort could by no possibility commit aggression upon them. They knew — they were expressly notified — that the giving of bread to the few brave and hungry men of the garrison was all which would on that occasion be attempted, unless themselves, by resisting so much, should provoke more. They knew that this government desired to keep the garrison in the fort, not to assail them, but merely to maintain visible presence, and thus to preserve the Union from actual and immediate dissolution — trusting, as hereinbefore stated, to time, discussion, and the ballot-box for final adjustment.(13)
Of course, Lincoln failed to inform his audience not only of the secret expeditions to Pensacola and Charleston — that it was in response to these acts of war that the Confederates opened fire on Anderson's troops — but also that he had steadfastly refused to entertain any discussion of peace or "final adjustment" with either Colonel Baldwin or the Confederate peace commissioners and that he had "spurned and treated with contempt" the petitions of many people in the Northern States who "begged and implored... to be heard before matters were brought to a blood extreme."(14) Addressing an assembly of Evangelical Lutherans on 13 May 1862, Lincoln further spoke hypocritically of "the sword forced into our hands," and as late as his second Inaugural Address in March of 1865, he was still publicly laying the blame for the conflict at the feet of the Confederacy, while claiming for himself the role of a reluctant defender of an endangered Union.
Although Lincoln knew little of honorable statesmanship, he, like all tyrants throughout history, understood the basest instincts of men and how to channel human depravity to suit the purposes of his party. What thereafter ensued throughout the North cannot be described in any other terms than the mania of a deluded and surging mob. Raw emotion and fanatical hatred of the South was touted as patriotism, while calm reflection and appeals to reason were taken as evidence of treason:
...[T]he cry for the "flag," and for the "Union," was all an hypocrisy and a cheat on the part of the Black Republicans. They had been long known as enemies of the Union, and as despisers of the flag of our country....
* * * * *The war was gotten up with as much trick and skill in management as a showman uses to get the populace to visit his menagerie. Our whole country was placarded all over with war posters of all colors and sizes. Drums were beating and bands playing at every corner of the streets. Nine-tenths of all the ministers of the Gospel were praying and preaching to the horrible din of the war-music, and the profane eloquence of slaughter.
* * * * *There was little chance for any man to exercise his reason, and if he attempted such a thing he was knocked down and sometimes murdered. If an editor ventured to appeal to the Constitution, his office was either destroyed by the mob, or his paper suspended by "the order of the Government."
* * * * *...The historian of these shameful and criminal events needs no other proof that the managers of the war knew that they were perpetrating a great crime than the fact that they refused to allow any man to reason or speak in opposition to their action. The cause of truth and justice always flourishes most with all the reasoning that argument and controversy can give it. Whenever men attempt to suppress argument and free speech, we may be sure that they know their cause to be a bad one.(15)
It was not until the end of the war that the truth about who was really responsible for the Fort Sumter affair began to come to light, but by then it was too late — the scheme to destroy the constitutional Union had succeeded.
1. Horton, History of the Great Civil War, pages 71-72. 2. The Statutes at Large of South Carolina (Columbia, South Carolina: A.S. Johnston, 1836), Volume V, page 501. 3. Congressional Globe (Thirty-Sixth Congress, Second Session), 13 December 1860, page 86. 4. Davis, Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume I, page 211. 5. Stephen Douglas, speech in the Senate on 15 March 1861; Congressional Globe (Thirty-Sixth Congress, Second Session), page 1459. 6. Robert Selph Henry, The Story of the Confederacy (New York: Garden City Publishing Company, 1931), pages 19, 33. 7. Robert Toombs, quoted by Burton J. Hendrick, Statesmen of the Lost Cause: Jefferson Davis and His Cabinet (New York: The Literary Guild of America, Inc., 1939), page 106. 8. Chamber's Journal, 5 December 1863; quoted by Adams, In the Course of Human Events, page 17.
9. Lincoln, quoted by Orville H. Browning, Diary (Springfield, Illinois: Illinois State Historical Library, 1933; edited by Theodore C. Pease and James G. Randall), entry for 3 July 1861. 10. Nicolay and Hay, Abraham Lincoln: Complete Works, Volume IV, page 44. 11. Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania) Daily Gazette, 18 April 1861. 12. Joseph Lane, Congressional Globe (Thirty-Sixth Congress, Second Session), page 1347. 13. Lincoln, in Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Volume VII, page 3223. 14. New York Express, 15 April 1861; quoted by Rutherford, Truths of History, page 9. 15. Horton, History of the Great Civil War, pages 113-114."
You should have read "Things You hear" at the posted link, you really need it.
The house of neither the North or The South will ver be clean, someone can always find some dirt, however we do know the true causes of the war and slavery is not one. we don not need an excuse to justify defending our country from an invading force. You can contest that and the ownership of Fort Sumter all you want the fact will still remain the North made the first aggressive move which started the war and Lincoln is responsible for the death of more Americans than any person in history. These are absolute facts.
Yes the take over of healthcare,Gm,Chysler, banks is socilaism like it or not. I paid good money into the SS system for myself and my wife. I did not pay for a bunch of slackers to enjoy my earnings. There is a difference, I AM NOT WILLING TO "spread my earnings". I do not need medicare or medicade. Shake your head all you want.
GEORGE PURVIS (try to get it right)