Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Abraham Lincoln's Crimes

Scott, in their minds, they were. Lincoln's mind too as a matter a fact, at least as far as his wording. But, as I said, the government had to be very careful how they worded things. They didn't want to inadvertently give the Confederacy any actual status, as belligerent or otherwise.



The Island which Ft Sumter was built on was man made, by the fed gov. IIRC, South Carolina, and later the Confederate gov made offers to buy it, the fort, and all other Federal forts and arsenals. All were rejected. As I said, they (north) needed the forts to collect tariffs. As things degenerated to hard feelings, Lincoln used the "relief effort" to Sumter to force the south into firing the first shots. Remember, the north was in no way united in what to do about succession. Many wanted to "let the wayward sisters depart in peace". Lincoln needed to start something in a way as to make the Confederates look like the aggressor. Hitler did the same thing with Poland in September of 1939. He dressed up cons in Polish uniforms and planted their bodies, with some Polish equipment inside the German border, justifying his invasion. Of course, we know that this was staged, but then again Germany lost the war. How would it be viewed had they won?

Your point about Puerto Rico, does make a valid point. But suppose after the Revolution, England decided they were going to retain possession of the port at NYC. Would not the US, as a sovereign nation, have went to war over it? They'd have been the aggressor here as well.

To all. This has been a good debate, let's please keep it on a level we can all enjoy.
7mm

Hello All

Now that's Funny. And probably the most pertinent thing said in this whole discussion, anybody rember the "Whiskey Rebellion"?
nelson

Interesting topic ....for the historians perhaps.
True and well documented History has only ONE valid purpose:

To help the citizens to make better decisions and avoid making similar or worse mistakes in THEIR LIFETIME.

What IF anything, should Americans who have studied up on all the issues in Lincoln's Day DO with that information?

We have a situation in this country NOW which is even more grave, and again, the America people are divided and bickering with their petty loyalties to parties and self interests on whether the leaders are serving this people and nation and upholding the Constitution or NOT. Jim

Kind of like this thread.......Are we never going to hear the end of all this civil war mumbo jumbo, you still going to hold a grudge for another 140+ years? We're suppose to be one country but the southern states still hold a grudge for something that happened over 140 years ago, funny thing about that is none of us were there when it all went down yet, they still call us yankee's and hate us for something we had no control over.......but thats ok, i'll still go out and defend this nation from anyone that tries to take it, and that mean defending the ENTIRE USA.

We've been living in post Constitutional America for quite some time now,... several generations, in fact.

Contemporary Americans wouldn't recognize a Constitutional American government.

Bristoe, Agreed...tho sad..

The unregulated influx of third world refugees who are granted citizenship and worse , are given rights as illegals and are functioning as voters and monitors of this nation's government, foreign policy and how they uphold the Constitution( or not) only fuels the problem.
NAFTA and a world business mentality are also villians to this nation's people ..

Couple that with the true 'ownership' of this nation's business and economy by those who care not one iota for our founding premises and promises and things look pretty bleak.

Is there a solution( or solutions) IF this free republic is to continue?Jim

That has no relevance to this. Jefferson Davis, if as the Federal Government maintained, was a US citizen, was denied his rights by the US government. His descendants should sue them for damages. If he was not, then the US attacked a sovereign nation over a couple of measly forts. Your assumption that the "north" whatever that entity was if indeed the US was still whole at the time, is patently stupid. You'd have to knock everything down into percentages and figure out who was getting how much money versus how many taxes were being paid. I expect South Carolina was productive enough that they'd have easily paid for a little fort with the taxes the Feds had collected.

Here's the thing...everybody knows the Federal government illegally attacked a sovereign nation. Everybody knows in their gut that you HAVE to have the right to leave a union freely entered into just as freely or there is no true freedom to your country. All the arguments that have been offered up about us turning into a bunch of banana republics, etc. are of no moment because what matters is that you have the freedom to do so and without it you ain't got nothing.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Whether or not you want to remember is up to you.

Scott;

The difference between your Gitmo and Charleston example is that we are currently not blockading that port (Gitmo) and commerce enters/exits Gitmo freely all day. Not so, with Charleston circa 1861.

All to true. and, with succession as a dead issue, I guess we each individually have to decide where and on what issue, is our own "line in the sand". FWIW, mine is behind us, but not wanting to be a lone nut gun-man, I gotta wait on the rest of you!

As for the current subject...



The government couldn't try Davis on treason, or much else. The chances were pretty good he would have walked, and the government woud have ended up with egg on their face. Better to just sweep it under the rug. He ended up sortta like the Manuel Noriaga of his day. The detainees at Gitmo are a whole 'nother subject. Davis, and the southern armies waged a defensive war. They didn't cut heads off of reporters, didn't drag enemy dead through the streets, and most wouldn't target enemy civilians, especially women and children.
7mm

VA - Actually, the fort was fired on starting 4/12, the sources that I refer to states the blockade began 4/19. Most likely as a result of the attack on Fort Sumter. Can you show otherwise?

EthanEdwards,

If Jefferson Davis was a US citizen, then what he did is pretty much covered by treason. Or are you ok with his being the leader of an organization that attacks US Military installations? If he was a CSA citizen at the time of the Fort Sumter attack and consequent attacks by CSA forces, then he does not need to be treated as a US citizen.

As for a "couple of measly forts" not being enough reason to invade a country, well how about three "measly" buildings? Would that be enough reason to attack an enemy?

Regards,
Scott

The blockade "officially" began on 4/19.

Try moving that many sailing ships into a position to blockade a position as far from D.C. as Charleston in less than 7 days...

What Lincoln did, was treason, as he willfully and knowingly violated the Constitution and the oath he took. Davis was a citizen of the CSA, and no longer a U.S. citizen. See the oath that CSA soldiers/politicians were required to take (or suffer penalties up to and including death) at the end of the war.

Clarify, please, your "measly buildings" line of reasoning.

I believe it was President Abraham Lincoln who said:

~~ "It is better to remain silent and thought a fool,
~~ Than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

How prophetic.

Actually, that would be Mark Twain, not Lincoln.

Is it me,or is it strange to see how some here totally disregard Lincoln's crimes...Calling Lincoln a great man is laughable...

But , really, Mrs. Lincoln.....outside of that,....how did you enjoy the play



GTC

It's amazing how long this thread has been going.

Okay, lets put this secession in perspective. As I said before but no one has answered. Just imagine the fun we would have if every marriage union was treated the same way as the state's union. Once married you could never divorce for any reason you were stuck to each other for all eternity. If a marriage union was permanent there would be a 50% divorce rate. Now if spouses can divorce because they made a mistake why can't states divorce the union because they made a mistake? From reading the Federalist papers and the Anti-Federalist papers it is self-evident to me that the states would never have joined the union if they had thought that once joined they could never divorce.

As to the North staying in the South after the South seceded, once the South ordered the North out of their territory the North should have left much as a sovereign nation today can order the US to vacate an embassy. If the US stays than that action is look upon as an act of war and the embassy can be attacked and the ambassador and staff can be seized. Yes, I know that the land is sovereign land of the country that has the embassy but the ambassador and staff can still be ordered out. Most countries when ordered out usually leave to avoid war. The North right or wrong choose to stay and start a war.

Look at all the military bases we vacated in the last one hundred years. While it is true many of those bases were no longer needed still when the US was ordered out by a date certain we left. The North was wrong no matter the political correct spin.

Thanks Crossfire.....
I just spewed beer all over my keyboard ...

My pleasure , Bart......that's a matched set of original "DERINGERS",
...marked "PHILA"....carved as a set...restored them and made a new percussion hammer and a miniscule screw to attatch, a coupla' years back.....been in the same family since 1856.
.41 cal.....rifled...certainly adequate for opera house , and gambling parlour distance......I was impressed by their "REEK" of lethality.

wipe up your keyboard, and keep onn truckin'.

GTC