Georgia House passes monument protection measure

In Lincoln's defense, the Civil War began before he inherited that sh*t sandwich in Charleston from James Buchanan. After the political center in this country imploded, hot heads like John Brown and Edmund Ruffin filled the void and the lead started flying in Kansas and Missouri the CW was a foregone conclusion. There was nothing Lincoln and Jefferson Davis could have done to reverse the tide.

For me, John Steuart Curry's "Tragic Prelude" accurately depicts how madmen like Brown and Ruffin did more to instigate that war than Buchanan, Lincoln and Davis did:

 

Lack of rebuttal noted. And if they are in territorial waters of another country.....................no.

 

Territorial waters allow for freedom of navigation to national enclaves.

 

For what it's worth...

Commentary: The "Truce" at Fort Sumter

When Anderson moved to Fort Sumter, he disrupted one of a series of fragile agreements, sometimes called "truces," established between the Buchanan administration and South Carolina. On December 10, before Anderson's move and before South Carolina seceded, a group of South Carolina congressmen called upon the President for a "pledge" that he would not reinforce or in any way change the military situation at Charleston pending anticipated negotiations between the state and the federal government. In return, South Carolina would not attack the forts. Buchanan refused to sign such a statement, but he offered verbal assurances that he did not intend to reinforce the forts under present circumstances. The congressmen understood Buchanan also to say that they would be informed if the President changed his policy.

This "truce" was subject to different interpretations. The South Carolinians considered Buchanan pledged as a gentleman not to change the status of the forts, including a move by Anderson from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter, and to inform them of any change in policy. The President, however, did not think he had made a firm commitment with a group who had no authority to enter into reciprocal agreements. Instead, he considered that they had arrived at something like a mutual understanding of present intentions. Whatever the ambiguity, two things are clear. Buchanan, who had initially considered reinforcing Anderson, had changed his mind. He adopted, at least for the moment, a policy of maintaining the status quo. In addition, Buchanan refused to consider abandoning Sumter or other forts still under government control...

http://www.tulane.edu/~sumter/Dilemmas/DDec26Comm.html

 

Really. All the crops were grown in the South because of the mild winters. Crops were one of the other reasons Lincoln didn't want the South to secede. They brought in lots of revenue.

Of course he is, the Great Emancipator, remember? He freed all the slaves because he wanted blacks and whites to be equal, remember? He went to war with the South to end slavery, remember? People celebrate Lincoln's Birthday every year because of this, remember? We've been taught these revised lies for years. He's an American hero to many in the US that don't understand why he did what he did or what his true intentions were. Personally, I don't like his history or him.

 

I saw you go back and forth with Bluesman on this. I'm with him in that I think the land became property of the Confederacy once SC seceded from the Union. We can argue about that part all day but I guess we'll never know 100%. Over this part, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

Which agreement had the Confederacy signed onto, cite it at the time of Ft. Sumter and that it applied to military movement and transition of arms across sovereign nations with out prior agreement.

 

It just bugs me that so many people think the Confederacy was formed solely over slavery when probably 90% of the "civilized" country felt the same about black equality, etc. This country would have probably been reunited and we would probably all get along on most things if Lincoln would have just let the South secede.

I do like that picture though.

 

And what matters is what the Confederate position was at the time which the Buchanan cabinet and the Confederate envoys were expressing, that any military move towards the island would be considered an act of war and be responded to. The war didn't start with the shots being fired it started when the local commander tried to sneak troops and arms and cannon to the fort inspite of the ongoing negotiations and promise to make such a move by the Union.

 

Agreed. And my bad for calling you Bluesman, I thought it looked odd...

But yeah, I would think that land belonged to SC after they removed themselves from the Union since it was SC's property the fort was located on. I've seen nothing proving otherwise.

 

But instead he wanted those slave states back in the Union WITH THEIR SLAVERY INTACT. Many people do not realize that slavery was LEGAL in the United States before the Civil war, all during the Civil War and even after the Civil War. He wanted those states back in the Union along with the Union slave states.

 

The US had no agreements with the Confederacy at the time so get a stretch to say any international laws were violated because no such laws existed between the parties.

 

Neither have I and it was well within not just coastal waters but well within the harbor itself. And had the Union not tried to transport cannon and troops and arms and munitions, under their false premise at first that they were going to just house families there which the Confederates would have allowed, there never would have been shots fired at it. The UNION made the first belligerent move so it could blockage the ports which required a military response from the Confederates.

 

It was communal property. You do not gain sole ownership of communal property when you unilaterally withdraw from a common agreement.

 

That's exactly right! He only freed slaves (in his first attempt) south of the slaves states along the Mason-Dixon. He also captured slaves and used them to cook and clean and prepare clothes for the soldiers.

 

DING DING DING. Tobacco and cotton were the biggest producing crops in the country. Ironic, you calling me too ignorant for this debate.

 

They withdrew from the Union in its entirety. Because of this, the land became theirs because it was on their property.

 

No they weren’t. The US, particularly the Union, produced tens times as much oats, wheat and corn.

You claimed all crops were produced in the South. You were either blatantly lie or too ****ing stupid to be part of this debate. Which is it?

 

They transferred that property to communal ownership decades prior. It hadn’t been their property for a long time.

 

Bottom line, there was no formal truce between Buchanan and South Carolina and even if there was it would have been null and void upon secession.

I agree with you that the South Carolinians were responsible for initiating the hostilities at Fort Sumter, but as far as I'm concerned the Civil War had already begun in Kansas and Missouri.

 

Well now that's not a cogent example. Leaving the former ruler and his heirs behind would be foolish. Historically speaking, when you do that someone takes one of the heirs and eventually starts a revolt over it. If you kill all the Royals that exist, it doesn't matter if Royalists remain. Since their remaining foes were Royalists, it was a smart move. Barbaric, but smart.

 

And the North its monuments to genocidal slaveholding rapists and terrorists.

 

But at least they’re winners

 

Yup - local fads should determine what art is destroyed or concealed.

For instance, I'm offended by the Mona Lisa.

It's sexist & needs to be removed.

 

Just quoting in case you decide to edit...

I hope/assume you're being *funny?*

 

Mostly. Even great men do awful ****. In fact most great men did awful ****. You weigh it all.

 

Yes.