Georgia House passes monument protection measure

Very small.

 

"That evening, Anderson completed his transfer to Fort Sumter. Finally realizing that he had moved after the transfer was done, South Carolinians reacted with outrage. Many believed that President Buchanan had betrayed them since he had supposedly promised he would not allow the Federals to make any moves in the harbor. Anderson explained he made the move because he had evidence of an imminent attack on Moultrie, and the “step which I have taken was, in my opinion, necessary to prevent the effusion of blood…”"
https://civilwarmonths.com/2015/12/26/the-fort-sumter-controversy/comment-page-1/

And Anderson acted on his own.

The best defense is a good offense. Moving the cannons to the previously unoccupied fort was a sign of the imminent blockade, a blockage that was shortly thereafter instituted along the entire Confederate coast.

There was no need for the war the South only wanted to be left alone. Yet the Union invaded the Confederacy and the Southern states with our monuments honor those who defended us against the invasion and destruction the Union inflicted upon us.

 

Where is this supposed “promise”? Can you provide the text of it?

Fort Sumter was also further out in the harbor and able to be resupplied by the Navy. Note: no blockade game about until after the Confederates attacked and invaded sovereign US territory.

If the South wanted to be left alone, they should have left Fort Sumter alone.

 

You think killing in war is murder?

 

You have the link detailing the history. And the Confederates turned back the resupply ships from their shore batteries just as Union solders would turn back Confederate ships. It was no secret and major part of Union strategy would be a blockade of Confederate ports, an act of war.

 

The link claims this supposed promise exists, yet it doesn’t actually say what the promise entailed, when Buchanen gave, and if it was at all legally binding.

The US did not implement any blockade until AFTER the South invaded sovereign US territory.

International law also covers freedom of navigation when it comes of national enclaves.

 

When they go after the Bear Bryant monument that's when the SHTF.

 

Didn't you just object to me puting words in your mouth? You keep avoiding the word I didn't put in your mouth, "traitor". As you're a Californian I thought you could explain why Calexit secessionists aren't traitors. I mean you can conspire to commit treason without actually killing anyone right?

 

I gave you the record. It was sovereign South Carolina territory previously unoccupied. Had the Union not taken the steps they did in preparation of a blockade no firing would have taken place. The Union then invaded the Confederacy, not to retake Ft. Sumter but to capture the Confederate capital and take prisoner it's government.

 

Aww you gonna build a monument for me?

 

Wisely backing away from the silly murder claim I see.
They aren’t traitors because they aren’t trying to secede through war.

 

You gave me a blog.

The territory stopped being sovereign South Carolina territory decades before secession when the Fort was built and the land transferred to the sovereignty of the United States as communal property. When they unilaterally seceded, they gave up their claims to communally owned property. Which is why they were trying to buy it back by assuming a portion of the national debt.

“In preparation to a blockade”, even if true, is not itself a blockade. There was no act of war until South Carolina and the Confederacy launched a war of aggression by attacking and invading sovereign US territory.

 

Again ... you asked: "did anyone die for it" reference to Calexit. So murder, death, disease, famine removed ... Are Calexiters traitors? I'm not backing away from claims I haven't made BTW. I positively stated that very few confederates were charged with murder.

 

It was no longer US territory, the local commander acted on his own to present a threat and act of war. It was the Union that prompted the shelling with it's belligerent acts against sovereign Confederate territory. It tore apart the cabinet of President Buchanan as they had promised no change in status until the question of sucession was negotiated. Here a complete history of events too long to get past the fair-use rules here.

http://joeryancivilwar.com/Civil-Wa...t-Sumter-1860/James-Buchanan-Fort-Sumter.html

The South had no intention of invading the Union nor capturing Lincoln and the capital, it was the North that invaded the Confederacy to capture it's capital and it's leaders and make them prisoners. There was no need for a war, the Union pressed ahead anyway.

 

When they take up arms against the us they’ll be traitors. Until then they’re just delusional.

 

Every problem black Americans have will be fixed by removing these statues. Just like all Indian problems will be fixed by changing the name of the Washington Redskins.

 

Agreed. so you think it would be OK to tear down any statue of McCain erected in this country?

 

I don't think federal statutes on treason or sedition include any requirement of violence, or weapons. But maybe start by naming a statue dedicated to someone convicted of treason, that southerners are defending, and we can go from there.

 

It absolutely was US territory. It had been US territory for decades and South Carolina did not have sole ownership of it. They abrogated their partial ownership to the communal property when they unilaterally seceded.

Once again, you link to a blog and not an actual historical or academic source.

Japan had no intention of invading the United States and capturing Washington and Roosevelt, so I guess in your mind we should have just done nothing after Pearl Harbor.

 

When did McCain take up arms against America?

 

Nope and the point was being negotiated when Union forces against the promises of President moved to arm and reinforce. Against the advice of his own cabinet that it would instigate a war.
And you have offered NOTHING it support of your denials.

 

You're playing semantics here. The Confederacy initiated open hostility by shelling Sumter.

 

It was being negotiated, meaning the territory still belonged to the United States and South Carolina was in the process of buying it. Until that transaction was complete, the US was within its sovereign rights to move its military forces within its territory.

No act of war had been committed until Confederate guns fired on sovereign US territory.

 

There's one at Saratoga National Historic Park, but to be precise it's a monument to part of Arnold - the leg that got wounded by the British at the battle of Saratoga while he was still a loyal American general (and a good one at that):



Benedict Arnold's Leg
http://www.pbs.org/ktca/liberty/popup_arnoldsleg.html

Should we remove it?

 

"It" the pull out of Union forces from sovereign Confederacy territory. Nope when the Union invaded the fort with their cannon that was an act of war and in violation of the agreement they had made and they crossed sovereign territory to sneak into the fort in their underhanded means anyway.

Their actions, as Buchanan was warned by his own cabinet, started the war and the Union then proceeded with their invasion to capture the Confederate officials and make them prisoners and capture the Confederate capital and then went on to totally destroy the Southern economy and the private property of the citizens without any due process.

And therefore we Southerns honor those who defended our lands from the invasion. That you still to not grasp the history is not my problem. I bet you still think the Union started to war to end slavery.