The Goat Pen

AlabamAlum wrote:They seceded and Lincoln recognized it. It was, at the time, on sovereign southern soil.

Are you telling me if British had decided to keep Fort Henry, you would consider that a non-aggressive British action; moreover, that we had no recourse but to allow it unless the Brits signed a treaty?

He never recognized the South. From the University of Virginia: http://millercenter.org/president/linco ... iography/4

Lincoln denied that the states had ever possessed independent sovereignty as colonies and territories. He claimed that the states had accepted unconditionally the sovereignty of the national government with the ratification of the Constitution. To those southerners who claimed the right of revolution to justify secession—just like the Founding Fathers had revolted against England—Lincoln answered with a legalistic distinction rooted in common sense. The right of revolution, he argued, is not a legal right but a moral right that depends upon the suppression of liberties and freedoms in order for it to be justified. What rights, freedoms, or liberties were being trampled underfoot by his election? The South still enjoyed all the constitutional freedoms they had always enjoyed. To exercise revolution with no moral cause to justify it is "simply a wicked exercise of physical power." Most northerners agreed with Lincoln that secession amounted to an unconstitutional act of treason.

In his inauguration: Hoping to show his peaceful intentions, Lincoln prepared his inaugural address with an eye to keeping the upper South from joining the secessionists. His speech, delivered on March 4, 1861, was firm but conciliatory. He reaffirmed his promise not "to interfere with slavery" where it existed, and he assured the Confederate states that he would not "assail" (violently attack) them for their actions at Montgomery. On the other hand, Lincoln made it clear that he would "hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government . . ." He pleaded with the southerners: "We must not be enemies." He reminded them that no state could leave the Union "upon its own mere motion" and pledged to enforce the laws, "In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not mine, is the momentous issue of civil war."

Are you telling me if British had decided to keep Fort Henry, you would consider that a non-aggressive British action; moreover, that we had no recourse but to allow it unless the Brits signed a treaty?

They considered it their's until they gave it up by treaty, regardless of how we felt about it. We would have to fight them a over it if they refused. Hell, we wanted Canada, but they wouldn't give it up.

ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz........

Watch the video in this story and tell me what you think. Keep on mind that as the same time this was happening Cincy Police were laying to rest their 1st in 15 years.


http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/cr ... /29353653/

I made one of the procession from down the street from my house. Really long though. My daughter and his middle son were good friends from their church youth group. I've met him before but only while picking them up from church. Been a tough week for my youngest. But she stood tall, made it to the visitation Thurs., watched the funeral on tv and then walked down to the procession. At 14, she's been really strong.

Spacer,

When I say 'recognized' I mean that he acknowledge that they had separated and said he would not go to war. He then sent reinforcements to Sumter and sent warships, led by the Harriet Lane, to Charleston Harbor, and soon rafter invaded Virginia. All could be considered acts of aggression, if not war. Heck, even Jeff Davis sent a proposal to the Union commander of Fort Sumter that if he would agree to not open fire, he would keep the hot-headed Carolinisns from doing the same; the Union commander refused to accept the proposal.

That said, Lincoln did what he had to do to provoke the South into fighting. At that point, peace and a successful secession would lead to a permanent dissolution of the Union.

And with that, I'm out. Stay safe, gentlemen.

You sat on that for a half hour? You should have dropped the mic right after. I do admire fishing for a bite though on a lonely Saturday night.

Nope. Didn't sit on anything. Little thing I like to call dinner and a pub.

Great house band until they started doing Prince covers. No one does Prince covers well.

Bluecat does.

Jungle Rat wrote:Watch the video in this story and tell me what you think. Keep on mind that as the same time this was happening Cincy Police were laying to rest their 1st in 15 years.


http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/cr ... /29353653/

I think at least one of Carney's parents saw Boyz in the Hood.

AlabamAlum wrote:Spacer,

When I say 'recognized' I mean that he acknowledge that they had separated and said he would not go to war. He then sent reinforcements to Sumter and sent warships, led by the Harriet Lane, to Charleston Harbor, and soon rafter invaded Virginia. All could be considered acts of aggression, if not war. Heck, even Jeff Davis sent a proposal to the Union commander of Fort Sumter that if he would agree to not open fire, he would keep the hot-headed Carolinisns from doing the same; the Union commander refused to accept the proposal.

That said, Lincoln did what he had to do to provoke the South into fighting. At that point, peace and a successful secession would lead to a permanent dissolution of the Union.

He acknowledged that they were trying to separate. He did not accept it, but said that he was hoping on peace. He never said that he would accept the separation. He bated the South and they fell right into it by attacking the fort. As for the proposal, why agree to it? They weren't going to fire unless fired upon or an attempt to enter the fort.

what is a "weapons under disability charge"?

They got the second run. Not surprised he was shot. The surprise is that he survived. The first convict had been shot 3 times in the head

http://news.yahoo.com/escaped-ny-state- ... 34028.html

quote for a different article about the first convict: Matt was shot and killed by a member of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection Tactical Unit on Friday.

a member, 3 times in the head?? I hope the 'a' or the 'three' is a typo

Why sign it? Heh.

Anyhoo....

IMO, there is clear evidence that the North was 'aggressive'. I cannot fathom thinking otherwise. If they had not, it would have been a huge tactical error. But I don't think we'll ever agree on this.


Moving on...


From Google:

2923.13 Having weapons while under disability. (A) Unless relieved from disability under operation of law or legal process, no person shall knowingly acquire, have, carry, or use any firearm or dangerous ordnance, if any of the following apply: (1) The person is a fugitive from justice.


http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.13

.

AlabamAlum wrote:Why sign it? Heh.

Anyhoo....

IMO, there is clear evidence that the North was 'aggressive'. I cannot fathom thinking otherwise. If they had not, it would have been a huge tactical error. But I don't think we'll ever agree on this.

[/quote]

How can you not fathom when it was the South that fired the first shots? At a federal installation that was under federal sovereignty?

Owlman wrote:what is a "weapons under disability charge"?

Really?

Owlman wrote:

AlabamAlum wrote:Why sign it? Heh.

Anyhoo....

IMO, there is clear evidence that the North was 'aggressive'. I cannot fathom thinking otherwise. If they had not, it would have been a huge tactical error. But I don't think we'll ever agree on this.

How can you not fathom when it was the South that fired the first shots? At a federal installation that was under federal sovereignty?

I've kind of addressed that, spacer.

The sovereignty of that Union fort was definitely up for debate at the time -and just as I feel it would be aggressive of the Brits to arm one of his majesty's forts and send warships to resupply after we declared independence from England, I feel those actions by the Union were likewise 'aggressive'.

In essence, both used the actions (rightfully on both sides, IMO) as a Casus Belli: those who had declared independence had claim due to the invading forces and those who chose not to allow those states to secede had a claim to squelch their move for independence and bring those lands back under control.

We are being repititous; however, and further debate will likely prove unproductive.

I just pooped out an entire salad tomato

I applaud Alabama for trying to get out of the marriage business altogether.

People have a right to be married. What marriage is to them should not be defined by a government.