June 15, 1858 Lincoln's "House Divided" Speech

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,980
Caribbean
#31
The very fact that the CSA explicitly claimed that it was fighting for the preservation of slavery is enough to make it a morally reprehensible regime, regardless of the legality of their actions.
And what label do you have for that? Because it has a long history. First, declare someone morally reprehensible, or in some way unfit. Then, kill them. If written law is in the way, ignore it. If only arguments were limited to - the ends justify the means - there would be so much less to criticize.

You may be radical one way, but that doesn't make me radical the other. I am philosophically neutral. Lincoln had the right to conquer the south - the Natural Right of Politicians to Conquer - regardless of why the South seceded, or even if they didn't. And I have the right to dispute the lies he and others made up about it.

I am not proclaiming the North "racist." As a philosophical neutral, that word means less to me than probably anyone on this forum. Those facts are only relevant because any compassion demonstrated by you, Maki, has nothing to do with Lincoln or the Republicans. Politicians will use people of any color as pawns. The abolition movement, which was to some extent induced by foreigners, was no humanitarian effort. It agitated for 40 years, without lifting a finger to solve the problem. The war itself probably killed 20% or more of the slave population. That's about 1 million innocents.

The Republicans did not just say they were for keeping slavery out of the west. They were for keeping black people out of the west. It is Wilmot himself that called his Proviso, the White Man's Proviso. How can they be for freeing the slaves, while keeping them out of the very places they need to go to be free? lol

If there is a Lost Cause, it inures to the North and not the South. Everyone knows why the South fought. It is the cause of the north that is elusive. It sure was not to "preseve" anything, and nothing was preserved. If you think the cause of the north is not missing, then answer the question - why doesn't Lincoln just let the Cotton Seven go? From what strategic goal is that not the right move? And if you figure out that goal, you'll have found the lost cause.
 
Last edited:

botully

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
3,544
Amelia, Virginia, USA
#32
I don't think the Law of Nations makes that distinction.

I don't think Wiki makes that distinction:
"Ships from Fox's relief expedition began to arrive on April 12. Although Fox himself arrived at 3 a.m. on his steamer Baltic, most of the rest of his fleet was delayed until 6 p.m., and one of the two warships, USS Powhatan, never did arrive."

What can I say? One man's warship is another man's Love Boat.
Law of Nations? Lol. The land the fort occupied was sold to the federal government by the state of South Carolina.
Using wiki, eh? Somehow you missed this while researching on wikipedia:
"Instead, it seemed prudent to send an unarmed civilian merchant ship, Star of the West, which might be perceived as less provocative to the Confederates. As Star of the West approached the harbor entrance on January 9, 1861, it was fired upon by a battery on Morris Island,... "

And how do you infer that sending the ships was not deliberate provocation, and that the so-called first shot is not defensive? What evidence can be compiled to reach that conclusion?
Poor little South, always being provoked. But at least you acknowledge the "supposed first shot" was an actual first shot, on an unarmed relief ship carrying food to a garrison while its status was negotiated.
Or, as you would have it, poor little South Carolina was threatened by an unarmed ship, so threatened they fired on the unarmed ship in self defense.


On the other hand -
Lincoln threatened "invasion" and "bloodshed" on March 4 over the very issue of control of the waters in Charleston Harbor (tariff collection). He negotiated in bad faith with the peace commission, and you think after that it is reasonable for South Carolina to take his word that the mission of the (war)ships is not belligerent? lol
Didn't Beauregard send word that Anderson could send men ashore to get supplies from South Carolina?
Democrat Buchanan was President during the Fort Sumter crisis and the peace commission, not Lincoln.

I see no evidence that Lincoln is trying to "provoke" peace. The Republican Party itself is an open declaration of war.
As for the first, of course you don't. That you have read no primary sources surprises no one.
As for the second, you often devolve into silly hyperbole, I just wonder that you think it helps.


You declined to answer some questions, so I'll ask again:
Did the Confederacy invade any states that might not have wanted to secede?

Did the people decide to secede or did the “States”, without regard to their constituents opinions?
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,980
Caribbean
#33
You declined to answer some questions, so I'll ask again:
Did the Confederacy invade any states that might not have wanted to secede?
You declined to answer, so I will ask again. What evidence is there that Lincoln is seeking peace; that he doesn't want war?

Using wiki, eh? Somehow you missed this while researching on wikipedia:
And you somehow overlooked that Lincoln was not yet President on January 9 for the Star of the West.

Democrat Buchanan was President during the Fort Sumter crisis and the peace commission, not Lincoln.
And somehow you missed that Lincoln was President since March 4, and was President on March 12.
Confederate States peace commission - Wikipedia
Wiki does not have reference to the letter that Justice Campbell sent home reporting that Seward agreed to evacuate Sumter.

Law of Nations? Lol. The land the fort occupied was sold to the federal government by the state of South Carolina.
Law of Nations is not my idea. It came from the Founders.

Try to remember, the point. Is Lincoln pushing for war or peace. Lincoln knew the proposal was that each side surrender claim to the common property located within the other side's states. The question is what would someone who wants peace do, and what would someone determined for war do? Did Lincoln make a deal? No.

It may be a minor technical point to you, but the island was not "sold." It was an uncompensated "grant" by an Act of the State. Guess what happens to the grant if the State repeals the Act? The land reverts.
This one is not on Wiki, either. Try: The Statutes At Large of South Carolina Acts 1787-1814, pp. 501-502

FWIW, this is similar to what some people don't understand about so-called "secession." South Carolina repealed her own enactment by which she ratified the Constitution. Thus, the voluntary ratification of Article VII, US Const, ceased to exist. Just like the ratification of any treaty. Law of Nations?
 
Last edited:

botully

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
3,544
Amelia, Virginia, USA
#34
I asked first.
Let’s try it another way: How many citizens of the United States that resided in South Carolina in 1860 were against secession and wished to remain?

Let’s return to your claim that electing Lincoln was “an open declaration of war”. Care to elaborate? Is it a Law of Nations thing?
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,980
Caribbean
#35
I asked first.
Let’s try it another way: How many citizens of the United States that resided in South Carolina in 1860 were against secession and wished to remain?
Let’s return to your claim that electing Lincoln was “an open declaration of war”. Care to elaborate? Is it a Law of Nations thing?
Try "it" another way? What is "it?" Trying to get your opinion to prevail over the facts?

Up to this point, you had:
-No warships sent to Sumter - wrong
-Lincoln in the WH on Jan 9 - wrong
-Buchanan with the peace commission in March - wrong
-Sumter "sold" - wrong

And now you add that you "asked first" - wrong,
I asked for the evidence that Lincoln want peace and not war, no later than post 14, and that is before you posted in this thread.

Do have any intention of correcting your false claims?
 
Last edited:
Nov 2014
1,611
Birmingham, UK
#36
And what label do you have for that? Because it has a long history. First, declare someone morally reprehensible, or in some way unfit. Then, kill them. If written law is in the way, ignore it. If only arguments were limited to - the ends justify the means - there would be so much less to criticize.
.

I'm not quite sure of the point you're making here.


Would you say the Southern institution of slavery was morally reprehensible?
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,980
Caribbean
#37
I'm not quite sure of the point you're making here.
Would you say the Southern institution of slavery was morally reprehensible?
First, Maki and I have been posting for a few years, so there is common basis of knowledge and assumption between us. I think we went on for a while one time where he as arguing the south had to attack Sumter, and I was saying, no they didn't. I think another time I was arguing that the south were game-theory stupid and he was arguing to the contrary.

I know I am hard to udnerstand sometimes, because I not on a side. I don't argue from the position that my guys are the good guys and your guys are the bad guys. These are politicians. None of them are good guys. That's why they have to build monuments to themselves, until the next guy tears the monuments down. .

I was making a point about 'ends justify the means' argument. Such arguments are exactly that - self justifying. They are not really historical issues and I have no criticism of them worth posting.

Specifically, if you think someone is morally reprehensible, like the south, and this gives Lincoln the right to use force to get rid of them or their perceived reprehensibility, regardless of the law, regardless of the collateral damage, regardless that he and the other politicians are lying about their intentions - that's fine with me. On the other hand, if you don't want to admit your argument is that your morals trump law, trump collateral damage, and don't want to admit that you are gullible to believe propaganda (and most people don't want to admit those things) - then I might find some fault with it when you start exaggerating or mitigating, or just plan making up history. The last one is demonstrated in post 35.
 
Last edited:

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,074
Republika Srpska
#39
I think we went on for a while one time where he as arguing the south had to attack Sumter, and I was saying, no they didn't.
I will respond to this because I was mentioned. Yes, I still think that the South had to deal with all of the US forts in their territory since they were islands of potentially hostile troops. However, the US also had a right to respond.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,980
Caribbean
#40
I will respond to this because I was mentioned. Yes, I still think that the South had to deal with all of the US forts in their territory since they were islands of potentially hostile troops. However, the US also had a right to respond.
Aha, it was you. You forgot to tell me how amazing my memory is. Your lucky we are not playing for money.
 

Similar History Discussions