A Monumental Problem In America: - Page 26

Jermyn Davidson · #**251** 08-31-2017, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Originalist

There is no "revision" in a thing I wrote. You simply do not understand the nature of the Union. By your own logic, when one party breaks part of the contract, the other members are no longer obligated. Thanks for proving my point.

Verbal agreement...

Never LEGALLY binding...

Would never hold up in a court of law...

Bill Of Sale? Written oath or bequeathing? Anything at all?

Wouldn't matter anyway though.

Why would President Lincoln hold to that verbal agreement after the rebels completely overran the other military bases within the borders of their states?

It wasn't their property. It was property of the federal government of the United States of America.

So why would the President of the United States be inclined to uphold a VERBAL AGREEMENT with a "foreign power" that was clearly disrespectful and bellicose towards us?

Doesn't make sense, does it?

Originalist · #**252** 08-31-2017, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Verbal agreement...

Never LEGALLY binding...

Would never hold up in a court of law...

Bill Of Sale? Written oath or bequeathing? Anything at all?

Wouldn't matter anyway though.

Why would President Lincoln hold to that verbal agreement after the rebels completely overran the other military bases within the borders of their states?

It wasn't their property. It was property of the federal government of the United States of America.

So why would the President of the United States be inclined to uphold a VERBAL AGREEMENT with a "foreign power" that was clearly disrespectful and bellicose towards us?

Doesn't make sense, does it?

FYI...South Carolina tried to pay for the fort. Lincoln needed it as a platform for occupying Charleston.

Jermyn Davidson · #**253** 09-01-2017, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Originalist

FYI...South Carolina tried to pay for the fort. Lincoln needed it as a platform for occupying Charleston.

Even if true, by the time President Lincoln took office, the bellicosity of seceding states was already apparent and it would go against common sense for the President of the USA to honor a verbal agreement that fundamentally he would have never agreed to with a state or a foreign entity.

Given the entire context of that situation, his decision was the only logical decision to make.

Originalist · #**254** 09-01-2017, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Even if true, by the time President Lincoln took office, the bellicosity of seceding states was already apparent and it would go against common sense for the President of the USA to honor a verbal agreement that fundamentally he would have never agreed to with a state or a foreign entity.

Given the entire context of that situation, his decision was the only logical decision to make.

Lincoln's administration also made an agreement via the Sec of State, using back channels. It was done as a stalling tactic to make the South Carolinians think the fort was to be vacated. In reality, an invasion force was being prepared to sail to Charleston. In hind sight, the South Carolinians fell right into the trap by "firing the first shot". But it's not like Lincoln would have not invaded the CSA anyway.

Jermyn Davidson · #**255** 09-01-2017, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Originalist

Lincoln's administration also made an agreement via the Sec of State, using back channels. It was done as a stalling tactic to make the South Carolinians think the fort was to be vacated. In reality, an invasion force was being prepared to sail to Charleston. In hind sight, the South Carolinians fell right into the trap by "firing the first shot". But it's not like Lincoln would have not invaded the CSA anyway.

Like I said, even if there were plans (that never came to fruition, never were confirmed by writing, just verbal plans that would have been without legal standing in a court of law) those plans would have been between the state government of South Carolina and the USA-- not between the confederate union and the USA.

The subsequent attack on Fort Sumter was carried out by military forces loyal to the confederate union-- not mere state militia members laying claim to property that would become their new fishing hole.

Originalist · #**256** 09-01-2017, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Like I said, even if there were plans (that never came to fruition, never were confirmed by writing, just verbal plans that would have been without legal standing in a court of law) those plans would have been between the state government of South Carolina and the USA-- not between the confederate union and the USA.

Actually, the State Department had met with Confederate emissaries on the matter. And a man is only as good as his word, You are justifying treachery.

The subsequent attack on Fort Sumter was carried out by military forces loyal to the confederate union-- not mere state militia members laying claim to property that would become their new fishing hole.

Irrelevant.

You cannot bring yourself to view this topic except through the lenses of your outrage over slavery. But there is that nagging little thing called the Constitution we must consider. If the slaves had not been of your ethnicity, I dare say you might think differently.

RachelRose · #**257** 03-20-2018, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n david

FWIW, it didn't appear to be exaggeration or hyperbole once you responded with the second post.

Your response to MawMaw was incredibly rude, condescending and demeaning. Your "apology" wasn't any better. You didn't apologize for treating her with disrespect or being rude. You didn't even acknowledge the condescending manner in which you addressed her. You claimed you were "stern" but apologized if "too stern," which makes no sense. You were too concerned with trying to explain your reasoning than actually expressing remorse for your post.