OREGON MINIMUM WAGE SET AT $14.75 AFTER GOVERNOR SIGNED THE BILL AMIDST OPPOSITION’S DEFIANCE

fort sumter was federal property before the secession

 

Yes it was, way before. The federal government had abandon it So it was part of South Carolina.
But has this issue a damn thing to do with the well being of Slaves?

 

no still federal property that SC wanted to expropiate

 

will you at least admit slavery was behind the southern secession?

 

Then you need to check and see why Lincoln wanted Fort Sumter back again. It was right smack in the harbor at Charleston, the major port for importing the good the Southern farmers needed.
The farm machinery they imported for England and Europe. Lincoln wanted to Blockade the South and force them back into being good consumers of the high priced Northern industries.
Not a thought about Slaves, hell he didn't give a crap about that, He was a railroad Lawyer. Railroad are all owned by the North and haul goods manufactured in the North.

 

Not really. But even if more than something to write down as to why you are succeeding, It didn't start the war and succession is not justification for war.
The Slave did not become the reason for the war until Lincoln hijack the Northern sentiment to use as justification after he was losing support for the war.
Then he issued his proclamation, but hell man, he had no plan to help those people. Nothing more that dump them out of the way.

 

Screwed up! quote here for answer above ^^^

 

it was still federal property, i do not for 1 moment believe your implication that this was a conspiracy all along by the railroads or whomever. the reason the garrison was moved to fort sumter, a federal property, since 1776 in fact, was because there previous position was indefensible to a land assault from the carolina shores. an implicit threat if you take into account the tensions and aggressions on the part of south carolina. the fact that south carolina feared a possible, not factual, blockade surely led to their attack on the fort. in fact their was no blockade or method of resuppling sumter at the time. it would have likely led to a simple surrender over the due course of time without resupply.

 

History glosses over how powerful lobbyists were back then with no restrictions and guys like Grant were heavy drunks with PTSD compounded. There was not one reason for the Civil War....it was a long list and presidents didn't have JP Morgan like power...the titans pretty much monopolized whatever they wanted to monopolize. It was not a real law abiding time in our history. Slavery was something that was part of the issue and succession is plenty of reason for declaring war depending on the circumstance. Genocide or slavery or the cost of doing business.
If you cut off someone's port of access or watershed...they'd be mighty pissed off.

 

Kind of a battle going on today about the Feds owning property in States, It isn't quit right.

 

just trying to get you back on topic first discussed, you were ignoring some key facts with your wandering.

 

so siege the fort.

 

I guess we differ.

 

Yes, it is in it's self an act of war in international law. The first act of war in the Civil war.

 

And this has to do with how the Slaves should have been freed and set up? How?

 

There were probably less than a million slave owners in the US at the time of the Civil war. The owners owned about 3.8 million slaves with a market value of about 114 million dollars
The federal government bought out more fisherman than this during the 70s - 90s.
Lincoln was fool going to war over slaves (I don't think he did), as he killed one third as many people as he freed and in effect dumped them, without a means of support. Spending far more
money that it would have cost to buy them, free them and set them up to be self supporting. We did it with Fisherman years later but Lincoln had no such plan nor was he motivated to find one.
Lincoln's Union budget fighting the war for one year, crossed the One Billion mark, the first nation in history to do so. Years of this resulted in way more spending than doing the right thing would have cost doing it in style, leaving the people with a way to proceed. History here is a white wash of a true trajedy in this country history lead by Lincoln and continued by Grant.

 

Lincoln's plan for former slaves that had been there for 80 years was to send them back to a continent where they'd never been to.

 

I haven't read another.

 

Exactly. So basically you're on board with the send them back to Africa plan?

"Yeah, we got enough work out of em'... They plowed our fields, picked our cotton, breastfed our children, and even built the White House. Now we'll send their asses back to a country that they've never been to and won't have a home to go to when they get there... They'll figure it out."

 

uh, Lincoln's plan, not mine!