@Mott-The-Hoople saidNo, it doesn't.
Indian reservations have sovereignty
The 1924 Indian citizenship act, made them citizens, Kind of blows a hole in your birthright stance doesnt it?
1 edit
@sh76 saidLincoln said the contrary at his first Inaugural Address.
Had the rebels decided not to attack Fort Sumter, do you think it was inevitable that the Union would have attacked (or at least instituted a blockade) to preserve the union?
Read the paragraph which starts: "In doing so there is no need for violence or bloodshed ,,,,,,,,," https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp
But ultimately I don't know if that could have continued indefinitely.
@Metal-Brain saidJefferson Davis, President of the CSA, ordered General Beauregard to take Fort Sumter on April 9, 1861.https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/fort-sumter
A lone nut that shoots a gun is not starting the war. It is either an accident or a setup to have an excuse for the north to wage war.
When did the north invade the south and for what reason?
@sh76
The result was already a foregone conclusion. Everyone knew the north was going to win by attrition. The South attacked and fought out of honour and pride, knowing full well they would lose eventually.
So, why not have some fun and shell the fort?
If they didn't attack the fort, the north would have set up a blockade and imposed restrictions and eventually troop occupation. A very boring scenario.
@no1marauder
Lincoln could have easily avoided the war by not imposing tariffs on the south.
https://civilwarcause.com/evidence.html
Lincoln must have known those tariffs would anger the south. Was he stupid?
The north wanted to screw over the south with tariffs so Lincoln got an expensive war in return.
Only the bankers benefited from the war. Follow the money.
@Metal-Brain said7 States seceded before Lincoln was even inaugurated.
@no1marauder
Lincoln could have easily avoided the war by not imposing tariffs on the south.
https://civilwarcause.com/evidence.html
Lincoln must have known those tariffs would anger the south. Was he stupid?
The north wanted to screw over the south with tariffs so Lincoln got an expensive war in return.
Only the bankers benefited from the war. Follow the money.
Tariffs had nothing to do with it; read the States' own reasons for secession documents; it was all about expanding slavert.
@no1marauder saidFrom your link:
Jefferson Davis, President of the CSA, ordered General Beauregard to take Fort Sumter on April 9, 1861.https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/fort-sumter
"On March 1, Jefferson Davis orders Brig. Gen P.G.T. Beauregard to take command of the growing southern forces in Charleston. On April 4, Lincoln informs southern delegates that he intends to attempt to resupply Fort Sumter, as its garrison is now critically in need. To South Carolinians, any attempt to reinforce Sumter means war."
So Lincoln started it. He was preparing to invade the south which triggered the war.
@Metal-Brain saidWhat a whopper. Resupplying a US military installation isn't an "invasion".
From your link:
"On March 1, Jefferson Davis orders Brig. Gen P.G.T. Beauregard to take command of the growing southern forces in Charleston. On April 4, Lincoln informs southern delegates that he intends to attempt to resupply Fort Sumter, as its garrison is now critically in need. To South Carolinians, any attempt to reinforce Sumter means war."
So Lincoln started it. He was preparing to invade the south which triggered the war.
Who fired the first shots?
@no1marauder saidRead exactly what you told me to read from the first to secede, SC.
7 States seceded before Lincoln was even inaugurated.
Tariffs had nothing to do with it; read the States' own reasons for secession documents; it was all about expanding slavert.
It had little to do with racism. Lincoln was a racist himself and wanted to deport blacks back to Africa.
@Metal-Brain saidIt was all about slavery as you'd know if you read what you just claimed you did.
Read exactly what you told me to read from the first to secede, SC.
It had little to do with racism. Lincoln was a racist himself and wanted to deport blacks back to Africa.
They sure didn't secede and then start a war because they found Lincoln's level of "racism" objectionable.
@no1marauder saidIf Lincoln had no intention of invading the south why did he do that?
What a whopper. Resupplying a US military installation isn't an "invasion".
Who fired the first shots?
He could have avoided a war by not doing that. Kind of like NATO expanding to Russia's border. Not doing that could have avoided the Ukraine war.
Lincoln wanted the war. More accurately the bankers did. Lincoln was a puppet to avoid being outed as a homosexual.
@no1marauder saidRead exactly what you told me to read from the first to secede, SC.
It was all about slavery as you'd know if you read what you just claimed you did.
They sure didn't secede and then start a war because they found Lincoln's level of "racism" objectionable.
Show me the writings of slavery being the main objection.
@Metal-Brain saidHow about Mississippi:
Read exactly what you told me to read from the first to secede, SC.
It had little to do with racism. Lincoln was a racist himself and wanted to deport blacks back to Africa.
"Our position is throughly identified with the institution of slavery ........."
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/[WORD TOO LONG]
@no1marauder saidWrong. It was all about preserving the union. Lincoln said so himself. Said that if he could end it by allowing slavery he would do it as you well know.
It was all about slavery as you'd know if you read what you just claimed you did.
They sure didn't secede and then start a war because they found Lincoln's level of "racism" objectionable.
It was the tariffs that angered the south more than slavery.
2 edits
@no1marauder saidThe South wanted their secession to be constitutional in order to deprive the North of a pretext for invasion. This made it impossible for the Southern states to argue that they were seceding because of the tariff. The tariff was a federal issue. The Constitution gave the federal government the right to pass tariffs. So the real reason the South was leaving the union left the South with no constitutional argument. On the other hand, slavery was a state’s right guaranteed by the Constitution. This caused the South to seize on the noncompliance of some northern states with the federal law requiring the return of run-away slaves and make a constitutional issue out of it. This argument then appeared in some of the secession documents of the southern states.
How about Mississippi:
"Our position is throughly identified with the institution of slavery ........."
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/[WORD TOO LONG] ...[text shortened]... =pinterest#!&ms=pinterest#!&ms=pinterest#!&ms=pinterest#!&ms=pinterest#!&ms=pinterest#!&ms=pinterest
What is your problem with slavery anyway? They were only doing work nobody else wanted to do. That is the excuse for exploiting illegals near the southern border.