|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Mike GriffithMike Griffith
Date: Aug 16, 2008 08:57
Mike: Ok, so you’re a typical Lincoln apologist, the kind that
someone is likely to encounter in the online Civil War discussion
groups.
Ulysses: Yeap.
Mike: Ok, how can you the South started the war when the South tried
to establish peaceful relations with the U.S., sent a peace delegation
to negotiate those relations and also to establish close trade
relations, offered to pay compensation for all federal installations
in the South, offered to pay its share of the national debt, and was
not the one to send an unwanted military force into territory that the
other side claimed as its own?
Ulysses: Fort Sumter! The Confederates fired on Fort Sumter.
Mike: But no was killed. Plus, the South offered to pay for the
fort, allowed the federal troops there to leave in peace, and
continued to express its desire to be allowed to go its own way in
peace. How was that event a justification for a massive invasion?
The U.S. has suffered far more serious attacks on federal entities
without resorting to an invasion in response. So how does the
bloodless attack on Sumter mean the South started the war?
|
| Show full article (15.46Kb) |
|
11 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
