Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SecularBull who wrote (119745)	12/27/2000 5:20:29 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

<<What legal right did the the U. S. Government have to keep the Southern States from seceding from the Union? What was the legal basis for invading the South?>> Sounds like Johnny Reb fired first. On April 10, 1861, Brig. Gen. Beauregard, in command of the provisional Confederate forces at Charleston, South Carolina, demanded the surrender of the Union garrison of Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. Garrison commander Anderson refused. On April 12, Confederate batteries opened fire on the fort, which was unable to reply effectively. At 2:30 p.m., April 13, Major Anderson surrendered Fort Sumter, evacuating the garrison on the following day. The bombardment of Fort Sumter was the opening engagement of the American Civil War. Although there were no casualties during the bombardment, one Union artillerist was killed and three wounded (one mortally) when a cannon exploded prematurely when firing a salute during the evacuation.

To: SecularBull who wrote (119745)	12/27/2000 5:21:20 PM
From: donjuan_demarco	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

I believe that the U.S. Government had no right to prevent the southern states from seceding. While, arguably, the southern states had entered into a "contract" in joining the union, I think there is a legitimate question concerning who breached that contract first, the north or the south. A good argument can be made that the north tried to change the terms of this contract after the fact, and that therefore the south was free of any obligations to honor the contract. However, this doesn't change the fact that, but for the issue of slavery, there would have been no dispute.