Civil war history

[themuzicman]

This is from the thread about the Battle Hymn of the Republic, and Faramir posted something related and yet not related, so rather than go off topic, I decided to move this discussion here. (I debated between this and political history, but I consider war to be politics, so that might skew things a bit, but I digress..


General Beauregard, leader at that time of South Corolina's military force had a difficult decision to make.

US Secretary of State John Seward had promised the government of South Carolina that the US would leave Fort Sumpter. The Citizens of Charlseton even helped supply the fort as no one wanted the soldier's to go hugry. while they were waiting for orders to withdraw.

South Carolina had also offered to pay fair market value for this fort and all other federal lands in the South as well as to be their share of the Federal dept.

If memory serves, this did not happen in a vacuum. I believe South Carolina had expressed its intention to secede from the union, something that Lincoln was opposed to. And South Carolina had amassed an army to enforce its intent against American troops.

So, it isn't as though this was a friendly exchange. Essentially South Carolina was holding a gun to the head of the soldiers at Sumpter, and demanding that they leave, attempting to assuage their consciences by offering to pay for the land.

Beauregard's intent wasn't to defend South Carolina against invasion from the Federal government, but to advance the cause of secession through military force. So, let's not sugar coat South Carolina's nor Beauregard's motives by saying that they were afraid of unwarranted attack from Sumpter.



So we have Beauregard, having been promised that the Fed's would abandon Ft. Sumter, only to find out when the armed supply ship was heading for the fort, despite promises from Seward to the contrary.

Beauregard was facing an incoming ship of war and an armed fort. He could have easily had his troops being fired upon on two sides if he had waited until after the "transport" ship had arrived.

It was an almost military necessity for him to fire on the fort first to subdue it, before the incoming federal war ship was in position to fire on his men from either side.

Unless, of course, he simply backed his troops away from there. And, if Beauregard's intent was the safety of South Carolina or his troops, would have been prudent. But his intent was to force the federal government from its fort to create a more militarily advantageous position for himself. Again, we need to be sure we don't sugar coat Beauregard any more than we sugar coat Lincoln.


Of course the "if there is to be blood shed, they must fire the first shot" is a load of house manure. No one. I repeat no one was even hurt at the firing of Ft. Sumter.

But they did open fire, attacking a fort owned by the federal government. What did Beauregard think would happen? To me, this is clear aggressive intent becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.


Lincoln just used that as an excuse to call troops to invade the South. And it was Lincoln's calling up of troops the led the northern confederate states, Virginia, NC, Tennessee and Arkansas (I think) secede. They were all fine with staying in the union until they saw Lincoln raise troops to fight against other states.

Which was South Carolina's intent all along. Had Beauregard simply backed away from the fort, and stopped threatening the soldiers inside, none of this would have happened.


I am probably the only participant in this thread (other than Augustine) who has actually read DiLorenzo. His book "The Real Lincoln" should be an eye opener for most people educated in US Schools where the Lincoln myth is almost dogma.

However, after studying the civil war for two years, I had uncovered most of atrocities of Lincoln on my on, But DiLorenzo manages to capture them all in one book whereas I picked up one or two at a time over the course of two years, (and most of the atrocities were acoompanied by weak apologetics as to why Lincoln did these things that "seem horrible" but since it was Lincoln it must be OK) and I to pretty much the same conclusion as DiLorenzo.

But none of this supports what Beauregard did, as his (and South Carolina's) actions clearly provoked the response that South Carolina wanted, and they took advantage by firing the first shot.

We can discuss Lincoln's actions during the war later, and look at them in light of using a nuclear bomb over Japan to end that war. But the idea that somehow South Carolina and Beauregard's actions were innocent in this matter is simply southern bias.


But two years ago, i was in the majority in praising Lincoln as the greatest president ever. If I read this thread prior to my research into the civil war, I would have been dog piling Augusting with the rest of you.

Lincoln is revered for having preserved the Union (which would later save the world from Germany's invasions of Europe and Africa) and ending slavery in the US in the process. Often the means of accomplishing something of this magnitude can be called into question.

But regardless of the means, the cause of the war is certainly not exclusively with Lincoln, and probably not even primarily so.

Michael

[Faramir]

I don't have time to address every point in detail, so I am going from memory here and reserve the right to add/retract as necessary:


This is from the thread about the Battle Hymn of the Republic, and Faramir posted something related and yet not related, so rather than go off topic, I decided to move this discussion here. (I debated between this and political history, but I consider war to be politics, so that might skew things a bit, but I digress..



If memory serves, this did not happen in a vacuum. I believe South Carolina had expressed its intention to secede from the union, something that Lincoln was opposed to. And South Carolina had amassed an army to enforce its intent against American troops.

This is correct. But the real question is did South Carolina have a right to secede from the US Government? If so, the amassed troops were to protect the people from a foreign invasion, and the invasion did come.

And if SC did not have a right to secede from the US in 1861, then why did it have a right to secede from England (along with 12 other colonies) 1776?

The question of who was the aggressor here depends largely on whether SC which wished for peaceful secession had a right to do so. And if SC was the aggressor in 1861, then it was also the aggressor in 1776 and our founding fathers were a bunch of rebels who over threw the lawful government.

But history is written by the victors so it is rare that anyone ever even thinks to consider this fact.


So, it isn't as though this was a friendly exchange. Essentially South Carolina was holding a gun to the head of the soldiers at Sumpter, and demanding that they leave, attempting to assuage their consciences by offering to pay for the land.

Your memory is faulty. (You were at Sumter in 1861? Was mossy there?) :wink:

SC waited patiently for the Federal troops to leave. They had been promised by Sec. State that the troops would leave and that the fort would not be resupplied. They were promised a peaceful resolution to the Sumter issue, but were lied to by the Lincoln administration.

In the minds of SC, they were a free and independent state (this was, I think, before the formation of the CSA) and the presence of a foreign army in a fort which was by design set up to collect federal tariffs was an affront to their sovereignty.

Still they waited patiently while the Lincoln administration lied to them. If I recall correctly, early on, the state even provided food for the troops so they would not starve while waiting their orders to leave (that never came).


Beauregard's intent wasn't to defend South Carolina against invasion from the Federal government, but to advance the cause of secession through military force. So, let's not sugar coat South Carolina's nor Beauregard's motives by saying that they were afraid of unwarranted attack from Sumpter.

What???

So you are saying that Beauregard, who had been lied to by the Lincoln administration was not justified in thinking that Lincolns intentions were less than honorable?

And this is the equivalent of saying that Washington intent wasn't to defend the US against the Red Coats, but to advance the cause of secession through military force. Let's not sugar coat the US nor Washington's motives by saying they were afraid of an unwarranted attack from Red Coats in Boston!

There is sugar coating going on here, but it is not by me. But I bought into the cult of Lincoln for years too, so I can sympathize.



Unless, of course, he simply backed his troops away from there. And, if Beauregard's intent was the safety of South Carolina or his troops, would have been prudent. But his intent was to force the federal government from its fort to create a more militarily advantageous position for himself. Again, we need to be sure we don't sugar coat Beauregard any more than we sugar coat Lincoln.

In what world is it a military advantage for the safety of the citizens (who had voted for secession by the way) to allow a potentially enemy fort to be resupplied by a potentially armed vessel that could bring additional fire power from a different mobile position?

You are suggesting that it would have been a wise military move to let the Federal Government supply and reinforce at will. How many troops should Beauregard have let in before it was no longer safe?



But they did open fire, attacking a fort owned by the federal government. What did Beauregard think would happen? To me, this is clear aggressive intent becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

After all peaceful measures had failed and after the Lincoln administration had proved untrustworthy. They also waited until the last minute hoping the supply ship would turn around. If they had waited longer they would be a a militarily worse position than if they did not. Lincoln even admitted later that he intentionally provoked the firing on Ft. Sumpter.


Which was South Carolina's intent all along. Had Beauregard simply backed away from the fort, and stopped threatening the soldiers inside, none of this would have happened.

This is true. And if Washington had simply backed away from Bunker Hill the Revolution would never have happened.

The question isn't what could have been done to avoid the Ft. Sumpter situation. Beuregard could have backed away. Lincoln could have honored the promise from his Sec. State, any number of things could have prevented it.

The question is who was the aggressor?


But none of this supports what Beauregard did, as his (and South Carolina's) actions clearly provoked the response that South Carolina wanted, and they took advantage by firing the first shot.

What is that assertion based on? I have read extensively on the Civil War, and I don't recall anything that said the SC wanted to secede by war if peace was an option. There were a few hot heads that beleived that war was inevitable, but these were not the leadership of SC government. Why in the world do you think SC wanted war. They were willing to go to war, but their actions regarding Ft Sumpter indicated that they were earnestly seeking a peaceful solution, and only fired when the only alternatives were to allow the Fed. forces a stronger position or commence firing.

How in the world did you get that SC "wanted" to provoke military action?


We can discuss Lincoln's actions during the war later, and look at them in light of using a nuclear bomb over Japan to end that war. But the idea that somehow South Carolina and Beauregard's actions were innocent in this matter is simply southern bias.

We can discuss King George's actions during the war later... but the idea that somehow the US and Washington's actions were innocent in this matter is simply US bias.

The real question was did SC have a right to secede? If not, did the US colonies have a right to secede? If there is a difference, please explain why.

I will be more than happy to provide quotes from Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers in support of a state's right to secede, I will be happy to show that West Point secession as a right until right before the civil war. Heck, I will even supply a quote from "honest" abe supporting a state's right to secede (this was a position he later changed obviously).

I will even though in the Declaration of Independence which is itself a document proclaiming the right of a people to peacefully throw off their government (and resist if need be if that government responds with force or show of force)


Lincoln is revered for having preserved the Union (which would later save the world from Germany's invasions of Europe and Africa) and ending slavery in the US in the process. Often the means of accomplishing something of this magnitude can be called into question.

A "Union" that needs force to be preserved is an oxymoron. What Abe did was to force the former federal union into an involuntary nation.

But I will grant you this. Whether or not Lincoln's actions were justified, many positive things did result. The end of slavery (not a war aim, but an end result nonetheless) not the least of these.

But we also have a much stronger and much larger Federal Government than we had before the war. And it keeps growing!

But that is an argument (or agreement) for another day.


But regardless of the means, the cause of the war is certainly not exclusively with Lincoln, and probably not even primarily so.

Michael

I think the cause of the war is primarily Lincoln. (That is not to be confused with the cause of the secession. Secession and war are not the same thing. But when the ruling powers don't wish for the seceding people to secede it leads to war, as it did with the US Revolution).

The Southern stated did not have to secede. The responsibility on that lies with them (and the Democratic leadership that could not choose a united candidate allowing Lincoln to win the presidency without a popular majority. He was not even on the ballot in most southern states.)

But Lincoln did not have to go to war either. In fact popular opinion in the north was to let the South go.

But Lincoln had promised his constituents more tariffs for more "infrastructure" (i.e. corporate welfare), and the South was the source of 80% (more or less, going from memory here) of that revenue, with Charleston being a key collection point. Sumpter was designed to facilitate said collection of tariff.

[themuzicman]

This is correct. But the real question is did South Carolina have a right to secede from the US Government? If so, the amassed troops were to protect the people from a foreign invasion, and the invasion did come.

But they did not have that right. The people of South Carolina signed onto the Constitution just like every other state.


And if SC did not have a right to secede from the US in 1861, then why did it have a right to secede from England (along with 12 other colonies) 1776?

Technically, they didn't. The declaration of independence doesn't make this specific case. The DoI is a document of atrocities committed by the king against the colonists, and declares that because of these things, the King has ceded his right to rule the colonies.


The question of who was the aggressor here depends largely on whether SC which wished for peaceful secession had a right to do so. And if SC was the aggressor in 1861, then it was also the aggressor in 1776 and our founding fathers were a bunch of rebels who over threw the lawful government.

And that's exactly what they were. However, they had compiled a list of grievances sufficient to justify such a rebellion.


But history is written by the victors so it is rare that anyone ever even thinks to consider this fact.

To some extent justification is found in winning, this is true. However, justification is also found in the moral basis for action. In this case, South Carolina was acting to preserve slavery as an institution.


Your memory is faulty. (You were at Sumter in 1861? Was mossy there?) :wink:

SC waited patiently for the Federal troops to leave. They had been promised by Sec. State that the troops would leave and that the fort would not be resupplied. They were promised a peaceful resolution to the Sumter issue, but were lied to by the Lincoln administration.

And SC's army just happened to be stationed next to Ft. Sumpter? I think you're missing the intent of parking the military there. Had you considered what might be different if SC doesn't open fire? Lincoln had stated that he would not fire the first shot.

What do you do when your troops are threatened by another army (who just happened to be parked there), and you need time to resupply? You stall for time. You'd do the same thing with a gun to your head.


In the minds of SC, they were a free and independent state (this was, I think, before the formation of the CSA) and the presence of a foreign army in a fort which was by design set up to collect federal tariffs was an affront to their sovereignty.

An illusion created by the citizens of South Carolina.


Still they waited patiently while the Lincoln administration lied to them. If I recall correctly, early on, the state even provided food for the troops so they would not starve while waiting their orders to leave (that never came).


And all this is nice from SC's perspective. What about Lincoln's perspective. Here is a rebel state declaring its independence, forming a military, and threatening a federal fort. As Reagan said, you should always negotiate from a position of strength.


What???

So you are saying that Beauregard, who had been lied to by the Lincoln administration was not justified in thinking that Lincolns intentions were less than honorable?

Given that Beauregard was already holding a gun to the head of a federal fort, if he were interested in avoiding conflict, would have at least backed away to a defensive position. What is clear from his actions is that he wasn't willing to remove the threat to a federal fort, even in the light of reinforcements.


And this is the equivalent of saying that Washington intent wasn't to defend the US against the Red Coats, but to advance the cause of secession through military force. Let's not sugar coat the US nor Washington's motives by saying they were afraid of an unwarranted attack from Red Coats in Boston!

That's correct. Washington's intent was to remove an immoral authority over the 13 colonies to establish free conditions and moral government for those colonies. Beauregard's intent was to keep blacks enslaved. The motive for each rebellion is the key to the differences.


There is sugar coating going on here, but it is not by me. But I bought into the cult of Lincoln for years too, so I can sympathize.

I'm not going to defend everything that Lincoln did. He probably could have been more forthright with SC about his intentions. But, again, dealings with a hostile entity aren't always completely forthright.

I think he had two concerns: 1) Defend those in fort Sumpter from attack from Beauregard, and 2) Preserve the union. Sending reinforcements accomplished both.


In what world is it a military advantage for the safety of the citizens (who had voted for secession by the way) to allow a potentially enemy fort to be resupplied by a potentially armed vessel that could bring additional fire power from a different mobile position?

Made necessary by the actions of South Carolina in raising a military and threatening Fort Sumpter. Again, you're missing the cause and effect, here. These things did not happen in a vacuum. If South Carolina doesn't threaten fort Sumpter by parking an army outside their door (effectively creating a siege of the fort... which is why they had to supply the fort with food... ever thought about that?) none of this happens.


You are suggesting that it would have been a wise military move to let the Federal Government supply and reinforce at will. How many troops should Beauregard have let in before it was no longer safe?

Well, that depends on whether you consider an army which is legally positioned in its own fort to be unsafe. I think it would have been wise not to lay siege to the fort or to park your military at their door and point a gun at them and demand that they leave.


After all peaceful measures had failed and after the Lincoln administration had proved untrustworthy. They also waited until the last minute hoping the supply ship would turn around. If they had waited longer they would be a a militarily worse position than if they did not. Lincoln even admitted later that he intentionally provoked the firing on Ft. Sumpter.

I've not seen solid evidence that Lincoln's intent was to provoke an attack.


This is true. And if Washington had simply backed away from Bunker Hill the Revolution would never have happened.

So, the real question is this: Which was justified? Freedom from a king who routinely violated the rights of subjects, or a state who wanted to preserve the institution of slavery?


The question isn't what could have been done to avoid the Ft. Sumpter situation. Beuregard could have backed away. Lincoln could have honored the promise from his Sec. State, any number of things could have prevented it.

Sure, but at least Lincoln had a justified reason for lying.


The question is who was the aggressor?


Clearly South Carolina is the aggressor. They formed a military and laid siege to a federal fort. Under threat of starving those in the fort, they attempted to negotiate with the Secretary of State, who lied to give his government some time to establish a position of strength.

When this occurred, Beauregard attempted to prevent this shift in strength by attacking the fort.

The aggressive move is initiated by South Carolina at every turn.


What is that assertion based on? I have read extensively on the Civil War, and I don't recall anything that said the SC wanted to secede by war if peace was an option. There were a few hot heads that beleived that war was inevitable, but these were not the leadership of SC government. Why in the world do you think SC wanted war. They were willing to go to war, but their actions regarding Ft Sumpter indicated that they were earnestly seeking a peaceful solution, and only fired when the only alternatives were to allow the Fed. forces a stronger position or commence firing.

And from SC's POV, I can see this, however, I think it is either short sighted or intentional to think that the federal government wouldn't strengthen it's position in its own fort, even if they intended to leave at a later date.



How in the world did you get that SC "wanted" to provoke military action?


They formed a military and laid siege to a federal fort. That's generally considered a military action.


We can discuss King George's actions during the war later... but the idea that somehow the US and Washington's actions were innocent in this matter is simply US bias.


I'm sure that there were things that Washington did that he wouldn't be proud of.


The real question was did SC have a right to secede? If not, did the US colonies have a right to secede? If there is a difference, please explain why.

That is correct. And the question is one of justification. The DoI lists several valid grievances against the King of England. SC wanted to secede to preserve slavery.

Which sounds justified to you?


I will be more than happy to provide quotes from Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers in support of a state's right to secede, I will be happy to show that West Point secession as a right until right before the civil war. Heck, I will even supply a quote from "honest" abe supporting a state's right to secede (this was a position he later changed obviously).


Unfortunately, South Carolina provided the worse test case for state secession. Were this over some irreconcilable difference in foreign policy or inability to work things out with Pennsylvania or something where both sides have a clear and moral position and it came down to stand on principle, secession might still be an option today.

But South Carolina picked slavery. An issue that, even in that day, had a clear moral direction. in fact, SC's secession came, if memory serves, because Lincoln would only allow new territories (Kansas, again, if memory serves) to be free territories, which would have slowly turned the federal government against slavery as a practice, and would have ended the practice fairly soon.

In short, SC was entrenched in a position that was clearly immoral, and would rather go to war to seceded than change.


I will even though in the Declaration of Independence which is itself a document proclaiming the right of a people to peacefully throw off their government (and resist if need be if that government responds with force or show of force)

When confronted with a government that treats its people in the manner that the King of England did.


A "Union" that needs force to be preserved is an oxymoron. What Abe did was to force the former federal union into an involuntary nation.

And unfortunately South Carolina forced his hand.


But I will grant you this. Whether or not Lincoln's actions were justified, many positive things did result. The end of slavery (not a war aim, but an end result nonetheless) not the least of these.

But we also have a much stronger and much larger Federal Government than we had before the war. And it keeps growing!

I think that would have been inevitable in any case, but it was certainly accelerated as a result. No question there.

That's what happens when individuals (or a state) insist on embracing what is clearly immoral: the government steps in.


I think the cause of the war is primarily Lincoln. (That is not to be confused with the cause of the secession. Secession and war are not the same thing. But when the ruling powers don't wish for the seceding people to secede it leads to war, as it did with the US Revolution).

The Southern stated did not have to secede. The responsibility on that lies with them (and the Democratic leadership that could not choose a united candidate allowing Lincoln to win the presidency without a popular majority. He was not even on the ballot in most southern states.)


A process created by the founding fathers.


But Lincoln did not have to go to war either. In fact popular opinion in the north was to let the South go.

Well, once you lay siege to an fire upon a federal fort, you should expect a military response.


But Lincoln had promised his constituents more tariffs for more "infrastructure" (i.e. corporate welfare), and the South was the source of 80% (more or less, going from memory here) of that revenue, with Charleston being a key collection point. Sumpter was designed to facilitate said collection of tariff.

True. I certainly can see the economic objection to these policies, as the cost of their exports would be going up significantly, making it harder to compete overseas.

But that's hardly a reason to secede.

Michael

[Faramir]

But they did not have that right. The people of South Carolina signed onto the Constitution just like every other state.

Can you please show me where in the constitution that it prohibits states from voluntarily leaving a compact that they voluntarily joined? No, you can't it is not in there.

In fact the delegations from New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia insisted that their states be allowed to resume the duties given to the federal government. It is NOT

Thomas Jefferson said, ""If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"" when a group of Federalist (he was an Antifederalist) wanted to secede.

A text book on the constitution that was used at West Point said, "The secession of a State depends on the will of the people of such a State." This was the text book used at the US Army Academy.

Prior to 1861, you would be hard pressed to find anyone, including honest Abe, say that a state did not have a right to secede. Your proclamation that three signatures on a piece of paper signed 80 years previously bound the current citizens of SC to a government they did not want is just unfounded. This view was not prevalent until AFTER the civil war. A sort of "might makes right" approach to secession that I totally disagree with.



Technically, they didn't. The declaration of independence doesn't make this specific case. The DoI is a document of atrocities committed by the king against the colonists, and declares that because of these things, the King has ceded his right to rule the colonies.

Read again:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —
The question is, who gets to decide when the Government is being usurpatious? According to the DoI it is the people, not the prevailing government, who gets to make this decision.

The people of SC voted to secede as was their right. Their reasons were bad. (Even though I think they had a good case based on the horrible tax imbalance between the north and the south that Lincoln promised to make worse. But that was not the reasons they gave in their declaration of secession). But the reasons for secession are not the issue, the issue is did they have the right.

The vast majority of the prevailing thought prior to 1861 was that states DID have the right to secede:

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement.

A prominent political figure made this statement in 1848. He did not say that the people had to have a reason to secede just that they had a right to do so if it "suites them better". The prominent figure --- Abraham Lincoln.


And that's exactly what they were. However, they had compiled a list of grievances sufficient to justify such a rebellion.

Sufficient to whom? King George? Surely he didn't find their list of grievances sufficient. Their list was sufficient in their own mind. Just as the list of grievances SC listed was sufficient in their own mine. As your hero honest flip flop Abe says, the reason they need is that the new government fits them better.


To some extent justification is found in winning, this is true. However, justification is also found in the moral basis for action. In this case, South Carolina was acting to preserve slavery as an institution.

Wrong. There was no threat to the institution of slavery. Lincoln promised to support the Cowrin Amendment that would make slavery untouchable by the Federal Government. Have you even read the SC Declaration of Secession to know the reason they gave?

The reason SC gave was because some of the other states in the Union were not living up to the Constitution they signed by not enforcing the fugitive slave act.

This was true. Legally, the constitution had (it no longer does thank God) a provision that slaves should be returned to the state where the "owner" lived.

Despite the fact that that particular part of the constitution is abhorrent, SC was legally correct. And according to hon..er flip flop Abe, as long as the new government suited them better, they had the right to seceded. Which they did.


And SC's army just happened to be stationed next to Ft. Sumpter? I think you're missing the intent of parking the military there. Had you considered what might be different if SC doesn't open fire? Lincoln had stated that he would not fire the first shot.

No. On December 24, 1860 when SC declared it's secession, Ft. Sumter was deserted having just been built. Major Anderson moved his forces into the fort two days later. That is when SC's army moved to meet the threat. The US made the first aggressive move here.


What do you do when your troops are threatened by another army (who just happened to be parked there), and you need time to resupply? You stall for time. You'd do the same thing with a gun to your head.

What gun. Anderson was given plenty of opportunity to vacate the fort unharmed. It wasn't like Beuregard said, leave, but we won't let you leave peacefully, you have to leave under fire.


An illusion created by the citizens of South Carolina.

And by the Treaty of Paris between the colonies (not the US but between each individual colony) and King George. By the writings of the founding fathers (read the Federalist and especially the AntiFederalist papers), by Thomas Jefferson, by Constitutional Scholars of the time, by prevailing wisdom of the time and by Abe himself (at least as late as 1848).

So you claim this was an "illusion" created by the Citizens of South Carolina. But it was supported by the founding fathers, the Declaration of Independence, Kings George, The Treaty of Paris, prevailing legal and popular opinion, and taught at West Point.

Sound like this "Illusion" has a strong basis in fact! Or was there some vast conspiracy against SC to trick them into thinking that they were a sovereign state perpetuated for nearly a 100 years? I think the former makes much more sense.


And all this is nice from SC's perspective. What about Lincoln's perspective. Here is a rebel state declaring its independence, forming a military, and threatening a federal fort. As Reagan said, you should always negotiate from a position of strength.

So now you are admitting that Abe was taking an aggressive stance.

Yet you faulted Beauregard for trying to maintain his position of strength.


Given that Beauregard was already holding a gun to the head of a federal fort, if he were interested in avoiding conflict, would have at least backed away to a defensive position. What is clear from his actions is that he wasn't willing to remove the threat to a federal fort, even in the light of reinforcements.

Or he could have offered to let the soldiers leave the fort. Oh, he did do that. He gave them four months to do that. What an aggressive move on his part.


That's correct. Washington's intent was to remove an immoral authority over the 13 colonies to establish free conditions and moral government for those colonies. Beauregard's intent was to keep blacks enslaved. The motive for each rebellion is the key to the differences.

Washington? The slave owner. Washington’s intent was to also to keep blacks enslaved (well at the very least there as no concern for freeing the slaves during the revolution). The Revolution didn’t free any slaves. So your talk of “free conditions” is ignoring the fact that SC would be just as free as the colony in terms of black enslavement. The only freedom gained by the revolution was freedom for rich, white, property owning men.

Slaves were no more free under Washington than they were in SC.

But I will give you this. The reasons SC gave were not reasons I would support. But so what? That does not mean that they have no right to secede. The question is rights not reasons.


I'm not going to defend everything that Lincoln did. He probably could have been more forthright with SC about his intentions. But, again, dealings with a hostile entity aren't always completely forthright.

I think he had two concerns: 1) Defend those in fort Sumter from attack from Beauregard, and 2) Preserve the union. Sending reinforcements accomplished both.

1) If he was concerned about defending the men against attack why didn’t he just order them out of there during the three months he had the chance (they were in there for four months but Abe wasn’t president until Jan. ’61).

2) As I’ve said before a “union” that has to be preserved by force is not a union it is an oxymoron.


Made necessary by the actions of South Carolina in raising a military and threatening Fort Sumter. Again, you're missing the cause and effect, here. These things did not happen in a vacuum. If South Carolina doesn't threaten fort Sumpter by parking an army outside their door (effectively creating a siege of the fort... which is why they had to supply the fort with food... ever thought about that?) none of this happens.

If the soldiers in Ft. Sumpter hadn’t parked themselves in there after SC declared secession, then there would be no need for the SC army to be there. SC offered many opportunities for the soldiers to leave peacefully. By your logic, it must be the US’s fault for not retreating. At least that was your answer to what Beauregard should have done.


Well, that depends on whether you consider an army which is legally positioned in its own fort to be unsafe. I think it would have been wise not to lay siege to the fort or to park your military at their door and point a gun at them and demand that they leave.

Begging the question. You are assuming that SC did not have a right to seceded. You claim this was an “illusion” (one supported by nearly everyone at the time BTW)


I've not seen solid evidence that Lincoln's intent was to provoke an attack.

I will try to find the citation if I have a bit of time.


So, the real question is this: Which was justified? Freedom from a king who routinely violated the rights of subjects, or a state who wanted to preserve the institution of slavery?

Slavery was a right under the constitution. Specifically member states were required to return run away slaves. This is not a good right, it should not even be considered a right, but still the US was violating the rights of the subjects from a purely legal perspective.

Just so we are clear. I do not think SC should have seceded, at least not for the reasons they gave. But they were legally able to do so. Only the might makes right outcome of a brutal war changed that.

I agree with James “Pete” Longstreet who said the South should have freed the slaves first, THEN fired on Sumter.



Sure, but at least Lincoln had a justified reason for lying.

Yep, that’s old “honest” Abe! :ahem:


Clearly South Carolina is the aggressor. They formed a military and laid siege to a federal fort. Under threat of starving those in the fort, they attempted to negotiate with the Secretary of State, who lied to give his government some time to establish a position of strength.

You don’t know your history very well. Seward was not lying. He wanted desperately for Lincoln to pull the troops out of Sumter. However, Lincoln flipped flopped for months until he finally decided to sent the resupply ships.

The troops also could have left at anytime. It is not as if the SC army was saying, “We want you out, but only after your starve to death”. It was more like. “Please leave. Again, Please leave. We really don’t want you to starve, so here’s some food, but please leave. We are asking again and will not be giving you anymore food so please leave.”

These pleas to leave peacefully were clearly an trick to provoke the US to send an armed resupply ship? :ahem:


When this occurred, Beauregard attempted to prevent this shift in strength by attacking the fort.

This was militarily sound. Preemptive strike doctrine at it’s finest.

To sum your position up:

1. SC declared it’s independence.
2. AFTER that, the US army occupies Ft. Sumter.
3. SC gives the US four moths to vacate peacefully
4. The US refuses.
5. The US sends armed supply ships to the fort.
6. If the ships arrived the SC would be facing fire from two points instead of one.
7. To preempt horribly weak military situation, Beauregard once again offers the commander an opportunity to get out peacefully and warns that his failure to do so will result in the Ft. Being fired upon.
8. Then, and only then, does SC fire.

They are such aggressive beast. If Lincoln didn’t want war, he should have ordered those soldiers out of the fort. Again, this is the argument you gave for Beauregard.


The aggressive move is initiated by South Carolina at every turn.

Yep. SC didn’t offer a peaceful solution a dozen times. SC forced and/or tricked Lincoln into sending armed supply ships. They tricked Lincoln into not accepting their offer of a peaceful settlement.

I will grant that if SC had never seceded, there would not have been a battle of Ft. Sumter. But to say that SC was the only aggressor is just an ignorance of historical fact. I would go so far as to say that SC was the primary aggressor is also showing ignorance of historical fact, but that is not as clear.


And from SC's POV, I can see this, however, I think it is either short sighted or intentional to think that the federal government wouldn't strengthen it's position in its own fort, even if they intended to leave at a later date.

Sort of like you are being short sighted or intention to think that Beauregard should have retreated to a defensive position instead of firing on Ft. Sumter when he did?

I agree that militarily speaking it would be prudent for the US to resupply Ft. Sumter…. IF they wanted to use force in an aggressive manner from that fort. Which means that the US was in fact the aggressor in this situation. Right?


They formed a military and laid siege to a federal fort. That's generally considered a military action.

They formed a military and asked armed foreign troops to peacefully leave their territory. That is generally considered a political action of a sovereign state.

You make it sound like they didn’t want the soldiers in the fort, but wouldn’t let them leave peacefully. That is just not true.


I'm sure that there were things that Washington did that he wouldn't be proud of.

No doubt. But Lincoln’s record on civil rights is horrible. But a discussion for another day.


That is correct. And the question is one of justification. The DoI lists several valid grievances against the King of England. SC wanted to secede to preserve slavery.

Addressed above. Validity of grievance is not the issue. The right to self governance is.


Which sounds justified to you?

Your spin on the situation sounded very justifiable. But again, it is not validity but rights that are the issue.




Unfortunately, South Carolina provided the worse test case for state secession. Were this over some irreconcilable difference in foreign policy or inability to work things out with Pennsylvania or something where both sides have a clear and moral position and it came down to stand on principle, secession might still be an option today.

I agree with you here. With the exception of the horrible stain of slavery, I think the South was in the right. But that is a horrible stain. (And the North had slaves states too, so they are not in the right either). And I think that states still have the right to secede, for whatever reason they choose. I hope this dose not happen. But several many states today have strong secession movements. It is my hope that “We the People” will start voting in officials who will return to the very limited type of non-central, mostly state controlled, government intended by the constitution and the bill of rights. But if not secession is an option, one I would not vote for except under the most dire circumstances.


But South Carolina picked slavery. An issue that, even in that day, had a clear moral direction. in fact, SC's secession came, if memory serves, because Lincoln would only allow new territories (Kansas, again, if memory serves) to be free territories, which would have slowly turned the federal government against slavery as a practice, and would have ended the practice fairly soon.

That is not true. (Well that is not what the SC declaration said anyway).

I think that may have been a factor. But the slave issue was IMO a red hearing. Or at the very least a polarizing issue that drew clear boundaries between north and south and clouded up more substantive issues (not that slavery is not a substantive issues, but the significant difference between north and south was over taxation and commerce. Slavery was just the rallying cry. I say this not to underscore the extreme moral blight that was slavery, but to point out that slavery was not the sole or even primary issue.

Most northerners were not abolitionist. Northern politicians wanted to prevent the spread of slavery for many ignoble reason, not because of any concern for human rights.

There had been a power struggle between the north and the south from almost the beginning. Early the south won because of population advantages. The population shift gave the north more power. Slavery was a clear issue that could be used to discourage southerners who owned slaves from moving to new territories. I could go on, but I don’t have the time.


In short, SC was entrenched in a position that was clearly immoral, and would rather go to war to seceded than change.

I can agree to that. I never claimed SC had the moral high ground regarding their reason for secession. I am saying that they had the moral high ground in regards to their right to seceded.

And since the “Union” had no intent of freeing slaves (at least not until much later in the war), they didn’t have any moral high ground.

If the Union was all about freeing slaves, why did it allow slaves in Delaware and Maryland? Why did Lincoln wait two years to abolish slavery in DC?


When confronted with a government that treats its people in the manner that the King of England did.

To the English, the king was doing good. It is the people, not the government that decides matters of secession. SC made a bad choice. But it was there choice to make.


And unfortunately South Carolina forced his hand.

See above.


I think that would have been inevitable in any case, but it was certainly accelerated as a result. No question there.

That's what happens when individuals (or a state) insist on embracing what is clearly immoral: the government steps in.

If the US government were stepping in to free the slaves, you would have a point. It is crystal clear that this was not the intent. Freeing the slaves became an objective much later in the war, largely due to pressure from non-slaves countries in Europe who were sympathetic to the south but hated the slavery aspect (much like me).

The truth is that Union states (Deleware, Maryland) had slavery until the 13th amendment was passed.

Yes, SC was in the wrong for wanting to keep slavery. But the US was not some knight on a shining horse to right a moral injustice. The US was protecting a tariff station.


A process created by the founding fathers.

That is right. The founding fathers did start the process of secession and the right to fight if the former government doesn’t agree. SC was jut following that example. (You might want to identify the process you are talking about) :wink:


Well, once you lay siege to and fire upon a federal fort, you should expect a military response.

The military response from Lincoln happened first. Then the “siege” or firing started.




True. I certainly can see the economic objection to these policies, as the cost of their exports would be going up significantly, making it harder to compete overseas.

But that's hardly a reason to secede.

Not only that. The South being primarily agricultural and the north being industrial, they had a much larger amount of imported goods. The tariff benefitted the northern industrialist and harmed the southern farmer. And the benefits went primarily to the north.

If this inequitable tax scheme is not reason for secession, then we all owe King George an apology. Unfortunately SC did not give this reason (though other southern states did) for secession.


:sig:

[themuzicman]

Can you please show me where in the constitution that it prohibits states from voluntarily leaving a compact that they voluntarily joined? No, you can't it is not in there.

This is the wrong question. When you enter into an agreement, exit of that agreement may only happen if there is an explicit exit clause, or if both parties agree to dissolve it. Neither is the case.


Thomas Jefferson said, ""If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"" when a group of Federalist (he was an Antifederalist) wanted to secede.

Which is a fine statement, but doesn't necessarily represent the actual situation.


A text book on the constitution that was used at West Point said, "The secession of a State depends on the will of the people of such a State." This was the text book used at the US Army Academy.

Again, a fine statement.


Prior to 1861, you would be hard pressed to find anyone, including honest Abe, say that a state did not have a right to secede. Your proclamation that three signatures on a piece of paper signed 80 years previously bound the current citizens of SC to a government they did not want is just unfounded. This view was not prevalent until AFTER the civil war. A sort of "might makes right" approach to secession that I totally disagree with.

First, those three signatures represented the entire state. Those signatures didn't belong to men who were unaffiliated with the states they represented. Those signatures obligated the states to the union.


Read again:
B] it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.[/B] —
The question is, who gets to decide when the Government is being usurpatious? According to the DoI it is the people, not the prevailing government, who gets to make this decision.

The people of SC voted to secede as was their right. Their reasons were bad.
...
But the reasons for secession are not the issue, the issue is did they have the right.

Your answer is in your own quote. Let me provide the emphasis you missed:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —

The federal government had not engaged in a long train of abuses and usurpations, nor was SC living under absolute Despotism. In fact, SC was represented in the very congress that enacted the tariffs. Granted that they voted against them, but that is the nature of representative politics.


The vast majority of the prevailing thought prior to 1861 was that states DID have the right to secede:

A prominent political figure made this statement in 1848. He did not say that the people had to have a reason to secede just that they had a right to do so if it "suites them better". The prominent figure --- Abraham Lincoln.


Well, unfortunately, rights are lost when they are abused over the wrong reasons. Let's see if we can list SC's grievances:

1) A tariff enacted by a congress they participated in
2) A requirement created that all new territories be free territories
3) A lack of enforcement requiring the return of slaves.

This is clearly insufficient to rise to the level of the DoI's conditions, and ought to be view quite dimly as sufficient cause for secession.


Sufficient to whom? King George? Surely he didn't find their list of grievances sufficient. Their list was sufficient in their own mind. Just as the list of grievances SC listed was sufficient in their own mine. As your hero honest flip flop Abe says, the reason they need is that the new government fits them better.

Sufficient to convince the federal government (or 3/4s of the other states) to let them go. I think you'll find that the "right" of secession would be subject to that agreement, even before 1861.


Wrong. There was no threat to the institution of slavery. Lincoln promised to support the Cowrin Amendment that would make slavery untouchable by the Federal Government. Have you even read the SC Declaration of Secession to know the reason they gave?


There are stated and unstated reasons. The specific reason stated is the failure of other states to return slaves, and their efforts to minimize the return of slaves. Clearly they were concerned about preserving slavery. Did SC take this up with federal courts? Clearly this is a dispute between the states.


The reason SC gave was because some of the other states in the Union were not living up to the Constitution they signed by not enforcing the fugitive slave act.


But this is a matter for federal courts, not a basis for secession.


Despite the fact that that particular part of the constitution is abhorrent, SC was legally correct. And according to hon..er flip flop Abe, as long as the new government suited them better, they had the right to seceded. Which they did.

Well, they held a vote, and decided that was sufficient. They didn't exactly get the approval of all the other states to leave their agreement.


No. On December 24, 1860 when SC declared it's secession, Ft. Sumter was deserted having just been built. Major Anderson moved his forces into the fort two days later. That is when SC's army moved to meet the threat. The US made the first aggressive move here.


Hmm... and you don't find it curious that the vote took place two days before the fort was to be occupied?


What gun. Anderson was given plenty of opportunity to vacate the fort unharmed. It wasn't like Beuregard said, leave, but we won't let you leave peacefully, you have to leave under fire.

The federal government owned the land. A gun was being held to its head to vacate. Do you really expect the federal government to abandon what it owned because a state demanded it?


And by the Treaty of Paris between the colonies

The treaty of Paris was established in 1783 six years before the Constitution was signed. Under the articles of confederation, this is how treaties worked.

Cmon, Faramir... You can't seriously be using a treaty created before the Constitution was written much less signed to make a claim about the union the Constitution created.

This is the problem I have with your argument: You conveniently ignore obvious facts to hold up South Carolina's side.


Sound like this "Illusion" has a strong basis in fact! Or was there some vast conspiracy against SC to trick them into thinking that they were a sovereign state perpetuated for nearly a 100 years? I think the former makes much more sense.

If we are to accept your argument, then the citizens of South Carolina failed to realize that the Constitution was different from the articles of Confederation, and failed to realize that secession isn't an option just because things don't go their way in a congress in which they participated.


So now you are admitting that Abe was taking an aggressive stance.


An actively defensive stance, yes. It would be foolish to abandon the fort and it would be foolish to not supply it properly.


Yet you faulted Beauregard for trying to maintain his position of strength.

No, not for maintaining a position of strength, but starting the war by firing the first shot.


Or he could have offered to let the soldiers leave the fort. Oh, he did do that. He gave them four months to do that. What an aggressive move on his part.


First, sarcasm doesn't help you. Second, why should the federal government abandon a fort that they owned?


Washington? The slave owner.

It was the states and all the people therein who won freedom from King George. It's not as though the non-white and non-rich were still ruled by king George. It is true that slaves were still enslaved, but they remained so because the formation of the union comprising all 13 colonies would have been impossible without recognizing slavery. Again, something South Carolina (among others) insisted upon. So it isn't as though there wasn't an opportunity to end slavery in 1789. It just wasn't to be at that time.


Slaves were no more free under Washington than they were in SC.


True enough. But Washington wasn't fighting to keep or free slaves. He was fighting to free the colonies from an absolute despot. You'll have to excuse him for accomplish his purpose and not yours.


1) If he was concerned about defending the men against attack why didn’t he just order them out of there during the three months he had the chance (they were in there for four months but Abe wasn’t president until Jan. ’61).

Because abandoning a federally owned fort wasn't an option.


2) As I’ve said before a “union” that has to be preserved by force is not a union it is an oxymoron.

What about dealing with a rogue state?


If the soldiers in Ft. Sumpter hadn’t parked themselves in there after SC declared secession, then there would be no need for the SC army to be there. SC offered many opportunities for the soldiers to leave peacefully. By your logic, it must be the US’s fault for not retreating. At least that was your answer to what Beauregard should have done.


LOL... you're going to try to make great hay out of the timing aren't you... You really don't find it convenient that the vote took place two days before the US military was to occupy it?


Begging the question. You are assuming that SC did not have a right to seceded. You claim this was an “illusion” (one supported by nearly everyone at the time BTW)


And now I've demonstrated that they didn't.


I agree with James “Pete” Longstreet who said the South should have freed the slaves first, THEN fired on Sumter.


Or, better yet, just free the slaves. Firing on fort Sumpter with the DoS they created after freeing the slaves would have been pointless.


You don’t know your history very well. Seward was not lying. He wanted desperately for Lincoln to pull the troops out of Sumter. However, Lincoln flipped flopped for months until he finally decided to sent the resupply ships.


I'm sure Seward did. That would have represented the federal government's admission and permission for SC to secede, something it did not have. It's not as though SC's motives are pure, here. Granted that Lincoln could have acted a bit more decisively. I imagine this question is one that vexed him and many in Washington DC.


The troops also could have left at anytime. It is not as if the SC army was saying, “We want you out, but only after your starve to death”. It was more like. “Please leave. Again, Please leave. We really don’t want you to starve, so here’s some food, but please leave. We are asking again and will not be giving you anymore food so please leave.”

Give me a break, that paragraph almost made me puke. It sounds like someone who is desperately wanting to get away with a crime, and is holding a gun to the head of the person who has to allow them to do it, pleading (using those words) with them to comply.

FACT: The federal government owned the fort and the land it existed on. SC had no legal basis to demand that they leave, or threaten military action to force them from the fort.

FACT: Even if SC's secession was legal and proper, there would be no basis for SC's demand that the Federal government abandon what it owned. This was a clear violation of property rights. The only way to legally and morally take the fort would be to negotiate with the federal government to purchase it. And, no, just offering them money isn't enough. if they don't want to sell, you don't invade it.

I realize that SC wanted them to leave. But that lacks sufficient moral and legal basis for military action to force them from their own land. (This is something more like what King George would do.)


These pleas to leave peacefully were clearly an trick to provoke the US to send an armed resupply ship? :ahem:

So, if I go to your house, and lay siege to it with a small military party, and plead nicely with you to leave it, and you call the police, I'm justified in shooting up your house just because I wanted you to leave it?

No. Sorry.


This was militarily sound. Preemptive strike doctrine at it’s finest.


Militarily brilliant. Politically dumb. Morally wrong.


To sum your position up:



Close:

1. Federal government purchases land and builds a fort, and intends to occupy it.
2. South Carolina schedules a vote to secede two days before occupation of the fort
3. Vote happens, SC decides to attempt to secede.
4. Federal government occupies land it owned.
5. SC military lays siege to the fort, threatening to starve the people inside the fort, demanding that the federal government abandon land that they own under military threat.
6. The US refuses
7. The US sends supplies to reinforce defense of its own fort.
8. To preempt horribly weak military situation, Beauregard once again offers the commander an opportunity to abandon federally owned land under threat of force, and warns that his failure to do so will result in the Ft. Being fired upon, and the land being taken from its legal owner.
9. SC opens fire.

See, when you include all of the relevant facts, the story is more complete.

Yep. SC didn’t offer a peaceful solution a dozen times. SC forced and/or tricked Lincoln into sending armed supply ships. They tricked Lincoln into not accepting their offer of a peaceful settlement.

Yeah, just like a mugger offers a "peaceful solution" if you just hand over your wallet... :lol:


I will grant that if SC had never seceded, there would not have been a battle of Ft. Sumter. But to say that SC was the only aggressor is just an ignorance of historical fact. I would go so far as to say that SC was the primary aggressor is also showing ignorance of historical fact, but that is not as clear.

It is clear that Lincoln wished to defend the fort that the US government owned, as it would in any case in any state or nation around the world, and was preparing to do so.

What you're ignoring is the property rights issue, and the fact that SC's MILITARY was attempting to take the land from the federal government by force. The fact that they hadn't yet fired a shot doesn't mean that laying siege to the fort wasn't a military action.


Sort of like you are being short sighted or intention to think that Beauregard should have retreated to a defensive position instead of firing on Ft. Sumter when he did?


I suppose he should have considered whether starting a war with the US military was wise. 600,000 Americans died because of his decision.


I agree that militarily speaking it would be prudent for the US to resupply Ft. Sumter…. IF they wanted to use force in an aggressive manner from that fort. Which means that the US was in fact the aggressor in this situation. Right?

No. It is not unreasonable to send supplies to a fort that one owns under siege and under threat from another military. It is, OTOH, unreasonable to lay siege to a fort and land owned by someone else, and demand that they abandon it under threat of military action.

SC is clearly the aggressor, first by laying siege, and second by opening fire.


They formed a military and asked armed foreign troops to peacefully leave their territory. That is generally considered a political action of a sovereign state.


No, that's not proper action, especially since the US owned the fort. That's a denial of property rights. I'm sure Cuba doesn't want that Naval station on Guantanamo, either. But they aren't laying siege to it or making war upon it, since the US has a legal lease of that land.


You make it sound like they didn’t want the soldiers in the fort, but wouldn’t let them leave peacefully. That is just not true.


No, I'm saying those in the fort were there legally, under property rights, and to demand that they leave under military force is immoral, especially through laying siege and starving them.


No doubt. But Lincoln’s record on civil rights is horrible. But a discussion for another day.

No disagreement on either count.


I agree with you here. With the exception of the horrible stain of slavery, I think the South was in the right. But that is a horrible stain. (And the North had slaves states too, so they are not in the right either). And I think that states still have the right to secede, for whatever reason they choose. I hope this dose not happen. But several many states today have strong secession movements. It is my hope that “We the People” will start voting in officials who will return to the very limited type of non-central, mostly state controlled, government intended by the constitution and the bill of rights. But if not secession is an option, one I would not vote for except under the most dire circumstances.

Well, your evidence is weak, especially when we throw out the Treaty of Paris. I do think that secession is possible without the kind of justification spoke of in the DoI, but not unilaterally so, as SC attempted.


That is not true. (Well that is not what the SC declaration said anyway).


LOL... Like I said, there are spoken and unspoken reasons. The spoken reasons are basis for going to federal court, not secession.


I think that may have been a factor. But the slave issue was IMO a red hearing. Or at the very least a polarizing issue that drew clear boundaries between north and south and clouded up more substantive issues (not that slavery is not a substantive issues, but the significant difference between north and south was over taxation and commerce. Slavery was just the rallying cry. I say this not to underscore the extreme moral blight that was slavery, but to point out that slavery was not the sole or even primary issue.

I do think it was a primary underlying issue. I can see where taxation would be problematic, but SC would have no basis to claim any justification for secession based upon a tariff enacted in a congress in which it was represented.


Most northerners were not abolitionist. Northern politicians wanted to prevent the spread of slavery for many ignoble reason, not because of any concern for human rights.


But northern citizens were far more abolitionist, which is what northern politicians were responding to.


There had been a power struggle between the north and the south from almost the beginning. Early the south won because of population advantages. The population shift gave the north more power. Slavery was a clear issue that could be used to discourage southerners who owned slaves from moving to new territories. I could go on, but I don’t have the time.


Which only highlights the immorality of the South. They were more than willing to participate in the Union when they were taking from the North, but when the worm turned, rather than acknowledging that this is all a part of development, they wanted to take their winnings and go home. That's not exactly a valid basis for secession. The north had done its part for the union, and it was now time for the south to do the same.


And since the “Union” had no intent of freeing slaves (at least not until much later in the war), they didn’t have any moral high ground.

The Union's intent was to remove slavery slowly, over time, as new territories came on as free territories. It was to be a smooth transition. SC resisted to the point of war.


If the Union was all about freeing slaves, why did it allow slaves in Delaware and Maryland? Why did Lincoln wait two years to abolish slavery in DC?

Because the Union wasn't going to do so suddenly, but rather turn things slowly so as to not cause a huge economic disruption and ongoing racial resentment. (OK, the latter may not have been a reason, but certainly was an effect.)


If the US government were stepping in to free the slaves, you would have a point. It is crystal clear that this was not the intent. Freeing the slaves became an objective much later in the war, largely due to pressure from non-slaves countries in Europe who were sympathetic to the south but hated the slavery aspect (much like me).

It was an objective before the war. One of the major objections to Lincoln was his insistence that new territories be free territories. Just because the 13th amendment wasn't proposed before the war doesn't mean it wasn't the intent.

In fact, the abolition of slavery was Lincoln's way of bringing an end to the war. I'm sure it wasn't how he intended to set us on that path.


The truth is that Union states (Deleware, Maryland) had slavery until the 13th amendment was passed.

Yup. But to say that because Lincoln didn't pass the 13th amendment means that he never intended to end slavery is a false dichotomy.


Yes, SC was in the wrong for wanting to keep slavery. But the US was not some knight on a shining horse to right a moral injustice. The US was protecting a tariff station.


And rightly so. There is nothing inherently immoral about defending land that you own from a military attempt to take it by force.


That is right. The founding fathers did start the process of secession and the right to fight if the former government doesn’t agree. SC was jut following that example. (You might want to identify the process you are talking about) :wink:

The process of electing a president via the electoral college.


The military response from Lincoln happened first. Then the “siege” or firing started.


Umm.. no... There is a reason SC offered to bring food to those inside the fort before the ship came. And a reason the supply ship was sent: SC had laid siege to the fort. That was the initiating military event.


Not only that. The South being primarily agricultural and the north being industrial, they had a much larger amount of imported goods. The tariff benefitted the northern industrialist and harmed the southern farmer. And the benefits went primarily to the north.


Aww... The poor south, after looting the north because of population advantage, suddenly lost that advantage and was now paying for it.

And you think that's a good basis for secession? That someone else is now doing to me what I did to them?


If this inequitable tax scheme is not reason for secession, then we all owe King George an apology. Unfortunately SC did not give this reason (though other southern states did) for secession.

You should probably be consistent, then: Is the SC DoS the real reason or not?

Michael

[odis]

this situation is not and will never be an easy answer because:

lincon wanted to keep the states together.
the states had had enough and wanted to split.
the south is warry that the north has a "supperior army" (in quotes because they thought the north was stronger).
the south decides to mass an army to match the north in case a civil war breaks out.
the north sees the growing army and is not sure of the south's plans so they grow an army of their own.
and a cold war begins to start and each side jockies for better footing.
as the tensions grow there is no reason for either side to back down and so lincon never orders the troops to return home at fort sumpter until the south (intentionally missing) fires on that fort.
the north uses this as propoganda (possibly because they believed war was innevitable and it was better to go in now than to wait for a real attack) to go into the war.
only one thing is obvious: there is more evidence to suggest that the north wanted the war more than the south but that does not mean that the south couldn't have stopped the whole process by not growing an army at the start and this does not mean the south wasn't playing any underhanded tricks else where to force the north to start attacking the south. a common tactic is to force your enemy to make a predicted move and then nail him when he does.

the only real set of questions are: did the south, upon joining the union, agree to a contract that cannot be made void under any circumstances? does the union have the right to terminate said contract? if so under what circumstances? does the union's right to terminate the contract also give the south the right to do the same under similar reasons?

[Faramir]

This is the wrong question. When you enter into an agreement, exit of that agreement may only happen if there is an explicit exit clause, or if both parties agree to dissolve it. Neither is the case.

Are you serious? You realize you are declaring that the signatures of three men have now bound all the people of SC (and very other state) forever in perpetuity to be part of the United States, even if said US government because tyrannical and abusive.

Why should the signature of three men long dead, bind me now to anything? That is just silly.

Plus, you apparently don't understand the formation of the constitution. (Or at least have forgotten). The constitution established the US government. The constitution was established by the states, the US government was not a party at all to the constitution. It was in fact created by the states.

Plus, plus, you have totally ignored all the reference I provided that show up until the convenient date of 1861, there was almost unanimous agreement that states did in fact have a right secede.

But according to your unsupported assertion, if there is a vote to repeal the first amendment, and make Islam the official religion of the US, and exactly 2/3 of the states pass this amendment by a very narrow margin. While the other 1/3 vote almost unanimously against this amendment, the the 1/3 of states is out of luck and has to live under such conditions. Because of the signature of three men, dead for over 200 years. This would all be legal and constitutional after all.

You really should think about the implications of your assertions before you make them. You should also check out the reference I provided to support my argument that the right of a state to secede was assumed as a given until 1861. Can you counter that with any historical information that has our founders saying that the Union is insoluble? (I'm sure there are some. Alexander Hamilton was a big statist, he might have said something like that. But you just make an assertion that the citizens of every state are forever bound by three signatures of men who died long before they were born. :ahem:


Which is a fine statement, but doesn't necessarily represent the actual situation.

Please point out the significant differences.




Again, a fine statement.
Which you, again, have no rebuttal for.



First, those three signatures represented the entire state. Those signatures didn't belong to men who were unaffiliated with the states they represented. Those signatures obligated the states to the union.

forever and eternity? On what moral authority did these three men knowingly bind the citizens of their state then and forevermore to a form of government, never to be able to revoke this agreement for any reason whatsoever for as long as time lasted?

Or, is it possible that it was understood by all (until Abe changed his mind somewhere between 1848 and 1860) that secession was a right.

I provided quotes, statements, and arguments supporting that at the time the right of secession was taken for granted. I even provided a quote from dishonest abe himself supporting the right of secession.

All you have provided is some vague comment that gives three men the power over people not yet born for countless generations under circumstances that they could not foresee.

If the U.S. Constitution is as binding as you seem to want it to be, our forefathers were fool or tyrants to force such a requirement on their citizens. Especially the singers from NY, RI, and VA, who explicitly stated that they would not sign a document that would not allow their respective states resume the powers given to the Federal Govt. if they chose to do so.

No muz. The constitution is not binding to any state where the people choose to secede.





Your answer is in your own quote. Let me provide the emphasis you missed:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —

The federal government had not engaged in a long train of abuses and usurpations, nor was SC living under absolute Despotism. In fact, SC was represented in the very congress that enacted the tariffs. Granted that they voted against them, but that is the nature of representative politics.

In SC's eyes there was plenty of abuses, usurpatoins, etc. Plus I never said SC was not represented, that is just a straw man. And even if I had said that, in my response above about the amendment to make Islam the official religion. That would be a result of representative government. Would you say that a majority Christian (or atheist or just non-Islam) state would be bound to live in such a country?

The justification for secession is not for you or me to decide, but for the citizens. You speak of representative government, yet you don't allow the people to speak for themselves. Much like your hero Abe, who proclaimed government by the people and for the people, all the while fighting a war to deny self government from the people of 10 or so states.



Well, unfortunately, rights are lost when they are abused over the wrong reasons. Let's see if we can list SC's grievances:

1) A tariff enacted by a congress they participated in
2) A requirement created that all new territories be free territories
3) A lack of enforcement requiring the return of slaves.

This is clearly insufficient to rise to the level of the DoI's conditions, and ought to be view quite dimly as sufficient cause for secession.

I agree. It is not my call to make thought. It was the call of the citizens of SC at the time. They saw it differently.

I am not going to argue whether they had good cause to secede. I think the tariff, would have been sufficient cause, but it was not what they claimed, so to go down that rout would be a red herring.

My argument is that they had a right to secede if they (not muz, not Faramir, but the citizens of the state at that tie) choose to do so.


Sufficient to convince the federal government (or 3/4s of the other states) to let them go. I think you'll find that the "right" of secession would be subject to that agreement, even before 1861.

I've provided several quotes from that time to the contrary. Please address those with comments other than "fine statement" or at least provide something from the time to counter my own quotes.


There are stated and unstated reasons. The specific reason stated is the failure of other states to return slaves, and their efforts to minimize the return of slaves. Clearly they were concerned about preserving slavery. Did SC take this up with federal courts? Clearly this is a dispute between the states.

But this is a matter for federal courts, not a basis for secession.[/quote]

Have you ever heard of the Dred Scott decision? The US courts said that SC was right. Still Northern states refused to follow Dred Scott (good for them, btw, and excellent example of states rights and nullification). Plus, you are still insisting that you have the right to speak for the citizens of SC in 1860. I am not trying to say I think the citizens of SC were right to vote for secession based on non-enforcement of the run away slave act, that they had the right to do so, whether I agree with their reasoning or not.






Well, they held a vote, and decided that was sufficient. They didn't exactly get the approval of all the other states to leave their agreement.

And why do you think they need the approval?
Did Lincoln even give the other states an opportunity to vote. Prior to Sumter, the prevailing opinion in the north was to let SC and the lower South go (the upper south didn't secede until after Sumter)

If Lincoln wanted to avoid war, he could have let the other states vote (not that such a vote was needed, I dare say you will be hard pressed to find any historical evidence that this was required. Unlike my plethora of sources already cited, and I can dig up more if you like.



Hmm... and you don't find it curious that the vote took place two days before the fort was to be occupied?

Not at all. The vote took place well in advance of this date, the announcement was made on December 24, 1860. Major Anderson made the move after hearing about the vote.

Your bias and lack of objectivity is showing when you miss such an obvious cause and effect and put the cart before the horse.


The federal government owned the land. A gun was being held to its head to vacate. Do you really expect the federal government to abandon what it owned because a state demanded it?

We've been down this road already. If the state had the right to secede, it had a right to require the federal government to remove it's troops. The state of SC had offered to adequately reimburse the Federal Government for it's "property".

The US has bases in foreign countries. If Germany demanded that the US removes it troops from it's sovereign territory, and if the US refused for four months to peacefully remove their armed forces, and in fact the US sent armed "supply" vehicles to reinforce the troops, that Germany would not feel force was justified?

Please answer this question.


The treaty of Paris was established in 1783 six years before the Constitution was signed. Under the articles of confederation, this is how treaties worked.

Cmon, Faramir... You can't seriously be using a treaty created before the Constitution was written much less signed to make a claim about the union the Constitution created.

You stated that the fact that SC was a sovereign state was an illusion of the people of SC. I provided examples from both before and after the creation of the constitution to show this. It is telling that the only one you address is the one before the constitution.


This is the problem I have with your argument: You conveniently ignore obvious facts to hold up South Carolina's side.

What fact did I ignore? I knew full well the treaty of Paris predated the constitution. I did not ignore the fact. I didn't spell it out because I thought it was obvious. If anyone is ignoring facts, it is you Muz.

I brought up the Treaty of Paris (as well as quotes from Licoln, an US authorized text book, and Thomas Jefferson) to show that state sovereignty was well established before and after the ratification of the constitution. That it was not the "illusion" that you claimed, but a LONG HELD position by a vast majority of people prior to 1861. I intentionally included it as a reference of the beginning point of SC's sovereignty. That this concept predates AND post dates the constitution.

Furthermore I have repeatedly conceded that SC reasons were bad reason. It was I who brought up those reasons.

What "fact" did I ignore?


If we are to accept your argument, then the citizens of South Carolina failed to realize that the Constitution was different from the articles of Confederation, and failed to realize that secession isn't an option just because things don't go their way in a congress in which they participated.

Excellent example of question begging. Do you still beat your wife?

Please do some research on what I have already presented. The states of RI, VA, and NY insisted that secession be a right before they ratified the constitution. I have said this at least twice already maybe three times.

I have provided historical documents that show that the right to cession was assumed by nearly everyone prior to 1860.

I haven't seen one scrap of evidence from you apart from assertion. I really expected better.


An actively defensive stance, yes. It would be foolish to abandon the fort and it would be foolish to not supply it properly.

I agree. If you wish to take an aggressive stance. So you are in agreement that Licoln was in fact being aggressive here?



No, not for maintaining a position of strength, but starting the war by firing the first shot.

So the only criteria of who the agressor is is who fired the first shot? Really?

I go into a store, point a gun in the store keepers face and say give me all your money. The guy reaches into the drawer, pulls out a .38 and shoots me. He is the agressor.




First, sarcasm doesn't help you. Second, why should the federal government abandon a fort that they owned?
(but I love sarcasm :nana: )

And shifting the goal post doesn't help you. The point I was adressing was your repeatedly saying that SC held a "gun to the head" of the soldiers at Ft. Sumpter, thus being the aggressors.

The fact (that you are ignoring) is that those soldiers had four months to get out. During which time, the governor of SC was letting them go ashore to get supplies. There was no siege, there was no aggression, other than SC asking them to leave.

You were claiming that SC was showing aggression at every move, and that is just not true.

You answer by chiding me for sarcasm, and shifting the argument to who had ownership of the Ft.

Admit that SC was not overtly hostile until they were forced in a corner by the approaching armed ships.



It was the states and all the people therein who won freedom from King George. It's not as though the non-white and non-rich were still ruled by king George. It is true that slaves were still enslaved, but they remained so because the formation of the union comprising all 13 colonies would have been impossible without recognizing slavery. Again, something South Carolina (among others) insisted upon. So it isn't as though there wasn't an opportunity to end slavery in 1789. It just wasn't to be at that time.
Yes. I know. But you were proclaiming how right and virtuous the US government was and how evil the SC government was, I was just pointing out that neither was perfect and the slave was not freed under either until after the war. I was just pointing out facts that you were ignoring.


True enough. But Washington wasn't fighting to keep or free slaves. He was fighting to free the colonies from an absolute despot. You'll have to excuse him for accomplish his purpose and not yours.

I am grateful he accomplished his purpose. But there was still slavery in the US until after the civil war. (not to mention horrendous child labor in the north).

I was just pointing out that we did not have the pure and righteous US and evil vile state of SC. The slave was not free in either country until AFTER the war. (not after Sumter, after the war).


Because abandoning a federally owned fort wasn't an option.

It was an option and one that several members of Lincolns cabinet advocated. Especially Seward.


What about dealing with a rogue state?

Define Rogue state (Rogue lives in Georgia if I am not mistaken :wink:)


LOL... you're going to try to make great hay out of the timing aren't you... You really don't find it convenient that the vote took place two days before the US military was to occupy it?

I think it is amazing that you want to keep putting that cart before that horse.



And now I've demonstrated that they didn't.



Or, better yet, just free the slaves. Firing on fort Sumpter with the DoS they created after freeing the slaves would have been pointless.


I've run out of time. I will try to respond to the rest of your post (or not) later.

Your friend.

:sig:

[SpinyNorman]

I love civil war talk.


Or, better yet, just free the slaves

When it comes to this great conflict, the plight of the slave is at its heart.

I know there is a laundry list of reasons for southern secession.

- States Rights (Yeah...how were the good old Articles of Confederation working out when every state was basically its own entity...I'll tell ya...NOT WELL)

- Unfair tariffs

- Northern aggression

the list goes on and on.

But slavery, that "curious institution" is the heart of the matter. Every ordinance of secession states it plainly, in black and white. It is not ambiguous nor is it cryptic. The fuel that stoked the fed the fires of secession was the practice of enslaving an entire race of people and profiting, IMMENSELY, from their sweat and blood.

If only the framers had solved the problem in Philadelphia. They had accomplished so much...yet this vital ingredient was left out of the recipe.

And for almost 80 years this malignant tumor grew and grew. Animosity between south and north grew right alongside it. By the 1850s the tension was so thick between the two sides that you could probably have almost seen it. Members of congress started taking weapons with them to work following the attack on Charles Sumner by Preston Brooks in 1856 in the Senate chamber. You could say that Sumner was asking for it (google his speech...the man did not mince words) but the physical assault, and the hero's welcome Brooks got for attacking a defenseless man (it took Sumner three years to recover from his injuries) showed to all what the issue of slavery was leading to.

Who is culpable for Sumter? Both sides are. I have to think Lincoln KNEW he was pushing the hand of South Carolina by letting them know that a ship was coming. No stealth...he notified them. Kind of the classic double dare. South Carolina allowed itself to be goaded into firing that first shot. Let's assume the ship resupplied Sumter...what then? Would Anderson lead a naval assault from that tiny island? There is no way. Lincoln goaded the South Carolinians and they allowed themselves to be so goaded.

Was Lincoln doing this for such a lofty goal as the freeing of the slaves? No...at first. But by wars end, no matter HOW they got to it, that was the goal.

And we, as a nation, are better off for it today.

[rogue06]

Define Rogue state (Rogue lives in Georgia if I am not mistaken ):wink:
Hmm. Huh? Who me? *Paranoid self-preservation instincts kick into high gear*

If I may say something about succession and whether it was legal. As Faramir noted there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that states that said a state couldn't opt out. Further, if my memory serves, there was serious talk amongst the states in New England (New York may also have been involved) during the Mexican American War about seceding and yet there wasn't any uproar or threats made by the federal government.

[SpinyNorman]

Further, if my memory serves, there was serious talk amongst the states in New England (New York may also have been involved) during the Mexican American War about seceding and yet there wasn't any uproar or threats made by the federal government.

well...there IS a rather large difference between talking and writing about it and actually DOING it...

[SpinyNorman]

Further, if my memory serves, there was serious talk amongst the states in New England (New York may also have been involved) during the Mexican American War about seceding and yet there wasn't any uproar or threats made by the federal government.

well...there IS a rather large difference between talking and writing about it and actually DOING it...

[rogue06]

well...there IS a rather large difference between talking and writing about it and actually DOING it...
True but the federal government issued warnings to Southern states telling them not to proceed whereas they were silent (AFAICT) when the New England states were seriously considering it giving the impression it was okay then.

[SpinyNorman]

Well the two situations were very different. there have been several periods of outcry for secession in those pesky New England states...including TODAY...but they are never considered serious.

The most serious was during the war of 1812, which is I believe the event you are referencing.

The events leading up to South Carolina's act were very different.


** Hope your mom is doing ok **

[rogue06]

The most serious was during the war of 1812, which is I believe the event you are referencing.

Entirely possible being I'm going entirely on very old memories. But one detail that sticks was that they were upset about going to war for no other reason than what they saw was as to just increase the eventual number of slave states which indicates the Mexican American War. And IIRC (going out on a limb here) some of the state legislatures even passed legislation calling for them to secede.


And thanks.

[One Bad Pig]

Entirely possible being I'm going entirely on very old memories. But one detail that sticks was that they were upset about going to war for no other reason than what they saw was as to just increase the eventual number of slave states which indicates the Mexican American War. And IIRC (going out on a limb here) some of the state legislatures even passed legislation calling for them to secede.


And thanks.

You should ask Mossy. She remembers that like it was yesterday.

[Xru]

There was a Supreme Court ruling I think in 1867 or so dealing with I think it was Texas owing some debt. The implication of the ruling was that the succession of Texas WAS unconstitutional. This is definitely looking back from the winners side . . . but, the idea in the majority opinion was that the Constitution mentions that the States were joined in perpetuity or some word like that . . . IOW forever.

Even though this case kind of stinks of Victors Court . . . . the legal basis seems sound.

I'm rather impressed that some people took the time to argue at length with the original post. This really smells of CSA Fanboy historical revisionism. I wouldn't give such an argument the time of day.

[Xru]

Okay I found the case law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

Texas v. White (1869)

Summary:
Texas (and the rest of the Confederacy) never left the Union during the Civil War, because a state cannot unilaterally secede from the United States.
Treasury bond sales by Texas during the war were invalid, and the bonds were therefore still owned by the post-war state.

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White#cite_note-Texas_v._White-16)

It is interesting to note that even the decenting Judges did not contest that Texas did not have the right to succeed.

The text of the ruling:

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [p725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html

And finally:

But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government, by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation, each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still all powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term that
the people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,
and that, "without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States." [n12] Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States. [p726]