Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
An act of war is the presence of armed forces in the territory of another state without the consent of that state.
They don't have to do anything, just be there without permission; it is worse if they remain when asked to leave. They can be interned, disarmed or even destroyed lawfully, at the invaded state's choice.
The first act of war of the Civil War was when Major Anderson occupied Fort Sumter without the consent of the state of South Carolina. The attack on Sumter was not the first act but a response to Anderson's unlawful act. Anderson started the Civil War.
I have said the secession of South Carolina was wrong - I did not say it was illegal.
There was no part of the Constitution that prohibits secession, and anything not enunciated by the Constitution is reserved to the states - so says the Constitution. The Secession was legal.
Anderson violated the just law of the state of South Carolina, and committed the first act of war. Unless he did so at the command of the president of the United States he is a traitor.
I have said the attack on Sumter was wrong - I did not say it was illegal. Not only did the state authorities give Anderson a chance to leave peacefully they were going to allow him to leave with his weapons and return to the North. They did not have to allow a ship to enter the territorial waters of South Carolina to evacuate Sumter; they could have loaded Anderson and company on a train or even requested they march out. After Anderson's act of war they were fully justified in attacking Sumter by international law and usage.
The attack on Sumter was foolish is what it was.
I could have neutralized the fort without firing a shot, by anchoring every available vessel around Sumter in a ring, then packing thousands of troops on board. Then I would have driven pilings in the water around those ships to tear the bottom out of any ship attempting to penetrate the ring.
By the time I was finished driving piles in every approach to Charleston Harbor, Anderson would have already given up and left on a train.
The first shot would have been fired by the Union or not at all.
I would have dealt with a federal invasion by ordering all to evacuate any area federal troops came into and take all food with them. I would have poisoned every well. Every railroad and bridge would have been destroyed, then destroyed again if rebuilt. If the Union Army offered battle I would have pulled back - when they pulled back I would advance. All commerce between north and south would have ceased. If they attempted to seize a city I would order it burned. Any cotton they planted would be burned.
After a year or two of this they would go home, but not before northern industry collapsed for want of materials. An equitable peace agreement would have resumed export of raw materials, but only that.
The Civil War was a war of aggression started by the Northern states - the claim that the South struck first is utterly bogus.
Civil comments will be responded to, all others will be ignored.
An act of war is the presence of armed forces in the territory of another state without the consent of that state.
A facility belonging to the US Government isn't considered the part of another state, whether on the edge of it or in the middle.
Quote:
I would have dealt with a federal invasion by ordering all to evacuate any area federal troops came into and take all food with them. I would have poisoned every well. Every railroad and bridge would have been destroyed, then destroyed again if rebuilt. If the Union Army offered battle I would have pulled back - when they pulled back I would advance. All commerce between north and south would have ceased. If they attempted to seize a city I would order it burned. Any cotton they planted would be burned.
After a year or two of this they would go home, but not before northern industry collapsed for want of materials. An equitable peace agreement would have resumed export of raw materials, but only that.
With your scenario, there wouldn't nave been much sense in trying to make a living in the south after northern industry collapsed for want of materials. Outside of cotton, what did the north need it couldn't get somewhere else? Parts of the south were heavily dependent on northern and western grain. Poison all the wells and your army isn't going advance back into areas it had pulled back from.
Scorched earth would have yielded more and worse destruction than the invaders could have dreamed of. One factor I believe you've missed -- the cooperation of the citizen who would have to burn his crop, poison his wells, and drive off all his animals, leaving him nothing to return to. The CSA couldn't get the planter to plant food crops instead of cotton, let alone keep him from ordering luxury items from the blockade runners.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
The only facility that the US government can own in another state is an embassy. The right to that embassy is granted by the state in question. If asked to leave the embassy reverts to the state, it does not remain the property of the United States.
Guantanamo naval base does not belong to the United States; it is leased under treaty from Cuba.
Once South Carolina lawfully seceded from the United States all territory in that state reverted to state ownership.
Under the terms of the peace treaty the United States would agree to pay all losses suffered due to their invasion - or they could eat machinery.
I would have made sure before making any move that I had a supply of food and water for my people sufficient to outlast the invaders.
Anytime I have to choose between an invader destroying my country and destroying it myself I'll destroy it myself. At least Union troops would not have killed any of my people, but tens of thousands of them would die from poisoned water, malnutrition, and disease - without them ever seeing one of us.
Not only would I have preserved my people I would have defeated the invader; the result of that invasion would probably be Civil War in the North - not in the South. The Southern people would be intact. That is all that matters.
A state seceding from the United States is not a nation accepting ambassadorships and restoring to its ownership any foreign territory within its boundaries. It's simply a petulant part of the Union holding it's breath and turning blue.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
An act of war is the presence of armed forces in the territory of another state without the consent of that state.
But the government of South Carolina had specifically passed legislation in the mid-1830s to allow that spot (land doesn't describe it very well since it was under water at the time) to the Federal government. A few years later -- 1842, IIRR -- the SC Attorney General recorded the transfer on the state rolls. The territory belonged to the United States -- not to South Carolina.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
They don't have to do anything, just be there without permission; it is worse if they remain when asked to leave. They can be interned, disarmed or even destroyed lawfully, at the invaded state's choice.
See above. The fort was US territory under even SC law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
The first act of war of the Civil War was when Major Anderson occupied Fort Sumter without the consent of the state of South Carolina. The attack on Sumter was not the first act but a response to Anderson's unlawful act. Anderson started the Civil War.
Absolutely not. The US forces had always had right of passage between the posts, and the permission of state governments is not required for it. Nothing had changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
I have said the secession of South Carolina was wrong - I did not say it was illegal.
In 1860, this was a debatable issue. The Confederacy chose to submit the question to trial by combat. They lost, resolving the issue de facto. It is generally presumed that the post-Civil War amendments and a few cases, notably White v. Texas and the associated cases, resolved the issue de jure. That was certainly the opinion written by the Chief Justice at the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
There was no part of the Constitution that prohibits secession, and anything not enunciated by the Constitution is reserved to the states - so says the Constitution. The Secession was legal.
Seems like a warping of the words of the Constitution. But in any case, suppose there simply is no constitutonal "right of secession", that it never existed at all and so could not be granted or denied. This is what many people believed at the time, such as Robert E. Lee, who thought secession was nothing but treason and rebellion before the war. Lee also said after the war that Union victory had settled the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
Anderson violated the just law of the state of South Carolina, and committed the first act of war. Unless he did so at the command of the president of the United States he is a traitor.
This is often bandied about, and it has always been balderdash. Anderson's written instructions allowed him to take this action. They had been endorsed beforehand by Sec. of War Floyd. When Anderson moved, Floyd screamed and another member of the Cabinet had the instructions with Floyd's endorsement brought it, and even Floyd had the grace to acknowledge it through his embarassment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
I have said the attack on Sumter was wrong - I did not say it was illegal. Not only did the state authorities give Anderson a chance to leave peacefully they were going to allow him to leave with his weapons and return to the North. They did not have to allow a ship to enter the territorial waters of South Carolina to evacuate Sumter; they could have loaded Anderson and company on a train or even requested they march out. After Anderson's act of war they were fully justified in attacking Sumter by international law and usage.
Again, this is and always has been balderdash. AT BEST what the secessionists have is a dispute about the intent of the Constitution and the powers the states have under it. ALL of the states and ALL of the members of the state governments were bound by oath and solemn agreement to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution says that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in ALL such disputes.
Had the seceding states acted sensibly to test the Constitutionality of their theory, the Court might have granted they had the right, but it does not look that way if you look at the composition of the eight Justices in early 1860. The real problem was that the seceding states never had the gumption to try that route. Why do you think they were afraid their case was not going to succeed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
The attack on Sumter was foolish is what it was.
I certainly agree. They did not, and they saw positive advantage in starting the fighting at Sumter when they had other options. Jefferson Davis, for example, believed that the Confederacy could not succeed without the Upper South and particularly Virginia. One reason for the violent assault was the desire to force the Upper South into secession. That isn't very "nice" of them, nor were the threats to repudiate debts to the rest of the country, nor the carrot-and-stick approach they used on those wavering states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
I could have neutralized the fort without firing a shot, by anchoring every available vessel around Sumter in a ring, then packing thousands of troops on board. Then I would have driven pilings in the water around those ships to tear the bottom out of any ship attempting to penetrate the ring.
Probably impractical, but so what? It is still blockade of the Federal force, an act of war by the secessionist government against the rest of the nation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
By the time I was finished driving piles in every approach to Charleston Harbor, Anderson would have already given up and left on a train.
So? Anderson was about to leave anyway when his supplies ran out, scheduled for a day or two after the fort was attacked. How is your proposal any different than what did happen (other than exposing your troops to bad conditions and immediate death if the firing starts?
The truth is that Lincoln understood the situation as well as Davis did, and Pickens did, etc. That's why he sent a force to resupply the fort. If the secessionists interfere in any way with the effort, they are committing an act of war. The Confederacy studied this, and decided they wanted war. Very simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
The first shot would have been fired by the Union or not at all.
Balderdash. The blockade/siege is an act of war all by itself and comes first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
I would have dealt with a federal invasion by ordering all to evacuate any area federal troops came into and take all food with them. I would have poisoned every well. Every railroad and bridge would have been destroyed, then destroyed again if rebuilt. If the Union Army offered battle I would have pulled back - when they pulled back I would advance. All commerce between north and south would have ceased. If they attempted to seize a city I would order it burned. Any cotton they planted would be burned.
After a year or two of this they would go home, but not before northern industry collapsed for want of materials. An equitable peace agreement would have resumed export of raw materials, but only that.
Well, it has been done. It usually takes dictatorial powers (like the Tsar of all the Russias, or Stalin) to make it work, and the casualties/losses to your own side are horrendous. Something like it actually did occur during the war in places, but Union advantages overcame it (usually because of control of the rivers and RRs.)
But in the meantime, you'll suffer horrible losses. People will starve. You'll be broke. How will you handle the hordes of refugees you created? Will you leave the slaves behind when you abandon the plantations? If you bring the slaves with you, how will you feed them? Where will you get the guards to control large mobs of slaves being transported about the country? How will you house all those people? Etc., etc.?
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
The Civil War was a war of aggression started by the Northern states - the claim that the South struck first is utterly bogus.
No, merely factual. In every case you can name, from Lincoln's election to the firing on Ft. Sumter, the secessionists always took aggressive and illegal action first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
Civil comments will be responded to, all others will be ignored.
You seem to have difficulty here. How do you define "civil"?
After a series of legal arguments, on Novembe 22, 1841, the ownership of 125 arcres of "harbor land" was granted to the United States, by the state of South Carolina.
Fort Sumter was Federal property, and not South Carolina property by their own admission.
Sorry, but The fact IS, SC was Not (and IMO,never was) an independent country. How do we know this? We know, because that was what SC claimed, but the Federal Gov't denied such a claim, SC (and later the south) chose to negotiate the question with a gun and the Federal Gov't accepted that choice. The question was thus negotiated (by consent of both parties), the question was finally settled once and for all.
Mr. Springfield decided against Mr. Enfield. The case was closed, sealed and delivered.
Once South Carolina lawfully seceded from the United States all territory in that state reverted to state ownership.
Doubtful. For one thing, back when the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were adopted, the state of South Carolina changed the state constitution to make Federal law superior to state law, as other states did. Until and unless they can establish a "right of secession" under Federal law, it is likely they simply cannot do this under their own law.
They can, of course, simply break their oaths, refuse to honor their commitments,a nd enter into a state of rebellion. This was commonly called the "Natural Right of Revolution", arising from the work of Grotius in the 1600s, and acknowledged by people such as Washington, Lincoln, Madison, and Lincoln. It is NOT a constitutional "right of secession".
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
Under the terms of the peace treaty the United States would agree to pay all losses suffered due to their invasion - or they could eat machinery.
Hmm, huh? The North and West were major exporters of food. The Southern economy was generally based on cash crops (sugar, tobacco, cotton) and relatively little on food crops (rice). During the war, the North essentially lost the entire Southern market for four years. These were boom years, with the Union continuing to expand west while fighting the war in the South.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
I would have made sure before making any move that I had a supply of food and water for my people sufficient to outlast the invaders.
The South had trouble feeding its own people and the Union POWs as it was. When you evacuate food-producing regions and poison their wells, where will you get the food to feed those displaced people?
When you force the evacuation of the population of Virginia, say, to North Carolina, how will you feed and house them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
Anytime I have to choose between an invader destroying my country and destroying it myself I'll destroy it myself.
Ah. Hitler said something much the same just before he committed suicide in Berlin. The German people had failed him, and so did not deserve him, leading him to declare they deserved the fate they would be dealt by the vengeful Allies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
At least Union troops would not have killed any of my people, but tens of thousands of them would die from poisoned water, malnutrition, and disease - without them ever seeing one of us.
Well, probably not. The Union generally fed their armies from afar. For example, there was a shortage of forage for animals in Grant's army outside Richmond-Petersburg in the Winter of 1864-65. Why? Because the Hudson River froze over and hay could not be shipped down to City Point.
Poisoning the water causes you as many problems as the enemy. Even more when you try to move all the evacuees. Your civilian population will suffer far worse than a disciplined army will, and you will be very lucky to avoid major epidemics among your population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
Not only would I have preserved my people I would have defeated the invader; the result of that invasion would probably be Civil War in the North - not in the South. The Southern people would be intact. That is all that matters.
So you've given up your most valuable territory (because that's where the Union would be moving) and moved large populations into areas without resources. By uprooting people wholesale, you've encouraged disease (inevitable given the state of medicine at the time). Your people are hungry/starving/malnourished; probably sick in many cases; homeless or living in thrown-together housing/camps. Your crop areas are largely overrun, your communications broken up.
Why would you think your people would be "intact"? Why would you think the North would be suffering?
If Russia ceded the Ukraine to the US, would that transfer be legal in the eyes of the rest of the world?
Russia was once the lawful government of the Ukraine.
Would the answer be that the transfer is only lawful if the majority of Ukrainians agree to it, despite what a prior lawful government did?
Would South Carolina be bound any more than the Ukraine by the action of a previous lawful government?
Don't let them buffalo you anymore - they don't have a legal leg to stand on.
Ami - I am going to ignore any hostile or frivilous posts, in return I ask that no more of my topics be locked down. Others besides this group deserve a chance to respond and be answered.
Are there any Southerners in this forum?
Here is a question for you;
If Russia ceded the Ukraine to the US, would that transfer be legal in the eyes of the rest of the world?
Russia was once the lawful government of the Ukraine.
Would the answer be that the transfer is only lawful if the majority of Ukrainians agree to it, despite what a prior lawful government did?
Would South Carolina be bound any more than the Ukraine by the action of a previous lawful government?
Don't let them buffalo you anymore - they don't have a legal leg to stand on.
The government of SC in 1860 is, according to the people of South Carolina, the exact same government that approved the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, and that ceded the territory of Ft. Moultrie, Ft. Sumter, and Castle Pinckney to the US government. It is NOT, as you are trying to imply, "a previous lawful government".
That is merely fact. The people of South Carolina must hold to it, because if it is not true, their government has no legitimacy except as a revolutionary attempt to create one and there would be no "right of secession" for it.
Once we realize that, everything you said above becomes meaningless. It simply has no relationship at all to what happened in 1860-61.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Who Invaded Whom? 
Linear Mode
