Was War Necessary After Secession?

[johan_steele]

William, I'm going to apologize in advance if this is a touch fragmented, I'm fighting a losing bout w/ the flu and suffice it to say "better living through modern chemistry" (over the counter) is having an effect upon me.

"What this suggests is – without meaning any disrespect to the brave men who fought for it - that the Union cause contains no great enduring principle or truth which has passed down to the present day. It is, instead, a period piece – a by-product of a harder age in which too much importance was given to issues like territorial integrity and too little to the preservation of human life." Very well spoken William. I don't really agree w/ it but very well said. Much good came of the Civil War. As to what enduring bits came from the ACW that answer belongs on another thread. Without a united United States how much different would our world be? It's an intriguing question but one belonging on another thread.

"Whereas the principle of self-determination – on which the Confederacy stood and fell – now enjoys a cachet which is greater than ever." I'm again not certain the Confederacy was really based on the premise of self-determination. Especially once one starts looking at the machinations that went into the creation of the CSA.

One quote handed down to us from antiquity that remains timeless: "Rome is ruled by those that lurk in shadow." The same could be said of any hall of power. Follow the money and it leads to some VERY interesting questions. Who stood to gain from succesful Secession & why?

If Lincoln didn't want a war then it should have been simple to avoid, all he had to do was forsake his oath, allow US property, soldiers etc be seized by what would obviously soon become a beligerant neighboring nation. All he had to do was commit treason against his nation and let the CSA be formed. It might well have been a better offer, but I don't think it would have avoided War, instead it might well have led to the 1st World War, based in North America instead of France.

All Jeff Davis had to do to avooooid the spark of Ft Sumter was to order it NOT to be fired on, which he in point did not. I believe thwe decision was made in the CSA halls of power that Ft Sumter must fall, peaceful Secession be ****ed.

I can not w/ a clear conscience support a nation built on slavery as the CSA was. While the US had slavery as legal there is nothing in the Declaration of Independence that states they were formed even partially on the basis that the black man belonged in servitude. And the Emancipation Proclomation effectively began the destruction of slavery in the United States. While it was one touted by the South as only a bit of political manuevering. Perhaps, but it may well have been the most brilliant political & diplomatic move of the 19th century.

William, I'm not certain that I agree w/ your premise that America has lost it's stomach for bloodshed, as well supported as it is. Sadaam said we could not stomach 10,000 casualties. Frankly, I think he was right. 10,000 US casualties would just <font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font> us off. We've also been quite careful not to lose 10,000 troops in one place in quite a few years. If we did I think the mindset of the American people might be an interesting study.

Unfortunetly the premise you give is the same Osama Bin Laden had... he was wrong. Americans don't just roll over when they've been hit.

If I'm viewed as brutal, it's possible. Primitive, again possible. Some of history's most brilliant minds were quite primitive: Sun Tzu, Cicero, Caesar, Kublai etc never even heard of electricity. Brutality &amp; civilization walk hand in hand.

It's difficult to frame an argument for or against Secession in the terms of the 21st century when the men who did the arguing were using the standards of 1860. It is difficult to judge their actions as we are viewing them through the haze of our 21st century morals. I often wonder what they might think of us. Frightening thought, isn't it.

In the modern US it would take a spark, as the firing of Ft Sumter was to the Civil War, to start another Civil War anything like that of the 19th Century. And if I were President I have no doubt I would react as President Lincoln did and extinguish the flame of rebellion.

[hawglips]

"What does causes of secession have to do with deciding whether or not war was necessary? After all, the rationale to force union on those who no longer wanted it was given as "to preserve the union." The cause(s) of secession is irrelevant to that rationale."

Oh please, If you can't figure out the import of the causes of a conflict you need help, lots of help. Talk w/ Aphillbilly, the man will help you frame your logic in better terms. I rarely agree w/ the man, and frankly he irritates me w/ his views of the modern America... but he's quite capable of making a point and not purposefully baiting those who he disagrees w/.

Shane, I am not sure what you response has to do with mine.

Lincoln's "Preserve the Union" battle cry is irrelevant to why the crisis started, though the causes is a fascinating discussion. Whether the crisis started over slavery, tariffs, advantage in the gov't, the price of rice in China, or whether Lincoln wore a beard or not -- "preserve the union" is the pretense he used to force union. That war cry covers all and any reasons for seceding. He didn't care why. The point was not "why" anyone seceded, but the fact that they did. His purpose was pure and simple.

"Shane: As to your might makes right comment... I was framing fact. The United States won their Revolution w/ England, thus they were Patriots and not Treasonous (though in English eyes they still were, they just couldn't enforce it.) The CSA lost, so instead of being Patriots they were not. Simple. If you want me to frame it in a different way, it's all a matter of winners and losers."

Like I pointed out, it all comes down to "might makes right" in such a view. Principles are thrown out the window. That is a sad and hypocritical commentary on "the land of the free."

Shane: "If you think you can compare America to say the Shang or Mandarin, try. You keep saying there is no difference... would you like me to do the work for you? Rome is not the US. The Shang &amp; Mandarin Dynasties are not the US. Yes there are some correlations but they are the same as you would see between any nation."

I am familiar with the Shang dynasty, but do not know the Mandarin one. Do you mean the Manchurian (Qing)?

But either way, it is interesting to realize that Lincoln's policy of forcing union on those who don't want it is held up as a model to be used by the Chinese communist dictatorship today. It is sad and embarassing that a bloody dictatorship can hold the USA up as a precedent to support their own policy of coercion of citizens.

Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji, on Taiwan, at a news conference with President Clinton, 8 April 1999: “Abraham Lincoln, in order to maintain the unity of the United States…resorted to the use of force…so, I think Abraham Lincoln, president, is a model, is an example.”

Shane: If you are going to bring up the fact that the US maintained Union at the point of a bayonet, why not mention why? It might have been a peaceful maintaining of the Union if Ft Sumter had not been fired on... but now we'll never know. It can only be a "what if" scenario. And the blame for the first shots of the Civil War rest squarly on the shoulders of the CSA, not Lincoln.

Unfortunately, the decision to invade and use force was made well before anyone fired on Sumter.

Lincoln at his 1st Inaugural: "The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion -- no using of force against or among the people anywhere."

Lincoln made it crystal clear -- "we keep and re-occupy all the federal facilities within your borders, and you will continue to pay taxes to me, or I will invade, I will use military force."

Shane: "Put into schoolyard politics terminoligy it would be the same as one boy taunting another, the one who is being called names throws the first punch and a teacher sees it. Whether or not he was taunted first he threw the first punch. Think of the teacher as history. A good history teacher will want to find out why that first punch was thrown, not because it will make the boy who threw the first punch less guilty but because the teacher will then understand why that first punch was thrown and might hope to avoid such things in the future."

But a good teacher will soon see that not only did the bully taunt the little kid, but he also stated his intention to inflict bodily harm on the little kid in the event the boy did not hand over his lunch money. That gets into issues much more serious and complex than who threw the first punch.

Hal

[hawglips]

All Jeff Davis had to do to avooooid the spark of Ft Sumter was to order it NOT to be fired on, which he in point did not.

Al Jeff Davis had to do was accept Lincoln's terms.

What were those terms Shane?

Hal

[johan_steele]

Hal, interesting.... now you are comparing America to Communist China? Oh boy. Keep in mind the devil can quote the Bible quite well. I'm not certain I want to see where you'll take the comparisons next. You definetly need to talk to Aphillbilly. You see things alot alike. But he frames his arguments w/ more...

Communist China and the United States? Next you'll be comparing Clinton w/ Lincoln. I need a drink... a lot of a drink. Maybe some more Nyquil will do.

As to the Mandarin... look it up and draw the comparisons. You keep throwing comparisons out there and not bothering to support them.

And answering a question w/ another question again. Good God that's annoying.

Ft Sumter Fired on... FACT

Three days LATER President Lincoln orders call up of 75,000 volunteers to suppress rebellion... Fact

Whether or not Lincoln planned to Invade the CSA and have all taxes paid to him from the time he took office as you put it is moot. The CSA fired upon Ft Sumter, thus starting a four year dance with the Devil. I'm not quite sure how you can putthe blame on President Lincoln for Jeff Davis ordering Ft Sumter to be taken.

So what you are sayting Hal if the poor innocent schoolyard boy sticks a knife in the "Bully" and guts him... he isn't guilty of starting the fight. Again who threw the first punch. Can you admit to who fired the first shot or not. (I needed you on my side in HS!)

I'm a realist.

[hawglips]

Shane: Communist China and the United States? Next you'll be comparing Clinton w/ Lincoln. I need a drink... a lot of a drink. Maybe some more Nyquil will do.

I can not control which historical leaders the communist dictators in China hold up as a precedent for forcing union on their people who don't want it.

But I'm surprised you are upset. Don't you think the Chinese have the right to use military force to make sure Taiwan does not claim independence? Why are you upset with my example? Don't you applaud the communist Chinese for following in Lincoln's footsteps on forcing union?

Shane: As to the Mandarin... look it up and draw the comparisons. You keep throwing comparisons out there and not bothering to support them.

I am not familiar with such an empire so I cannot make a comparison. I think you must mean something else.

But imperialism is imperialism.

Shane: Whether or not Lincoln planned to Invade the CSA and have all taxes paid to him from the time he took office as you put it is moot. The CSA fired upon Ft Sumter, thus starting a four year dance with the Devil. I'm not quite sure how you can putthe blame on President Lincoln for Jeff Davis ordering Ft Sumter to be taken.

Lincoln did not care WHY anyone seceded. He already stated clearly that a refusal to pay taxes to his government or allow him to occupy the facilities in SC, FL, etc, was more than enough justification to wage war on the South. He stated his intention, that under such refusal to bow to his will, he was going to invade and force them back, as he so clearly stated for all the world to hear. He was NOT going to allow anyone to live independently of the feds' control. He was going to force the collection of taxes and occupation of facilities within the seceders' borders. Period.

Who fired what on whom first in SC is moot to the question of forcing union on those who do not want it. It reminds me of another proponent of forcing others who used this same excuse to invade:

“Polish regular officers fired on our territory. Since 5:45 a.m. we have been returning the fire.” Adolf Hitler, Sept. 1, 1939

There was no need for war -- period. Unless of course you are of the same mind-set as the communist Chinese regarding liberty and self-government.

So what you are sayting Hal if the poor innocent schoolyard boy sticks a knife in the "Bully" and guts him... he isn't guilty of starting the fight. Again who threw the first punch. Can you admit to who fired the first shot or not. (I needed you on my side in HS!)

If the poor schoolboy in an effort to protect his lunch money pulled out a knife and gutted the bully, I would suggest his response was over-kill.

It reminds me of the response to call up 75,000 troops to take back a tiny fort in Charleston harbor, and to avenge thousands (or was it zero?) deaths.

Like taking a sledgehammer to swat a fly.

Or was the little fort and the bloodless bombardment merely a convenient excuse to invade?

Hal

(Message edited by hawglips on January 19, 2004)

[johan_steele]

Hal, or perhaps the election President Lincoln was a convenient excuse for the CSA to be formed.

Apparently 75,000 troops weren't enough to put down that rebellion. Diplomacy didn't work either. Why don't you take a look at what happened to the US Regulars stationed throughout the CSA. I think that might also have had something to do w/ President Lincolns actions.

So Hal, would that schoolboy who gutted the bully have a wee bit of a problem w/ the law or not? Did he strike first, was it in self defence? I don't think so.

"“Polish regular officers fired on our territory. Since 5:45 a.m. we have been returning the fire.” Adolf Hitler, Sept. 1, 1939 "

Now you're suggesting that Ft. Sumter was never fired upon by CSA forces and comparing President Lincoln to Adolf Hitler? Wow.

"There was no need for war -- period. Unless of course you are of the same mind-set as the communist Chinese regarding liberty and self-government." When is war necessary? I suppose defending property and citizens is irrelevent, let them die and just roll over? I might agree w/ you that war wasn't necessary; if Ft Sumter hadn't been fired upon. But now we'll never know.

Hal, I think you've already made up your mind that President Lincoln was the Anti-christ and that the very premise that Ft Sumter started the Civil War is wrong.

It could be argued that the Civil War was started in smoke filled rooms before Ft Sumter was ever even fired upon and that might be relevent to the discussion. But repeated comparisons to Empire America, now the PRC and even Nazi Germany... what kind of credability does that give you?

Hal, it seems you're just trying to bait people of the opposite opinion by using inflamatory terms and comparisons. While I suppose that is one way to argue a point I don't think it's productive to actually learning anything. It certainly won't change any opinions.

As it is I bid you a good day.

[hawglips]

Shane, I was anxious to hear your reply regarding the policy of communist China towards forcing union on Taiwan.

I am intrigued by Mr. Torrens' test of one's principles concerning self-government, and am disappointed that you would force union on California against the will of its people.

I'm thinking that perhaps you do not really harbor such extreme views towards liberty and self-govenment, but that perhaps your response was colored by a desire to defend Lincoln and his war to force union.

I'm hoping that if we framed the question in different terms, and get away from the hot button a bit further, perhaps your response will not be tempered by any conditioned responses.

So, do you agree with communist China's policy to invade and force union on the people of Taiwan in the event of an independence declaration, or not?

A simple yes or no is sufficient, though a detailed explanation would be great!

Thanks!

And to show you that I mean no harm, let me first answer the same question. I would never support nor condone forcing union on Taiwan, and would heartily support any desire from a majority of their citizens for complete independence from the Mainland. The same holds true for California, South Carolina, Denmark, East Timor, Quebec, Ukraine, etc.

Hal

[hawglips]

I might agree w/ you that war wasn't necessary; if Ft Sumter hadn't been fired upon. But now we'll never know.

Now, we are making progress. This is a big step!

So, are you saying that the collection of taxes and to occupy the federal facilities was NOT justification to invade the South? Are you saying that merely to "preserve the union" is not justification for military coercion of those who did not want it?

Perhaps if you answer the China/Taiwan question, your feelings will be clear.

Hal

[unionblue]

Hal,

I find it simply amazing what you WON'T talk about! "The point was not "why" anybody seceded, but the fact that they did?" What a twist of logic that requires no explanation for the South! Cause and effect Hal, cause and effect. The South leaving the Union did not happen in a vaccum. You might as well tell a policeman there is no reason to find out who killed the victim, the fact is they did!

And I love these forays out into the outer darkness with China and Taiwan, etc., and on and eternally on, etc., not answering anything, but leaving the burden of proof on others. I love the way you answer these questions of little or no import, but not the ones posed to you concerning the subject at hand.

Was war necessary after secession? In point of fact it was. The South demanded it. The South sought war and needed it in order to expand the number of States to join it. It prepared for war by secretly sending arms from the Federal government South. It lied about not wanting war by having officials in the Federal government forsake their oath and betray it so it could prepare for war. And finally, it fired the first shots in that war, no if's, and's or but's, but simple fact.

The South made the war come by open invitation, declaring it would expand by force its territory in the West and South to Mexico, Cuba and North to Maryland.

War was necessary after secession because the South wanted to reopen the African slave trade and to forceably expand that institution to every State in the Union, slave or free. One could almost call the Civil War an act of self-defense by the North.

And Hal, how do you know that slavery was going to die out in the South? It was this very institution, its profit and success that made the war necessary, all by itself, since the South left the Union in order to expand it and preserve it.

And Hal, do me a favor and take a little test for me. Put any other subject in the phrase 'slavery's expansion in the territories' and see if that reason was enough to go to war over. Let's try 'Tariff expansion in the territories.' Nope, nobody fighting over that subject. 'Railroad expansion in the territories.' Nope, everybody wanted a railroad to go to the coast. I got it! How about "Huge, interfering central government expansion in the territories'? No, can't go with that one either. After all, 16,000 troops, a handful of federal marshals and a part-time attorny-general and no full-time staff for the White House, can't be that. But, put 'slavery's expansion in the territories' and brother, you got a hot topic!

The one that got everyone upset and talking and fearful and angry. So no, Hal, I do not agree that 'Slavery's expansion in the territories' is different from just the subject 'slavery.' And herein lies no crux of the matter. It was 'the' subject, 'the' reason, 'the' central cause and 'the' issue that made war after secession necessary.

As Fredrick Douglass said, "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery."

Until that time,
Unionblue
PS All Jeff Davis had to do was not commit treason and uphold his oath as an American citizen.
(Message edited by Unionblue on January 20, 2004)

(Message edited by Unionblue on January 20, 2004)

(Message edited by Unionblue on January 20, 2004)

(Message edited by Unionblue on January 20, 2004)

[unionblue]

Dear William,

How is the research going? I am most curious to see the rights of sufferage among English citizens at the time of the Civil War and I eagerly await your results.

One thing though William. I would charge to you that a nation-state is not like a club or society. If it was, do you not think it would be a bit more manageable and easier to run? I think that is a bit overly simple in comparisons. Just an observation, mind you, but one that I feel can be justified.

Until that time,
Unionblue