Was War Necessary After Secession?

[unionblue]

Hal,

I am saying, have said, and will continue to say the South led this nation to Civil War over the single issue of slavery.

The South had no reason to do so under the law and the Constitution of the United States and the men who led the South down to this path of destruction and heartbreak were only interested in preserving the institution of slavery, the foundation of their political and economic power.

When those men felt their power and wealth threatened, they did everything they could, at the expense of their fellow Southerners, to keep that power.

There had to be war after secession to insure this power was not lost to them, to break away from the Union completely and there was never any intent for peace during that process later.

There was never any doubt there was going to be war after secession. The South, in the form of these terrible men, knew that when they prepared for that war long before the first state left the Union. At Fort Sumter the South had no choice but to bring war in order to strengthen its ranks with forced volunteers who took the stance of standing wtih its fellow Southern States.

War was not only neccessary after secession, it was all but certain.

I cannot say it any plainer.

However, I will offer another view that I happen to agree with, somewhat. Please view the following web site and when you come to the end of the article, you will see the main reason I feel the South fired on Fort Sumter and made war neccessary after secession.

http://www.aotc.net/Causes.htm

Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on January 22, 2004)

(Message edited by Unionblue on January 22, 2004)

[johan_steele]

Thea, cheering from the wings again? I'm not suprised.

Hal, drop the chaff, it's getting real old and has lost the purpose of this thread. I'll give you a hint, if you want Thea's praises just refer to me as a Troll.

"Hal, this statement alone proves to me that your knowledge of the events of 1949 and the victory of the PRC over the Nationalists is... basic at best. I will not compare the US w/ the PRC, there is no comparing the two. If you can't see that... well lets just say the two of us will never be able to carry on a two way conversation. I would not compare the CSA w/ the PRC either, there is no corelation." I can see that you either didn't read my statement or chose to ignore it, Fine. I'll make a deal w/ you. The moment you compare Nazi Germany to the CSA I'll compare the United States w/ the PRC. There is no comparison.

"I am not sure why California would seize anyone's homes and assets or execute someone. Does the act of declaring independence immediately transform the State's citizenry into a bunch of monsters? Those in California who did not support secession, they are free to decide for themselves whether remaining in California is detrimental to their happiness, and act accordingly." Oh I'm sorry, didn't the CSA seize federal property, and ASSETS of pro Union men? Why yes they did. In point of fact in several places throughout the South men who voted against Seccesion were invitees to hangmans parties. I'm merely framing a hypothetical California Secession crisis in terms similar to 1860.
I misunderstood Williams original question, I understood him to be asking whether or not my actions as "President Shane" would be the same as Lincolns. No they would not, but I would have reacted to FT Sumter being fired upoon in the same way. And I would have upheld my oath of office.

"US protection is now irrelevant to California, unless California negotiates a defense treaty with the US, it seems to me. I would say that such a treaty would be very likely. But that is between the government of CA and ours. Or if they preferred a defense treaty with Mexico, or Canada, or all of the above, that is between them and the nations they choose to negotiate with." That is the crux of the issue, I don't recognize a California Free State; I also deem the protection of US citizens important, I also view my oath of office as important. I also have a tendency to look at the Constitution as rather important, more so perhaps than President Lincoln did some might say. Could sucha thing be negotiated peacefully, I dunno. Could a peaceful Secession of the CSA have been done peacefully, NO. Not w/ the batch of men in charge of the CSA.

"I'm sure California would be happy to negotiate a settlement, as South Carolina was in 1861." So California would open fire on a US military installation as well? If that is your statement then yes I would be happy to drag California back into the Union. Firing on US soldiers by US citizens is a crime of the basest order. In my eyes far worse than spitting on them, calling them all sorts of nasty names, hurling stones etc. All were done to US Regulars in the streets of Charleston. If California attempted Secession in the same manner as SC, a short fall w/ a sudden drop would be quite appropriate.

[hawglips]

Hal, drop the chaff, it's getting real old and has lost the purpose of this thread. I'll give you a hint, if you want Thea's praises just refer to me as a Troll.

I beg your pardon?

You really shouldn't do this. Bad form, sir.

Shane: "Hal, this statement alone proves to me that your knowledge of the events of 1949 and the victory of the PRC over the Nationalists is... basic at best.

If I were not so thick-skinned, I'd be very tempted to point out the reckless arrogance in these pointless barbs you have heaved my way.

Though I would indeed consider my knowledge of China to be insufficient, (that is in spite of my undergraduate degree in East Asian Studies with a China history and political science concentration, my master in international management with a China focus, my 6 years residence in China, my frequent business trips there, my fluency in two separate Chinese dialects, and my long career doing China business) given your earlier comments, I would not bet on you against my "basic at best" knowledge, in the event of a test of our respective understanding of the place, its people, its history, or its politics. (Friendly hint: you should stop referring to the CCP as the PRC, and one of the old dynasties as "the Mandarin.")

I will not compare the US w/ the PRC, there is no comparing the two. If you can't see that... well lets just say the two of us will never be able to carry on a two way conversation. I would not compare the CSA w/ the PRC either, there is no corelation." I can see that you either didn't read my statement or chose to ignore it, Fine. I'll make a deal w/ you. The moment you compare Nazi Germany to the CSA I'll compare the United States w/ the PRC. There is no comparison.

I merely asked a simple yes-no question which you will not answer: "Do you support China's policy to invade and force union on Taiwan in the event they declare independence?" This question cuts through all the "chaff" you seem fond of dropping. I have watched you and Neil dance around this simple request, while at the same time attempting to divert attention from this lively spectacle by so curiously accusing me of not answering questions directed to me, or of not sticking to the topic, or whatever else you think of at that particular moment.

But I fear it is too little, too late.

It is crystal clear to me why you and the first sergeant will not answer it.

The monster has been seen for what it is.

Hal

[johan_steele]

Interesting Hal, you and I share a similar focus on degrees, or close to it. Though I was a history major (my East Asian Studies ended w/ the start of the 20th Centuryt), Lit Major, theatre minor. I did my thesis on the Mongols and their impact on civilization. Found out too late that a history degree is not the way to a job. I don't bet, not even on sure things.

Intriguing don't you think? You never know who you're talking to on these boards. Some of us are amatuer historians, some PHD's and others bussinessmen, some veterans some peace protestors. The beauty of freedom of speech. We may not agree w/ each other, but I don't think we're likely to "disapear" over our differences of opinions... unlike the PRC.

I dance around the simple request because I don't wish to avoid the subject or be distracted from the American Civil War, it took place in 1860's, not 1949. On the Continent of North America and it ended the question of Slavery. Not who would control a nation as the communist conquest of the mainland did.

If the PRC, People Republic of China, chooses to invade Taiwan the United States is bound by it's treaties to assist in the defence of Taiwan. What I think of the matter is a moot point. I agree w/ Neil in the premise Taiwan is more related to what might have been had the US lost to the CSA.

Noone doubts where I'm coming from. I'm here to learn something new and get good information. I'm blunt and honest. I stand by my word and my honor. I admit to having made bad decisions in quoting websites before, I really do wish I could apologize to Connie Boone. I doubt ANY websites veracity and integrity until I can verify statements from another source.

So tell me Hal, what are you going to teach me? Slavery had nothing to do w/ Secession? Slavery was going die out w/out Civil War and quickly at that? FT Sumter had nothing to do w/ the start of the War? The Union was, and is, an evil corrupt and despotic govt? I do not "feel" that slavery was the why of Secession, I know it. All it took to convince me was to read the Ordinances of Secession.

I've stated my stance several times and been pleasently challenged by several on this board, as a result I read more and hopefully learn more.

-I have no soul, only a pen; and it is not for sale. Lu Xun -Epitaph-

[unionblue]

Hal,

The monster has been seen for what it is?

Please Hal, take that wonderful knowledge you have on China and language and have pity to please speak plain old English to a poor, ignorant Postal Employee. Would you tell me what the above sentence means?

Sure would like to clear up any misunderstandings, etc.

Unionblue


(Message edited by Unionblue on January 22, 2004)

[hawglips]

Shane, since you and the first sergeant head for the rear on the double-quick when faced with questions regarding real-world force-union scenarios, perhaps you will hold your positions a little better if faced with one less associated with naked tyranny.

You have indicated that in the hypothetical California secession scenario, that if the independence-declaring Californians do not get violent first, then peace with the rest of us is possible, and an all-out, total-war invasion to thwart their independence bid is not necessary.

In your words, "Could it be worked out peacefully if California didn't start shooting at the San Diego Naval base? My answer to that is quite possibly... that's why I'm consistant. It would take a violent SPARK to turn it into a Civil War."

And you also went so far to say the same thing about the 1861 war against secession.

You wrote, I might agree w/ you that war wasn't necessary; if Ft Sumter hadn't been fired upon.

You also said, 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.

You seem to be agreeing with me that war is NOT necessary after secession, but rather only becomes "necessary" when one is fired at first -- now or then.

But yet, you are arguing vehemently against the view that secession is NOT necessary after secession.

It is confusing.

So, here's my question.

Is it secession itself, or getting fired at first that justifies invasion to force union?

Hal

[tamaroa]

After reading many of these posts, I have come to this conclusion:

Secession is one thing. However, the Federal property within the boundaries of the newly formed Confederacy presents a problem. Could the Confederacy secede and leave the "offending" Federal arsenals, forts, etc alone? No! Why would the Federal's allow the Confederates to peacefully transfer the property from the USA to the CSA? They couldn't!

Once secession occurred, there was never a chance of shots not being fired. The South wanted the military hardware and strategically placed forts. The North was not about to give up what was rightfully theirs. Hence War. In actuality, the reason for Secession was irrelevant. Secession was done which necessitated shots being fired.

Lincoln was masterful at getting the South to fire the first shot and thus claim the South started the war. The War was started when the states seceded and could not force a peaceful transition of Federal property into Confederate hands.

Bill

(Message edited by Tamaroa on January 23, 2004)

[hawglips]

Why would the Federal's allow the Confederates to peacefully transfer the property from the USA to the CSA? They couldn't!

Bill, why wouldn't or couldn't they?

Hal

(Message edited by hawglips on January 23, 2004)

(Message edited by hawglips on January 23, 2004)

[nicolo]

They couldn't because the U.S. Gov't did not accept the fact of there being a confederate states of america and thus it could not negotiate or sign over U.S. property to any government that did not exist.
They would't because to negotiate with or deal with confederate officials (in an official capacity) would be to recognize such a gov't as existing which neither Congress nor President accepted.

[bill_torrens]

How exactly did "Federal property" within the territory of the Confederate States of America differ from "Crown property" within the newly recognised United States?

The term "Federal property" serves to indicate who owned the property before secession. But just as it was obviously impractical for London to continue to claim ownership of facilities within the United States which may have originally been paid for with British money for British purposes, so it was equally impractical for the United States to claim ownership of facilities which fell within Confederate territory.

Confederate firing on Fort Sumter was not a declaration of war. It was a limited military response to a limited U.S. incursion within its boundaries.