Was War Necessary After Secession?

[hawglips]

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.

It was the state of SC that was asking for the feds to leave Chaleston harbor. The governments of SC and FL existed either long before the federal government did, or had been recognized by the feds for as long as it had been established. So this does not make sense.

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.

Same problem.

Hal

[hawglips]

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

Mr. Torrens, this is such a simple distinction. I can not understand why there are those among us who insist there is no such distinction.

Hal

[rivrrat]

So, when the Colonists seized Crown property they were "rebels" and in "rebellion" right? In real life the State governments and the Confederate Government were in Rebellion when they seized U.S. Property. The American Colonists knew that they were in Rebellion. "We must hang together or we will all hang separately" Ben Franklin. The Confederates knew that they were in Rebellion.

The amazing thing is the treatment that the Confederate Leaders received at the end of the war. Ask Theobold Wolf Tone about how the British (and most others) treated rebels.

[nicolo]

After the formation of the Confederate States of America that gov't assumed the responsibility of negotiating with the U.S. Gov't . It has already been shown that S.C. Fl etc., had no basis of claim on the disputed land under the Constitution, much less would Washington have negotiated with a ersatz rogue state outside the law.

[bill_torrens]

"So, when the Colonists seized Crown property they were "rebels" and in "rebellion" right?"

Well, I don't think so. I take the view that they were asserting their inherent right to self-determination. What you think is your business.

It's a very curious matter. Psychologically speaking, it probably constitutes a syndrome in its own right. Let's call it the Yankee Double Standard about Rebellion.

What you seem to be saying is that what Northerners and Southerners did together in 1776 was really wrong. Or possibly not. Or possibly absolutely right. You're confused on the point. Frankly, you don't know what you think.

You insist that the South was wrong in 1861. Because it did exactly what the 13 colonies did in 1776. Which was wrong. Well, not exactly wrong. More right, really. But although it was right in 1776 it was wrong in 1861. Perhaps. You want to go away and think about it? Okay.

[hawglips]

Mr. Torrens: It's a very curious matter. Psychologically speaking, it probably constitutes a syndrome in its own right. Let's call it the Yankee Double Standard about Rebellion.

What you seem to be saying is that what Northerners and Southerners did together in 1776 was really wrong. Or possibly not. Or possibly absolutely right. You're confused on the point. Frankly, you don't know what you think.

You insist that the South was wrong in 1861. Because it did exactly what the 13 colonies did in 1776. Which was wrong. Well, not exactly wrong. More right, really. But although it was right in 1776 it was wrong in 1861. Perhaps. You want to go away and think about it? Okay.

Bill, I share your frustration. I have been trying my very best to help them sort it out for several days now, but I cannot seem to get our resident advocates of forced union to take a position on the question. I certainly don't want to discourage you, and I realize you have superior persuasive skills, but I honestly don't expect you will have much luck.

It does appear there is chaos and confusion in the Yank ranks about the fundamental question of self-determination. Either that, or their talking points instruct them to avoid the question at all costs. That would explain the double-quick rearward deployment and fancy maneuvers each time the question is unfurled.

Hal

P.S. Good to see you Doug. You too Nicolo and Billy Yank!



(Message edited by hawglips on January 23, 2004)

[johan_steele]

"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" While an interesting point, for it to be true SC would have had to have built Ft Sumter & supplied the soldiers of it's garrison. FT Sumter was built & equiped w/ federal funds making it the property of the United States not SC. Firing upon Ft Sumter was a declaration of War by any definition of the fact.

William, as I've stated before what the colonists did in their act of Rebellion against England was treason. What the CSA did was treason as well. Since the Colonies won their war for independence any charges of treason were a moot point. The CSA failed to gain it's independence.

I've stated that I don't honestly know whether war would have been neccesary w/out Ft Sumter being fired upon, I've also stated that I believe if the spark of Sumter had not happened it might well have happened elsewhere. Was War neccesary after Secession? I still haven't decided. Reasoned argument is far more likely to persuade me one way or the other than Hal's... distractions.

What double standard have I evoked? I refuse to compare a nation such as the PRC to the United States. I don't see a comparison; I also would refuse to compare England w/ the PRC as there is no comparing the two. To attempt to do so would be: 1. needless 2. detract from the conversation at hand. 3. I'm trying to learn more about the American CW, not China's policy in the last half century.

This is a board about the ACW, not International affairs of this century. Am I out of line because I want to keep the discussion on the ACW?

"Is it secession itself, or getting fired at first that justifies invasion to force union?" Hal, The moment Ft Sumter was fired upon the war was on, there was no going back. If Ft Sumter had not been fired upon might war have been avoided? I don't know as I've yet to make a concrete decision one way or the other. In the same vein of thought could the ACW have been sparked elsewhere? I think so, therein lies the crux of the problem about whether war was necessary after Secession. Can I say it any more clearly? Or am I not allowed to form my own opinion on the matter after an educated and careful analysis?

Hal, I was under the impression that the American Civil War was a real world scenario, am I somehow mistaken?

I would appreciate your ceasing the insinuation that either Neil or myself are cowards. There is no basis in fact to your saying or implying such. In the time of the ACW such a charge was a serious one.

[unionblue]

Hal,

You are incorrect in your assessment that the government of South Carolina existed long before there was a federal/central government.

William, are we to assume then that the Battle of Breed's hill was nothing more than a skirmish between British military units and a band of malcontents and not rebellion?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[bill_torrens]

"Bill, I share your frustration. I have been trying my very best to help them sort it out for several days now, but I cannot seem to get our resident advocates of forced union to take a position on the question. I certainly don't want to discourage you, and I realize you have superior persuasive skills, but I honestly don't expect you will have much luck."

Don't worry about discouraging me, Hal. I'm more than discouraged enough already. This is doing my head in!

Bill

[unionblue]

Hal & Bill,

I regret that you both agree to the label of 'forced Union' for those who cannot simply agree with your position and that you feel we have not taken a position on the subject. I feel, speaking for myself I have been very clear. I am of the opinion that there was no forced Union as I am there was illegal rebellion without sufficient cause. In other words 'forced treason' upon an almost totally unoffending Union.

But I beg you both not to be discouraged or to keep yourselves in a state of prolonged 'frustration'. A cause to which you have both pledged yourselves to is surely worth a bit more effort, is it not?

And Hal & William, why is it so hard to comprehend the fact that many of these Yankees in so called chaos, are agreeing with you that the Revolution of 1776 (in which William has been gracious enough to call the colonies asserting their rights of self-determination, but I seem to remember the Crown at the time calling it rebellion) was an illegal act and everyone on both sides of the pond and in the North & South of the Colonies KNEW it and expected no treatment better than that reserved for traitors if they had lost in the end?

The only difference is the Colonies won at their illegal attempt at rebellion, no matter how noble the goals, and the South lost at their illegal attempt at rebellion.

See you gentlemen on the field.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on January 24, 2004)