Was War Necessary After Secession?

[bill_torrens]

Dear Neil,

A straightforward question deserves a straightforward answer.

A revolutionary act carried out by a minority within the revolting area cannot, by any reasonable definition, be deemed an act of self-determination.

But, providing it is acceded to by the majority, the right to self-determination is unqualifiable - you can't say that it exists if you wish to exercise it for "good" reasons and that it doesn't if you wish to exercise it for "bad" ones.

P.S. What time of day is it in your neck of the woods? I haven't even had my lunchbreak yet, so I certainly wasn't expecting any responses from your side of the pond so quickly!

Bill

[hawglips]

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

Shane: 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?

Clear as muddy water.

The question is NOT one requiring speculation about whether a war might have started somewhere with some violent spark.

Are you really saying you have no opinion about whether secession itself was grounds for war to force union?

Hal

[hawglips]

Lincoln had determined to force union on the seceded states before he took office. His message was clear and unequivocal -- military invasion to prevent your independence is justified. Period.

Question to Neil, Shane and Doug:

Do you agree that secession itself justifies invasion to force union?

Hal

[nicolo]

As soon as a southern state declared it's independence, it was in a state of rebellion against the Constituted authority of the Federal gov't.
Had it wanted to, the gov't of the United States would have been justified in immediately, sending negotiators and/or troops to disabuse that state about it's right to secede.

[johan_steele]

I, the I being Shane Christen (aka Johan Steele), am uncertain if war was neccesary after Secession. I do not know if peace could have been maintained through diplomacy. I have yet to make up my mind on that mark. However, after Ft Sumter was fired upon the War was on. I believe I've made that point quite clear several times.

"Lincoln had determined to force union on the seceded states before he took office. His message was clear and unequivocal -- military invasion to prevent your independence is justified. Period." I've yet to see any letters that positively state that; though I won't claim to have read everything written by Mr Lincoln. Where does he say, here we come SC, prepare to get whipped? Does he say in one of his pre-presidential speeches that SC will be invaded by the US Army?

Hal, if you're capable of reading the minds of dead men... can I borrow you for some research. Mainly where a particular treasure is buried?

[thea_447]

Nicolo:
disabuse - free somebody (from an erroneous belief)
I personally don't feel that this was an erroneous belief on the part of the South. But the point you bring up is quite interesting.
Why didn't Lincoln send negotiators instead of warships? Or were the negotiators on board the warships? Why, when Jefferson Davis sent peace envoys would he not meet with them? The answer to me is obvious: He wanted war.

Neil of course will tell you something like this: Lincoln would not deal with these people because in doing so he would have been admitting that this was not in fact a rebellion, but a legitimate sovereign nation seeking peace.

I pose this question however: in view of what could be foreseen of the future, even thinking that he could put down an armed rebellion in about 6 weeks to two months, wouldn't it have been better to have tried negotiating with the South?

[nicolo]

What exactly was there to negotiate? If Lincoln was granite itself, in demanding reunion, Davis was steel itself, in demanding independence.
There were communications between Gov't since the Buchanan Administration. Various individuals were also sent South by Buchanan and Lincoln talking to various Southerners in and out of the Gov't and they unanimously sent back word that only complete independence would suffice.
Buchanan drew the proper conclusion but decided to pass the buck to the more intelligent and courageous Lincoln. Namely, that if the South was determined to be independent then war was inevitable, in which case he made sure the onus of that war was properly placed.

[unionblue]

William,

Thank you for your prompt response to my question. Now, I wish to make sure I am correct in reading that response.

"...a minority within the revolting area cannot, by any reasonable definition, be deemed an act of self-determination."

"But, providing it is acceded to by the majority, the right to self-determination in unqualifiable - you can't say that it exists if you wish to exercise it for "good" reason and that it doesn't if you wish to exercise it for "bad" ones.

William, are you aware that during the Revolutionary War, that only 1/3 of the colonies population actively supported the war with aid, men, and arms? Fully 1/3 opposed the war and gave aid to the crown and the other 1/3 was neutral, supporting neither side. Does this modify or change your view that the colonies had the right of self-determination, seeing how they were not the majority in the revolting area?

Or are you stating that if the number of citizens are clearly in the majority of the rebelling area, that this constitutes an act of self-determination, no matter how many other citizens outside that area deem it an unlawful act and simply rebellion?

Then how do you view South Carolina's attempt at nullification in 1832? One state with a majority of its citizens within that one state determined the cause was correct. No other state in the Union at that time joined her in that assumption. Did this place South Carolina in the catagory that by being a minority within the nation/area could not, by any reasonable definition, be deemed an act of self-determination?

And then, if we go to the extreme degree of this position, the area of the United States, in its entirety, would not the Southern States of the time be considered a minority within the confines of that area? I think you know where I am headed with your definition. At what point do you consider the minority within the revolting area to have the definition of an act of self-determination? An area within a state? A region? A nation?

My schedule, my friend William, is completely screwed up by the fact I work the midnight shift here at the Post Office in Columbus, Ohio, from 10 PM at night until 6:30 AM in the morning. On the weekends my schedule is even worse, at the mercy of my grandchildren's visits and my wife's needs. I was lucky enough to be 'awake' at different times this weekend and shoot you some short questions at odd times for me.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on January 26, 2004)

(Message edited by Unionblue on January 26, 2004)

(Message edited by Unionblue on January 26, 2004)

[unionblue]

Hal,

In answer to your question, does secession justify invasion to force union, I am afraid I cannot give it a fair, unbiased answer as I believe there was no such thing as secession, legal or otherwise.

I do believe that there is a right to rebellion, that everyone and every region or group, after it has exhausted every other legal means of redress, has THAT natural, god-given right to rebel.

But no rebellion has the 'right' to succeed. Chance, timing, resources and will are part of the mix, along with the people in rebellion. It is up to the people conducting it and putting it into execution to see it through to success. They may win, they may lose, but either way, they surely will be left with the consequences of the act.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[rivrrat]

Hal
I won't answer your question the way it is asked, because it assumes the legitimacy of secession. I will say that the Union had the right to put down armed rebellion.