Was War Necessary After Secession?

[hawglips]

Shane, as we are all aware, Lincoln cited collecting taxes as justification before he invaded.

As for your Constitutional citation, why do you suppose Lincoln didn't use that excuse for justification to invade, but chose other things (taxes and occupation) as justification?

Nicolo, it is very clear that Lincoln did not believe in the unalienable rights upon which our union was established. Shane and Neil have demonstrated that they do not. It appears by your posts that you do not.

Is that a correct assessment?

Your above post demonstrates a conflicted position. First, you seem to be trying to say the South chose war because they knew there would be Northern invasion if they insisted on independence. And then you confuse things by saying they chose war because they knew there would be invasion if they fired the first shot. Which one was the act of choosing war?

I find it interesting that you blame war on those that appealed for peace over and over again; you blame war on those that merely wanted to govern themselves -- which simple desire was so clear and abhorent to those that opposed them. And then you hold blameless those that refused to discuss peace, and instead declared their intention to invade to subjugate those seeking independence.

That seems really mixed up to a simple-minded fellow like me.

Hal

"At a time when the minds of men are straying far from the lessons our fathers taught, it seems proper and well to recur to the original principles on which the system of government they devised was founded. The eternal truths which they announced, the rights which they declared “unalienable,” are the foundation-stones on which rests the vindication of the Confederate cause." - J. Davis

[johan_steele]

This was my question: Hal, could you cite Lincoln in his demand for taxes as a issue after the Ft Sumter was fired upon?

"Shane, as we are all aware, Lincoln cited collecting taxes as justification before he invaded."

As you'll note I used the word after. I am rather certain you are intelligent enough to know the meaning of the word after. So allow me to clarify please; after Ft Sumter was fired upon when did President Lincoln demand the payment of taxes? It's fairly clear to me that he did not. I don't recall ever seeing a recruiting poster that said anything like "THEY REFUSE TO PAY TAXES!" If the bombardment of Ft Sumter is left out of the equation... well I don't honestly know.

I don't recall any Union troops setting foot upon CSA soil, in fact those in Texas were ordered out and were attacked several times, they showed amazing restraint in not firing into the crowds. As they were headed to embarkment points to leave Texas what threat did they provide? A large portion were taken prisoner, their is question as to whether it was before or after Ft Sumter was fired upon. Their weapons, gear and even their wallets were immedietly used to equip Texas militia. Major Anderson's men were attacked and threatened w/ hanging in the streets of Charleston. Seems like SC and Texas at least only wanted peace w/ the Union to me. Apparently, Major Anderson made certain his men never went into Charleston armed in any way as he didn't want his men involved in an incident. When he felt the situation unmanageable and completely unsafe he moved his men to Ft Sumter... and he was accused of threatening the people of Charleston. Do US citizens in the form of US soldiers not mean anything to you?

Do you think President Lincoln was unaware of the situation w/ Regulars? Of coarse I don't expect you to consider it. For what it's worth I had no idea of what was going on w/ Regulars stationed in what would become the CSA. "That Body of Brave Men" and several other publications dealing w/ the US Regulars prior to the War have awakened me to the fact that there are certain things missing from history.

Apparently the CSA wasn't so peace loving after all. But it doesn't seem to matter to you if it's US Regulars that are attacked and threatened. I'll wager it mattered to President Lincoln...

[unionblue]

Hal,

In reply to your above post (Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 11:47 am) I submit there were indications of violence and opinion that negotiations would be of no use with South Carolina.

All the federal property that had been seized even BEFORE secession was declared in some states could be considered such an action. What about the construction of batteries around Ft. Sumter? What about the firing on the Star of The West on January 8, 1861? What about the firing on the Rhoda A. Shannon on April 3, 1861? And all of the activity in Charleston with the gathering of forces for action to take the forts?

And Lincoln had further reason to believe that South Carolina had no intention of peaceful negotiation when he sent one Stephen A. Hurlbut, a friend from Illinois, born in Charleston to go to that city and report back its mood to him.

On March 24, 1861, Hurlbut, after receiving a note from President Lincoln asking him to go to Charleston and see how the city would react to a ship just carrying provisions to Fort Sumter, arrived at Charleston.

Hurlbut spent 36 hours in Charleston, but it seemed quite enough to form a clear opinion. In his report to the President, he pointed out that he had observed military equipment and supplies moving inexorably to Charleston. The people he spoke to in the city, he said, held a "unanimity of sentiment": they were opposed to the Union. Most, he added, wanted a peaceful separation, but a loud minority thirsted for battle. He was convinced that a ship coming to Fort Sumter, even if it only carried provisions, would be stopped.

And Hal, I do not fully agree with final part of your statement which states, "a voluntary union?" I am under the belief the Union was FORMED in such a manner, but each state gave up the right to leave the Union on its own hook, and could only do so with the permission of the law and the entire country.

You further state why is it incumbent on those withdrawing 'on their own authority,' appeal to the authority of a government they no longer are associated with? Just because they say so, Hal? Even William Rawle, stated in his writings that any state that wished to withdraw from the Union had a procedure to go through to make it just and legal. And isn't it customary that the complaining or offended party bring its case to the bar of justice? Lincoln was already convinced by past practice that secession was not justified or legal and had precedent to back him up, so why did he have to prove anything?

And again, Hal, I take exception to your statement in your post of Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 05:02 pm, that I, and others, have demonstrated that I do not believe in the unalienable rights on which our Union was established. I just question if the South had any of the rights you mention were violated by an act of rebellion and treason to preserve an institution such as slavery and the power base that institution helped to maintain.

I submit to you, that those in power in the South, were more than willing to violate Northern States Rights in order to expand that institution, even into states that did not want it or need it. I submit to you, that property rights, not unalienable rights you continue to voice, were at the main center of contention and why war became necessary after secession.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[hawglips]

Shane, to my knowledge, Lincoln no longer merely worried about collecting taxes from the people of the South after he launched the invasion, but instead implemented a policy of collecting every Southern thing of value he had use for, and to destroy all means of Southern livlihood and sustinence which were of no benefit to his invaders. He seemed to want people to believe that this wanton destruction was necessary to "preserve the union."

Shane, when are you going to answer one of my questions? The ones you have not answered are compiling into a rather lengthy list.

As we all know, the CSA, SC, VA, etc made repeated overtures to the federal government to open discussions for peaceful solutions -- each of which were rejected by those in the federal government who did not want to discuss peace.

Neil, how many times did Lincoln or Buchanan seek to discuss peace with Southerners before the outbreak of war?

It is a fascinating phenomenon how the glory-hallelujah myth has such deep roots in the hearts of even those who know better.

H.L. Mencken was right when he said, “Lincoln has become one of our national deities, and a realistic examination of him is thus no longer possible.”

Neil, I do not seek to speak for you. But I have read nothing from you that points to a belief in the unalienable principles of self-government upon which this union was founded. I have asked numerous questions and pulled in numerous real-world real-time examples in an effort to allow you to clarify and expound on that point. But you will not.

So, I do not see how one can arrive at a conclusion other than the one you are taking exception to. Especially when immediately after objecting to my conclusion, and without further clarification, you say the South had no such rights!

And to reinforce my conclusion further, you then claim that though the North didn't violate any Southern rights, yet the South violated some unspecified Northern rights!

I've also asked this question before, and received no answer, so I will ask it again here -- exactly what Northern rights were violated by the Southern secessions?

Please take this opportunity to show the circumstances under which the unalienable rights we were founded on are indeed alienable.

And then please explain how the rights of Northerners were violated by Southern secession, while the unalienable rights of Southerners were not violated by federal subjugation.

Hal

[nicolo]

Hal, the United States of America was being violated by certain disaffected states trying to tear the Union apart. Even that southern sympathizer Buchanan could not bring himself to allow the Federal Union to have fewer states at the end of his administration than at its begining. If that doughface found unilateral secession unacceptable, is it any wonder that the more intelligent and patriotic Lincoln would find that secession doubly repugnant?
The South knew war would include invasion and they went ahead and started the war, where is the conflicted position?
You are right Hal, Lincoln indeed, did not believe that there was an inalienable right of secession.

[bill_torrens]

Nicolo,

“Whatever you are trying to say, a simple declarative statement might be helpful.”

I am not trying to say anything. I have already said it – and several times at that. But I will give you the simple statements you ask for:

1. If, as you appear to contend, the majority of colonists did not favour the Revolutionary cause then clearly the insurgents could not claim to be fighting for the principle of American self-determination.

2. Rather, they would have been fighting to suppress or subvert American self-determination.

3. In those circumstances they would have been engaged in an illegal coup d’etat

4. And in those circumstances any “government” which resulted from their insurrection would have had no moral right to exist.

5. It could, however, eventually claim a moral right to exist if, over a period of time, it managed to win the hearts and minds of its citizens, and if they came to support that which was originally imposed on them.

As it happens, I tend to the view that a break with Britain was inevitable at some point – and sooner rather than later. The idea that America could remain a subsidiary part of a tiny island on another continent is a geographical absurdity. But it’s not my subject, and I am receptive to other ideas.

[johan_steele]

"Shane, when are you going to answer one of my questions? The ones you have not answered are compiling into a rather lengthy list." Really Hal, that's flame bait & you know it.

Hal, I'll go ahead and post this again as you apparently either ignored or failed to read it the first time it was posted. To answer your comments I do believe in a govt by the people, for the people. Majority rules w/ the understanding that the minority must be represented (which the South was). I have yet to see a superior govt than a Democratic Republic.

Hal, since you have repeatedly refused to answer questions that you referred to as irrelevent or not pertinant to the discussion or to answer a question w/ another question w/out answering the original question. I thought I might return the favor.

You have completely dodged the issue of US Regulars that I have brought forward several times and completely ignored my last post. As well as Neal's pointing out on several occasions that the CSA was hardly being peaceful in it's actions nor was it apparent that the CSA really wanted peace. Your consistant rebutal seems to be to ignore that such contributions to the discussion have been made. All I would like is a simple answer as to whether you believe US Soldiers have any rights at all what is the life of a US soldier worth? I think I know your answer.

"Shane, to my knowledge, Lincoln no longer merely worried about collecting taxes from the people of the South after he launched the invasion, but instead implemented a policy of collecting every Southern thing of value he had use for, and to destroy all means of Southern livlihood and sustinence which were of no benefit to his invaders. He seemed to want people to believe that this wanton destruction was necessary to "preserve the union." "

Hal, could you point out where President Lincoln personally profited from the actions of the AoP? You have implied several times that Lincoln was no different than a dictator. Curious, when he faced a very real election challenge...

Hal, it seems obvious to me that you are merely attempting to bait anyone who doesn't agree w/ your view of President Lincoln and the United States as the bearer of all evil in the world. You demand a comparison of the United States w/ Communist China, implying a correlation between Lincoln & a mass murdering dictator like Mao. I refuse to do so, I've made it quite clear why. Some of your other questions I have flat out refused to answer because I felt they were blatant flame bait. I have no wish to get involved w/ a flame war. That isn't why I come to this board, You seem quite adept at baiting anyone who disagrees w/ your view.

Frankly, I'd like to see this thread go back to the original premise of whether or not War was necessary after Secession. To me the stumbling point is Ft Sumter. After the South fired on Ft Sumter... by the way Hal you never have answered my question as to whether that was really just a peaceful protest to the presence of US Regulars. How much powder & shot do you think the SC militia expended?

As it is I bid you a good day.

[nicolo]

Mr. Torrens, are you by any chance a lawyer or teacher?
Just to be clear I can quote you as saying "your country" (America) "has never had any right to exist."?
As an aside, in ref. to your item 1. I believe you yourself contended that you doubted a majority supported the war.
In ref. to item 5. I find it interesting you think a countrys right to exist is based on morality.

[johan_steele]

Nicolo... please don't insult the man such. I don't think he's a lawyer he appears to be too honest. Incidently, we are all teachers and students as well. The day we stop learning is the day we die.

Mr Torrens; might I ask what your profession is? You have a mind that intrigues me.

1. If, as you appear to contend, the majority of colonists did not favour the Revolutionary cause then clearly the insurgents could not claim to be fighting for the principle of American self-determination.

As I understand it (my knowledge of the American Revolution is somewhat limited) those who supported independence from the Colonies were about 30-35% and the Torries numbered in the neighborhood of 25%. The remainder appeared to be content w/ however it turned out.

2. Rather, they would have been fighting to suppress or subvert American self-determination.

I think Self Determination was second to a want of independence from England and freedom from a system of two different justice systems. One for the Colonies and a seperate one for England.

3. In those circumstances they would have been engaged in an illegal coup d’etat.

A coup... would typically have been less bloody and taken considerably less time I think. No it was a full fledged Rebellion and the Constitution made it a Revolution, perhaps the first of it's kind in history.

4. And in those circumstances any “government” which resulted from their insurrection would have had no moral right to exist.

No govt has a moral right to exist. Morality has little to do with politics... then or now. After all the only thing worse than a politician is a lawyer.

5. It could, however, eventually claim a moral right to exist if, over a period of time, it managed to win the hearts and minds of its citizens, and if they came to support that which was originally imposed on them.

To quote Patrik Henry: "I smell a rat!" In reference to the Constitutional Convention. Our founding fathers were a far cry from saints, but I think the started something grand and I hope and pray that their ideas are never cast into the great dustbin of history.

-A revolution is an opinion backed by bayonets. Napoleon Bonaparte

[thea_447]

Nicolo,

Before making any more rash statements to either Mr. Abbott or Mr. Torrens, I think it would be prudent at this juncture for you to read every single post in the following threads. Points and counterpoints have been made through the years by folks much more learned than me and I daresay, more learned than you.

Was War Necessary After Secession? 02-05-04 06:55 pm
by Shane Christen 289 14
Newspaper articles, etc. of the Day 02-05-04 12:20 pm
by Hal Abbott 106 5
Ft. Sumter: Can of Worms 02-04-04 04:11 pm
by Neil R. Hamilton 67 3
RECONSTRUCTION!!! 02-02-04 08:11 pm
by Thea 71 2
Correspondent's interview with former slave 02-01-04 09:16 pm
by Charles Tinder 2 1
Tariffs 01-24-04 11:11 pm
by Raymond Benne 34 1
Secession 01-22-04 04:26 am
by Neil R. Hamilton 62 3
Let Us Die To Make Men Free 01-21-04 11:15 pm
by Neil R. Hamilton 25 1
Was it treason 01-21-04 10:38 pm
by Neil R. Hamilton 36 1
Abolitonism: Could it have been forced without war? 01-20-04 10:43 pm
by Neil R. Hamilton 7 1
A Class War 01-13-04 12:52 pm
by Thea 60 2
Soldier's Stories 01-13-04 12:33 pm
by Thea 68 3
What, in your PERSONAL opinion, Part II 01-07-04 03:49 am
by Neil R. Hamilton 192 2
Hinton Rowan Helper 12-25-03 01:19 pm
by David Lutton 7 1
Slaveholding Statistics 12-16-03 04:31 am
by Neil R. Hamilton 35 1
Was the Copperhead movement a fifth column? 12-09-03 12:18 am
by Neil R. Hamilton 2 1
What, in your PERSONAL opinion, was the cause of the War, and how did you come to your conclusion? 12-08-03 03:44 am
by Neil R. Hamilton 301 2
President's Power to Convene Congress 11-25-03 10:09 pm
by George Harrison 4 1
Suspension of Civil Liberties 11-14-03 11:06 pm
by Neil R. Hamilton 46 2
USing a single quote - Lincoln was a RACIST! 11-08-03 09:44 am
by Thea 30 1
Transcontinental Railroad 11-06-03 02:46 am
by Neil R. Hamilton 46 2
Did Lincoln declare War on the Confederacy? 11-04-03 11:40 pm
by Neil R. Hamilton 44 2
If Lincoln was so solidly behind protecting the Union... 09-17-03 01:20 pm
by Jack Chapin 22 1
What was the cause(s) of the Civil War? 09-14-03 03:41 pm
by Frank Morreale 27 1
Tenth Amendment 08-29-03 04:08 am
by Neil R. Hamilton 83 1
Lincoln vs Davis 04-23-03 07:51 am
by Thea 30 1
Archive through February 06, 2003 02-06-03 03:30 pm
by Thea 553 37
Start New Thread


We have come this far on these boards by mutual courtesy and giving the "other fellow" the unassailable right to his or her opinion without rudeness or rash impolitic statements incited to bait our worthy opponents. This is merely advice from one board member to another, not to be construed as mean-spirited or vindictive.

Perhaps you are very young and naive and think that full frontal assault will win the day. I can assure you that those tactics have been tried before. They didn't work then, and they won't work now.

So in the interest of learning more from all of us, and for us to take the time to read what you've written and learn from it, please think about this.

It is so refreshing to see more people on the boards. But we would hate to lose some because they "lurk" first and if they see bad boy behaviour, we may not ever hear their opinions. And they may have some really great thoughts that we could ALL benefit from.

I sincerely hope that you will take this in the gentle manner in which it was delivered.

Till we meet again,