Ft. Sumter: Can of Worms

Neil,
Tennessee's population voted on secession. They did not need Yankee's permission to be free. Bear in mind. They never would have seceded even after the firing on Sumter but for Lincoln's actions after.

YMOS
tommy
I fear I'm wiped out and off to bed. I will TRY to post tomorrow if I am able.

Heh, I saw your edit but only after I clicked to post my message

(Message edited by aphillbilly on January 21, 2004)

[unionblue]

Tommy,

You have had a full day and I appreciate your views on the subject, no matter how much I disagree with them.

But yes, the people of Tennessee did need permission, from the Nation, not Yankees, hence the point of me asking why no one went to court or to the whole of the nation to get permission to leave. Why pay upwards of 625,000 lives and then lose it all when maybe you could have won in Court or by the vote with no loss of life?

As for the edit in my post, you have to be careful, I'm sneaky that way!

Take care of yourself, pard. Talk at you soon.

Unionblue

[bill_torrens]

The contention that the act of firing on Sumter caused a war which might otherwise have been avoided can only be true if one of the following two statements is also true:

1. Without the attack on Fort Sumter, the Confederacy would eventually have d1ssolved itself and returned to the Union

or:

2. Without the attack on Fort Sumter, the Federal Government would eventually have recognised the Confederacy

Since both of these statements are patently untrue it follows - as night follows day - that war was already inevitable before anything happened in Charleston Harbour.

We turn to the contention that the C.S.A. actively wanted to provoke a war with the United States. I do not close my mind to the possibility of the Confederate Government acting cynically, but I require evidence to show that the act in question could be seen to be in its interests.

In this case, the disparity in strength and resources between the two countries destroys any possible motive that the South could have had for wanting war. It's much like asserting that, in 1914, Belgium was just itching to get into a fight with Imperial Germany.

The United States, on the other hand, had the massive advantage in resources and also had a thoroughly cynical government. The motive to engineer an incident is absolutely crystal clear.

[johan_steele]

William I don't follow your logic. Who is to say that if Ft Sumter had not been fired upon that the war would not have started. Noone here is clairvoyant and we certainly can say for certain that w/out the spark of Ft Sumter Lincoln may very well NOT have called up 75,000 troops. Which was the spark that brought the rest of the South into the CSA. Ft Sumter was a rallying point even for those who were lukewarm to Lincoln.

But regardless we are merely talking about a what if scenario. Ft Sumter was the point of action that started the shooting match.

From the rhetoric and stances taken by the CSA it seems quite clear to me that the CSA had indeed decided upon war. I assure you the CSA was a far cry from Belgium and victumhood. What standing massive military did the Union have? More than a third of it's officer corps had forsaken their oath to join the CSA, approx a third of the standing Army were prisoners w/in the CSA or scattered to protect the frontier before the fighting started and the Union was forced to scramble to arm it's own Army. Jeff Davis had been the secretary of war and well knew the state of the US military. THe CSDA govt simply miscalculated the resolve of the Union.

[thea_447]

As to Lincoln's calling up of 75,000 troops, by this standard why would Lincoln have sent warships to accompany provisions intended for Fort Sumter? The insidious meaning in that is obvious unless those watching from the shore were blind or either "out to tea".

Everyone on this board knows perfectly well from the "Fox letter" what Lincoln's intentions were. Not admitting it won't make the letter go away, and it won't hide from history those warships Lincoln sent.

To top that deceptive act he didn't call Congress back into session for, what, 3 months? Plenty of time to start a good roil. In all fairness, I have to admit he had a good game plan: costly and bloody, but how could he know that the South wouldn't just roll over? Ah well, you never know.

People on this board have thought that I consider Lincoln the anti-Christ. Nay, nay. I think he was a long tall Caesar, consummate with the art of double-speak; furthermore I think his willfullness and deliberate law-breaking led this country into the bloodiest war we've ever known. He was the ablest protectionist this country ever saw at the cost of over 620,000 men.

Yanks here want to muddy the waters with his Great Emancipator mantle. It won't wash. Lincoln was all about money, land, railroads, and above all, power. He put the Constitution of the United States in the proverbial shredder. And out of whole cloth he created his "War Powers". What absolute rubbish! He should have stuck to writing prose, and perhaps read more of the Bible; that phrase: "Let my people GO!" comes to mind when I think of the South and secession.

And before there's a knee-jerk reaction about the blacks, on ANOTHER board we can all get our feet wet while we tustle over when the South would have freed the blacks. (I say it would have been sooner rather than later. After all, other countries had already accomplished it, and they didn't have to kill each other off to do it! But I digress.)

Till we meet again,

[hawglips]

The contention that the act of firing on Sumter caused a war which might otherwise have been avoided can only be true if one of the following two statements is also true:

1. Without the attack on Fort Sumter, the Confederacy would eventually have d1ssolved itself and returned to the Union

or:

2. Without the attack on Fort Sumter, the Federal Government would eventually have recognised the Confederacy

Since both of these statements are patently untrue it follows - as night follows day - that war was already inevitable before anything happened in Charleston Harbour.

We turn to the contention that the C.S.A. actively wanted to provoke a war with the United States. I do not close my mind to the possibility of the Confederate Government acting cynically, but I require evidence to show that the act in question could be seen to be in its interests.

In this case, the disparity in strength and resources between the two countries destroys any possible motive that the South could have had for wanting war. It's much like asserting that, in 1914, Belgium was just itching to get into a fight with Imperial Germany.

The United States, on the other hand, had the massive advantage in resources and also had a thoroughly cynical government. The motive to engineer an incident is absolutely crystal clear.

Bill, once again your clarity of thought and articulation is so refreshing!

Hal

[hawglips]

Yanks here want to muddy the waters with his Great Emancipator mantle. It won't wash. Lincoln was all about money, land, railroads, and above all, power. He put the Constitution of the United States in the proverbial shredder. And out of whole cloth he created his "War Powers". What absolute rubbish! He should have stuck to writing prose, and perhaps read more of the Bible; that phrase: "Let my people GO!" comes to mind when I think of the South and secession.

This one was so good, it makes me want to stand up and sing, 'Maryland, My Maryland...'

Hal

[unionblue]

William,

Why did South Carolina not secede from the Union in 1832? In this answer you find the reasoning for the South firing on Fort Sumter. It did not stand a chance alone and it knew it. The Deep South had to prove it could stand up to a small band of soldiers in a fort or it would not be able to attract any support from the rest of the South.

As for your argument that the South would not have deliberately started the war knowing it was at a disadvantage in numbers and resources, history has already proven you wrong on that fact.

Many in the South had the mistaken notion that one Southern boy could whip ten Yankee's and other such nonsense. There was also the examples of the War of 1776 when 13 colonies lacking in arms, money, manpower, resources, etc., had stood off the supreme military power of its day, England. The South thought they could duplicate this effort.

So, the mad rush to war took place in where courage and Southern elan' was to be superior to the North's manpower, resources and determination to see the law enforced.

And Thea, Lincoln was about upholding the Constitution and his sworn duty as President, while the South read something that wasn't there and didn't have the courage to declare what it really was, rebellion.

Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on January 22, 2004)

Neil,

"while the South read something that wasn't there and didn't have the courage to declare what it really was, rebellion"

Et tu?

[unionblue]

Tommy,

I am pretty sure you and all on this board are aware of the fact that I have stated time and time again that secession was nothing but smoke and mirrors, an attempt to leave the Union without any consequences and a theory of peaceable secession that NO one believed could happen, if one listens to the debates from the Nullification crisis up to the Civil War.

That is why the conflict is officially recorded as "The War of the Rebellion" and not secession.

Et Tu always,
Unionblue