Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
"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."
“William I don't follow your logic.”
Dear Shane,
I’m sorry, but I really can’t help you with this. As simple logical propositions go, the above one is so simple it’s almost sub-simple.
Dear Neil,
I don’t contend that a weaker country would never start a war with a stronger one. This has, of course, happened.
What I do contend is that it is unlikely that a weaker country would start a war with a stronger one when its interests could not possibly be served by the act. Confronted with the choice between achieving peaceful independence and engaging in war with the United States, the interests of the Confederate States of America were clearly better served by the first option. Believing the Davis cabinet to have been mainly comprised of rational and mature men I am led to the conclusion that they saw the matter in the same light.
The country boys who had never travelled beyond the boundaries of their own counties may well have believed that each of them could whip ten Yankees, but one may plausibly contend that this belief was not shared by the most urbane men in the South – such as the Chief Magistrate and his cabinet. The overwhelming advantages which the North enjoyed in terms of population and economic/industrial infrastructure were facts which were familiar to each of these men.
But let us for the moment imagine that they did believe that they could not only defeat the United States but do so easily. They would still need a motive to start a war – the opportunity to achieve something concrete which would serve their interests to such a degree that the expense of blood and treasure could be seen as worthwhile.
What would this have been? The conquest of the United States? The whole point of secession was to remove the South from obnoxious contacts, so this would have been self-defeating.
More plausibly one might argue that the acquisition of border states could have been seen as a war aim. But I see two principle objections to this. The first is that the violent acquisition of states whose populations were either undecided about secession or actively opposed to it would have introduced large numbers of disaffected and embittered people into a country which was busy finding its own feet.
The other objection relates to this whole issue of timing. It is quite enough of a challenge to try to create a new nation out of a group of sovereign states inhabited by some of the most wilfully individualistic people on earth. What you really don’t need on top of this is a war with the most dynamic industrial machine on earth. It doesn’t matter if you have the morals of Attila The Hun with a hangover, launching a war in those circumstances defies reason.
William the reason I stated that I didn't follow your logic is that I don't believe either your statement one or two to be true. I don't know whether a peaceful reunion or secession could have been accomplished. The is that I follow your logic to the same conclusion that war was inevitable, I just get there from a different direction.
What about the Invasion of Kentucky , a neutral state split fairly evenly in it's loyalties, by Armies of the CSA? Nations are just like men, they don't always think straight. Germany certainly didn't think straight when it invaded the Soviet Union.
It was a common beliefe in the south, even among the educated elite that the North couldn't fight. THe same is true of the north. Both sides were increadibly naive on that note.
My own belief is that the South didn't think things through as clearly as you have.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
What I was referring to was the insinuation the South were cowards because they did not believe or admit to your views. Either the South then or now. I do not have issue with what you believe. It is not the substance but theme. The tone. Just with the this tactic of blasting the entire South with blanket insults. It is becoming a bit too prevalent. Hence the Et tu. Bad habit to start getting into, just because others do it, I hope you will not jump onto that wagon. You want to attack an individual, ok. A small group, ok. But the entire South? Cowards, not enough courage? Yet if you believe the South had a lack of courage, that they were cowards and had a lack of conviction, "while the South read something that wasn't there and didn't have the courage to declare what it really was, rebellion" well.....obviously they believed differently. History points out that they did. I do as well. I think I have some small amount of courage but by your statement, you believe I do not.
To you I may be wrong, just as you believe they in were wrong back then, but to cast aspersions upon their lack of courage for believing other than you? I must have the same lack of courage? The South is constantly being accused of everything under the sun. We pretty much endure it. But lack of courage? Sigh....
YMOS
tommy
(Message edited by aphillbilly on January 22, 2004)
As Neil has pointed out, there cannot be any serious question of who fired the first shot nor which side had the Constitution and law on their side.
IF the state of S.C. was no longer satisfied with the legal status of Federal property in their state, then it was the leaders of that state to seek redress in Federal Court, not the U.S. Govt, which was quite satisfied with the law as it was.
Wow, glad you could clear all this debate that has existed for 140 years.
If there is no serious question. Why bother with this forum.
Ok Yankees. You are ALL right. The South is all wrong. Neil says they had no courage to admit their conviction. Ok. They and I are cowards. The North had the legal right despite any evidence to contrary. South had none despite any evidence to the contrary. You had moral right despite any evidence also to the contrary. The South had none despite any evidence to the contrary. Happy?
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.
So, Neil, how do you explain Lincoln's Fox Letter?
Dear Aphillbilly, I am new here, do you get so excited on every post?
Do you really take these forums seriously? The "debate" has indeed been settled for 140 years.
There is much discussion of the "what if's.. and might have beens" but except for unreconstructed confederates and southern historical revisionists all the major issues have been settled. Scoring debating points are fun but have no relevence in the outside world. These forums are good mental exercises but all participants must not get so carried away with our mindsets that we lose contact with reality.
There is much discussion of the "what if's.. and might have beens" but except for unreconstructed confederates and southern historical revisionists all the major issues have been settled. Scoring debating points are fun but have no relevence in the outside world. These forums are good mental exercises but all participants must not get so carried away with our mindsets that we lose contact with reality.
I fear it may be too late for some -- in the losing touch with reality department.
In defense of APHillbilly, I can assure you that he is not easily excitable.
Frankly, this was a debating point between him and Neil. From what I've read, APHillbilly was concerned that Neil might have been calling Southerners, then and now, cowards. I can assure all interested parties, that knowing Neil, I'm quite certain that was not what he meant to imply. We three have been on these boards for quite a while and the "tit for tat" that goes on amongst us is well-known to other board members. We have been friends for a while now so you needn't be alarmed.
And as to courage, I'm sure that our Southern brethren, then AND now, have not lacked in courage. The courage of your convictions is sometimes called your mettle.
Well, the mettle of all board members here has been tested again and again. No one has come up short.
As for your assertion that the debate was decided long ago, I have to question, as did APHillbilly, if that is your opinion, why are you here? We really get into the whys and wherefores, and even the "what ifs" of the WBTS. And we have a heck of a lot of fun doing it!
Naturally, Southerners love to argue their point of view because they didn't "win" the war, if wars can ever really be won. The hostilities on the battlefield are long gone but the honor and dignity of our Southern forebearers is a matter of some merit to us, and the very same can be said of the Union soldiers.
Neither Tommy nor I have ever had a quarrel about the valor of the Union soldiers, only the validity of some of their leaders and generals. We've been accused of many things along these lines, but NEVER by our friend Neil. He would not think it worthwhile to destroy the fun that we've enjoyed with each other by baiting either of us.
I hope that this quells your curiosity. As you get to understand the personalities (or identities) as we do, you'll come to see the affection that most of us have for one another.
I bid you good day.
__________________ Thea
No one has permission to use any material from any of my posts on any CWT forum, the archives, or any other forum without my express written permission.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
