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.
Lee said secession was nothing but revolution, which is often used as a synonym with rebellion, so I guess according to Lee it was. Note I said an "armed rebellion," rather than just rebellion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
If it was, then, as you know, the "rebellion" of the 7 states you mention preceded Sumter by quite some time.
But it wasn't a war until the confederacy fired on Fort Sumter. A rebellion can be put down in a number of ways. Lincoln, until Fort Sumter, decided to simply maintain the status quo and wait for cooler heads to prevail in the south, thus putting down the rebellion without use of force.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
Sumter was just the convenient excuse that he'd been waiting for in order to garner popular support for the invasion of their sister states.
Wrong again. Firing on Fort Sumter was Jeff Davis' decision, a decision he made knowing that it would bring Virginia and other upper south states into the confederacy. Jeff Davis brought on a war in order to enlarge the confederacy.
Note I said an "armed rebellion," rather than just rebellion.
So, secession = revolution = rebellion.
And "armed rebellion" is something else entirely?
And it was not "rebellion" but "armed rebellion" (which was set off by Davis' firing on Sumter to enlarge the confederacy) that Lincoln was invading VA to put down?
And it wasn't actually Sumter, but the "armed rebellion" brought on by Sumter that Lincoln was invading VA about?
Cash, this is breaking new ground for me. This is the first I've heard that secession was not the issue, Sumter was not the issue, but "armed rebellion" was the issue. Just how did the "armed rebellion" manifest itself after Sumter in time for Lincoln to ask all the states to supply invasion troops just three days later?
Well, at least you seem to be agreeing with Bill's premise regarding slavery and Sumter.
And it was not "rebellion" but "armed rebellion" (which was set off by Davis' firing on Sumter to enlarge the confederacy) that Lincoln was invading VA to put down?
More like it changed the character of the rebellion, which meant peaceful means were no longer sufficient to put it down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
And it wasn't actually Sumter, but the "armed rebellion" brought on by Sumter that Lincoln was invading VA about?
The initial plan was to march the army through Virginia to get to the rebellious states. That's not an invasion, since Virginia was a state in the United States and moving troops through one state to get them somewhere is not an invasion. Once Virginia joined the armed rebellion against the United States, then marching into Virginia became part of subduing the rebellion proper, not just an activity to allow that. At that point it became an invasion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
Cash, this is breaking new ground for me. This is the first I've heard that secession was not the issue, Sumter was not the issue, but "armed rebellion" was the issue. Just how did the "armed rebellion" manifest itself after Sumter in time for Lincoln to ask all the states to supply invasion troops just three days later?
Sumter was the event in which the armed rebellion manifested itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
Well, at least you seem to be agreeing with Bill's premise regarding slavery and Sumter.
It has to be really, really hard to conduct a rebellion that is not armed. "I won't go to bed! I won't! I won't!" (That would require the application of a little force, as well.)
Lest I be accused of comparing confederates to children: "No. My feet are tired. I'm not moving to the back."
Cash, are you saying that you think Lincoln would have allowed the CSA to exist in peace had the CSA not fired on Sumter (or some other place)?
Hal
---------------
Lincoln's course of action was to maintain the status quo and let the cooler heads prevail. He would have waited until the states came peacefully back and renounced their secession foolishness.
---------------
Lincoln's course of action was to maintain the status quo and let the cooler heads prevail. He would have waited until the states came peacefully back and renounced their secession foolishness.
Regards,
Cash
So, are you saying that Lincoln WOULD have allowed the CSA to exist in peace?
Have you noticed how "cooler heads prevailing" never means Northerners coming to their senses and repudiating the heated violence of coercion?
Bill
-----------
As unilateral state secession was an unconstitutional act and did violence to the Union to begin with, cooler heads prevailing would be those states giving up their wanton disregard for the law and repudiating their illegal actions.
There is no need to repudiate the enforcement of the law, since that is a legitimate role for the government to take.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
