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.
If you look at the broad historical record you surely have to conclude that the firing of guns does not automatically mean a declaration of war, and does not oblige the recipient of the firing to regard it in that way either.
The Russians shot down the U2 spy plane but the U.S. did not declare war. I seem to remember in the late 1960's that Russian & Chinese border guards frequently opened fire on each other. No war ensued. During the 2nd World War Swiss anti-aircraft guns opened fire on planes which they thought were intruding into their airspace. Nobody declared war on them.
The fact is that there is an absolute distinction between the military of one country opening fire on the military of another, and the decision to declare war. To suggest, as has frequently been done here, that the Federal Government had no practical choice but to invade the Confederacy after the firing on Sumter is completely disingenuous. They still had all the choices in the world.
What would the US Government lose by not declaring war after the bombardment of Sumter, and allowed the South to leave the Union peacefully? The South succinctly stated it's primary desire was to seperate from the Union and live peacefully. If a spirt of nationalism transpired post civil war, an ehanced spirit would certainly have existed between a CSA and USA minus a bitter war. Example: Any foreign invasion of the US would propel the CS to intervene militarily in behalf of their northern brethren. Slavery had been abolished by all other world powers who might contemplate invading a perceived weakened Union.
If you look at the broad historical record you surely have to conclude that the firing of guns does not automatically mean a declaration of war, and does not oblige the recipient of the firing to regard it in that way either.
I suppose you think the attack on Pearl Harbor didn't start the Pacific War?
What would the US Government lose by not declaring war after the bombardment of Sumter, and allowed the South to leave the Union peacefully?
They didn't declare war. It was the confederacy who started the war.
The US government would have lost all claim to be a sovereign government if they allowed a fort in their own territory to be taken and not do anything about it.
Let's take a look at what Thomas Jefferson said they would have lost:
"But if on a temporary superiority of the one party, the other is to resort to a scission of the Union, no federal government can ever exist. If to rid ourselves of the present rule of Massachusets & Connecticut we break the Union, will the evil stop there? Suppose the N. England States alone cut off, will our natures be changed? are we not men still to the south of that, & with all the passions of men? Immediately we shall see a Pennsylvania & a Virginia party arise in the residuary confederacy, and the public mind will be distracted with the same party spirit. What a game, too, will the one party have in their hands by eternally threatening the other that unless they do so & so, they will join their Northern neighbors. If we reduce our Union to Virginia & N. Carolina, immediately the conflict will be established between the representatives of these two States, and they will end by breaking into their simple units." [Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 4 Jun 1798]
According to Jefferson, then, the entire concept of having a federal government was at stake. And according to Jefferson if one group of states were allowed to break off just because they didn't like the results of an election, there would be others in the future with no end until we have a group of small states bickering with each other.
Cash,
Remember everything Jefferson said.He not only thought states had the right to disregard federal law which didn't suit their interest but he advocated it as a way to keep the federal government from overstepping its lines.Lincoln sent men to invade the South without the approval of Congress.Therefore the war was unconstitutionl in 1861 to begin with.
__________________ "The sword is mighty, but principles laugh at swords. Overwhelming force may crush truth to earth but, crushed or not the truth is still the truth." Regards, Ashley
You again make the assumption that somehow South Carolina waved some sort of magic wand and made itself a legal, separate country. It was entirely legal from the standpoint of President Lincoln and the Consititution to put down civil unrest and an unlawful rebellion. And you fail to note that Congress gave its consent to Lincoln's actions when it finally was back in session in July of 1861.
There were other, legal and peaceful means to keep the federal government in check in 1860, and the sad thing was the South did not have to do anything special to keep it in check. It was called the Congress, the Supreme Court, elections, debate, voting, etc. Lincoln would have been tied up in legislative knots for his entire first term if hotheads in the South would have stayed in the Congress.
In all likelyhood, Lincoln would have been a barely noticed, one term president, historically unimportant blip on history's radar. Why do you think it took so long for a Northern man to be elected president?
Secession as a means to control the federal government failed and failed totally, as evidenced by the results of the Civil War and the absolute failure of the seceding states to advance their control.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Secession as a means to control the federal government failed and failed totally, as evidenced by the results of the Civil War and the absolute failure of the seceding states to advance their control.
After a period of agreeing with you in several of your posts, it is something of a relief to get back to normality and to disagree with you completely.
Secession wasn't a means to control the Federal government. How could it be, since it involved leaving the country which the Federal government controlled? You give me the impression that, somehow, you cannot take seriously the notion that any group of Americans would ever wish to leave the United States. Hence secession is viewed as a kind of indirect strategy for gaining an advantage within the Union. Forgive me for observing that this is typical of the Northern perspective which simply cannot envisage Americans existing independently of the United States of America.
There is absolutely no reason, in principle, why people who are self-evidently American cannot exist and prosper in a nation based on American soil which is called something other than the United States. No reason at all.
Neil,
Lincoln could've called Congress into session anytime he wanted per the constitution to gain approval for his actions as I'm sure you are aware.If the Southern Congressman weren't so honorable(dang that Southern honor) and stayed in Congress they could've easily defeated Lincoln's call for troops.Was the political climate the same in April as it was in June?I'm not saying things would have been different in June but why didn't Lincoln follow the guidelines in the Constitution.He sure had a habit of disregarding the Constitution and some authors have made a habit of writing excuses for his actions.
Why didn't Lincoln let the Supreme Court decide the issue of secession being legal in 1861?Did Lincoln or other Northerners even make the remotest effort to put the idea of secession's legality to the Supreme Court in 1861?Why didn't they?Did they fear what the court would decide?I'm not claiming secession would've been held legal but as a lawyer and politician Lincoln would have known the appropriate legal steps to take according to the Constitution.That he chose not to do so speaks volumes about how the man honored the Constitution of our country.
Bill basically said all I could say about the South attempting to control the federal government by secession.They seceded to form their own separate government which better suited their needs.The North fought the war because a South under federal government control better suited Northern interest.It's not like the South hadn't contributed to the economic vitality of America.The Confederate states weren't an economic burden to the Union in the past nor in 1860 or I expect they probably would've been allowed to go.
__________________ "The sword is mighty, but principles laugh at swords. Overwhelming force may crush truth to earth but, crushed or not the truth is still the truth." Regards, Ashley
The Soviets fired on a U.S. Flag flying over their territory. That's quite different from firing on the flag flying over its own property.
Well, we obviously differ on this particular point, since I remain convinced that Charleston Harbour is an integral part of South Carolina. The Confederates were, therefore, like the Soviets, firing on a foreign flag which was over their territory.
But that’s actually beside the point on this occasion. What I wanted to stress is that every government which decides to declare war (or to launch an invasion, which amounts to the same thing) does so because it believes its interests are being served by that decision. True, its range of options may be strictly limited, but no government has ever consciously acted against its own interests by going to war.
So what that means is that, when faced with the strictly limited military action against Fort Sumter, the Federal government took a long, hard look at the Confederacy and evidently concluded that the U.S. overmatched its new neighbour and was overwhelmingly likely to win the ensuing conflict. So it turned its back on the other options (such as recognition of the Confederacy; or a limited military action such as a Federal fleet bombarding Charleston…something strictly proportionate to the military force already employed by the South) and launched a full-scale invasion. In so doing, the Federal government must have taken into account the loss of Northern blood & treasure which would ensue, and they must have come to a rational conclusion that what they stood to gain outweighed the inevitable losses. And as the members of the cabinet were Republicans first and Americans second (as is the way with all party politicians, then and now) it is reasonable to conclude that what they thought they stood to gain was the conquest of the South, the political emasculation of most of its population and the creation of a fertile area for the promotion of Republican interests (not to mention the opportunity for many Republicans to fill their pockets). It is extremely likely that some of them had sufficient vision to anticipate the waving of the “Bloody Shirt” and the consequent compromising of the Democratic Party. In short, they most probably had visions of years and years of Republican administrations, jobs for the boys, loads of cash all round.
And who could question their judgement? That is precisely what happened.
Bill
Last edited by bill_torrens; 11-14-2005 at 01:23 PM.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
