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.
Honestly, I don't think those questions are all that relevant. I'm certainly not the first to make this comparison, but I think the whole situation is closely paralleled by the situation at Guantanamo Bay.
We signed a lease with Cuba at a time when they were our friend. They've been trying to get us to leave since the 1950's but there is nothing they can do about it short of attacking the base and starting a war with the United States. Do you think they would be justified in doing this?
It's exactly the same case with Fort Sumter. South Carolina ceded the title to Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie in the 1840's at a time when they were a friend of the Federal Government. If secession was constitutional—which IMO it was not—then South Carolina was a sovereign state when they ceded the title to the Federal Government. They had no legal right to take it back just because the relationship between them and the Federal government changed, just as Cuba has no legal right to take back Guantanamo Bay just because the relationship between them and the United States has changed.
More relevant to the complaints of the secessionists in 1860, consider the situation of the British fortress at Gibraltar in Spain, guarding the strait and potentially cutting off sea traffic from one half of Spain to the other at any time. Spain certainly would like it back -- but trying to seize it would definitely be an act of war.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
More relevant to the complaints of the secessionists in 1860, consider the situation of the British fortress at Gibraltar in Spain, guarding the strait and potentially cutting off sea traffic from one half of Spain to the other at any time. Spain certainly would like it back -- but trying to seize it would definitely be an act of war.
Tim
Indeed, probably a better analogy. And Franco would not try to sieze it even with Hitler breathing down his neck to do so.
Some other analogies where an end to the "lease" was negotiated instead of military action taken would be Hong Kong and the Panama Canal zone. History is replete with situations in which sovereign territory was deeded to another sovereign entity and any attempt to seize such territory would be seen as an act of war. This is especially true at the time of the Civil War when it was standard procedure to occupy all or part of another country when it simply repudiated its debts (c.f., Vera Cruz).
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
Honestly, I don't think those questions are all that relevant. I'm certainly not the first to make this comparison, but I think the whole situation is closely paralleled by the situation at Guantanamo Bay.
We signed a lease with Cuba at a time when they were our friend. They've been trying to get us to leave since the 1950's but there is nothing they can do about it short of attacking the base and starting a war with the United States. Do you think they would be justified in doing this?
It's exactly the same case with Fort Sumter. South Carolina ceded the title to Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie in the 1840's at a time when they were a friend of the Federal Government. If secession was constitutional—which IMO it was not—then South Carolina was a sovereign state when they ceded the title to the Federal Government. They had no legal right to take it back just because the relationship between them and the Federal government changed, just as Cuba has no legal right to take back Guantanamo Bay just because the relationship between them and the United States has changed.
Parrot Gun,
Even in most legal matters precedence normally is viewed as the standard. I don't believe that Guantanamo Bay had occured at the time of Fort Sumter.
In the case of Fort Sumter, the South had given the North a declaration. The North was left with defending the Union and the South with defending their newly declared independance. Both sides chose to exercise their options.
__________________ Don
******************* "We Can, We Will" Website:http://www.myspace.com/dhpatrick Member of: American Legion, VFW, SCV Served with: 1st Sqdn, 9th US Cav Regt * 4th Sqdn, 9th US Cav Regt * V US Corps Ancestors with:
2d Miss Inf Regt * 2d Miss Inf State Regt * 26th Miss Inf Regt
32d Miss Inf Regt * 50th Ala Inf Regt * 58th Ala Inf Regt
8th Ga Inf Regt * 40th Ga Inf Regt * 4th Ark Inf Regt
3d Regt Arizona Bde (Tx State)
Indeed, probably a better analogy. And Franco would not try to sieze it even with Hitler breathing down his neck to do so.
Some other analogies where an end to the "lease" was negotiated instead of military action taken would be Hong Kong and the Panama Canal zone. History is replete with situations in which sovereign territory was deeded to another sovereign entity and any attempt to seize such territory would be seen as an act of war. This is especially true at the time of the Civil War when it was standard procedure to occupy all or part of another country when it simply repudiated its debts (c.f., Vera Cruz).
Britain seized Gibraltar in 1704, and was awarded ownership under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. There have been 2 sieges of Gibraltar since then: the 13th in 1727 and the 14th or Great Siege in 1779-1783. Spain started trying to re-assert its' claim through the UN in 1954; I'm unclear on how that has all worked out. The land border was closed by Spain for about 30 years.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Even in most legal matters precedence normally is viewed as the standard. I don't believe that Guantanamo Bay had occured at the time of Fort Sumter.
In the case of Fort Sumter, the South had given the North a declaration. The North was left with defending the Union and the South with defending their newly declared independance. Both sides chose to exercise their options.
Never claimed it as a precedent, just an analogy. You never answered my question. Do you think Cuba would be justified in attacking Guantanamo Bay? If not, what is different about that situation that makes it unjustified as opposed to Sumter. You can ignore the fact that both are/were indisputable acts of war under international law whereas the actions of the federal governement in both cases were not. I'm simply asking for your opinion.
Never claimed it as a precedent, just an analogy. You never answered my question. Do you think Cuba would be justified in attacking Guantanamo Bay? If not, what is different about that situation that makes it unjustified as opposed to Sumter. You can ignore the fact that both are/were indisputable acts of war under international law whereas the actions of the federal governement in both cases were not. I'm simply asking for your opinion.
Parrott Gun,
I attempted to tell you in a friendly way that Guantanamo could not have been germane to the reasoning of the South or the North in 1861. When we talk about the South's or the North's justifications for doing something are we in fact talking about our present day justification or lack there so of?
__________________ Don
******************* "We Can, We Will" Website:http://www.myspace.com/dhpatrick Member of: American Legion, VFW, SCV Served with: 1st Sqdn, 9th US Cav Regt * 4th Sqdn, 9th US Cav Regt * V US Corps Ancestors with:
2d Miss Inf Regt * 2d Miss Inf State Regt * 26th Miss Inf Regt
32d Miss Inf Regt * 50th Ala Inf Regt * 58th Ala Inf Regt
8th Ga Inf Regt * 40th Ga Inf Regt * 4th Ark Inf Regt
3d Regt Arizona Bde (Tx State)
I attempted to tell you in a friendly way that Guantanamo could not have been germane to the reasoning of the South or the North in 1861. When we talk about the South's or the North's justifications for doing something are we in fact talking about our present day justification or lack there so of?
So? If you'd prefer, take note of the situation of British possession of Gibraltar from 1713 on, as I suggested in this thread a few messages back.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
A revolution does not start with both sides not being wrong or right. Someone brings it on or someone has issues that bring it on. It does not start in a complete political and social vacuum.
IMO.
Unionblue
Unionblue
I do believe it is a matter of perspective. The South believing in their motives and the North believing in theirs. I do believe that a war can be started with both sides believing they are correct.
Sometimes things are just simply not black or white. I admit that would make things simplier, but I suspect our days of black and white hats were not always there - except in the movies. Particularily the older cowboy movies. Good olde Bob Steele and Gene Autry.
Maybe having been in Intel you can appeciate this. Several times in my life I was required to work directly for General and Flag Officers. They tended to be busy people - every minute of their time was micro-managed. Among my many duties, I was required to read and order all the papers and messages that were received each day. For simplicity, I'll say I there were two categories in their reading files - Important and Information. Believe me, if I messed up and placed an important document in the informational area or visa versa - I was the first to know.
One of the documents I had to review was a special DOD news summary that was issued every Thursday. It was considered a very sensitive 'eyes only' document. I don't believe even the SSO vault had the courage to read it. Personaly, reading it, I only saw normal news events. Once I asked Gen Jaggers, what purpose it served. He said it provided him with the 'real' news. He couldn't always depend on the normal news sources to provide the 'real' news. Apparently that logic even went so far to apply to even official US new releases. He mentioned something or other about about 'gray' information.
So intrigued, I asked him, why the 'eyes only' classification? It didn't make any sense to me. He said we didn't want the other side(s) to really know what we knew or were hiding concerning such matters.
My point, things are not always even keeled, nor are they always black & white.
Sorry guess I digress too much. Maybe it is the friendly side of me at work.
__________________ Don
******************* "We Can, We Will" Website:http://www.myspace.com/dhpatrick Member of: American Legion, VFW, SCV Served with: 1st Sqdn, 9th US Cav Regt * 4th Sqdn, 9th US Cav Regt * V US Corps Ancestors with:
2d Miss Inf Regt * 2d Miss Inf State Regt * 26th Miss Inf Regt
32d Miss Inf Regt * 50th Ala Inf Regt * 58th Ala Inf Regt
8th Ga Inf Regt * 40th Ga Inf Regt * 4th Ark Inf Regt
3d Regt Arizona Bde (Tx State)
So? If you'd prefer, take note of the situation of British possession of Gibraltar from 1713 on, as I suggested in this thread a few messages back.
Tim
Tim
Good point.
Though I doubt the South or the North would have allowed some other foreign country's interest to determine their course. Certainly not the North, as I believe it tended to be more for isolationism.
__________________ Don
******************* "We Can, We Will" Website:http://www.myspace.com/dhpatrick Member of: American Legion, VFW, SCV Served with: 1st Sqdn, 9th US Cav Regt * 4th Sqdn, 9th US Cav Regt * V US Corps Ancestors with:
2d Miss Inf Regt * 2d Miss Inf State Regt * 26th Miss Inf Regt
32d Miss Inf Regt * 50th Ala Inf Regt * 58th Ala Inf Regt
8th Ga Inf Regt * 40th Ga Inf Regt * 4th Ark Inf Regt
3d Regt Arizona Bde (Tx State)
Though I doubt the South or the North would have allowed some other foreign country's interest to determine their course. Certainly not the North, as I believe it tended to be more for isolationism.
Not their interest -- just the sitaution.
Spain legally gave Gibraltar to Britain. The British owned Gibraltar -- and still do. It doesn't matter that Spain would like it back, the British still own it.
South Carolina legally gave the spot where Fort Sumter stands to the United States. The United States owned it, under both US and South Carolina law. It doesn't matter that South Carolina would like it back, the United States still own it.
If South Carolina tries to seize it, they are acting illegally, if they are still part of the United States. If they are, somehow, an independent nation, this is an act of war. Those are the only choices.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
