The Gandhi Way.."What if"

[5fish]

What if President Davis had not authorized the attack on Ft. Sumter and he stopped the confiscation of federal property within the newly formed Confederacy?

This has huge repercussion because without firing on Ft. Sumter, Pres. Lincoln would not have order the forming of an army. Without ordering the forming of an army Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and a few other states may not have seceded.

What if Pres. Lincoln attacks first it might divided the northern states and the cause other southern and border states to secede from the union.

Would could President Lincoln do to preserve the union if President Davis behaved like Gandhi?

I think if the leaders of the Confederacy had used a passive approach it would cause great grief for Pres. Lincoln and preserving the union. If the Confederacy had left Federal property alone, what could he do to keep the union from falling apart.


The Gandhi way would have brought independence to the states that seceded..


Pondering Gandhi....

[OpnDownfall]

It depends on whether the southern states of the USA actually formed a separate and distinct people, from those in the north and not just that of miniscule members of a ruling, oligarchial elite.

[5fish]

Originally Posted by OpnDownfall

It depends on whether the southern states of the USA actually formed a separate and distinct people, from those in the north and not just that of miniscule members of a ruling, oligarchial elite.

I do not understand your answer....

I trying to point out if the southern leadership had taken a non confrontational approach to secession they might have pulled it off. The people in the north were divided over the preservation of the union and secession.

Remember only seven states has seceded from the union until Lincoln called out the troops after Ft. Sumter. Ft. Sumter galvanized the north against the secessionist once they fired on Ft. Sumter.

With no Ft. Sumter or something like it, How does Lincoln organized the north to fight the secessionist movement without Ft. Sumter?

Yes, maybe only seven or ten states secede but they could achieve their goal of independence if they follow a path of non violence.


If the south had follow the path of non violence, they could have achieve their goal like Gandhi did for India..

[ole]

Tend to agree somewhat. If Sumter had not been fired on, I figure that at least Tennessee would not have seceded. (Or maybe the final four, as well as Maryland might have gone out just because there was no penalty for doing so.)

In either event, without the impetus of attacking Sumter, Lincoln would have been hard put to stir up enough interest to put down a rebellion. Without those guns, he would not be authorized to call up state militias, and perhaps to not be able to call Congress back into session.

Sumter was, without a war, of no use to either the north or the south. With supplies, it would have remained benign with 80+ fatter, happier artillerymen and engineers. So it became symbolic to both Lincoln and Davis. Davis needed it to show that the Confederacy was a real nation that could have a place on the world stage. Lincoln needed it to show that the US of A would not be pushed around.

So. What if Davis takes the Gandhi way? Lincoln collects the tariffs before ships put into southern ports. He demands the return of stolen property, but he's a toothless lion at this point. He can't take them back and, as they've been stripped of value, they also become symbolic.

He can demand the release of the 1000+ regulars imprisoned in Texas -- this might excite some hawk support. But their release would defuse any northern outrage, so we get back to square one.

There simply isn't that trigger being pulled. Everyone's mad at the secesh and northern editors are having conniptions. But the discussions ramble and rant with no pointy end. Sumter gave them that.

That crafty bugger, Lincoln, would not have let secession ( stand, but I've not figured out just what he might have done to pull the secesh back without that gift of Sumter. (Yes. I said "gift.")

But he was determined to preserve the Union. Where he'd have gone against the Gandhi approach, I can't predict, but he would have done something.

ole

[timewalker]

I am torn as to the answer.

I personally think that Lincoln would not have allowed the peaceful separation of the South. He would have ratcheted up the pressure until the Confederate states had no choice: Customs vessels stopping all ships into and out of Southern harbors, federal marshals executing warrants in Southern states, etc. I think the only thing that stops such a strategy is if the South had resorted to legal measures. South Carolina could have seceded and then challenged any attempt to enforce federals laws by suing in the Supreme Court as a sovereign power. The Supreme Court would at least have had to rule on standing: i.e., whether South Carolina was a sovereign nation or not. If the Court ruled that secession was legal, I think Lincoln would have abided by that decision, but pressed for a constitutional amendment barring further secession.

The real sticking point is the Mississippi. The midwest farmers need it to ship their grain economically. If the Confederacy tries to halt that trade, I can see the midwest agitating for war.

Further, I think that even if the Confederacy somehow does secede peacefully, there will eventually be an armed conflict between the two nations over southern expansionism - perhaps a conflict when the Confederacy tried to claim New Mexico and Arizona or perhaps the U.S. invoking the Monroe Doctrine to keep the CSA out of Cuba (I realize the Monroe Doctrine would not really apply, but I can see it being applied anyway).

[ole]

South Carolina could have seceded and then challenged any attempt to enforce federals laws by suing in the Supreme Court as a sovereign power.

Here we diverge severiously. Having seceded, would South Carolina have had any standing as an appelant to SCOTUS? It had declared itself a new nation and, as such, found itself in any standing.? It was or it wasn't a part of the US. If it was, it had access to appeal; if it wasn't it had none.

You've opened another Pandora's Box, timewalker. The New Mexico Territory was solidly behind the Confederacy and issued it's own Declarion of Secession. But of what import? A few hundreds with about eight or ten slaves puts the entire territory into a "who cares" environment.

The real sticking point is the Mississippi. The midwest farmers need it to ship their grain economically. If the Confederacy tries to halt that trade, I can see the midwest agitating for war.

When secession took place, there was adequate shipping to New York. Through New Orleans was preferable, but it was not like "Lordy! We have no way to sell our grain."

Further, I think that even if the Confederacy somehow does secede peacefully, there will eventually be an armed conflict between the two nations over southern expansionism - perhaps a conflict when the Confederacy tried to claim New Mexico and Arizona or perhaps the U.S.

In here is assumed that the Federal Government must oppose expansion of slavery into a territory that was not under Federal control.

Had there been a peaceful and successful separation, I don't see the Federals as being obligated to object to the erring sisters taking over whatever it wanted and could take over.

But I digress and wander and need very much to go to bed. More tomorrow. Film at 11.

ole

[OpnDownfall]

The original question asks the question of whether the south could have achieved its aims with a form of passive resistance ala Ghandi in India, rather than the more direct action of war?
My feeling is that without a strong enough feeling of separateness of the majority (or at least, a significant porportion) of the people of the south, as opposed to its ruling oligarchy, would be required to successfullysustain such a program.
There is a ongoing debate by CW historians and scholars over whether there was actually a feeling of separateness permeating the south to actually sustain a feeling of nationhood. The fact that there is a debate, indicates to me that the answer is not clear, and if not clear, it probably did not exist.
Without a feeling of separateness deep enough to transfer to the concept of nationhood, passive resistance would almost certainly fail. Ghandi had great difficulty in sustaining his opposition to British Rule, by passive resistance even in India, where the British were a insignificant minority.

[5fish]

Opn,

In the original post the premise is how could Lincoln have preserved the union if the South had not used force.

The north was divided over those seven states wanting to leave the union. As long as the Confederacy had follow the non violence path, how could Lincoln have generated support to stop those seven states form seceding. Without Ft. Sumter or any act of violence against the federal government Lincoln could not have called up the troops without generating ill will towards him in the north.

If Davis would have been more crafty like his VP Stephens for he was against the use of force...

I know Lincoln would have found a way to bring pressure against the Confederacy but would a have it been enough to save the union...


Trying to figure out Lincolns options....

[OpnDownfall]

Using "Ghandi Way" implies using Ghandi' methods to achieve a desired goal. Who on this thread are we talking about using Ghandi's way? If Davis, then he would be attempting to achieve the goal of southern independence, by passive resistance If Lincoln, then it would be used to insure the Union. Which is it?
One result of holding off direct action, would be the risk of the Gulf Squadron's losing the border states. With the risk increasing with time.

[Glorybound]

This is a great question. Gandhi used non-violent, peaceful resistance to gain his objectives in his attempt to found an independent India, free from British rule. Very admirable, religious, intelligent man he was, and his persistence and his large following in India helped achieve his goals. Very ironic that such a kind, non-violent, unarmed man would soon be shot dead in 1948, shortly after his objectives were achieved.

Jeff Davis' adoption of non-violent resistance would not have worked. There would have been much less violence and death I think, simply because Union troops, if used, would not shoot at those who didn't shoot at them (hopefully). At least that would be a good thing, of course. But the rebellion, without a violent provocation at the beginning or at any other time, would have had no teeth. Having a peaceful sit-in in a Federal armory would have presented Union forces, or just the local cops, with the annoying task of dragging them out, and giving them some jail time.

By Davis not using Gandhis methods, and skipping any legal redress that might have been obtained through the Constitution/SCOTUS, and going directly to heavy-gun massive bombardment of a Fed fort, he set the tone for the conflict. Violence. It turned into violence of unmitigated savagery that would leave the world speechless by war's end, it never having seen butchery, destruction, and death before, on such a large scale, at least in the fledgling US with this new "democracy" form of government.

And besides I can't see a Gandhi type organizing a peaceful non-violent defense of human bondage either. Just a thought or two.

Respectfully,
Leland