Poll: Many discount slavery as main cause of Civil War

[DHPatrick]

Originally Posted by Elennsar

Sumpter was a (national) government owned fort, garrisoned by a part of the army of the United States, located where it was and held by United States soldiers to defend against the enemies of the United States.

Unless Lincoln bent over backwards to avoid conflict, which would have been a great failure on his part so far as his duties as president go, he had to hold the Federal instalations in the South.

The only ones provoking war here are those willing to use military force to unlawfully seize them.

Attempting to resupply and reinforce Fort Sumpter was an act to hold on to what was legitimately the property of the United States.

As such...the siege of and attack on Fort Sumpter were an attack on the United States of America.

Darn Lincoln, "provoking" the South, despite its wishes and desires for peace and tranqulity, to make war on the government of the United States.

Guess that depends on whether you believe the State had a right to succeed or not. If you do not believe so, this discussion probably doesn't have any merit at all. Of course again neither would the basis for the Revolutionary War - since they also didn't have that right either. Sorry to inject that in this discussion - I know, there are also other dimensions to that discussion. There are other arguments I'd be willing to bring to bear, but will not.

My discussion is not meant to say either had a right or not to make a right in their particular determination of right.

[Elennsar]

Whether or not they had the right to seccede does not grant them the right to steal Federal property or assault or otherwise molest soldiers of the United States. Fort Sumpter belonged to the government of the United States, as did the Norfolk Naval Yard, as did all the other Federal installatons in the states that secceded.

As to the Revolution, the Patriots didn't have a legal right to rebel. This is not disputable. Whether the so-called tyranny of the British was sufficient to justify rebellion in any other sense is another matter.

So, unfortunately, the Confederacy is guilty of starting the war (with or without reason)...no Federal provocation here.

[trice]

Originally Posted by DHPatrick

Tim

I actually found your post again. Reference my private message to you.

You answer seems to be subjective, suggesting there is no room for any discussion. At this point I must assume you discount the governer's message to the North. You also discount the fact that the Union side sent a disguised commercial vessel to resupply Fort Sumter. You seem to discount the fact that Lincoln attempted to retrieve the vessel after he received Major Anderson's message. Further that a heavily armed and over manned (a 300 complimented - check out a frigate's compliment) sloop was dispatched (considered a 14 gun vessel, but with more) - dispatched most likely because of it's lesser draught.

I can provide you distinct evidence that as few as 4 guns can be very effective in ending a full fledged engagement, an engagement involving fairly large forces.

Now having said this, the South was not without blame. As I said earlier both sides were to blame.

If I speak wrong, please forgive me.

No, the problem is that my position is objective.

For example, the United States owns Fort Moultrie, Castle Pinckney, and Fort Sumter outright when South Carolina "secedes". This is absolutely true under South Carolina law. (Heck, Jefferson Davis tried to give control of the coastal defense forts back to the states in the 1850s when he was Sec. of War, and the states refused.) There is no legal doubt about it. Yet many people try to find ways to say it was not true, and they are always the ones arguing that "the South was right": that is subjective.

I have always been unclear about why anyone would think the South Carolina governor's message changes anything here. What dominating authority does he have. South Carolina is either a) a part of the United States and so subject to US law and authority or b) a rebelious state not recognized as a nation by any country in the world, hoping to become recognized as a nation. (Note the opinion of the South Carolina Constitutional Convention delegate quoted at the end of this message.)

As to Buchanan sending the Star of the West in January: 1) that is not an act of aggression; 2) it is entirely proper under international law and 3) it was preceded by what can only be considered as acts of aggression by secessionists. The only firing done was done by secessionists -- who had gone to serious effort to begin the siege and reduction of Ft. Sumter, or there would have been no guns in place to do the firing in the first place. Also, since she tried to enter the harbor with the US flag proudly displayed, what makes you think the Star of the West was disguised?

As to why that particular ship was sent in April 1861, the US Navy only had three ships of war in condition and available to be used. (US Navy was in pitiful condition at the time, with most available ships on foreign stations.) All three were supposed to be used; one went to Pensacola in the confusion in Washington, assigned to two different tasks. Fox does not have 300 sailors aboard any single ship: the idea was to strip all the vessels down to the bone if an expedition had to be sent to penetrate the defenses to resupply the fort. The force coming down from NY is two small warships, a (Coast Guard precursor) vessel, and some hired civilian vessels (including several tugs). A navy like the British or the French would have laughed at the idea this was a powerful force.

But let's be objective. The Star of the West left NY on January 5, 1861 and arrived off Charleston, where it was attacked trying to simply enter the harbor on January 9. How does this relate to these acts:

South Carolina:
Dec. 20: SC ordinance of secession passes convention
Dec. 26: Major Anderson moves his troops to Ft. Sumter
Dec. 27: Castle Pinckney and Ft. Moultrie seized by state troops.
Dec. 30: Charleston Arsenal seized by state troops.
Jan. 2: Ft. Johnson occupied by state troops, but I think that was SC property by the time of the war.

Georgia:
Jan. 3: state troops seize Ft. Pulaski outside Savannah
Jan. 19: GA ordinance of secession passes legislature, so what exactly is all this if not rebellion and aggression?

Alabama:
Jan. 4: state troops seize the Mount Vernon Arsenal
Jan. 5: state troops seize Fts. Morgan and Gaines
Jan 11: AL ordinance of secession passes, so what exactly is all this if not rebellion and aggression?

Florida:
Jan. 6: state troops seize Apalachicola Arsenal
Jan. 7: state troops seize Ft. Marion in St. Augustine.
Jan 10: FL ordinance of secession passes, so what exactly is all this if not rebellion and aggression?

Essentially, all claims that "the North" was the aggressor here rely on the belief the US had to submit to a long string of secessionist aggressions and be metaphorically run over by a road-grader rather than act in its' own defense. That is an unrealistic, subjective and highly biased view in any world. It has been discussed ad infinitum in forums like this ever since, but there is no objective way to agree with it under international law or diplomatic practice.

Tim

[Vareb]

Originally Posted by DHPatrick

Guess that depends on whether you believe the State had a right to succeed or not. If you do not believe so, this discussion probably doesn't have any merit at all. Of course again neither would the basis for the Revolutionary War - since they also didn't have that right either. Sorry to inject that in this discussion - I know, there are also other dimensions to that discussion. There are other arguments I'd be willing to bring to bear, but will not.

My discussion is not meant to say either had a right or not to make a right in their particular determination of right.

The 10th amendment is where secession can be found.
It is up to the states.

[timewalker]

Originally Posted by Vareb

The 10th amendment is where secession can be found.
It is up to the states.

The Supreme Court disagrees. Secession is not recognized by the 10th Amendment. Perhaps you can clarify why you think it does.

[unionblue]

Originally Posted by Vareb

The 10th amendment is where secession can be found.
It is up to the states.

Vareb,

This game has been played before.

Where specifically in the 10th amendment does it state secession is permitted?

It does not. The word secession cannot be found anywhere in that amendment.

As for the concept of secession being found in that amendment, I would be curious as to why you think it is somehow stated there.

Unionblue

[jreb721]

Slavery was one of the issues the states susceded for but the war did not start until tyrant abe called for volunteers to put down the rebellion. what rebellion, the states had formed their own country, they weren't rebelling. good ole abe promised not to resupply fort sumter but went back on his word and thats when they fired on it. so really what started the war was abe calling the 75,000 volunteers up to put down a non-existant rebellion.

[Michael19103]

Forming a new nation? In my book, it was a conspiracy to commit treason.

[unionblue]

Originally Posted by jreb721

Slavery was one of the issues the states susceded for but the war did not start until tyrant abe called for volunteers to put down the rebellion. what rebellion, the states had formed their own country, they weren't rebelling. good ole abe promised not to resupply fort sumter but went back on his word and thats when they fired on it. so really what started the war was abe calling the 75,000 volunteers up to put down a non-existant rebellion.

jreb721,

First off, welcome to the board and I hope you enjoy your time here, its a pretty good site with a lot of interesting folks and viewpoints.

Second, I am always amazed how those who make similar statements like yours above always somehow neglect to mention all of the illegal acts taken by the South prior to Lincoln's call for troops.

How do you explain stealing arms, arsenals, ships, mints, court houses, custom houses, money, etc? How do you explain the illegal kidnapping of US soldiers who were simply carrying out their duty when maintaining these installations or protecting Southern citizens from Indian attacks, like out in Texas?

Again, where is it anywhere that a State of the Union can simply up and leave on its own hook? With no negotiation, no notification, no legal action, with the rest of the Union of States that it has legal obligations to? Unilateral secession was not a concept or a legal procedure, it was an untried, untested, and before 1830, and unknown concept before the nation.

If your wife did such acts as listed above and stated there was an unkown divorce theory in your marriage vows, you wouldn't buy it, so why should a State get some sort of pass based on the same type of argument?

And let's not forget that little backbreaker called Ft. Sumter. Firing on soldiers simply carrying out their duty constitutes a big no-no in anyone's book and brought the South a war it could little afford.

Include all of it, jreb 721, just not the part that you think makes your view look good.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
PS It was about slavery.

[Baggage Handler #2]

Originally Posted by jreb721

Slavery was one of the issues the states susceded for but the war did not start until tyrant abe called for volunteers to put down the rebellion. what rebellion, the states had formed their own country, they weren't rebelling. good ole abe promised not to resupply fort sumter but went back on his word and thats when they fired on it. so really what started the war was abe calling the 75,000 volunteers up to put down a non-existant rebellion.

(rolls eyes)

I'm really surprised that someone would seriously suggest that the government abandon US soldiers in the field. Consider the modern implications.

Question. If you were from Mississippi in 1860, and found yourself penniless, and in a hallway with two doors, one labeled Abe and the other Jeff, which door would you pick? If it helps, in Mississippi in 1860 there's an even money chance you're black.