Was it worth it?

[RebelWeber]

In terms of going forward, the ruling against secession could be reversed in a blink. Rulings get reversed all the time. Its not an amendment after all.

The absurdity of your comment is staggering!

 

[JerryD]

You can see it in Lincoln's actions.

His Call to Arms after Fort Sumter was for 75,000 volunteers for 90 days. He was way off. He actually needed 2,200,000 troops for 4 years. His Call to Arms also lost him Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee, critical Confederate States that made up a disproportionate percentage of the Confederate military. It wasn't a brilliant move at all, Lincoln got outplayed by the young Confederate government, which wanted him to react against them so they could convince more states to secede.

The Confederacy didn't exist until several months after Lincoln became President and several months later Lincoln added fuel to the fire and gave them their most important expansion.

Hey, believe what you want. Some folks think the earthy is flat, so I guess you have company.

Reality is, everyone thought it was going to be a short war, or no war at all. The CSA Secretary of War said he was going to be able to wipe up all the blood spilled with handkerchief. But what is clear is that you have an irrational hatred of Lincoln that blinds you to reality.

 

[rvbgrif]

Hey, believe what you want. Some folks think the earthy is flat, so I guess you have company.

Reality is, everyone thought it was going to be a short war, or no war at all. The CSA Secretary of War said he was going to be able to wipe up all the blood spilled with handkerchief. But what is clear is that you have an irrational hatred of Lincoln that blinds you to reality.

You haven't argued against anything I said, you just insult me directly.

It is impossible to debate if someone is going to take the stance that everything that happens during a President's term is someone else's fault.

The purpose of trying to get the CSA to fire first at Fort Sumter was to try to keep from losing Virginia. You can again, see it in Lincoln's actions when he stated that he would trade Fort Sumter for not losing Virginia. Keeping Virginia was critical for containing the rebellion.

What exactly did the Union side walk away with after Fort Sumter other than a reason to go to war? What was the reason for attempting to reinforce the fort repeatedly?

Both sides offered to give up Fort Sumter for nothing. Governor Pickens offered to give it up for the fort not being reinforced, and Lincoln offered to give it up for Virginia not seceding. The fort had no significance other than to place each side in a better position at the start of the Civil War, and the Confederacy walked away in a much better position than before.

 

[JerryD]

You haven't argued against anything I said, you just insult me directly.

It is impossible to debate if someone is going to take the stance that everything that happens during a President's term is someone else's fault.

The purpose of trying to get the CSA to fire first at Fort Sumter was to try to keep from losing Virginia. You can again, see it in Lincoln's actions when he stated that he would trade Fort Sumter for not losing Virginia. Keeping Virginia was critical for containing the rebellion.

What exactly did the Union side walk away with after Fort Sumter other than a reason to go to war? What was the reason for attempting to reinforce the fort repeatedly?

Both sides offered to give up Fort Sumter for nothing. Governor Pickens offered to give it up for the fort not being reinforced, and Lincoln offered to give it up for Virginia not seceding. The fort had no significance other than to place each side in a better position at the start of the Civil War, and the Confederacy walked away in a much better position than before.

You must be in another reality, because nothing you have written comes close to what I have said. I pointed out, correctly, that everyone thought it was going to be a short war, and IMO, your exclusive focus on Lincoln thinking this, and not realizing its how everyone felt, reflects some kind of irrational hatred of Lincoln. You are holding him to a standard that you are not applying to anyone else. All I can assume is that you are still carrying a grudge on the CSA getting its butt kicked, hard....and face stomped to boot. I mean, it got completely conquered and occupied and had most of its wealth stripped away and they had to beg to be permitted to even vote again. Embarrassing, for sure. Humiliating, even. But it was over 150 years ago. Get over it.

 

[leftyhunter]

You haven't argued against anything I said, you just insult me directly.

It is impossible to debate if someone is going to take the stance that everything that happens during a President's term is someone else's fault.

The purpose of trying to get the CSA to fire first at Fort Sumter was to try to keep from losing Virginia. You can again, see it in Lincoln's actions when he stated that he would trade Fort Sumter for not losing Virginia. Keeping Virginia was critical for containing the rebellion.

What exactly did the Union side walk away with after Fort Sumter other than a reason to go to war? What was the reason for attempting to reinforce the fort repeatedly?

Both sides offered to give up Fort Sumter for nothing. Governor Pickens offered to give it up for the fort not being reinforced, and Lincoln offered to give it up for Virginia not seceding. The fort had no significance other than to place each side in a better position at the start of the Civil War, and the Confederacy walked away in a much better position than before.

Ft.Sumter wasn't the only use of violence by the Secessionists. Once the federal government is attacked it has no choice but to respond in kind. Civil wars are not unique in history. What makes the ACW unique in terms of Civil wars was it was fought over the issue of slavery . So yes the war was well worth it from the point of view of the survival of the US and white Southeners never again tried in any serious manner to secede from the Union.
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

The state right to leave the Union was the core of the dispute of the Civil War.

The Southern US, at that time, had a number of politicians who argued that they had that power. Unionists, although their population was probably as numerous as secessionists given the popularity of the Constitutional Union party, were either removed from office or supported the local governments which seceded. The North was also mixed, with both Unionists and those that took a range of other approaches, for example not believing the federal government had a right to invade a US state.

Why did these states want to leave? Well it wasn't for the right to have slaves. They already had that right. It was because of the election of Abraham Lincoln, as well as the decades long political conflicts between free and slave states in places such as Kansas, Harper's ferry, and across the north with the fugitive slave act.

I would think it's fair to say they left because they saw the existing "union" a failure, particularly in regards to federal supremacy. Rather why one would want independence and to start over.

 

[archieclement]

The right of self-determination, A union you can't leave isn't a union but an empire.

Certainly think it's fair to say there is a difference between volunteer Union of states wishing to be together, and one existing by military coercion.

 

[atlantis]

Victory led to the age of robber barons and a concentration of wealth and power in a northeastern elite at the expense of the rest of the country. The tenth amendment was undermined. Victory killed the old republic and ushered in something new that no one voted for.

 

[genbeau]

The absurdity of your comment is staggering!

Not understanding the absurdity of a factual comment. Please advise.

 

[Rebforever]

You haven't argued against anything I said, you just insult me directly.

It is impossible to debate if someone is going to take the stance that everything that happens during a President's term is someone else's fault.

The purpose of trying to get the CSA to fire first at Fort Sumter was to try to keep from losing Virginia. You can again, see it in Lincoln's actions when he stated that he would trade Fort Sumter for not losing Virginia. Keeping Virginia was critical for containing the rebellion.

What exactly did the Union side walk away with after Fort Sumter other than a reason to go to war? What was the reason for attempting to reinforce the fort repeatedly?

Both sides offered to give up Fort Sumter for nothing. Governor Pickens offered to give it up for the fort not being reinforced, and Lincoln offered to give it up for Virginia not seceding. The fort had no significance other than to place each side in a better position at the start of the Civil War, and the Confederacy walked away in a much better position than before.

You may want to review Virginia a little closer. They refused 2 times to remain in the Union until Lincoln called for 75000 troops.

 

[rvbgrif]

You must be in another reality, because nothing you have written comes close to what I have said. I pointed out, correctly, that everyone thought it was going to be a short war, and IMO, your exclusive focus on Lincoln thinking this, and not realizing its how everyone felt, reflects some kind of irrational hatred of Lincoln. You are holding him to a standard that you are not applying to anyone else. All I can assume is that you are still carrying a grudge on the CSA getting its butt kicked, hard....and face stomped to boot. I mean, it got completely conquered and occupied and had most of its wealth stripped away and they had to beg to be permitted to even vote again. Embarrassing, for sure. Humiliating, even. But it was over 150 years ago. Get over it.

What happened at Fort Sumter

1. South Carolina offered to give the fort up for it not being reinforced (nothing)
2. Lincoln offered to give the fort up for Virginia not seceding (again, nothing because Virginia was still in the Union)
3. Virginia what was on everyone's minds, neither side cared about the fort, but both sides wanted to position themselves in the best possible position to win the border states
4. Confederate and Union forces built up in Charleston, in a months long siege where each side wanted the other side to attack them first
5. Lincoln ordered a flotilla of ships with troops to land at Charleston and fire back if fired upon
6. Davis gave the order to bombard the fort in reaction to this

What did each side want

1. Confederacy did not want to fire first (apart from Governor Pickens). It waited and positioned itself in the best position it could. Specifically, it wanted to provoke outrage so Virginia would secede. It wanted to frame the Union as the aggressors. It was a risky gamble.
2. Union did not want to fire first. It wanted to assert federal authority, contain the rebellion, and provoke outrage so that it can issue a call to arms and put down the rebellion. It wanted to frame the Confederacy as the aggressors.

What was the result

1. Confederacy gets Fort Sumter, for what its worth.
2. Union issues a call to arms.
3. Confederacy gets Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee to secede.

Confederacy walked away with way more, I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. Lincoln's call to arms would have made sense had the rebellion stayed in South Carolina. But it didn't, it kept growing during his early Presidency. What was the point in allowing the Confederacy to provoke a response in South Carolina? What has the point in the disastrous invasions of Virginia that followed? There are an infinite number of ways Lincoln could have handled his first 6 months in office, following in Buchanan's footsteps was not the right choice.

To Lincoln's credit, the offer to trade Fort Sumter to Virginia showed he had knowledge of what was actually being played at Fort Sumter, Virginia. The Union side was also able to contain the losses by keeping Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky, which the Confederacy also dearly wanted considering they gave them stars on the flag.

 

[JerryD]

What happened at Fort Sumter

1. South Carolina offered to give the fort up for it not being reinforced (nothing)
2. Lincoln offered to give the fort up for Virginia not seceding (again, nothing because Virginia was still in the Union)
3. Virginia what was on everyone's minds, neither side cared about the fort, but both sides wanted to position themselves in the best possible position to win the border states
4. Confederate and Union forces built up in Charleston, in a months long siege where each side wanted the other side to attack them first
5. Lincoln ordered a flotilla of ships with troops to land at Charleston and fire back if fired upon
6. Davis gave the order to bombard the fort in reaction to this

What did each side want

1. Confederacy did not want to fire first (apart from Governor Pickens). It waited and positioned itself in the best position it could. Specifically, it wanted to provoke outrage so Virginia would secede. It wanted to frame the Union as the aggressors. It was a risky gamble.
2. Union did not want to fire first. It wanted to assert federal authority, contain the rebellion, and provoke outrage so that it can issue a call to arms and put down the rebellion. It wanted to frame the Confederacy as the aggressors.

What was the result

1. Confederacy gets Fort Sumter, for what its worth.
2. Union issues a call to arms.
3. Confederacy gets Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee to secede.

Confederacy walked away with way more, I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. Lincoln's call to arms would have made sense had the rebellion stayed in South Carolina. But it didn't, it kept growing during his early Presidency. What was the point in allowing the Confederacy to provoke a response in South Carolina? What has the point in the disastrous invasions of Virginia that followed? There are an infinite number of ways Lincoln could have handled his first 6 months in office, following in Buchanan's footsteps was not the right choice.

To Lincoln's credit, the offer to trade Fort Sumter to Virginia showed he had knowledge of what was actually being played at Fort Sumter, Virginia.

I see you are insisting on continuing to refute things I never said. Fine. Go ahead with your delusion. I am impressed by your ability to avoid having facts influence your opinions.

 

[rvbgrif]

I see you are insisting on continuing to refute things I never said. Fine. Go ahead with your delusion. I am impressed by your ability to avoid having facts influence your opinions.

I am not disputing things you never said. I am making statements which you are disputing, but instead of using facts you are using insults. If you don't actually wish to dispute what I said, then go ahead and leave.

 

[rvbgrif]

You may want to review Virginia a little closer. They refused 2 times to remain in the Union until Lincoln called for 75000 troops.

They voted for Constitutional Unionist, John Bell, in 1860, and voted to stay in the Union in January of 1861. However, Virginia was 1/3 secessionist, 1/3 Unionist, and one third "Conditional Unionist" that wanted to stay in the Union only if Lincoln did not invade the South.

The gamble at Fort Sumter was to provoke Lincoln to get a response so Virginia would secede, which was successful.

 

[Rebforever]

I guess the biggest thing I see missing is the fact Lincoln said he was going to save the Union.

 

[genbeau]

Why didn't white Southners lick their wounds and try again to secede since it's so horrible to live under Yankee tyranny?
Leftyhunter

They were pretty devastated materially for years after the war and also the issue of slavery no longer existed. Jim Crow was probably motivated a bit as getting back.

 

[OhioUnion]

The laws for the United States were constructed by the founders and signed by all the states in agreement. The United States violated certain clauses and the south seceeded as a result of the broken agreement. The North enforced their views because they had superior forces, not because they were legally correct.
Ultimately you are correct in this instance. There is no secession allowable because the union won the war. There is no valid legal reason secession is disallowed. It was the chief justice waving his wand and conjuring up a myth.

They conjured up nothing. The decision perfectly aligned with supreme court decisions about the union and the constitution made before the civil war.

"The Constitution of the United States was ordained and established not by the States in their sovereign capacities, but emphatically, as the preamble of the Constitution declares, by 'the people of the United States." Joseph Story Martin v Hunter 1821

"The people made the constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake, resides only in the whole body of the people; not in any sub-division of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it." Chief Justice John Marshall Cohens v Virginia 1821

Gibbons v Ogden, 1824 - "In every such case, the act of Congress or the treaty is supreme, and the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it."

Fletcher v Peck, 1810 - "Union has a constitution the supremacy of which all acknowledge, and which imposes limits to the legislatures of the several states, which none claim a right to pass"

US v Fries, 1800 - "That if a body of people, conspire and meditate an insurrection to resist or oppose the execution of any statute of the United States by force, they are only guilty of a high misdemeanor; but if they proceed to carry such intention into execution by force, that they are guilty of the treason of levying war; and the quantum of the force employed neither lessens or increases the crime -- whether by one hundred or one thousand persons is wholly immaterial"

 

[leftyhunter]

They were pretty devastated materially for years after the war and also the issue of slavery no longer existed. Jim Crow was probably motivated a bit as getting back.

So the whole reason for secession was simply slavery. Jim Crow was simply a man's to mantain racial superiority not all to get revenge on the Yankees since racial discrimination did not affect Northern whites.
Leftyhunter

 

[genbeau]

So the whole reason for secession was simply slavery. Jim Crow was simply a man's to mantain racial superiority not all to get revenge on the Yankees since racial discrimination did not affect Northern whites.
Leftyhunte

The motivation for secession WAS slavery, obviously. The motivation for war, which came from the Union was secession, not slavery. This is where people get confused. Jim Crow was motivated by racism and bitterness at the defeat. You ask why the south did not secede again. I don't see the material means or even the reason to do that.

btw, there was a lot of racial discrimination in the northern states up to the 1964 civil rights act.

 

[genbeau]

They conjured up nothing. The decision perfectly aligned with supreme court decisions about the union and the constitution made before the civil war.

"The Constitution of the United States was ordained and established not by the States in their sovereign capacities, but emphatically, as the preamble of the Constitution declares, by 'the people of the United States." Joseph Story Martin v Hunter 1821

"The people made the constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake, resides only in the whole body of the people; not in any sub-division of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it." Chief Justice John Marshall Cohens v Virginia 1821

Gibbons v Ogden, 1824 - "In every such case, the act of Congress or the treaty is supreme, and the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it."

Fletcher v Peck, 1810 - "Union has a constitution the supremacy of which all acknowledge, and which imposes limits to the legislatures of the several states, which none claim a right to pass"

US v Fries, 1800 - "That if a body of people, conspire and meditate an insurrection to resist or oppose the execution of any statute of the United States by force, they are only guilty of a high misdemeanor; but if they proceed to carry such intention into execution by force, that they are guilty of the treason of levying war; and the quantum of the force employed neither lessens or increases the crime -- whether by one hundred or one thousand persons is wholly immaterial"

Alternatively, the country could have passed an amendment to make secession illegal, no? But It would never have passed. So they relied on a court ruling against secession as a result of white vs texas which was quite easily given because the chief justice was a former member of Lincolns cabinet. He started with a verdict and then reversed engineered the reasoning.

As for your judicial findings listed above, I would have to investigate them to see the context. They are only quotes, Were they all affirmed. If not, they are not national rulings.

In the end secession is legal or not, depending if the seceding side can pull it off or not, It is an exercise in power, not law.