Was it worth it?

[leftyhunter]

Well, that's the question: was the resupply of Fort Sumter strategic, or was it bait? Was it incidental, or a clever way to force the South to fire that primordial shot?

No one forced Secessionists not the South to fire on federal troops. The South is a region it has diverse people with diverse political views.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

They would have abolished the system. Manumission was not a foreign concept, and the leading civic and business leaders of the South would have recognized the long-term untenable situation of global ostracism from the British, French, Russians, European Empires broadly, and the Northern States.

Most societies are not plastic or flattened.

Or not as slavery didn't exactly end post ACW in Southern states as it was replaced with quasi slavery known as convict leasing. Slavery itself exists to this day in various forms and never ended. In 1861 the majority of white Southners favored slavery even some Unionists.
Leftyhunter

 

[WestCoastSB]

A more accurate way of phrasing this is that the Confederates were trying to move Federal troops off of Federal land by force. The legality of secession was a moot point after that.

No one forced Secessionists not the South to fire on federal troops. The South is a region it has diverse people with diverse political views.
Leftyhunter

Well, that's 1 dimensionally true. But it's a military stand off, and resupply can be seen as a hostile action.

I mean, history now shows that the Lusitania carried substantial armaments in her cargo. In 1915, the British vehemently denied it (aka, lied), accusing Germany of attacking an unarmed passenger liner.

 

[leftyhunter]

No. The deaths of hundreds of thousands of people was not worth it. Three percent of our population died, and God knows what percentage was maimed.

Civil wars happen all the time . War are what they are if people knew how to avoid them they wouldn't happen but somehow they persist.
Leftyhunter

 

[WestCoastSB]

Or not as slavery didn't exactly end post ACW in Southern states as it was replaced with quasi slavery known as convict leasing. Slavery itself exists to this day in various forms and never ended. In 1861 the majority of white Southners favored slavery even some Unionists.
Leftyhunter

Oh I agree with you on slavery never ended.

There is a philosophical argument that the Civil War abolished regional chattel slavery but switched it with nationalized slavery-under-any-other-name (however, as this likely touches on post-CW and modern political discourse, I will go no further to avoid the ban hammer).

 

[WestCoastSB]

Civil wars happen all the time . War are what they are if people knew how to avoid them they wouldn't happen but somehow they persist.
Leftyhunter

No disagreement friend. It seems like humans are biologically destined for self-destruction.

 

[genbeau]

A more accurate way of phrasing this is that the Confederates were trying to move Federal troops off of Federal land by force. The legality of secession was a moot point after that.

Sure it was moot once the war started. We just differ on who owned the land with goes back to secession. So the debate begins with the legality os secession. I say absolutely.

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

No one forced Secessionists not the South to fire on federal troops. The South is a region it has diverse people with diverse political views.
Leftyhunter

Yeah, that's a child's mentality, to be perfectly frank. "You baited us into firing the first shots/it's not our fault you can't see our perspective/I'm going to start walking forward while punching the air and if you get in the way it's your fault."

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

Sure it was moot once the war started. We just differ on who owned the land with goes back to secession. So the debate begins with the legality os secession. I say absolutely.

In what instance in history have two regions with such a shared history, bound by both revolution and a functioning republic, amicably separated?

As I said before, all laws come down to whether you can enforce them. There was never a chance for an amicable secession. To claim so is ridiculous.

So if you're claiming secession was legal, then great, but by about, ten minutes after the formation of the republic, the fate of the south to be numerically and technologically inferior to the north was already set in motion.

And so since a successful secession was very unlikely to begin with (see my post in another thread asking when the sweet spot for secession was), then the question "was it worth it?" becomes much more of a moral question *EDITED*…or, as we have seen, at least requires a considerable amount of mental and historical gymnastics to reconcile.

 

[rvbgrif]

Yeah, that's a child's mentality, to be perfectly frank. "You baited us into firing the first shots/it's not our fault you can't see our perspective/I'm going to start walking forward while punching the air and if you get in the way it's your fault."

The issue in South Carolina was complicated apart from the question of secession.

You had many different actors for the different sides that operated independently. Buchanan who made an agreement with Governor Pickens of South Carolina that the federal government could keep the fort if it wasn't reinforced. You had Anderson, who had troops in South Carolina which were moved to Fort Sumter, violating the agreement. Governor Pickens was pressured to react regarding the movement and wanted to fire on Fort Sumter. Davis put Buchanan in charge of all Confederate forces, including South Carolina, controlling it. You then had the dispute over the ships, where South Carolina had fired on ships attempted to supply fort Sumter, and the Lincoln eventually sending a small fleet of ships filled with troops, which resulted in Davis giving Buchanan the order to fire on the fort

In short, it was a drawn out political affair where both sides tried to pressure the other side into firing first to justify reaction. The conclusions were preset both sides were just looking for justification.

Not a good outcome for either side either. For the Confederacy this action would lead to the Civil War. For the Union, this would result in the loss of states such as Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee, which would do a disproportionate amount of the actual fighting for the Confederacy. Losing them was a blunder.

 

[WestCoastSB]

In what instance in history have two regions with such a shared history, bound by both revolution and a functioning republic, amicably separated?

As I said before, all laws come down to whether you can enforce them. There was never a chance for an amicable secession. To claim so is ridiculous.

So if you're claiming secession was legal, then great, but by about, ten minutes after the formation of the republic, the fate of the south to be numerically and technologically inferior to the north was already set in motion.

And so since a successful secession was very unlikely to begin with (see my post in another thread asking when the sweet spot for secession was), then the question "was it worth it?" becomes much more of a moral question *EDITED*…or, as we have seen, at least requires a considerable amount of mental and historical gymnastics to reconcile.

With respect, there are numerous examples of amicable secessions. In 1993, Czechoslovakia split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia, avoiding fighting over irreconcilable differences. In 2006, Montenegro separated from Serbia peacefully, and they have had centuries of deep historical and cultural ties.

But America is basically an empire, so I will agree it is always impossible for peaceful evolutions within a nation that harbors empire tendencies.

 

[BCS1973]

Well, that's 1 dimensionally true. But it's a military stand off, and resupply can be seen as a hostile action.

I mean, history now shows that the Lusitania carried substantial armaments in her cargo. In 1915, the British vehemently denied it (aka, lied), accusing Germany of attacking an unarmed passenger liner.

It only becomes a "military standoff" due to the desire for forced annexation of sovereign U.S. territory.

I'm not quite sure where you are going with the 1915 incident (although I have my suspicions), but it certainly brings up enough analogs that probably get us the "ban hammer" if we were to discuss here, so I'll leave that part alone.

 

[archieclement]

I agree with all that. I couldn't remember the term, but you are right, it was "The Great Migration."

And for a lot of Blacks, the South WAS home, even if they could afford to leave. And I'm guessing the hostility went in political waves so it wasn't a constant, unbearable pressure but I could be wrong on that.

Indeed, I've always found it odd some dismiss the Home factor both for slaves not leaving as well blacks postwar.

I would wager one could go some the most economically depressed areas today, and offer jobs far superior requiring moving vast distance, and a sizable percent would still not give up family, friends, and everything they know and have known.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

Specifically what exact issue?
Leftyhunter

Just look at today's world. The federal government has a Department of Education, Department of Health, and controls those and many other issues and activities that are NOT granted to the federal government by the Constitution. Those many things are rightfully under the purview of the states.

 

[leftyhunter]

Just look at today's world. The federal government has a Department of Education, Department of Health, and controls those and many other issues and activities that are NOT granted to the federal government by the Constitution. Those many things are rightfully under the purview of the states.

Those were not issues during the ACW. President Lincoln never proposed establishment of those agencies. So exactly what specific state right were the Secessonists fighting for?
Leftyhunter

 

[genbeau]

In what instance in history have two regions with such a shared history, bound by both revolution and a functioning republic, amicably separated?

As I said before, all laws come down to whether you can enforce them. There was never a chance for an amicable secession. To claim so is ridiculous.

So if you're claiming secession was legal, then great, but by about, ten minutes after the formation of the republic, the fate of the south to be numerically and technologically inferior to the north was already set in motion.

And so since a successful secession was very unlikely to begin with (see my post in another thread asking when the sweet spot for secession was), then the question "was it worth it?" becomes much more of a moral question for *EDITED*or, as we have seen, at least requires a considerable amount of mental and historical gymnastics to reconcile.

I certain respect your opinion while retaining mine.

 

[archieclement]

Those were not issues during the ACW. President Lincoln never proposed establishment of those agencies. So exactly what specific state right were the Secessonists fighting for?
Leftyhunter

Therin is one the reasons it seems not worth it, or certainly less then a great sucess.

It caused or set precident for federal expansion in what became many areas, from the states. But often then didn't enforce or require enforcement of the Federal laws or authority. Why reconstruction ended in Jim Crow.

Often in the past in the forum people have asserted the canard it set Federal supremacy, but if one looked they could always see states still defying Federal authority. So the biggest claim as to what the ACW did or established, is still rather contentiously contested 150 years later. If the supremacy of Federal authority had been clearly established, alot of the current news wouldn't be news......

 

[leftyhunter]

Therin is one the reasons it seems not worth it, or certainly less then a great sucess.

It caused or set precident for federal expansion in what became many areas, from the states. But often then didn't enforce or require enforcement of the Federal laws or authority. Why reconstruction ended in Jim Crow.

Often in the past in the forum people have asserted the canard it set Federal supremacy, but if one looked they could always see states still defying Federal authority. So the biggest claim as to what the ACW did or established, is still rather contentiously contested 150 years later. If the supremacy of Federal authority had been clearly established, alot of the current news wouldn't be news......

Reconstruction was half hearted at best with federal troops rarely or ever having armed conflict with any of the various white racist paramilitary groups who's only armed opposition occasionally came from state militas. Once President Hayes withdrew the limited amount of federal troops from the South,Reconstruction collapsed.
So federal power was very limited in the US until almost all veterans of the ACW died of old age. President Lincoln didn't campaign on increasing the size of the federal government just not expanding slavery.
So what ever the Confederacy was fighting for it wasn't against big government since it didn't even exist .
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

Reconstruction was half hearted at best with federal troops rarely or ever having armed conflict with any of the various white racist paramilitary groups who's only armed opposition occasionally came from state militas. Once President Hayes withdrew the limited amount of federal troops from the South,Reconstruction collapsed.
So federal power was very limited in the US until almost all veterans of the ACW died of old age. President Lincoln didn't campaign on increasing the size of the federal government just not expanding slavery.
So what ever the Confederacy was fighting for it wasn't against big government since it didn't even exist .
Leftyhunter

But regardless it's folly to pretend the ACW and precident's set of expansion of federal authority, income tax, ect, didn't contribute to further big government.......it is a resulting consquence as well leaving federal supremacy rather in question by not consistent enforcement of Federal laws and policy

Whether intended or unintended doesn't really matter, as they are lasting consequences.

 

[leftyhunter]

But regardless it's folly to pretend the ACW and precident's set of expansion of federal authority, income tax, ect, didn't contribute to further big government.......it is a resulting consquence as well leaving federal supremacy rather in question by not consistent enforcement of Federal laws and policy

Whether intended or unintended doesn't really matter, as they are lasting consequences.

Very few people paid income tax during the ACW. Federal spending was slashed post ACW. If an American citizen didn't buy foreign goods or drink alcohol they could go their whole lives paying little to zero federal taxes. The idea of big government came seventy odd years post ACW and Southern voter were enthusiastic about it.
Leftyhunter