Was it worth it?

[rvbgrif]

Also, as I always point out, its difficult to imagine that a state had a right to leave when South Carolina decided the best way to accomplish this was by starting a war instead of going to court to have this implied right recognized by the Supreme Court. The mere fact they chose warfare over lawfare tells me they knew their argument held no weight and would be rejected by the courts, and thus no such right existed.

The Lincoln administration wasn't exactly enthused with the judiciary under Taney, either, and also chose warfare over lawfare.

 

[JerryD]

The Lincoln administration wasn't exactly enthused with the judiciary under Taney, either, and also chose warfare over lawfare.

Well, we can disagree on that one. Warfare was imposed on it. Its not a minor detail about who opened fire first. That is a momentous step and was seen as such at the time. Thus why we say the bombardment of Fort Sumter was the beginning of the war. Also, its not incumbent on the bank to go to court to get an order to keep the bank robber from robbing them.

 

[atlantis]

We cannot predict how relations between USA/CSA would develop or even if reunion would have happened at some point.

 

[BCS1973]

Speaking broadly, you kind of touched on the issue. The really ardent secessionists claimed that the US was in fact not a country, but an alliance of sovereign states, much like the EU is today. So there was no such thing as an American citizen or a country called the United States of America. Why this logic fails, though, is when you see all the powers granted to the federal government, and which were denied to the states. For starters, the Constitution through the Supremacy Clause made the Constitution and the laws passed under it supreme over state laws. Today this is the legal concept called Federal Pre-emption. The federal government was also given the exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce, to conduct foreign affairs, to mint money, and to assure that each state had a republican form of government. In short, there are numerous sections of the Constitution that gives the Federal government power to overrule the states, so its hard to argue that the states were sovereign and the Federal government was merely a tool of the states.

One other difference worth noting. The EU provided an express mechanism for states to leave. The Constitution did not. Also, as I always point out, its difficult to imagine that a state had a right to leave when South Carolina decided the best way to accomplish this was by starting a war instead of going to court to have this implied right recognized by the Supreme Court. The mere fact they chose warfare over lawfare tells me they knew their argument held no weight and would be rejected by the courts, and thus no such right existed.

Thank you @JerryD

 

[leftyhunter]

You gave a good example with the EU. Just think about it: BREXIT.

Actually there is zero similarities between a 21st Century political event and secession in thecUS but forum rules say it can't be discussed .
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 *EDITED*…or, as we have seen, at least requires a considerable amount of mental and historical gymnastics to reconcile.

The odds of a successful secession were reasonable at certain points in the war when northern casualities were high and Lincoln was vulnerable. During the summer of 1864 he thought he would lose the next election Only in hindsight we know it failed. The American Revolution was also unlikely to succeed, you never know.

 

[genbeau]

Actually there is zero similarities between a 21st Century political event and secession in thecUS but forum rules say it can't be discussed .
Leftyhunter

Thats true. The only significant link is that secession was declared illegal by a court ruling of a chief justice who had been a leading part of the Lincoln cabinet (duh, do ya think he would reverse it). That can be reversed in the blink of an eye. It is most decisively not as binding as an amendment.

 

[leftyhunter]

Thats true. The only significant link is that secession was declared illegal by a court ruling of a chief justice who had been a leading part of the Lincoln cabinet (duh, do ya think he would reverse it). That can be reversed in the blink of an eye. It is most decisively not as binding as an amendment.

Texas v White has not been reversed and there have been Southern born presidents sine the end of the ACW who have appointed supreme court justices who have not seen fit to reverse Texas v White. Since 1865 there has been no serious movement in the South advocating for political independence or even not to join the US military. Very few Southners have even emigrated out of the US despite no legal obstacles to do so. Funny how once formal slavery was abolished Southern whites seem rather content not to rebel .
Leftyhunter

 

[rvbgrif]

Its not a minor detail about who opened fire first.

Both sides blamed the other for starting the war.

If you read about the Fort Sumter affair, it was not Pearl Harbor. It was a long drawn out political game where both sides proposed peaceful arrangements to an open room while amassing troops and accusing the other sides troops of aggression, which all ended in a battle with 0 casualties. Both sides got what they wanted out of it which was justification for war.

Some of the proposals were South Carolina Governor Pickens proposing to President Buchanan that the federal government could keep the fort if it wasn't reinforced. The brilliant Buchanan agreed ambiguously, then proceded to repeadedly attempt to reinforce the fort, his only action to prevent secession... This would lead to Pickens demanding that the Fort be surrendered and Confederate President Davis putting South Carolina's forces under Beauregard, controlloing them. Lincoln refused to talk with Confederate officials, however he was willing to talk with state officials, and he proposed that South Carolina could have the fort if Virginia agreed not to secede.

The game ended with Confederate forces firing on ships supplying the fort, accusing them of reinforced it, and sieging the fort. The Lincoln administration responded with a large floatilla filled with troops to land at the fort and fire back on Conferate forces if fired upon. Davis's reaction to this was to order Beauregard to fire on the fort.

Since both sides proposed that the other side could have the fort, it could have been resolved peacefully if either side wanted that. Both sides drew the affair out as they wanted the other to fire first. The Confederate side wanted to use the affair to show Lincoln's aggression and persuade Virginia to secede. Likewise the Union side wanted to use the affair to show Confederate aggression and issue a call to arms.

 

[RebelWeber]

Beneficial for whom in the south? Unfortunately for whom?

Beneficial for southerners in general as they would have been able to separate from the union peacefully and spared the horrors of war. Unfortunately now because of that war it seems to be settled that a state cannot secede.

 

[JerryD]

Both sides blamed the other for starting the war.

Yeah, but we know better. Murderers often point the finger at someone else. That is not persuasive in the least.

Looking at the known facts, there is really no legitimate dispute here. You may claim that Lincoln was brilliant in making the CSA fire the first shot, and that may be true. But that is only because he knew he could rely on the leaders of the south to act irrationally. The southern authorities did not have to start a war, but they did.

 

[rvbgrif]

You may claim that Lincoln was brilliant in making the CSA fire the first shot, and that may be true.

No, both the late Buchanan administration and early Lincoln administration were far from brilliant... The whole secession crisis showed their ineptitude. Lincoln was, however, a smart man and realized his mistakes, which was why later Lincoln made attempts to integrate Southern politicians, for example Andrew Johnson (which was another big Lincoln mistake).

Refusing to talk with South Carolina over the fort, attempting to reinforce it, then losing Fort Sumter, Virginia, Bull Run, and the Seven Days Battles shows what a mistake the early Lincoln administration made...

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

Beneficial for southerners in general as they would have been able to separate from the union peacefully and spared the horrors of war. Unfortunately now because of that war it seems to be settled that a state cannot secede.

Just so we're clear…southerners in general? Or southern whites in general?

 

[rvbgrif]

Just so we're clear…southerners in general? Or southern whites in general?

He means American citizens.

 

[genbeau]

Texas v White has not been reversed and there have been Southern born presidents sine the end of the ACW who have appointed supreme court justices who have not seen fit to reverse Texas v White. Since 1865 there has been no serious movement in the South advocating for political independence or even not to join the US military. Very few Southners have even emigrated out of the US despite no legal obstacles to do so. Funny how once formal slavery was abolished Southern whites seem rather content not to rebel .
Leftyhunter

I was referring to secession as a general device, not a repeat of north vs south.

 

[genbeau]

Beneficial for southerners in general as they would have been able to separate from the union peacefully and spared the horrors of war. Unfortunately now because of that war it seems to be settled that a state cannot secede.

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.

 

[leftyhunter]

He means American citizens.

In the Antebellum era African Americans were not citizens in the South as they could not vote so the ACW actually benefited African Americans because at least it ended slavery .
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

I was referring to secession as a general device, not a repeat of north vs south.

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

 

[JerryD]

No, both the late Buchanan administration and early Lincoln administration were far from brilliant... The whole secession crisis showed their ineptitude. Lincoln was, however, a smart man and realized his mistakes, which was why later Lincoln made attempts to integrate Southern politicians, for example Andrew Johnson (which was another big Lincoln mistake).

Refusing to talk with South Carolina over the fort, attempting to reinforce it, then losing Fort Sumter, Virginia, Bull Run, and the Seven Days Battles shows what a mistake the early Lincoln administration made...

LOL, if you say so. Smart enough to win the war, I guess. Please don't be bitter about that.

 

[rvbgrif]

LOL, if you say so. Smart enough to win the war, I guess. Please don't be bitter about that.

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 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.