"What If?" The South had not fired on Ft. Sumter?"

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
30,300
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Life itself involves speculation. Recently a poll was taken of several "Nursing Home" patients with this question:
"If you had life to live over, what would have done differently?" The majority of this poll questionnaire was given in this answer"
" I would have taken more chances;been more of a risk taker."
No matter what they answer, they're lives had no 'do over' button. they're stuck with the lives they have lived.

Such is the problem with history.

It's already been done.

Unionblue
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
30,300
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
The last two pages of this supposed 'what if' thread shows just how skewed such threads can become. What does anything of this have to do with the 'what if' scenario first proposed on the OP?

NOTHING!

It's simply a field of dreams and opinions without the rules of actual history.

Unionblue
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Kenneth Almquist

Corporal
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
369
The only peaceful solution on Lincoln’s mind was, miracles of miracles, the seceded states would, on their own volition, return to his union without a war to force them back.
More precisely, the only peaceful solution would be for the Confederate states to refrain from starting a war. That said, Lincoln seems to have sensed, correctly, that the Confederacy would not be willing to live with the status quo indefinitely. The two obvious alternatives to the status quo were for them to rejoin the Union or to start a war.
 

wilber6150

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
19,254
Location
deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
So in Lincoln's in mind, the Sumter crisis was so low a priority on his agenda that couldn’t spare a few hours to talk with Confederate diplomats that might prevent a war?
Since he no right to hand over Sumter and the experiened politicians in the Confederacy, then what exactly would be gained from meeting with them except some sort of semi-offical recognition that the Confederates would use to advance their standing in the world.. lincoln wasn't as stupid as the Confederates thought he was...
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Kenneth Almquist

Corporal
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
369
In Lincoln's mind talking to two rebels would be a sign of support for their claim of sovereignty. So naturally he could not talk with them.*
Had SC been in the union and had they represented the State, then he could have talked with em.
Had the south wanted peace, they should have stayed in the union and tried one of the different peaceful and diplomatic options they had.

*When ever The Dali Lama meet politicians around the world... China complain, for exactly that reason.
Indeed, it doesn't even matter that South Carolina considered itself to be out of the Union. Lincoln had no problem discussing issues with South Carolina, as demonstrated by the fact that he sent a message to the Governor of South Carolina about the Fort Sumter resupply mission. If the Confederate government wanted to discuss Fort Sumter with Lincoln, it could have used South Carolina as an intermediary.
 

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Messages
7,691
Location
California
Then why did you say I agreed with you?
Becuase that is what you said. You claimed to agree with me, which seemed odd, and now it appears you didnt mean to, which seems more in line with what I expected. So lets get back to discussing the actual topic.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
20,084
Location
Laurinburg NC
Becuase that is what you said. You claimed to agree with me, which seemed odd, and now it appears you didnt mean to, which seems more in line with what I expected. So lets get back to discussing the actual topic.

Not if you are going to infer that I agree with everything you say just because I agreed with your two point reply to my post #178.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
20,084
Location
Laurinburg NC
Since he no right to hand over Sumter and the experiened politicians in the Confederacy, then what exactly would be gained from meeting with them except some sort of semi-offical recognition that the Confederates would use to advance their standing in the world.. lincoln wasn't as stupid as the Confederates thought he was...

In your post 189 you claim Lincoln didn’t have the time to meet with the Confederate diplomats and now you are saying he had nothing to gain from meeting with them. I will give you credit for one thing, you are definitely not among those here who claim the Confederates didn’t make an effort to give diplomacy a chance.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
20,084
Location
Laurinburg NC
More precisely, the only peaceful solution would be for the Confederate states to refrain from starting a war. That said, Lincoln seems to have sensed, correctly, that the Confederacy would not be willing to live with the status quo indefinitely. The two obvious alternatives to the status quo were for them to rejoin the Union or to start a war.
You are not making sense, why would the Confederates start a war if the Lincoln government was willing to let them depart the old union in peace?
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

wilber6150

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
19,254
Location
deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
In your post 189 you claim Lincoln didn’t have the time to meet with the Confederate diplomats and now you are saying he had nothing to gain from meeting with them. I will give you credit for one thing, you are definitely not among those here who claim the Confederates didn’t make an effort to give diplomacy a chance.
Let me rephrase I meant that the Confederates sent reps knowing full well that the adminastration was just geting its feet and wasn't even fully established, and in addition they knew they were sending them to the part of the government that couldn't give them Sumter anyway..So the only people that would gain by seeing them would be the Confederates. But, then again from their communcations they knew that Lincoln couldn;t give them anymore then Buchannon did.. So intersting that they sent them to the President and not to Congress almost as if they wanted it to fail...:unsure:
 

Kenneth Almquist

Corporal
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
369
More precisely, the only peaceful solution would be for the Confederate states to refrain from starting a war. That said, Lincoln seems to have sensed, correctly, that the Confederacy would not be willing to live with the status quo indefinitely. The two obvious alternatives to the status quo were for them to rejoin the Union or to start a war.
You are not making sense, why would the Confederates start a war if the Lincoln government was willing to let them depart the old union in peace?
In his first inaugural address, Lincoln stated that, “The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have conferred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States.” Lincoln wasn't going to “let them depart the old union in peace” officially because he does not believe that he has authority to do that. That leaves the Confederacy in a situation similar to that of Transnistria, which has it's own government, but which most of the rest of the world considers to be part of Moldova. Transnistria is apparently willing to live in diplomatic limbo indefinitely. The Confederacy wasn't.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,824
Location
Georgia
Yet you just agreed with me that there is no ambiquity. There really wasnt. The South knew what it was up against.

I find Article VI, Clause 2 to be as clear as pure mountain spring water.
I also see no reason to claim it has anything to do with "growing federal legislation from the bench".


The 10th Amendment doesnt provide the justification they needed.
They turned to the only justification available to them -- rebellion.
Actually, Article VI Clause 2 is not clear on the issue of secession. The supremacy clause only applies if the federal government is acting in pursuit of constitutionally authorized powers. However, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which expressly prohibits secession by the states.
 

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,824
Location
Georgia
Scratching my head trying to figure out what you think that means.
Sounds wrong to me as its not what the clause says.
The clause states that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and mandates judges to follow the federal law under the Constitution. However, there is nothing in the Constitution that specifically forbids a state from seceding and therefore, there is no law that prohibits secession.
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,824
Location
Georgia
That by itself has been interpreted as forbidding secession since secession only works if a state law can overrule the Constitution and US treaties.
Okay, well I will believe that statement if you can tell me what section of the U.S. Constitution explicitly prohibits state secession. The Supremacy Clause only applies to the specific powers that are delegated to the federal government in the Constitution. For secession to be unconstitutional, there has to be some type of clause prohibiting it and not simply a claim that the Constitution is supreme.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top