If the Confederacy had won would the capitol have stayed at Richmond? (events, slavery)

[Grandstander]

RhettButler:

That's simply an analysts viewpoint though. Put yourself in the position of an actual northerner in 1861... A farmer in Ohio. A cobbler in Boston. Why in HADES do they give a crap about the lower South seceding?

Here I will argue that you are in factual error. I do not think that you have a good understanding of poltiical mentalities in 1860 America and as a consequence, aren't aware of how much more seriously politics, and idealism, was treated and revered in that age.

We take democracy for granted because we were born into it, it had a track record of survival not just in the US, but internationally, and there was never a point in our lives where we entertained the idea that we were involved in a noble experiment...which still might fail.

The people of 1860 had no such assurances and took an immense amount of pride in America as being the singular beacon of political progressiveness in a world still dominated by monarchs and rigid class systems. And they took their politics very, very seriously. In the days before all the competing entertainment sources we now enjoy, politics was the major recreational activity for much of America. The 4th of July was celebrated in a manner which far outstrips our current family BBQs and backyard fireworks displays. In election years, political rallies were huge events in every town...the party of the year and no one was going to miss it if they could help it. This was true for the North and the South.

It is surprising that you do not have a better grasp of this because it is alid out for us in the first few words of the most famous speech delivered in our American history. Lincoln made note of the birth of our republic and characterized the Civil War as a test..."wheter this nation, or any nation, so conceived and dedicated, can long endure."

That was a direct reference to the mentalities I mentioned. America could still fail, the experiment in democracy was not yet so formly established that there was certainty that the nation would not be relapsing to the old European aristocractic models. There was no certainty that the idea of popular sovereignty could work.

And indeed, when secession took place, this was taken as proof by those old aristocracies that they had been right all along, that it was foolhardy to try and trust "the people" rather than keeping power in the hands of the "responsible upper classes."

Americans in 1860, North and South, were still bursting with pride over the differences between them and everyone else. That they had prospered was viewed as sign that the old ways were wrong and that they had been the ones to pioneer this new, enlightened political path.

So, you are terribly wrong in trying to portray the people of the North as passive about the nation being fragmented and indifferent about the South's attempted secession. THat Lincoln was able to rally the people was not a product of Lincoln being some tricky slickster who got them to believe something which they otherwise would not. Lincoln was able to rally support because the people were ready to give it to him.

If there seems to be a before/after dynamic to Northern attitudes with Fort Sumter being the centerpiece of change, it is because there indeed was one. But it wasn't indifference warped into fury by LInciln led propaganda, it was general disbelief and denial warped into fury when the Confederates fired upon the national flag.

I highly endorse your reading "The Impending Crisis" by David M. Potter. It is viewed as perhaps the best treatment of the lead up to the war available and you will not be able to detect any partisan leanings on the part of Professor Potter, he is just laying the story out there for his readers, not trying to rehab one side or the other.

In reading it you will see that the North never embraced or shrugged off secession, never adopted any sort of "Hell, just let em go" attitude." Instead it was false optimism supressing their anger. They were relying on their own history to predict the future. In the past, each time the slavery issue had sparked inflamed passions, it had been handled with a compromise. The Missouri Compromise, the fight over the admission of Texas, the Compromise of 1850, the Knasas-Nebraska Act...each time it seemed like things would boil over, they were instead solved and life went on normally. That is exactly what most Northerners expected to happen again...another round of heated rhetoric and threats, and then a compromise. You should not take that expectation as any sort of sign of Northern approval or toleration of secession. It absolutely was not that.

Finally, my favorite academic investigative tool is composed of asking two questions: 1) If something is true, what else had to have been true in order for that to be so. 2) If something is true, what else would have followed from it in order for that to be so.

Your thesis of Northern indifference until misled by Lincoln, flunks this second question test. If what you are arguing was true, how do you account for the explosive Northern reaction to Sumter where every single volunteer regiment called for by Lincoln was oversubscribed two and three times? If the Northerners were indifferent to secession, would not their reaction to Sumter have been..."Serves that trouble maker Lincoln right for not just letting things be. Sure, they fired on the flag, but they had every right to do so after the President refused to cooperate with their lawful and peaceful departure." Certainly people with that attitude would not be fighting their way into the recruiting offices, would they?

So, no, absolutely no, your portrait of an indifferent people being led by the elite into a state of believing that which was otherwise alien to them....flies in the face of every antebellum history I have read.

[TexasReb]

Grandstander:

First of all -- with all due respect -- I think you are missing at least part of the points of my rejoinders. This is rare for you...and I mean that as a point of respect!

As much as giving the Southern side of it from an historical point of view I wanted to let it be known that indeed there WAS/IS a Southern point of view. Some northern partisans -- so used to having their side recorded in the history books and just generally accepted -- get extremely up in arms (no pun intended!) -- when the opposite side is presented.

Anyway *rubs hands together for an hour or so*...let's go!

Originally Posted by Grandstander

TexasReb:

There appears to be no room in your analysis for considering the notion that saving the Union was a good cause and that Lincoln's actions in rallying the people of the North to that cause, was also a good thing. Your entire judgment seems to be based on "The other side was evil."

Further, there seems to be no room in your analysis for the idea that Northerners had every right to be pissed with the Southern States. This goes back to what I described before as my "Spoil Sport" theory and I give great weight to it.

Whoa, Whoa, my worthy opponent (on some things at least! LOL) let's stop right there....

Where do you come by that my whole "judgement" seems to be that "the other side was "evil." I never said nor implied any such thing...so all I can conclude is it is an attempt to control the conversation. Sorry, it ain't gonna work; I will buy you a beer but not buy into your thesis!

Anyway, since the subtle accusation is on the table? Well, then this is a good example of what I mean by a double-standard. You (in a collective sense, not you personally) speak of how there is no room in my analysis for considering the notion that saving the Union was was a good cause? Yet on the other hand, reject that the Southern side could also have been a good "American" cause in its own right? That is, the Jeffersonian principle of "States Rights"...?

What I am saying is that, if it can be presented that "States Rights" was the euphemism -- on the part of the Lower South --to cover a desire to perpetuate slavery? Then it is equally true that "preserving the Union" was the counter-part on the part of the Northern powers to justify what was really a desire to keep the South for their money. And, after the War, it can't be said such was disproven given the carpetbaggers that poured in to make a dollar.

"Evil" had nothing to do with it. It comes down to a vision of the make-up of the original Union, the Constitution, and the DOI.

The Spoil Sport theory you put so much stock in? Would the same theory hold true -- in your opinion -- with the New England states who threatened secession over the annexation of Texas? Had they taken the final step, and an alternate history manifested, would the central government have been justified in invading and forcing them back into a union they decided was no longer to their liking?

Heck, far as that goes, can one even imagine Southern men suiting up to do so? They probably would have said, good riddance to those yankee puritans! LOL

So what does the Southern minority do? They quit. "We're not playing anymore"

It was not quite so simple as that. You persist in making analogies of bank robberies and kids on a play-ground which, while colorful, can be picked apart easily from another direction.

But ok...let's just say they ARE applicable? Why not just let those spoiled brat kids take their ball and go home? Why did they have to be pursued and force them back into playing the game they didnt want participate...?

Was it going to spoil the game? Couldn't those who chose to stay continue the game on their own? Unless, perhaps, they just needed/coveted the ball itself...?

[Grandstander]

TexasReb:

If you agree to a compact which says that your leaders and lawmakers will be determined by such and such a formula, and you stick with it as long as your side is winning, and bail out as soon as you lose one, that is not now, nor ever will be, behavior which I admire.

There was no unlawful behavior which was threatening the South, no risk from the Republicans of removing from them the same rights enjoyed everywhere, their rise to power was not the product of an unfair or rigged election.

The South lost, and then refused to live up to the contract they had ratified when joining the nation. No attempt of any sort was ever made to try and raise this as a national issue, to seek the permission of the whole to depart, and to find a lawful means to accomplish it which might negate the need for a bloody conflcit. Instead, they simply asserted the power to defy the majority whenever they wished if the will of the majority failed to suit their caprice. How do you not see that as the South unzippering and taking a leak on the entire idea behind democracy...that the elections count?

Wasn't that the critical foundation of the whole experiment....that the rulers of the nation would abide by the expressed will of the people? How is it not destructive of the entire concept if lawful election results may be ignored when the mood hits?

I can readily understand that the Southern states were concerned. If the expansion of slavery was curbed, then the party was pretty much going to be over for the South fifteen or twenty years down the road. They correctly perceived that the circumstances which allowed them to exercise outsized power in the Senate, would be ending. I can readly understand that they would think that the only answer to avoiding this severe reduction in political power would be to break away and form their own nation.

But I still do not see how secession was justified. All that happened was that they lost a legally conducted election. The North had not violated the contract and one party to a contract has no right to unilaterally declare it void simply on the grounds of outcomes becoming less favorable to them.

Would you not embrace that principle in a business contract which you signed? If when you made the agreement, all parties assumed the same risks and had the same chances for prosperity, would you accept an argument from a partner A that he or she may withdraw at any time the deal is going unfavorably for A?

Why would you think that the South advancing such a notion was fair?

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

You are ignoring the fact that the South maintained a balance of power within the Senate at the time and the Presidency was dominated by pro-South Presidents for over 30 years. The South certainly had the political ability to fight these issues and fight them they did.

No, I am not ignoring it at all. The point I was making was that it was in the House that budget bills originate, and the House was overwhelmingly controlled by the Northern powers. True, the Senate was balanced (in terms of North and South), but when these fiscal considerations went to compromise, it was always the South which had to give in a bit. Blunt fact is that the South paid 70% of taxes/tariffs...but got back very little in terms of the same.

For quite a few years, the Southern senators compromised on it all when it came to the final bill. Finally, they just got fed up with it. It be best to seperate for the benefit of all parties concerned. And here we go back to square one? Why force something that the other party no longer wishes to be a part of?

The South seceeded over the threat posed to their political power vis-a-vis slavery, I don't think there is much debate on that. They did not seceed over the issue of tarriff's and had actually rather come to terms over the tarriff situation through many compromises. Tarriff's were also not just an issue in the South, but it did largely effect the South as its economy was import/export based.

The South did not secede over the tariff issue, true...but the ethos of the South (both socially and economically) began to form around 1830...after the nullification incident. More and more, the Southern states began to see themselves, collectively, as getting the raw end of a deal they were paying for. And in all those states which later seceded initially, such was mentioned in one form or fashion.

Besides I think it is a bit of a stretch to assume that the North simply wanted Southern tax revenue. Afterall the North was able to finance and fight the war completely on their own for the duration of the conflict. It would not have been too difficult to make up the lost revenue through other measures. The North had the far more varied, vibrant and larger economy.

.

Then what else did they want? I can only go by what Lincoln himself said and by the revenue flow and where it came from.

I would take exception that Lincoln "maneuvered" the South into firing on anyone. The South had already fired on the "Star of the West" and was more than happy to open fire on the fort following the Union's refusal to leave it. The South was itching for a fight, arguably more than the North at that point.

Read what Lincoln himself said. Even Lincoln partisans such as McPherson loosely acknowlege that fact. Of course, they justify it -- which makes good sense from their point of view -- as in that the end justifies the means...but they do not outright deny it because they can't.

Blunt fact is that Lincoln knew the only way he could rally northern support for an invasion of the Lower South was to provoke an incident sure to ignite northern opinion around that the honor of the country had been insulted.

Hell, I even grudgingly acknowlege it was an ingenious move.

No, the South was not itching for a fight, necessarily. Although, yes, sure, we were prepared for one. But as it is, at the original secession convention (of the Lower South states), the fire-eaters, in terms of elected officials, were passed over in favor of "moderates" who just wanted to go in peace, Also, the Upper South didn't join up until the situation was either/or.

I wouldn't argue that soldiers on BOTH sides needed to be motivated to fight for their cause. The Union boys were sold on patriotism, duty and honor. The Southern boys were sold on the same as well as on state's rights and "Yankee aggression".

I think we will generally agree on that point...even if we might quibble a bit on wording. For instance, I would say that the main motivation for the Southern boys was that they felt an obligation to defend their land and homeplace. That is duty and honor.

What it really came down to was just boy/men, mostly, North and South, whose world didn't much extend beyond the next county line.

All the Southern boy knew -- all that he had likely heard from some neighbors who had been in the nearest town lately or by a week old newspaper -- was that some folks called "yankees" were going to come down and stomp on his rights and trample his land. He didn't care about slavery nor much else beyond making a living day to day. But them's fightin' words, thought the guy...where do I sign my name to join up and whup 'em?

At the same time, there is this Ohio plowboy who gets word that some rebels down South had insulted his sense of patriotism.

I always thought it poignant how those soldiers never really hated one another. They would fraternize a bit during winter camps and lulls in battle, and even after the war was over, meet and greet in reunions and have a good old time together....

[Electron]

Y'all continue your very civil discussion, but I want to throw in a question. Relating Sumter to 9/11. Before you go off the deep end, no, I am not comparing the two, or blaming Bush for Sumter,lol. But with regard to Lincoln needing an event to spark the patriotism up north much like the events of 9/11 sparked a wave of bandwagon patriotism. Patriotism that was utilized in what a large portion of this country viewed as yet another unnecessary expeditionary war in Iraq. Is it that unthinkable that what TexasReb has suggested is true? I ask this because so many up north were either supportive or indifferent toward secession. Clearly public opinion was not on the side of forcing the South to stay, so an event had to happen that would paint it in a different light. Clearly Iraq had no involvement with 9/11, but as long as we were in Afghanistan, we might as well go after those WMDs. It all looks to fishy to me to accept as noble mission of 'doing the right thing'.
Now please, continue.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

TexasReb:

If you agree to a compact which says that your leaders and lawmakers will be determined by such and such a formula, and you stick with it as long as your side is winning, and bail out as soon as you lose one, that is not now, nor ever will be, behavior which I admire.

Does this apply to the New England states which -- and it was THIS close -- threatened secession over the annexation agreement with Texas? It was not the Southern states which first gave rise to secession as an option. It was New England.

Is that behavior you admire?

There was no unlawful behavior which was threatening the South, no risk from the Republicans of removing from them the same rights enjoyed everywhere, their rise to power was not the product of an unfair or rigged election.

So? You are advancing a point/premise that, to me, is not really relevant, as the election was not the central point.

The South lost, and then refused to live up to the contract they had ratified when joining the nation. No attempt of any sort was ever made to try and raise this as a national issue, to seek the permission of the whole to depart, and to find a lawful means to accomplish it which might negate the need for a bloody conflcit. Instead, they simply asserted the power to defy the majority whenever they wished if the will of the majority failed to suit their caprice. How do you not see that as the South unzippering and taking a leak on the entire idea behind democracy...that the elections count?

Not trying to be a smartass but, again, you are attempting to frame the debate/discussion within a parameter that I do not accept as the standard.

First of all, it was not a "contract" of unlimited duration under any and all circumstances. It was a voluntary compact on the part of soveriengn states. These state retained their soveriengty by virtue of the fact they were not only recognized as such by the Treaty of Paris, but that they recognized themselves as such. There is a huge difference.

Pissing on the idea of democracy? Not withstanding that the compact was intended to be a constitutional republic, the major premise of the said was based upon that government derives its power from the consent of the governed. Nothing is apart from that. Or is it? If so, then pray explain how and why. I honestly do not understand.

Why did not the Southern people have the right -- even if it was a stupid decision/choice -- to peacefully go their own way and form a nation of their own?

Wasn't that the critical foundation of the whole experiment....that the rulers of the nation would abide by the expressed will of the people? How is it not destructive of the entire concept if lawful election results may be ignored when the mood hits?

As I said earlier, you persist in making this whole thing over an election and ignoring points of contention that had been brewing ever since the soverign states entered into a voluntary compact. You are framing the argument in terms of something that I will not accept as valid. There was much more to it than the election of 1860.

The results of the election of 1860 simply reflected the issues between the sections. They were not -- in and of themselves -- the reason for secession.

But I still do not see how secession was justified. All that happened was that they lost a legally conducted election. The North had not violated the contract and one party to a contract has no right to unilaterally declare it void simply on the grounds of outcomes becoming less favorable to them.

That dammed election thing again! LOL Seriously, the election -- like the issue of slavery in the territories -- was only the spark. For a long time the Southern states had foreseen that, whether it be this or that, sooner or later, things were going to come to a head.

Would you not embrace that principle in a business contract which you signed? If when you made the agreement, all parties assumed the same risks and had the same chances for prosperity, would you accept an argument from a partner A that he or she may withdraw at any time the deal is going unfavorably for A?

Ok, but what if one partner (or several) decided to exploit and take advantage of the said contract at the expense of the others? Would the others be justified in just saying, hey, no more of this. We feel it best to leave. Even if the latter were paranoid and rash and silly in their actions, they STILL said we will pay our fair share of expenses incurred and leave y'all to your own partnership. We will go our way, you go yours. Would the original bunch be morally justified in forcing them back into the "business arrangement" at gunpoint? Even though the withdrawing members offered every compromise possible to go in peace?

Using your own analogy, that is essentially what the original Confederacy did and offered to do by way of settling things amicably, both monetarily and strategically. Unfortunately, it is also how the Union (Lincoln administration) responded to such.

[Grandstander]

TexasReb:

Does this apply to the New England states which -- and it was THIS close -- threatened secession over the annexation agreement with Texas? It was not the Southern states which first gave rise to secession as an option. It was New England.

Is that behavior you admire

Of course not. After my taking a stance firmly in favor of living up to your obligations, why would you think I would excuse any state? Of course NE thought about doing it, but in the end kept their deal with the rest of the nation. That cannot be said of the Southern states, can it?

You are advancing a point/premise that, to me, is not really relevant, as the election was not the central point.

Hmm, it appears to me I am advancing an argument for which you have no counter, and thus groundlessly rule irelevant. Of course the election was the central point, it was the results of the election which caused the Southern states to vamoose. They made the decision that it was better to rip the country apart than to abide by those results.

It was a voluntary compact on the part of soveriengn states

Here once more you are hiding behind the legal rationalization advanced by the South, and you keep doing this depsite my having informed all readers several times that there clearly isn't a correct legal answer to this question, advocacy for both sides, but no clear, unambiguous language in the Constitution which would clarify or deny a right of secession. I do not accept the Southern rationalization as anything other than....their rationalization. They, as does everyone all the time, studied the legal issues with great depth, and then...surprise!...ruled in their own favor. I don't buy into the Northern legal hooey either.

You are absolutely right, it was a voluntary compact with a well understood right of secession...unless of course it wasn't.

Why did not the Southern people have the right -- even if it was a stupid decision/choice -- to peacefully go their own way and form a nation of their own?

I can answer that as well as you can answer...why didn't the Southern States seek a national method for secession, one which came with the approval of the others states with whom they had a compact? If we concede that there was a right of secession, that does not mean that we necessarily agree that it is a right of unilateral declaration with none of the other members of the compact having any voice in the matter.

Ok, but what if one partner (or several) decided to exploit and take advantage of the said contract at the expense of the others?

You mean like the South did with their Senate representation? I suppose that I would tolerate it until the time that I was able to find a way to fairly wrest political power away from those, who like the South were exploiting it, and then use that power to advance my agenda for a change. Why shouldn't I? Don't you expect that the party which wins power will use that power to advance its declared interests? Aren't those interests the reason that they drew votes? By your reasoning, all exercise of politcal power could be viewed as exploitation by those in opposition to a particular policy.

Just what illegal act do you charge against the Northern States which could be interpreted as a viloation of the political contract? The election was conducted fairly, wasn't it? It is hardly the fault of the GOP that the Democrats splintered that year into one group which had a pro slavery nominee, and another who wanted an even stronger pro slavery nominee, is it?

And the threat to the South which justified secession? That the North was now going to use its lawfully aquired political power to run the nation as it saw fit. You know, just like the South had been doing the last 32 years....which caused the Northern States to walk out because...oh, wait, that is right, they didn't walk out, they stuck to the compact.


Now, which thread is this? Oh, okay....the above is why the capitol would have remained in Richmond.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

TexasReb:

Of course not. After my taking a stance firmly in favor of living up to your obligations, why would you think I would excuse any state? Of course NE thought about doing it, but in the end kept their deal with the rest of the nation. That cannot be said of the Southern states, can it?

Oh good lord, GS, that is weak and you know it. In the end, they decided not to act on the threats of secession because the end worked out to their satisfaction.

Hmm, it appears to me I am advancing an argument for which you have no counter, and thus groundlessly rule irelevant. Of course the election was the central point, it was the results of the election which caused the Southern states to vamoose. They made the decision that it was better to rip the country apart than to abide by those results.

No, it is just that the argrument you are advancing doesn't hold all that much weight far as I am concerned. The counter is wrapped up in just that. You see things one way, I see them another. At any point in time, there is going to be the proverbial straw that broke the camels back. The election of 1860 might been that point with the Lower South...but not in the way you seem to be suggesting as in the sense that it was simply a matter of taking the toys and going home. No, it was more like, to hell with this crap. We'd be better off on our own... as we see what is coming up the road.

And c'mon, the Southern states (Lower South) did not "vamoose." They had nothing to vamoose about. Individually, they decided to withdraw from the old Union. Rip the country apart? Where do you come by that? You are prone to making these analogies (such as bank robberies and such) but don't you agree there is a big difference in announcing a peaceful seperation as opposed to picking a fight?

[quote] Here once more you are hiding behind the legal rationalization advanced by the South, and you keep doing this depsite my having informed all readers several times that there clearly isn't a correct legal answer to this question, advocacy for both sides,

I ain't hiding behind anything. Why in the hell would I "hide" behind something I believe to be constitutionally solid? In fact, I dare say you must have a mighty inflated opinion of your own opinions when you start to use such phrases as how you "informed" others of whatever the information was or wasn't. "Informed all readers..."? Isn't that a little high falutin...?

I can answer that as well as you can answer...why didn't the Southern States seek a national method for secession, one which came with the approval of the others states with whom they had a compact? If we concede that there was a right of secession, that does not mean that we necessarily agree that it is a right of unilateral declaration with none of the other members of the compact having any voice in the matter.

First of all, this question is predicated upon that the "right" of secession did not exist by default. But regardless, if it had reached the point of the states deciding upon the route of secession, do you honestly think any legal avenue would have made any difference? Both sides of the question would have ignored it; that is simply a matter of historical common sense. Lincoln ignored the SCOTUS ruling concerning his policies in Maryland, so why think he would have paid any attention to one which might have ruled that South Carolina had the right to secede? (to say nothing of that there was no issue to bring before the court anyway).

Just what illegal act do you charge against the Northern States which could be interpreted as a viloation of the political contract? The election was conducted fairly, wasn't it? It is hardly the fault of the GOP that the Democrats splintered that year into one group which had a pro slavery nominee, and another who wanted an even stronger pro slavery nominee, is it?

The political contract was voided when the 7 states of the Lower South decided to peacefully go their own own way. It was an act of agression when Lincoln decided to invade the same, and provoke a "war" against a people who had done the North no wrong.

There was never a declaration of war -- on the part of either side -- so it was flexible in the sense that Lincoln could -- as it suited -- to treat the Confederate States as either a rebellious section, or as a seperate nation, when it came to military policy. He was clever and ironed-willed -- no doubt...

No one ever answers the concrete question of why not have just let the Lower South states go their own way? Was that so much to ask?

And the threat to the South which justified secession? That the North was now going to use its lawfully aquired political power to run the nation as it saw fit. You know, just like the South had been doing the last 32 years....which caused the Northern States to walk out because...oh, wait, that is right, they didn't walk out, they stuck to the compact.

The threat the South saw -- foresaw is the better way to put it -- can be summed up in the words of Jefferson Davis:

"The principle for which we struggled, is bound to re-assert itself; although it may be in another time and in another form."

Or, as Alexander Stephens said:

If centralism is ultimately to prevail; if our entire system of free Institutions as established by our common ancestors is to be subverted, and an Empire is to be established in their stead; then, be assured, that we of the South will be acquitted, not only in our own consciences, but in the judgment of mankind, of all responsibility for so terrible a catastrophe, and from all guilt of so great a crime against humanity.

Does any of that ring a bell with how things are nowadays?

Now, which thread is this? Oh, okay....the above is why the capitol would have remained in Richmond.

Grandstander? Get out to Texas sometime and I'll be proud to buy you a beer or several!

[Grandstander]

TexasReb:

The political contract was voided when the 7 states of the Lower South decided to peacefully go their own own way. It was an act of agression when Lincoln decided to invade the same, and provoke a "war" against a people who had done the North no wrong.

One party to a contract has no right to unilaterally void it.

And c'mon, Tex, have you reached a point where you are no longer satisfied with distorting the facts, you have to pretend that they are something else entirely? The North didn't begin the war with any sort of an invasion of the South, the war began when the CSA fired on Fort Sumter. What invasion began the war?

Previously you had been confining yourself to reasonable arguments with a partisan flavor, now you are just cheerleading and you don't need me for that.

No one ever answers the concrete question of why not have just let the Lower South states go their own way? Was that so much to ask

"No one ever answers" I reference my previous explanation, the one which included the quote from the Gettysburg address, which provides you with a very clear answer. Letting the South go would represent an admission to the rest of the world that America's experiment in self government was a failure. It would be announcing that such a nation could not "long endure?"

Those forts and Federal installations in the South which the CSA was now claiming as their exclusive property, whose tax dollars paid for them? The South Carolina citizens paid, but so did the folks in Indiana, Ohio, Vermont...etc. "Hi, you folks up North who helped pay for these forts and post office buildings and naval yards and court houses.....thanks a lot, they belong exclusively to us now. You don't mind, do you? No? Thatta boy."

Did you miss that portion of my response or just decide that it wasn't really there so that you could write that no one answers?

[CAVA1990]

Can someone please explain what the last few excessively long posts have to do with the OP's question? Not every discussion of the war should turn into an endless debate as to its causes.