Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Would there have been a civil war if the south had not fired on Ft Sumter?
Was there no way the secession could have happened without war?
Secession was mostly off the table and in the end would have pretty much prevented the U.S. from becoming a super power. Also you can thank Jefferson Davis for firing on troops on federal troops in a fort without instead of letting them get resupplied. That act did quite a lot to unite the north.
If Lincoln didn’t try to resupply Fort Sumter, would there have been a Civil War?
Or better yet, if Lincoln would’ve made peace with the Confederate delegation that came to DC to negotiate an amicable split, pay the federal government for military installations in the south, to include Fort Sumter, would there have been a Civil War?
For selfish reasons centuries later, I’m glad that the Union stayed together. But there is no way that keeping the Union together would’ve been worth my life back in the 1860s.
So because they couldn’t find a peaceful solution, 620,000 people had to die. Basically, for nothing, in my opinion.
Would there have been a civil war if the south had not fired on Ft Sumter?
Was there no way the secession could have happened without war?
Man.. this is a question we could (and some have) spent reflecting on for decades.
My take, secession could have happened without a war. But it would have required the political will of Northern states. There is always a technical argument made that secession was not permitted in the 1860s.. but even if the Constitution (as of 1860) expressly stated that state secession was illegal.. the Constitution is and has been amendable. And could've been amended to expressly allow for state secession.
Northern states, Copperheads etc could have acted/negotiated in good faith to allow dissatisfied Southern states to leave. Secession was doomed to war because Lincoln believed he had an unalterable duty to maintain union.
The issue of federal forts would've been part of this good faith secession negotiation.. which South Carolina did attempt with Pres. Buchanan.
As far as Ft Sumter, I think when it was fired upon.. BOTH sides were itching to fight by that point.
I have on this forum in the past opined that the Confederate States probably felt the need to start a shooting war.
Secession occurred in the Lower South in response to the Republican candidate winning the US presidential election, but before Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as POTUS. The incumbent president, Democrat James Buchanan, claimed that he had no power as president to prevent states from seceding. Conveniently, Buchanan's claim allowed him to punt the problem to his successor.
The Corwin Amendment was passed by the US Congress prior to Lincoln being sworn in as President. It would have prohibited the federal government from abolishing or interfering in each state's domestic institutions, specifically calling out slavery (with out actually using the word) as one of the protected domestic institutions. Lincoln did mention the amendment in his inaugural address, but it's my understanding he neither supported or opposed the amendment.
Lincoln's plan was to ignore secession, to wait for "secession fever" to pass. He was also going to hold onto one of the last federal military installations left in the southern United States, nearly all of the others having been either seized or looted by locals or by federal military officers sympathetic to the Southern Cause.
IMO, the Confederate States were in a conundrum. If they were ignored, their cause might not sustain itself and would possibly founder. Certainly, no foreign power would dare recognize the Confederacy if the US government continued to ignore it. The Confederates needed to push the issue, hence the attack on Fort Sumter prior to it being resupplied with food and water. Lincoln couldn't ignore them after they took a federal installation by force. The Confederacy needed to defeat the US federal government militarily in order to obtain recognition as a legitimate government, both from the Unites States and from foreign governments.
Secession does happen, but it requires the consent of those from whom the entity is seceding in order to happen. I cite the case of the nation of Czechoslovakia peacefully agreeing to split up into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. As James Madison pointed out in the late 1790's, the US Constitution is a contract among the People of the United States and as such the contract can only be legally terminated if all members of the contract agree to terminate it. Southern secession could only be legal if the federal government agreed to it. Because President Lincoln didn't agree to secession, the recourse was an attempt at extra-legal secession, aka the American Civil War.
Or better yet, if Lincoln would’ve made peace with the Confederate delegation that came to DC to negotiate an amicable split, pay the federal government for military installations in the south, to include Fort Sumter, would there have been a Civil War?
That was the Buchanan administration; basically kicking that can down the road to the next president.
That was the Buchanan administration; basically kicking that can down the road to the next president.
Since South Carolina seceded on Dec 20, 1860, and Lincoln was already elected at that time, just not inaugurated yet, I assumed he was involved in the decision?
Since South Carolina seceded on Dec 20, 1860, and Lincoln was already elected at that time, just not inaugurated yet, I assumed he was involved in the decision?
Why would the Confederates meet with a lame duck?
Who knows, they were planning to secede well before the election and just executed the plan by then.
There could not have been an amicable split. The various peace commissions in 1861 looked at various solutions, none would work for various reasons. But perhaps Virginia's Governor Letcher - who was considered a moderate - shows why there could not be an amicable split. In January 1861, he laid out Virginia's conditions - remember he was a moderate - there were seven conditions as reported in the Richmond Examiner: fugitive slaves must be returned; guarantee of slavery in D.C.; right to bring slaves into any state or territory and if the slave has gone missing - the state will pay the slaveowner...and so forth.
By the 1840's the die was cast. The Protestant churches had split on the issue; southerners claiming it was Biblically justified. Once the Almighty is brought into an argument, there is little wiggle room.
Regarding the legality of secession, John Minor Botts' The Great Rebellion: Its Secret History, Rise, Progress, and Disastrous Failure (1866) is still in print and a detailed discussion of why it was not constitutional. (For an opposing view, read Jefferson Davis' The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government.) These books give insight into how the issue was looked at as they were being debated.
Botts was a slaveholder from VA who like many slaveholders opposed secession. Many foresaw that the Confederacy would fail and they thought remaining in the Union was the best way to preserve slavery at least in part of the US.
(Regarding the split of Czechoslovakia, I recall the Ambassador being asked on TV if it would be peaceful. Her answer was why would they fight each other when they did not fight the Germans.)
That was the Buchanan administration; basically kicking that can down the road to the next president.
Buchanan gets a bum wrap. There was no way this was going to end well; though admittedly he didn't help things.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
