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.
I am not even an advocate of the secessionist mentality, I just think it is worth thinking about from the point of view of someone in that period of time. Please explain in Constitutional terms how Lincoln had the right to take back territory. I am playing devil's advocate, but I am really curious what your reasoning behind that statement is.
I'm not coming at it from Constitutional terms. Texas seceded from Mexico, that was Mexico's land so they fought back and they lost the war. The south seceded from the north, that was the U.S.'s land so they fought back and won the war. I guess you can say that the land was made up of individual states and none of them were actually part of the U.S. but that's a pretty weak argument. They were a part of the U.S. until they decided not to be and now people who weren't even alive back then are whining about how it's unfair that the north wanted the land back. I just think I'm incapable of understanding that argument from the south's perspective. Wars are always "unfair" from some perspective. Maybe I'd feel differently if I was from the south, but no one alive today was alive back then. Wouldn't it be annoying if the British were still going on about how we shouldn't have declared independence in the first place. We won that war too. Maybe you could try to explain the south's perspective to me, because I'm having trouble grasping it.
But they fired because Lincoln was supplying that federal fortification in seceded territory. While I think the South was trigger-happy and presumptuous in this decision, I also think recognizing that Lincoln's action in supplying Fort Sumpter was overtly threatening. And meant to be. Because Lincoln had no intentions of letting the South peacefully secede.
I agree that Lincoln didn't have any intention of letting the South secede. He basically provoked the attack on Fort Sumpter and then used it as justification to begin the war. However, I do think that Lincoln was correct in what he did, because allowing the South to secede would have doomed the US as a country.
People say that there just would have been more than one country, but the reality is that it wouldn't have just stopped there. Every time people got worked up enough over something, they'd be threatening to secede. At best the Union would have ended up with a situation like Canada has with Quebec, at worst it would have fragmented into many smaller countries, all weaker than the whole.
I'm not coming at it from Constitutional terms. Texas seceded from Mexico, that was Mexico's land so they fought back and they lost the war. The south seceded from the north, that was the U.S.'s land so they fought back and won the war. I guess you can say that the land was made up of individual states and none of them were actually part of the U.S. but that's a pretty weak argument. They were a part of the U.S. until they decided not to be and now people who weren't even alive back then are whining about how it's unfair that the north wanted the land back. I just think I'm incapable of understanding that argument from the south's perspective. Wars are always "unfair" from some perspective. Maybe I'd feel differently if I was from the south, but no one alive today was alive back then. Wouldn't it be annoying if the British were still going on about how we shouldn't have declared independence in the first place. We won that war too. Maybe you could try to explain the south's perspective to me, because I'm having trouble grasping it.
For the record, I am a northerner and agree with you, however I like this disucssion and think it is a fun one to talk about. My point is that there was no country "The United States of America" at that point. We were a very loose collection of self contained states. The concept of a concrete nation was very very weak at that point in history. A good way to illustrate this point is that before the civil war the country was the United States of America (lowercase the, plural) and after it was The United States of America (uppercase The, singular). Does that make sense?
If they want to secede again they can try and the north will go back and kick their butts again if that's what they want. It doesn't have to be fair, a war is a war and the north won, a LONG time ago. People need to move on...
But we ARE moving on.......full speed ahead. Lincoln did a good job of not letting little things like the notion of a voluntary union get in his way....on the path to unlimited, imperial federal power. That's where we are today.
I'm not saying they seceded because of Lincoln, I'm saying he wasn't in the wrong to want the territories back. Granted, the Needles/Confederate states analogy was weak, but I was trying to highlight how people don't just LET others take their land without resistance. Like with Texas, when the people seceded from Mexico, it sparked a war because Mexico didn't recognize the secession as Texas was part of their territory. They lost that war. So, the South lost the war, they need to just get over it. No one who whines about it today was alive back then, it's just a waste of time. If they want to secede again they can try and the north will go back and kick their butts again if that's what they want. It doesn't have to be fair, a war is a war and the north won, a LONG time ago. People need to move on...
Secession isn't LETTING others take their land without resistance. It's about the people living on that land deciding for themselves whose authority they are going to obey. The original Colonists decided they would no longer recognize the authority of the English king. Texas decided they would no longer recognize the authority of Spain or Mexico. The South decided they would no longer recognize the authority of the US Federal government. Your perception is that the Civil War ended a long time ago. The South surrendered. And then Reconstruction stripped the South of the economic resources that had survived the war. And it took 100 years for the South to rebuild, in some places they are still rebuilding. So a LONG time ago, to you, but not so long for people still struggling under the legacy of poverty.
I'm not coming at it from Constitutional terms. Texas seceded from Mexico, that was Mexico's land so they fought back and they lost the war. The south seceded from the north, that was the U.S.'s land so they fought back and won the war. I guess you can say that the land was made up of individual states and none of them were actually part of the U.S. but that's a pretty weak argument. They were a part of the U.S. until they decided not to be and now people who weren't even alive back then are whining about how it's unfair that the north wanted the land back. I just think I'm incapable of understanding that argument from the south's perspective. Wars are always "unfair" from some perspective. Maybe I'd feel differently if I was from the south, but no one alive today was alive back then. Wouldn't it be annoying if the British were still going on about how we shouldn't have declared independence in the first place. We won that war too. Maybe you could try to explain the south's perspective to me, because I'm having trouble grasping it.
Declaration of Independence. When the original colonists declared independence from the English yoke, they did so according to the reasons in the Declaration of Independence. The Confederacy felt those reasons to be still compelling 4 score and 6 years later. Why weren't they?
I agree that Lincoln didn't have any intention of letting the South secede. He basically provoked the attack on Fort Sumpter and then used it as justification to begin the war. However, I do think that Lincoln was correct in what he did, because allowing the South to secede would have doomed the US as a country.
People say that there just would have been more than one country, but the reality is that it wouldn't have just stopped there. Every time people got worked up enough over something, they'd be threatening to secede. At best the Union would have ended up with a situation like Canada has with Quebec, at worst it would have fragmented into many smaller countries, all weaker than the whole.
Yes, the fact that twenty years before the Civil War, New England had been threatening to secede is generally overlooked in American History. But Lincoln would have been keenly aware of that, since it was quite current history to him. Moreover, regionalism was more pronounced in the 19th century. The population was much less mobile, they didn't have the mass communications we have today. And states rights versus federal rights was a keenly debated topic back then. It's still an issue, today, but prior to the Civil War, is wasn't an effort to regain rights that the federal government had usurped from the states, it was an ongoing struggle, right after right after right. So Lincoln judiciously felt that the Civil War wasn't a suppression of a rebellion. It was the Union at stake, the promise of the Great Experiment in American Society, a promise not just made to the residents of the original colonies and the settler to the territories, but a promise to the world that a government of the people could survive and thrive.
I think Lincoln was very shrewd in evaluating the future of the United States, with and without the Confederate states. He perceived the need to go forward whole, and he made the decision to go to war. To simply say that the South fired first, or that he had to put down a rebellion, doesn't do credit to the man. His decision wasn't easy, the things he had to do after the war commenced were not easy for him. To appreciate the man and the President he was, we need to remember that he sacrificed much of what he believed in, for a paramount goal of keeping the Union whole.
Secession isn't LETTING others take their land without resistance. It's about the people living on that land deciding for themselves whose authority they are going to obey. The original Colonists decided they would no longer recognize the authority of the English king. Texas decided they would no longer recognize the authority of Spain or Mexico. The South decided they would no longer recognize the authority of the US Federal government. Your perception is that the Civil War ended a long time ago. The South surrendered. And then Reconstruction stripped the South of the economic resources that had survived the war. And it took 100 years for the South to rebuild, in some places they are still rebuilding. So a LONG time ago, to you, but not so long for people still struggling under the legacy of poverty.
That isn't what I said secession was. When someone secedes, they no longer recognize the power of the people who possess the land. As for reconstruction, you do have a point that the Civil War isn't that "old" in that respect but I still haven't come to grasp the perspective of the south. As far as I can tell, Britain isn't still fixated on losing the Revolutionary War, Mexico isn't still fixated on losing the Mexican-American War, so I don't see why some Southerners are still fixated on losing the Civil War.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Declaration of Independence. When the original colonists declared independence from the English yoke, they did so according to the reasons in the Declaration of Independence. The Confederacy felt those reasons to be still compelling 4 score and 6 years later. Why weren't they?
We aren't speaking as to whether or not their reasons were compelling. My original post, in response to someone saying that Lincoln was the worst president because of the Civil War, indicated my confusion over the idea that a group of people are still pissed that they lost a war when they took a chunk of land from the U.S. and then got their bottoms spanked by the north. I'll repeat, I wasn't asking if it was Constitutional or if it was fair or if it was compelling, I still don't get why secessionists care. They lost, the U.S. got their land back, beyond that, I don't see why people are still so butt-hurt about Lincoln and the Civil War.
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.
