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.
What was the cause of the war with Japan; the attack on Pearl Harbor. Got any other reasons why the U.S. declared war?
What was the cause of the U.S. war with Nazi Germany; Germany declared war on the U.S. Got any other reasons why the U.S. declared war on Germany?
What was the cause of the Gulf War with Iraq; Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Got any other reason why the U.S. declared war on Iraq?
So what was the cause of the Civil War; South Carolina's attack on Ft. Sumpter. Got any other reason why the U.S. when to war with the South?
Now one could argue that in each of the above cases there were myriad reasons for those who attack the U.S. including South Carolina, but for the for the U.S. there was but a single reason, we the United States was attacked.
What was the cause of the war with Japan; the attack on Pearl Harbor. Got any other reasons why the U.S. declared war?
What was the cause of the U.S. war with Nazi Germany; Germany declared war on the U.S. Got any other reasons why the U.S. declared war on Germany?
What was the cause of the Gulf War with Iraq; Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Got any other reason why the U.S. declared war on Iraq?
So what was the cause of the Civil War; South Carolina's attack on Ft. Sumpter. Got any other reason why the U.S. when to war with the South?
Now one could argue that in each of the above cases there were myriad reasons for those who attack the U.S. including South Carolina, but for the for the U.S. there was but a single reason, we the United States was attacked.
But that's the thing about S. Carolina, they seceded away, and then were forced to fire shots on Ft. Sumter when the Union troops refused to leave the Fort. The refusal of the troops to leave what was at that time legally foreign soil, was an act of war, and S. Carolina responded in the way you would expect a country to respond to defend itself from foreign agents on their land.
You can see from the history of the Civil War that the reason the majority of the battles took place in the South was because the North was invading the South the whole time. The Union were the aggressors. The South was only defending itself.
Slavery was legal in the Union when all of the Southern states seceded... Not a reason to secede, or a reason to fight a war.
TheWiseWino,
The won't admit it and keep on saying "There's 1000s of reasons why the Civil War started"
But I guarantee they won't say that about the other wars.
I'll say it. Nothing happens in a vacuum. There are a lot of events that lead to war. Pearl Harbor, for example, was the excuse the US needed to get into WWII. The people just weren't for it until then, but FDR and other folks in high places were chomping at the bit. We wanted to help Britain (and France) - Lend Lease was fine as far as it went but more was needed.
Most of the time we can see a catalyst that got things going, but the reasons are deeper and have some history. It's not just one event. To believe so is myopic and disingenuous.
Slavery was legal in the Union when all of the Southern states seceded... Not a reason to secede, or a reason to fight a war.
Which goes to show you how foolhardy secession and the attack on Sumter were. Once these happened, the southern states lost the protection of the Constitution regarding slavery. Lincoln, the Republicans, and most abolitionists knew that slavery was legally protected. They sought to limit slavery in new territories and on federal ground as a way to pressure southern states to eventually emancipate on their own, just as the original northern states did. Constitutionally, they were not off base in that strategy, and they knew it might take decades for that to happen. By seceding and firing on Sumter to kick off the war, the southern states opened themselves up to military emancipation and eventually the 13th Amendment, which ended slavery far more quickly than abolitionists would have believed possible.
But that's the thing about S. Carolina, they seceded away, and then were forced to fire shots on Ft. Sumter when the Union troops refused to leave the Fort. The refusal of the troops to leave what was at that time legally foreign soil, was an act of war, and S. Carolina responded in the way you would expect a country to respond to defend itself from foreign agents on their land.
See, right there? That's the debatable point.
Since the Constitution was ratified, the lands upon which all federal installations stood have been sold to the national government by the states which originally owned those lands. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution:
Quote:
The Congress shall have the power...[t]o exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.
South Carolina sold the property upon which Fort Sumter stood to the United States government, and both the Confederate government and the South Carolina government tried to negotiate with the federal government to get it back. Basically, the Southerners were trying to go back on their previous sale, but no party is ever required to rescind an executed contract when the other party to the contract later changes its mind. If you sold a corner of your land to another person, would you really have the right years later to demand that the new owner now return that land back to you?
As Lincoln (and many other Americans) didn't believe that the states had a right of secession, the policy of his administration was to ignore the claims of secession by the Southern states and to ignore the existence of the government of the Confederate States. So when representatives of the Confederate government tried to negotiate with the federal government over Fort Sumter, they were simply ignored.
My take is that South Carolina attacked the federal installation of Fort Sumter so that it would no longer be ignored.
Slavery was legal in the Union when all of the Southern states seceded... Not a reason to secede, or a reason to fight a war.
Slavery was legal in the Union, and to the people in the North, it had seemed to be getting more legal every year since the founding of the nation.
The Louisiana Purchase made more territory available for the spread of slavery westward.
The annexation of Texas and the Mexican American War were seen by Northerners as another land grab to expand the territory available for slavery.
The Compromise of 1850, which erased the boundary between newly admitted states which would or would not allow slavery.
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which required ordinary citizens in the North to directly aid slave owners in the capture of their runaway slaves.
The Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court, which for all intents allowed slave owners to bring their slaves into Northern states where slavery was outlawed, a defacto expansion of slavery to the entire nation.
And then a President was elected on a platform to contain slavery within its existing boundaries but not to abolish slavery where it currently existed...and roughly a month later the state of South Carolina seceded.
I personally have come to the hypothesis that the Civil War was the result of a break-down in communication and compromise. The North (aka the non-South) believed that a slave-power group was conspiring to extend slavery to all states in the Union. Southern slave owners believed that the abolitionist movement was wide spread in the North and would eventually outlaw slavery in all states in the Union.
In truth, most Northerners didn't give a hoot that some Southerners owned slaves, but they were alarmed by the concept that a Southern slave owner could move into a Northern state or into a U.S. territory and begin to compete economically with farms and businesses that didn't use slaves. Most Southerners didn't want to expand slavery, but, to paraphrase one delegate to the North Carolina convention on Secession, if the federal government could take away the slaves of Southerners, what is to stop them from taking away Southerner's horses, cattle, and other property?
The North managed to get a President elected who would work to stop the expansion of slavery. The power brokers of the South saw that as a threat to their way of life, and led their states out of the Union, convincing the other Southerners that the Federal government was about to violate all of their property rights.
But that's the thing about S. Carolina, they seceded away, and then were forced to fire shots on Ft. Sumter when the Union troops refused to leave the Fort. The refusal of the troops to leave what was at that time legally foreign soil, was an act of war, and S. Carolina responded in the way you would expect a country to respond to defend itself from foreign agents on their land.
Are you saying that US military bases in foreign soil can be attacked and you would support that action?
But that's the thing about S. Carolina, they seceded away, and then were forced to fire shots on Ft. Sumter when the Union troops refused to leave the Fort. The refusal of the troops to leave what was at that time legally foreign soil, was an act of war, and S. Carolina responded in the way you would expect a country to respond to defend itself from foreign agents on their land.
Sorry but anyway you cut it, Ft. Sumter was the property of the United States of America and legally deeded to it by the state of South Carolina on December 20, 1837.
Quote:
You can see from the history of the Civil War that the reason the majority of the battles took place in the South was because the North was invading the South the whole time. The Union were the aggressors. The South was only defending itself.
So, where do you think the government should have fought to suppress an unlawful rebellion, Boston?
Quote:
Slavery was legal in the Union when all of the Southern states seceded... Not a reason to secede, or a reason to fight a war.
Well you got one thing right although it is apparent that you don't understand why that would be the case. Slavery was legal, and Lincoln himself recognized that fact. So there was no logical reason to secede, yet that was precisely the reason why South Carolina in particular did so. There was also no reason to fight a war, but no nation, as you've pointed out in your reverse logic, can or should countenance the seizure of its property, withstand an unprovoked attack on its forces, or having an army in rebellion gathered adjacent to its capital, all of which occurred before the government of the United States, sent troops into the southern areas of its lawful and internationally recognized borders.
Why are we still arguing the legalities? There are no legalities in a revolution until one side wins or loses. If you win the revolution was always legal, if you lose it was never legal.
No revolution is ever legal before it begins because by definition, the revolt will be against the prevailing authority and laws. It may be morally justified in the minds of the revolutionaries, and if they prevail, they can construct whatever laws they wish to make their revolution ex post facto legal. There is no such thing as a revolt which starts as a legal revolution because no government ever includes in its national charter, language which spells out when and how it is lawful to topple that government.
Finally, even if we conclude that the Southern states had a legal right to revolt, on what basis may it be argued that the process employed, declared secession, was the correct legal process? The government was formed by a national process, the ratification vote on the Constitution. Why wouldn't a national process be required to unmake it?
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.
