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.
Don't feel bad. To those of us who use deductive reasoning, the meat of your post was so good, it was obvious that it was a typo.
In regards the OP, most everyone here got it right: The Ft Sumpter episode was a matter of States' Rights & ownership. The War of Rebellion didn't have to be fought. They could have negotiated a compromise to all the issues, and avoided the half million casualties that were to come (although they had been trying for decides already).... Lincoln's cavalier treatment of The Constitution over the next 4 yrs makes FDR look like a conservative.
The war need not have been fought if either side had simply given up their position and yielded to the other.
Negotiated a compromise? The 40 years leading up to the war were marked by a series of compromises, none of which solved the dispute, they merely postponed the day of reckoning.
The war came because they finally reached a point where compromise was no longer possible. The nation voted in a Republican administration in a fair election. They had run on a platform which called for arresting the expansion of slavery.
The South was demanding that slavery be allowed in the territories without restriction. What compromise could the Republicans have made? Give up the position upon which they had just been elected and yield to the political demands of the losers of that election?
The war need not have been fought if either side had simply given up their position and yielded to the other.
True, but this is almost as disingenuous as claiming all current media lie and distort the truth; bygod, even the NYT has to correct some of its stories.
The position on one side was political imperative and a willingness to bend the Constitution. Shocking. Mean. Awful.
The position on the other side was to preserve a system that remains a deep moral stain on the country (and the Constitution) a century and a half later.
True, but this is almost as disingenuous as claiming all current media lie and distort the truth; bygod, even the NYT has to correct some of its stories.
It is nothing of the kind, there isn't anything above in common with what I wrote and there wasn't anything disingenuous about it.
I was pointing out the futility of the blame game. guidoLaMoto was placing the blame on the north's failure to compromise, while not obligating the south to any compromises at all. Compromise requires both sides to give in on some issues.
I was further pointing out how that was no longer possible after the election of President Lincoln. The Republicans had run on a platform which said...no more compromises on the issue of slavery in the territories. Secession was a response to losing the election to those Republicans because the south had taken the stance that they would never live under the rule of a "black Republican."
That is how things stood on the eve of Sumter, nothing disingenuous about it.
I was pointing out the futility of the blame game. guidoLaMoto was placing the blame on the north's failure to compromise, while not obligating the south to any compromises at all. Compromise requires both sides to give in on some issues.
Yes, but it's equating a political situation with a deeply immoral one, as if the choice was "balanced."
The North was supposed to leave the South be on political grounds, basically a playground rule saying Uncle Sam had to stay on his side of the line. Yes, we were very bad for violating that.
The alternative speaks for itself. More precisely, the subjects of the alternative now can speak for themselves (glossing over a few details).
Not an equivalent situation/argument in any way except to those trying too hard to give the Lost Cause faction equal air time. And they've had long enough and too much acceptance of their BS revisionism.
Yes, but it's equating a political situation with a deeply immoral one, as if the choice was "balanced."
I was not passing a moral judgment, that is not the historian's task. Morally I side with the north because I could never back the side which was defending the institution of race based slavery. I also view the south position as one of spoil sports. You cannot have a democracy unless everyone agrees to respect the results of the elections. The south respected the results only so long as they were winning. From Andrew Jackson, through James Buchanan, the south enjoyed three decades of political domination, out of proportion with their population numbers. None of the presidents during that time were hostile toward slavery. A balance between slave and free states meant that the south could use the Senate to shoot down anything anti-slavery laws that the House might pass. Seven of the nine Supreme Court justices were southern, pro- slavery justices.
It was when this cozy arrangement became threatened by the Republican victory, that the south suddenly decided that they were under no obligation to respect the election's outcome.
That is my moral view of the situation.
My historical view is what I wrote previously. That the war came when the point was reached where compromise was no longer possible. The south viewed Lincoln's election as a threat, and it certainly was a threat to southern interests. I do not see that either side had the better legal argument regarding secession. The Constitution neither permits, nor forbids it.
Once they seceded then they were now a foreign nation separate from the Unite States of America. The fort was within the new nation and was occupied by now foreign troops. The Confederates offered the Union troops to peacefully leave their post to return to their country. They refused and eventually it was decided they represented a threat to their newly formed nation and had to be removed by force. I understand the troops not leaving their post without orders from their president. If Lincoln had given the order and the troops left the fort then the civil war could have been delayed or potentially averted. But I believe by that time there was too many egos flexing their muscles for cooler heads on either side to prevent the coming war. It’s easy to look back and say what we think they “should” have done to prevent the war but some of that is just hindsight. Those in power at the time didn’t have instant access to information on want the other side was doing or truly wanted. Lines of communications took much longer than today’s postal service and that’s if the communications even made it to their final destination.
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.
