S/O south seceding - this is probably a dumb question, but...

[Mrs Mungo]

That still offers no evidence to your assertion that the CSA wanted war.

 

And you have offered no evidence of the opposite.

 

By the way....yes even if we agree that they were on the wrong side, even if we are thankful that the North won there was a great deal of "nobility" in many of the Southerners (NOT ALL, but many). The courage thay showed, the love of nation (as they saw it), the honor that they demonstrated (look to Beauregard's treatment of Anderson after the surrender at Sumter) was in its way noble. To deny that would be a little tawdry and be a denial of history.

 

There is nobility and baseness, courage and cowardice, brilliant and poor tactics, patriotism and greed on BOTH sides of ANY and ALL wars. My statement had nothing to do with individuals.

[Mrs Mungo]

I have read a LOT of books on this topic and it still confuses me why the "preservation of the Union" was an issue worth shedding so much blood over. To me, it seems like there were a lot of alternatives to war. I've wondering this for many, many years and have sought out the answers a lot of places. I was just thinking maybe someone here (there are a lot of very smart women on these boards) may have something more to offer. What exactly does preserving the Union mean, anyway. I mean, I know what it means literally - I just can't figure out why it so important it was worth a war over. It sounds like a finely crafted ambiguous phrase designed to conceal the real reason Lincoln felt compelled to spill so much blood for. I still don't get WHY???? There were so many other ways he could have handled the disagreement which would have avoided out-and-out war.

 

Do you believe the United States is worth fighting for today? It's what my husband lives and breathes. It's no mystery to me, I guess.

[Slartibartfast]

Yeah, I get that the fort was F-E-D-E-R-A-L property - geesh. I still think it wasn't worth entering a war over. The CSA did not want to attack the fort. The Union troops could have just left T-O A-V-O-I-D A W-A-R.

 

What I'm wondering is why they didn't choose the less violent alternative of just packing up and leaving. It would have ended the whole ding-dong thing right then and there. There would have been no war and all those poor soldiers on BOTH sides could have been saved. The question is not did Lincoln have a right to maintain the Union occupation of the fort. The question is why did he think it was so important that it was worth thousands of men's lives.

 

Lincoln was negotiating with the Governor of South Carolina at the time, he didn't recognize the Confederate Government so they were not really communicating.

 

Lincoln informed the Governor of South Carolina they were going to send provisions to the Fort but the Confederate Government did not want those supplies to reach the Fort.

 

There were not negotiations between Lincoln and the CSA because Lincoln did not recognize the CSA.

[Kathleen in VA]

Lincoln was negotiating with the Governor of South Carolina at the time, he didn't recognize the Confederate Government so they were not really communicating.

 

Lincoln informed the Governor of South Carolina they were going to send provisions to the Fort but the Confederate Government did not want those supplies to reach the Fort.

 

There were not negotiations between Lincoln and the CSA because Lincoln did not recognize the CSA.

 

How does this answer the question of why Lincoln didn't just give it up and avoid a war?

[pqr]

And you have offered no evidence of the opposite.

 

 

But you made the statement that the CSA wanted war. I am asking YOU to give evidence and reference in support of your statement.

 

You said "We didn't just let it go because there is no way the CSA was going to just let it go. The CSA wanted the fight."

 

To argue that the South wanted war and would not let it go, as you did, requires evidence.

 

For my part I make the more reasonable claim that depite a few hotheads war could have been averted had the Union military left the Southern States.

 

How about this

 

I shall mourn for my country and for the welfare of mankind. If the union is dissolved and the government disrupted, I shall return to my native state and share the miseries of my people, and save in defence, will draw my sword on none-RE LEE before joining the CSA.

Doesn't look like he wanted war.

 

Give me a quote that says the South will invade the North even if they are allowed to peacefully leave.

Edited January 22, 2011 by pqr

[Slartibartfast]

How does this answer the question of why Lincoln didn't just give it up and avoid a war?

 

Lincoln didn't recognize the CSA. Why would he give up a major harbor to a government he didn't recognize?

 

He was talking with the governor of South Carolina, who was the only logical choice for negotiations regarding the issue.

 

The attack on Fort Sumter occurred one month and one week after Lincoln was sworn in as President. That certainly isn't very long.

 

Why weren't they more patient?

[Kathleen in VA]

Do you believe the United States is worth fighting for today? It's what my husband lives and breathes. It's no mystery to me, I guess.

 

Well, it's not as if the United States would have ceased to exist if Lincoln hadn't chosen to fight the CSA. It would have become smaller but it would not have disappeared. Not only that, it was the North that invaded the south, not the other way around. The south felt the very same way you do about their homeland - that it was worth fighting for. When Lincoln called up troops he was necessarily stating that he was willing to invade the south, kill people, etc. to "preserve the Union." I don't see fighting terrorists as quite the same thing as preserving a union - especially since that union was entered into voluntarily and the understanding at the time it was formed was that if for any reason the US govt did anything that limited the liberties of the states who volunteered to enter, those states were free to leave. Apples and oranges, imo.

 

I think human life and liberty are worth fighting for, yes. But, if this country begins to stand for something other than those two things than no, I would not consider it worth fighting to maintain.

 

I really don't see how fighting for America today compares to fighting for America then. They are two entirely different entities. The issues are different, very different.

 

If Texas decided to secede, for instance, I don't think it would be worth the rest of the country fighting to the death over. I'd consider human life worth more than keeping a state in the Union.

[Lolly]

How does this answer the question of why Lincoln didn't just give it up and avoid a war?

 

My post may have gotten lost (or possibly I'm on ignore:tongue_smilie:). It was about money.

[Kate CA]

I was poking around online and found something that has not been discussed yet in specific terms so I thought I would quote it here:

 

As to why the North didn't just let the south form their own country? That is a more complicated answer but has to do with the theory of America itself. The reason the South wanted to leave was because they disagreed with the anti-slavery mood of the country and the government. It would show a weakness in the country if states were allowed to leave if they disagreed with a position that the national government took. In a way it would be if we allowed Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi to leave the union so they could outlaw abortion. Then we let California, Maine and Mass. leave so they could have Gay Marriage. pretty soon we have no country at all just a series of small states that offer no real protection for their citizens.

 

I think this is a point worth considering. I don't think the US would have been a strong country if the south had seceded. The War of 1812 had only ended in 1815. This was Britain still trying to control our country and people. They actually invaded our country and burned Washington. (There is much more to it too, of course.) 1860 was only 45 years later. If we did not have a strong united country, we could not defend ourselves against future aggressors.

 

And then of course there are the myriad of reasons having to do with the economy and financial stability of the country.

 

I often wonder how it could have come about in a different manner. I don't think the south understood how far the Union would go to maintain itself, but I am not sure the Union even knew that at the time! I think the South felt they would be allowed to secede and that would be that. I think the Constitution lent itself to that interpretation, but it wasn't to be. I read The Private Mary Chesnut and it has an eye-witness account of the Fort Sumter battle that gives you an entirely different view of it. I don't think anyone could have predicted they war would go on for so long and have such an enormous loss of life. Indeed, war really was seen almost as a diversion as people actually drove out in their carriages to view it!

 

We have what I think is a disadvantage of knowledge of the full scope of the war. They simply didn't have this. Both sides felt it would be a few battles and the whole thing would be over--and they both thought they would be easy winners.

 

It is much more complicated than "Lincoln should have done such and such!" or "The South should not have seceded!" It is not easy to place ourselves in the minds of the people and why they felt/did what they did 150 years ago. There is much to consider and think about. :001_smile:

[pqr]

The attack on Fort Sumter occurred one month and one week after Lincoln was sworn in as President. That certainly isn't very long.

 

Why weren't they more patient?

 

 

SC seceded Dec 20 1860 the battle was April 12 1861 AND the fort was being supplied (to the Carolinian mindset possibly reinforced).

They did wait.

I agree that could have waited longer, but just how long?

 

 

Lincoln had time to send supplies so perhaps he had time to make a decision, oh wait he did. Lincoln's decision was that he would NOT evacuate Sumter.

[Lolly]

Do you believe the United States is worth fighting for today? It's what my husband lives and breathes. It's no mystery to me, I guess.

 

While I do believe the United States is worth fighting for today, I believe that even today the states should have a Constitutional right to secede if they desire under the 9th and 10th amendments.

[[email protected]]

If this thread does not remain polite (some of you are very close to incivility), it will be closed.

 

Moderator

[Slartibartfast]

SC seceded Dec 20 1860 the battle was April 12 1861 AND the fort was being supplied (to the Carolinian mindset possibly reinforced).

 

They did wait.

 

I agree that could have waited longer, but just how long?

 

 

Lincoln had time to send supplies so perhaps he had time to make a decision, oh wait he did. Lincoln's decision was that he would NOT evacuate Sumter.

 

Lincoln was Inaugerated March 4th and the Fort was attacked April 12th.

 

The date of the secession was under a different President. You cannot blame Lincoln for those additional months when he had no power for those three months until he was President.

 

President Buchanan attempted but failed to send supplies to Fort Sumter via ship in January and the ship was attacked.

 

Once Lincoln was President he informed the Governor of South Carolina that he was going to send provisions to the Fort. The CSA did not want those provisions to arrive so they demanded the surrender of the fort.

 

 

Anderson did not have orders to evacuate so of course he did not and they attacked.

 

The fort was not resupplied.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Sis

[Mrs Mungo]

"War is inevitable, and there is not telling when it will burst around you . . . You have to move and make arrangements to go to some point of safety which you must select. The Mount Vernon plate and pictures ought to be secured. Keep quiet while you remain, and in your preparations . . . May God keep and preserve you and have mercy on all our people."

Robert E/ Lee to his wife,

Mary Anna Custis

May 1861

 

 

"The time for compromise has now passed, and the South is determined to maintain her position, and make all who oppose her smell Southern powder and feel Southern steel!"Jefferson Davis used these words in his inaugural speech on February 16, 1861

 

Was the war inevitable at the point Lincoln was elected? Most historians believe that it was.

[mcconnellboys]

"I am seriously confused about why Lincoln just didn't l let the South go. He could have saved so many lives. He could have just treated the CSA as another country and continued to do business with them. Was human life that cheap to him? I do not get it at all."

__________________

 

 

Kathleen, in the economics links I provided last night, they talk about this. I believe the Libertarian who wrote on it also talked about this issue.

 

The North did have quite a lot of manufacturing concerns and did use some of the South's cotton. They could get that more inexpensively if they were all part of the same nation.

 

The North also hoped to push more of its own manufactured goods upon the South (which tended to want to buy from abroad still, at least where the super-wealthy were concerned).

 

The two parts of the country had long fought over duties, tariffs, or taxes imposed upon imported goods. Those who held political power in the South were against such things, because they imported much of their goods and didn't want to have to pay more; those in the North wanted such things because it made the cost of their own manufactured goods more attractive for purchase by the South....

 

As with most wars, it was all about power and money. Slavery was a sidecar.....

[Kathleen in VA]

Lincoln didn't recognize the CSA. Why would he give up a major harbor to a government he didn't recognize?

 

To avoid war.

 

He was talking with the governor of South Carolina, who was the only logical choice for negotiations regarding the issue.

 

The attack on Fort Sumter occurred one month and one week after Lincoln was sworn in as President. That certainly isn't very long.

 

You keep calling it an attack. The north could have just left. There would have been no need to attack. Why didn't Lincoln just call his troops home to avoid war?

 

Why weren't they more patient?

 

They were very patient. They seceded in December of 1860 and did not demand the removal of Union troops until April of 1861. Also, when Lincoln was elected there were no troops at all at Ft. Sumter. The fort hadn't even been finished yet. It was only after SC seceded that Maj. Anderson removed his troops from Ft. Moultrie and moved them to Ft. Sumter. Certainly, this action could be perceived as an offensive military move to which the CSA could rightly have responded by demanding their immediate removal.

 

The point is why did Lincoln not do everything within his power to avoid war.

[Slartibartfast]

The point is why did Lincoln not do everything within his power to avoid war.

 

He only had one month. I think you are judging him too harshly.

[pqr]

"War is inevitable, and there is not telling when it will burst around you . . . You have to move and make arrangements to go to some point of safety which you must select. The Mount Vernon plate and pictures ought to be secured. Keep quiet while you remain, and in your preparations . . . May God keep and preserve you and have mercy on all our people."

Robert E/ Lee to his wife,

Mary Anna Custis

May 1861

 

 

"The time for compromise has now passed, and the South is determined to maintain her position, and make all who oppose her smell Southern powder and feel Southern steel!"Jefferson Davis used these words in his inaugural speech on February 16, 1861

 

Was the war inevitable at the point Lincoln was elected? Most historians believe that it was.

 

I am afraid that your quotes do not support your argument. By May 1861 war was inevitable as it had already started. Lincoln had already called up additional troops.

 

The Davis quote references the issue of what would happen if the South was not allowed to leave peacefully then she would do so by war. The issue is that if the Union had evacuated the posts in the South and accepted independence there would have been no war. Davis' speech is about the refusal of the Union to grant independence not about a desire for war if the Union did so.

[Mrs Mungo]

The point is why did Lincoln not do everything within his power to avoid war.

 

Why is avoiding war the most important thing? Why didn't we hand Pearl Harbor over to the Japanese and be done with it? Why did anyone care that Hitler wanted Poland or Paris? Why do we fight in Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

There were numerous issues involved. Many of them have been enumerated here.

[Kate CA]

The point is why did Lincoln not do everything within his power to avoid war.

 

I posted at the bottom of this thread something that addresses other areas of the war that you might not be considering.

[LibraryLover]

Iis this a good time for Lincoln's second Inagural adress? ;)

 

Fellow-Countrymen:

At this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.

 

Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully.

The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?

 

Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

[Mrs Mungo]

I am afraid that your quotes do not support your argument. By May 1861 war was inevitable as it had already started. Lincoln had already called up additional troops.

 

The Davis quote references the issue of what would happen if the South was not allowed to leave peacefully then she would do so by war. The issue is that if the Union had evacuated the posts in the South and accepted independence there would have been no war. Davis' speech is about the refusal of the Union to grant independence not about a desire for war if the Union did so.

 

Was the union ever going to give up and let the south secede? NOBODY believed that at the time. You are arguing a non-existent point. Picking the fight at Sumter WAS starting a war and everyone at the time believed it. Why pretend they believed they would be allowed to leave peacefully? That's a moot argument.

[LibraryLover]

Or maybe something from Mississippi at the start? I mean, was sucession a good idea at all? ;)

 

 

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

[pqr]

Was the union ever going to give up and let the south secede? NOBODY believed that at the time. You are arguing a non-existent point. Picking the fight at Sumter WAS starting a war and everyone at the time believed it. Why pretend they believed they would be allowed to leave peacefully? That's a moot argument.

 

 

You are switching your argument. You stated

 

"We didn't just let it go because there is no way the CSA was going to just let it go. The CSA wanted the fight."

 

It was this comment that was my issue as I think it is quite simply wrong.

 

If you now change your argument and now argue that war was in fact inevitable we may find some agreement.

[Mrs Mungo]

You are switching your argument. You stated

 

"We didn't just let it go because there is no way the CSA was going to just let it go. The CSA wanted the fight."

 

It was this comment that was my issue as I think it is quite simply wrong.

 

Were not going to let WHAT go? I was speaking of the attack on Ft. Sumter, not the secession. You are putting words in my mouth.

 

My quote: "You do understand that the first shots were fired by the CSA and were fired upon and captured a US military post? Lincoln's first act was to ask for a group of volunteers from each state to recapture the military post in question. We didn't just let it go because there is no way the CSA was going to just let it go. The CSA wanted the fight. The US fought for the same reason we didn't just let the Taliban abide in Afghanistan (half a world away) after 9/11."

 

In other words, the CSA picked the fight that they KNEW would come, they KNEW it was inevitable. This is a strawman argument on your point.

 

If you now change your argument and now argue that war was in fact inevitable we may find some agreement.

 

Except, my argument did not change. You are characterizing it incorrectly.

[Slartibartfast]

I missed your comments in the quotes

 

They were very patient. They seceded in December of 1860 and did not demand the removal of Union troops until April of 1861. Also, when Lincoln was elected there were no troops at all at Ft. Sumter. The fort hadn't even been finished yet. It was only after SC seceded that Maj. Anderson removed his troops from Ft. Moultrie and moved them to Ft. Sumter. Certainly, this action could be perceived as an offensive military move to which the CSA could rightly have responded by demanding their immediate removal.

 

Lincoln became President March 4th, before then Buchanan was President.

 

The other fort was abandoned because it not defendable.

 

Of course it could have been perceived as hostile, it was perceived as hostile but you asked why Lincoln did not do more. Anderson moved the troops while *Buchanan* was President, not Lincoln. Lincoln had no power until the Inaugeration in March as per our Constitution.

 

Anderson moved the troops on December 26th, less than one week after the secession.

[LibraryLover]

Yes. Things were already hysterically boiling before Lincoln ever took office.

 

I missed your comments in the quotes

 

 

 

Lincoln became President March 4th, before then Buchanan was President.

 

The other fort was abandoned because it not defendable.

 

Of course it could have been perceived as hostile, it was perceived as hostile but you asked why Lincoln did not do more. Anderson moved the troops while *Buchanan* was President, not Lincoln.

 

Anderson moved the troops on December 26th, less than one week after the secession.

[pqr]

Were not going to let WHAT go? I was speaking of the attack on Ft. Sumter, not the secession. You are putting words in my mouth.

 

My quote: "You do understand that the first shots were fired by the CSA and were fired upon and captured a US military post? Lincoln's first act was to ask for a group of volunteers from each state to recapture the military post in question. We didn't just let it go because there is no way the CSA was going to just let it go. The CSA wanted the fight. The US fought for the same reason we didn't just let the Taliban abide in Afghanistan (half a world away) after 9/11."

 

In other words, the CSA picked the fight that they KNEW would come, they KNEW it was inevitable. This is a strawman argument on your point.

 

I see, so had the Union evacuated the fort the CSA would not have let it go. Thay wanted a fight and would have attacked anyway?...just trying to make sure that I understand.

[Slartibartfast]

Yes. Things were already hysterically boiling before Lincoln ever took office.

 

Yeah why not ask why Buchanan didn't do more?

[Mrs Mungo]

I see, so had the Union evacuated the fort the CSA would not have let it go. Thay wanted a fight and would have attacked anyway?...just trying to make sure that I understand.

 

If the Union had evacuated Ft Sumter, then the CSA would have used that victory to procure more such posts. The Union was never going to allow that to happen. As I said, it's the same reason we didn't just let 9/11 go. We went to Afghanistan and started killing/capturing Taliban leaders to try and prevent more such attacks on US soil. Ft Sumter=US government soil. Our leaders believe it is worth protecting, that it is worth shedding the blood of patriots, terrorists, terrorist paymasters and even innocent bystanders.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Mrs Mungo

[pqr]

If the Union had evacuated Ft Sumter, then the CSA would have used that victory to procure more such posts.

Posts in the Southern States? In States that had left the Union such as Ft Pickens in FL? In other words they were going to pursue the evacuation of Union posts from the territories of the Southern States.

 

Lets pull this string.....if the Union evacuated all posts in the South was there still no way the CSA was going to just let it go. The CSA wanted the fight? Perhaps there would have been peace and if this is true then the CSA was willing to let it go.

[Mrs Mungo]

Posts in the Southern States? In States that had left the Union such as Ft Pickens in FL? In other words they were going to pursue the evacuation of Union posts from the territories of the Southern States.

 

Lets pull this string.....if the Union evacuated all posts in the South was there still no way the CSA was going to just let it go. The CSA wanted the fight? Perhaps there would have been peace and if this is true then the CSA was willing to let it go.

 

I was speaking of letting Ft. Sumter go, not evacuating all of the Southern states. That simply was never going to happen. You are asking me to defend a point that I never made. If you can't understand that, I don't know what to tell you.

[Dobela]

I have read a LOT of books on this topic and it still confuses me why the "preservation of the Union" was an issue worth shedding so much blood over. To me, it seems like there were a lot of alternatives to war. I've wondering this for many, many years and have sought out the answers a lot of places. I was just thinking maybe someone here (there are a lot of very smart women on these boards) may have something more to offer. What exactly does preserving the Union mean, anyway. I mean, I know what it means literally - I just can't figure out why it so important it was worth a war over. It sounds like a finely crafted ambiguous phrase designed to conceal the real reason Lincoln felt compelled to spill so much blood for. I still don't get WHY???? There were so many other ways he could have handled the disagreement which would have avoided out-and-out war.

The preservation of the union was important because most of the money was in the south. Yes, the north had railroads and industry (just beginning to grow so not a financial stronghold yet). The reason the North didn't abolish slavery before was because the US governement needed the money that the southern plantation owners had. Most of the US trade was from the south. Most of the ports were in the south. Most of the imports were to the south. The north could not afford to let the south go.

[pqr]

I was speaking of letting Ft. Sumter go, not evacuating all of the Southern states. That simply was never going to happen. You are asking me to defend a point that I never made. If you can't understand that, I don't know what to tell you.

 

Well we will have to disagree. It seems that your argument is shifting. if you are speaking of Sumter there would have been no action if the Union had evacuated. The CSA was not going to fire on an empty fort. If you are speaking of the war, as you did with the Davis quote, then again the North held the whip hand. Evacuation would have prevented war, which was the OP's original question.

 

If you argue that the North was not going to let the South go, even that is debatable, but we will have to disagree.

 

I have seen no evidence that the South wanted war, independence yes...war no..

[[email protected]]

pqr:

 

You're shouting. Ramp down the rhetoric, please.

 

Moderator

[pqr]

pqr:

 

You're shouting. Ramp down the rhetoric, please.

 

Moderator

 

 

Certainly.

[Kathleen in VA]

Posts are appearing while I am typing and I may say something that has already been addressed - sorry - I'm trying to keep up but y'all are fast!

 

My post may have gotten lost (or possibly I'm on ignore:tongue_smilie:). It was about money.

 

Goodness, no. You are not on ignore. Sorry for not replying - I think you are right, sadly. It's just that some folks here seem to think Lincoln was justified and I, personally, do not think money is a justfication for war. Although, that seems to be why many wars have been fought. I guess I'm just pressing that point.

 

Mrs. Mungo - no one was killed at Ft. Sumter. Thousands of US sailors, airmen, etc. were killed at Pearl Harbor.

 

Why is avoiding war the most important thing? I'm just thinking about the thousands of lives lost. Kate and Regena have helped me see that no one on either side expected such a long, costly conflict. No doubt, that played into Lincoln's decisions. I wouldn't say avoiding war is always the most important thing - I'm just thinking it should be attempted heartily before deciding to go ahead with it. In the case of Ft. Sumter, I think if Lincoln had just called the troops home the whole thing could have been avoided.

 

[inserting here since I just read your post about that action most likely leading to the CSA seeing that as a go ahead to take all the union forts in the south. Well, if those forts were in the south, then perhaps it would have fine for Lincoln to just hand them over amicably. What good would they have been if his mindset was to avoid a conflict. He would have just been saying to the CSA that they were free to go and here is all your land back and can we just try to get along as separate nations now? Perhaps that's a dumb way to look at it. God knows I am no expert historian - I'm just throwing these ideas out there and am hoping folks will tell me why or not my ideas could or could not have flown back then.]

 

Yes, it would have changed the whole arrangement and demanded a new approach to relations with the South, but I think it would have been a wiser response, especially since Maj. Anderson did not have to take any troops there in the first place (I'm not sure it matters which President was in office at the time he occupied the Ft. - Lincoln still had a choice as to how to respond to SC's demand for the troops to leave and he could have taken Maj. Anderson's actions into consideration.)

 

Sis - SC seceded because Lincoln had been elected. It was about Lincoln. I'm not seeing the relevance of the fact that he had not been inaugurated yet. They were responding to the election of Lincoln. I'm sure Lincoln gave the matter much thought between the date he was elected and the date he was inaugurated. He was certainly aware of Maj. Anderson's actions when they occurred - he did find out about that on his inauguration day.

 

Kate and Regena - your comments are very helpful - they give me more insight into the frame of mind of folks at that time. Thanks.

 

LibraryLover - I'm not sure Lincoln's inaugural address is relevant as it is a political speech and may or may not have been a true representation of Lincoln's true pov. He was on the spot and had to say something that would sound good, kwim? Just saying I'd need more than a public speech to convince me of anything.

 

Sis - as far as asking about Buchanan. Perhaps that is a valid question - I hadn't really evaluated Buchanan's actions. I will need to read up on his actions. From what I vaguely remember, he was kind of a wimp who wanted to pass the whole mess onto his successor. Not sure about that - like I said it is a vague recollection. Nevertheless, Lincoln was not hamstringed by Buchanan's actions. He was handed a mess - a mess I will say would never have become an issue if our founding fathers had taken care of it in 1787 - I feel for him because he really was put on the spot. Still, I think regardless of what his predecessors did or did not do, it was within his power to avoid the war and he chose not to.

[Mrs Mungo]

Well we will have to disagree. It seems that your argument is shifting. if you are speaking of Sumter there would have been no action if the Union had evacuated. The CSA was not going to fire on an empty fort. If you are speaking of the war, as you did with the Davis quote, then again the North held the whip hand. Evacuation would have prevented war, which was the OP's original question.

 

Evacuation of *what* would have prevented the war? Evacuation of Ft Sumter would not have prevented the war. Evacuation of the south would not have preserved the union, which was the goal of the war.

 

I have seen no evidence that the South wanted war, independence yes...war no..

Why did the South secede? They were ticked off over slavery. Nearly every document of secession says so. There are hundreds of quotes from Southern statesman that say so. They were ticked that the federal government was not enforcing the fugitive slave act.

 

For example, Henry Benning said, "First then, it is apparent, horribly apparent, that the slavery question rides insolently over every other everywhere -- in fact that is the only question which in the least affects the results of the elections." and "I think then, 1st, that the only safety of the South from abolition universal is to be found in an early dissolution of the Union."

 

They were protecting their rights to own slaves. The north was fighting to preserve the union. Those are the reasons for the civil war placed in a nutshell. Everything else is icing on the cake. Was the south right or wrong to secede over the issue of owning other human beings? Was the north right or wrong to hold the union together?

 

And with that, I must run for now, sorry, lots of stuff to do.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Mrs Mungo

[Slartibartfast]

Sis - SC seceded because Lincoln had been elected. It was about Lincoln. I'm not seeing the relevance of the fact that he had not been inaugurated yet. They were responding to the election of Lincoln. I'm sure Lincoln gave the matter much thought between the date he was elected and the date he was inaugurated. He was certainly aware of Maj. Anderson's actions when they occurred - he did find out about that on his inauguration day.

 

 

 

What *should* Lincoln have done that he did not?

 

What would you have done in his shoes?

 

The South offered payment for the Southern Forts, Lincoln refused to negotiate with them because he wouldn't recognize them as a Nation.

 

He wrote a letter letting Governor Pickering know that he was going to send non-weapon provisions to Fort Sumter (they were running out of food)

 

The CSA demanded Anderson evacuate the fort.

 

Anderson hadn't received orders to evacuate so he did not.

 

The South attacked.

 

There was NO TIME for Lincoln to do anything else.

 

NO President in his right mind would have just allowed to South to seceed and gone about his day (except Buchanan I guess)

 

A President Elect has no power, he couldn't do anything. It would have been Constitutionally inappropriate for him to have taken actions before his Inaugeration. He was a lawyer, he wasn't going to break the law.

 

Sis - as far as asking about Buchanan. Perhaps that is a valid question - I hadn't really evaluated Buchanan's actions. I will need to read up on his actions. From what I vaguely remember, he was kind of a wimp who wanted to pass the whole mess onto his successor. Not sure about that - like I said it is a vague recollection. Nevertheless, Lincoln was not hamstringed by Buchanan's actions. He was handed a mess - a mess I will say would never have become an issue if our founding fathers had taken care of it in 1787 - I feel for him because he really was put on the spot. Still, I think regardless of what his predecessors did or did not do, it was within his power to avoid the war and he chose not to.

 

Also, why didn't Pierce do more to prevent the war? It wasn't a new issue.

 

Some of the issues that sparked the war were a direct result of *his* actions.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Sis

[Kathleen in VA]

The preservation of the union was important because most of the money was in the south. Yes, the north had railroads and industry (just beginning to grow so not a financial stronghold yet). The reason the North didn't abolish slavery before was because the US governement needed the money that the southern plantation owners had. Most of the US trade was from the south. Most of the ports were in the south. Most of the imports were to the south. The north could not afford to let the south go.

 

This seems so odd to me. Not to say you're not right - you probably are. It's wierd to me that the north fights the south over money - money made from the plantation economy that needed slaves to keep it running. During the war, Lincoln emancipates the slaves that keep the plantations running that the North needs which is why he is fighting the war in the first place. Hmmm...isn't that kind of wierd? How exactly does it help the north for Lincoln to emancipate slaves if the economy he is fighting to keep connected to the union will collapse without slaves?

[Kathleen in VA]

What *should* Lincoln have done that he did not?

 

What would you have done in his shoes?

 

Haven't my previous (ha! I had precious there - that's too funny!!) posts answered these questions? He should have let the south go.

 

The South offered payment for the Southern Forts, Lincoln refused to negotiate with them because he wouldn't recognize them as a Nation.

 

He should have recognized them as a nation.

 

He wrote a letter letting Governor Pickering know that he was going to send non-weapon provisions to Fort Sumter (they were running out of food)

 

The CSA demanded Anderson evacuate the fort.

 

Anderson hadn't received orders to evacuate so he did not.

 

The South attacked.

 

There was NO TIME for Lincoln to do anything else.

 

NO President in his right mind would have just allowed to South to seceed and gone about his day (except Buchanan I guess)

 

He should have allowed the south to secede because seceding was provided for in the Constitution and he had vowed to defend that document.

 

A President Elect has no power, he couldn't do anything. It would have been Constitutionally inappropriate for him to have taken actions before his Inaugeration. He was a lawyer, he wasn't going to break the law.

 

Yes, yes, I realize at the time of his election he could not have done anything. This statement seems superfluous. The fact is, when he was inaugurated he then had the power to allow them all to go.

 

 

 

Also, why didn't Pierce do more to prevent the war? It wasn't a new issue.

True, it was not a new issue. Why didn't the founders abolish slavery when it was in their power to do so? The point is, Lincoln is the one who was in office when the entire issue came to a head - at its crisis point. He had the power to avoid war and he chose not to.

 

Some of the issues that sparked the war were a direct result of *his* actions.

 

Not sure how my previous posts haven't addressed your statements.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Kathleen in VA

[Slartibartfast]

Not sure how my previous posts haven't addressed your statements.

 

 

I don't agree with your comments and I don't see how we can come to any sort of consensus.

 

I don't think Lincoln should have avoided war. I think he was right to respond to aggressive actions on the part of the South.

 

 

I think they should not have included slavery in the Constitution. South Carolina held the largest harbor in the South, I can see where they capitulated but I also feel it was a failure on their part.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Sis

[Kathleen in VA]

Evacuation of *what* would have prevented the war? Evacuation of Ft Sumter would not have prevented the war. Evacuation of the south would not have preserved the union, which was the goal of the war.

 

Why did the South secede? They were ticked off over slavery. Nearly every document of secession says so. There are hundreds of quotes from Southern statesman that say so. They were ticked that the federal government was not enforcing the fugitive slave act.

 

This is the thing. Slavery was allowable by law - the Constitution did not prohibit it. Of course, the south was ticked. The Founding Fathers could easily have addressed the issue in 1787 but they did not. My understanding is that the states felt it was Constitutionally allowable to disengage from the Union when that government no longer protected their liberties - liberties that at that time included keeping slaves.

 

For example, Henry Benning said, "First then, it is apparent, horribly apparent, that the slavery question rides insolently over every other everywhere -- in fact that is the only question which in the least affects the results of the elections." and "I think then, 1st, that the only safety of the South from abolition universal is to be found in an early dissolution of the Union."

 

Again, the Constitution allowed for owning slaves. This is where I began. Why did those against the institution not try to change the law? That question was answered. To me it is very similar to the changes that are taking place now in our government that many folks do not agree with. Nevertheless, Congress has the power to determine these things and those whose don't agree just have to live with it. In the case of slavery, the south was too strong in Congress for those who would use the law to abolish slavery to be successful. In that case, they should have just put up with it and made more of an effort to change the balance of power in their favor so that somewhere down the road they could abolish slavery through lawful means. Isn't that what pro-life folks (for the most part) do? In the meantime, abortion is allowed by law so those against it morally do everything they can within the law to effect a change in their favor.

 

They were protecting their rights to own slaves. The north was fighting to preserve the union. Those are the reasons for the civil war placed in a nutshell. Everything else is icing on the cake. Was the south right or wrong to secede over the issue of owning other human beings? Was the north right or wrong to hold the union together?

 

There's that ambiguous phrase again - preserving the Union - which basically just means preserving the money the North got from the South one way or another. It just means the North was fighting over money - the south was fighting over their Constitutional right to own slaves (not saying owning slaves ought to be a right - just saying that was their pov). Which seems more understandable (barring the moral question about slavery)? I think fighting for liberty - liberty provided for in the Constitution - makes much more sense.

 

And with that, I must run for now, sorry, lots of stuff to do.

 

Sorry you have to go. It's been fun working my brain and trying to think of responses to your ideas. I still may end up agreeing with you after all - there's so much to this topic.

[Slartibartfast]

The South didn't seceed because they were being prevented from owning slaves.

 

They seceeded because some Northern states did not want to return runaways.

[Kathleen in VA]

I don't agree with your comments and I don't see how we can come to any sort of consensus.

 

I don't think Lincoln should have avoided war. I think he was right to respond to aggressive actions on the part of the South.

 

 

I think they should not have included slavery in the Constitution. South Carolina held the largest harbor in the South, I can see where they capitulated but I also feel it was a failure on their part.

 

 

I suppose you are right. We are at an impasse. However, I do agree that slavery should never have been allowable. It amazes me that such intelligent men could not have forseen how ignoring the issue didn't solve it. Thanks for the banter.:)

[Kathleen in VA]

The South didn't seceed because they were being prevented from owning slaves.

 

They seceeded because some Northern states did not want to return runaways.

 

OK, this is a new idea to me. I mean I've heard of the opposition to the Fugitive Slave Act in the north. But I don't get how seceding would have solved this problem. If they were no longer part of the union wouldn't it have been harder for them to get their slaves back?

 

Anyone want to tackle this one? I think Sis is done with me.

[Slartibartfast]

OK, this is a new idea to me. I mean I've heard of the opposition to the Fugitive Slave Act in the north. But I don't get how seceding would have solved this problem. If they were no longer part of the union wouldn't it have been harder for them to get their slaves back?

 

Anyone want to tackle this one? I think Sis is done with me.

 

Oh..I am not "done" with you, I just don't think we are going to agree on those. :lol:

 

The secession documents actually state that.

 

If someone stole your car and took it across state lines wouldn't you want your car back? That is how the south saw it. They didn't want to return "their car"

 

This is from the Declaration of Secession of Georgia

A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States. Without them it is historically true that we would have rejected the Constitution. In the fourth year of the Republic Congress passed a law to give full vigor and efficiency to this important provision. This act depended to a considerable degree upon the local magistrates in the several States for its efficiency. The non-slave-holding States generally repealed all laws intended to aid the execution of that act, and imposed penalties upon those citizens whose loyalty to the Constitution and their oaths might induce them to discharge their duty. Congress then passed the act of 1850, providing for the complete execution of this duty by Federal officers. This law, which their own bad faith rendered absolutely indispensible for the protection of constitutional rights, was instantly met with ferocious revilings and all conceivable modes of hostility. The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands to-day a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union. We have their convenants, we have their oaths to keep and observe it, but the unfortunate claimant, even accompanied by a Federal officer with the mandate of the highest judicial authority in his hands, is everywhere met with fraud, with force, and with legislative enactments to elude, to resist, and defeat him. Claimants are murdered with impunity; officers of the law are beaten by frantic mobs instigated by inflammatory appeals from persons holding the highest public employment in these States, and supported by legislation in conflict with the clearest provisions of the Constitution, and even the ordinary principles of humanity. In several of our confederate States a citizen cannot travel the highway with his servant who may voluntarily accompany him, without being declared by law a felon and being subjected to infamous punishments. It is difficult to perceive how we could suffer more by the hostility than by the fraternity of such brethren.

 

Mississippi

 

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

 

 

South Carolina

 

 

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

 

Texas

 

 

The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

 

 

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

Edited January 22, 2011 by Sis

[Kathleen in VA]

Oh..I am not "done" with you, I just don't think we are going to agree on those. :lol:

 

The secession documents actually state that.

 

If someone stole your car and took it across state lines wouldn't you want your car back? That is how the south saw it. They didn't want to return "their car"

 

This is from the Declaration of Secession of Georgia

 

 

Mississippi

 

 

 

South Carolina

 

 

 

Texas

 

 

 

 

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

 

Ok, I find this kind of odd, too. I mean, the quote you had in your post made it clear that many in the North found it unconscionable to return slaves to their owners in the South. Following one's conscience should always be protected by law. It appears there are two conflicting laws here - the law of conscience and the law of the state. I believe the law of conscience should take priority. Those in the north who's consciences could not bear keeping the law of the state should have been left alone.

 

Still, I don't understand how those in the South thought seceding would help their cause in this particular area. Once they had severed all ties, they would have no power whatsoever to get their slaves back. Or were they just stating that as a cause for secession to point out the vast gulf that existed between them and federal government?

 

Very weird.

[[email protected]]

Questions have been posed and answered. Time to move on.

 

Moderator