The War Between The States Discussions

Discussion in 'Civil War' started by Zonie, Jul 19, 2019.

Help Support Muzzle Loading Forum by donating:

  1. Oct 8, 2019 #2021

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    10,448
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    Location:
    Republic mo
    Only to defend their borders.
    And plenty of troops was raising in he north. And the south did face a reasonable fear of terrorist action against them.
     
  2. Oct 8, 2019 #2022

    arcticap

    arcticap

    arcticap

    54 Cal.

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    348
    Location:
    Central Connecticut
    It seems that most every source considers the attack on Sumter as either an act of war or as being the south's declaration of war.
    Davis was rebuffed in his attempt through intermediaries, to purchase the remaining Union forts and also to pay off the south's portion of the Federal debt in early 1861.
    Davis needed to take Sumter by force to not look weak because Lincoln intended to resupply the fort with food, and in order to keep the states in secession from rejoining the Union.
    It would have made Davis look weak f he didn't attack, especially since Lincoln practiced restraint by not ordering an attack by the Union navy.
    Because the attack was seen by all parties as signaling the beginning of the war, 4 more states immediately joined the Confederacy after the attack on April 12, 1861 - Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas.

    At the time the attack on Sumter was as much as an act or a declaration of was as the attack on Pearl Harbor.
    Citizens on both sides began flocking to fight for their cause.
     
    ndnboy and Straekat like this.
  3. Oct 8, 2019 #2023

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    62 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,688
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    Completely false narrative.
     
  4. Oct 8, 2019 #2024

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    62 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,688
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    Why did the south choose Ft Sumter to initiate the war?
    Because it was an easy target, They knew they could easily defeat them, They were low on men and supplies. The fort made them prisoners on an island they could not escape.

    The South did not need to bombard Ft. Sumter to subdue it. They did it to start the war and they needed a glorious victory to sway support in favor of secession. Because, without a battle and war, the South faced a civil war within. The initial secession numbers were not in the Souths favor. Had they lost their first battle, The will for secession would have dwindled.
    So they chose an easy target to begin. "The do or die" and "burn it all down" mentality echoed from pulpits across the south. It spewed from the mouths of zealots.
     
    arcticap and Straekat like this.
  5. Oct 8, 2019 #2025

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    10,448
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    Location:
    Republic mo
    Compleat false narrative
     
  6. Oct 8, 2019 #2026

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    62 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,688
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    Disappointing Tenn, I fully expected to to prove me wrong with evidence. :D
    I called your comment a false narrative because it mirrored a singular southern propaganda piece written in an 1861 news paper, The bulk of which I would be prohibited from posting due to it's pious proclivities.
     
  7. Oct 8, 2019 #2027

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    10,448
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    Location:
    Republic mo
    So what exactly do you think would have happened had Lincoln not invaded Virginia or Missouri.
    Even if some had pipe dreams of invading Cuba or even a march on Washington,( realistically a null threat) and even if the new Confederate government agreed and talked its states into it... they had not the resources or manpower to pull it off.
     
  8. Oct 8, 2019 #2028

    Straekat

    Straekat

    Straekat

    40 cal - b

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2018
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    174
    Location:
    Yohogania
    You really want to pretend any competent general wouldn't consider a southern attempt to take Washington as a "null threat." Not taking it seriously would have tempted Davis to send an army commander across the rive if he thought it could be done, particularly if capturing high-level congressional leaders or even Lincoln would have meant a swift end to the war.

    You've argued several times, Sumter was a threat to Charleston's harbor and had to be taken, even though you also claim the fort was unarmed, and so insignificant that firing on it was a "minor" act and highly symbolic. Your own logic about "threats" also applies to Lincoln recognizing the army had to secure river crossings on both sides of the river, and particularly since Virginia had already sided with the southern confederacy during wartime.

    Missouri isn't quite so clear cut as you might have every one believe. It is complicated and pro-southern militias and the state governor after Sumter was fired on, were planning to secure the state for the south. The newly elected governor was pro-southern and was working behind the scenes to take the state out of the Union, -AND- to secure the stockpiled parts and arms stored at the St Louis arsenal for the south. Pro-southern militias captured the Liberty, Missouri arsenal on April 20th, and if Lyons had not done something, the governor and southern sympathizers and militias would created a serious security issue for the Federal government.

    If you want to condemn northern intervention in Missouri that's your choice, however, then you must also condemn Leonidas Polk's invasion of neutral Kentucky in the summer of 1861 in a blatant violation of the state's neutrality proclamation, aimed at bringing Kentucky into the war on the southern side. Polk wasn't the only southerner to violate the states' neutrality as it happened again in 1862, by Morgan, then Bragg and Smith. After several confederate invasions, Kentucky finally sided with the Union. Enough was enough for them.

    Articap and Carbon have both pointed out Sumter was needed as a quick and easy victory by the Davis administration. Some historians have suggested the "provisional" nature of the southern confederacy was politically weak and there was a fear states that seceded, might reconsider a negotiated return to the Union. Sumter was a watershed or Rubicon moment for the confederacy that made "back sliding" almost impossible for the fragile nature of the confederated states.

    If not Sumter? Fort Pickens was another hot-spot where pro-southern militia members had already made an attempt take the fort, but chickened out before any shots were fired. If Carbon doesn't tell you why Pickens would have been the next most likely candidate for the site of southern aggression against a federal military installation, then perhaps doing a little reading on your own might be worth the effort.
     
    arcticap likes this.
  9. Oct 8, 2019 #2029

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    62 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,688
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    He didn't invade Virginia or Missouri. Federal troops have interstate jurisdiction.
    Especially when quelling a rebellion, insurrection or domestic violence.

    The Federal Government may call out the militia in case of civil war; its authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and to carry on war.
     
    Straekat likes this.
  10. Oct 8, 2019 #2030

    Straekat

    Straekat

    Straekat

    40 cal - b

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2018
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    174
    Location:
    Yohogania

    The US Army in 1860 and before Sumter totaled roughly 16,000 men spread out over most of the northern states and territories in the west. The northern state militia establishment was all over the proverbial map, poorly trained, poorly armed, and not a force to be reckoned with.

    Prior to 1865, white southerners were fearful of slave revolts and the southern states instituted militia laws that white males felt necessary for protection of their communities and families against black insurgencies. Southerners tended to participate in home guard and militia units more willingly than northern whites. A long history of militia training, hunting escaped slaves and related activities created a general and widespread militarized training that prepared southern boys to rapidly adjust to wartime service, and consequently take the field earlier than raw recruits (which many northerners were).

    Until late May of 1861, the capital was largely undefended and what troops were available were not that many. A relatively small number of southerners in May of 1861, before the Federal government had the chance to transfer trained troops to protect the capital, could have posed a serious threat to DC, and possibly managed to cross the Potomac at one or two places and attempt a rapid strike on the capital.
     
    DaveC likes this.
  11. Oct 9, 2019 #2031

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    62 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,688
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    There are only two situations where The "invasion" argument would be valid.
    1. The United Stated codified southern secession.
    2. The Confederacy won the war.
    Neither of those happened.
     
  12. Oct 9, 2019 #2032

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    10,448
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    Location:
    Republic mo
    For what reason would the south have invaded the north? Canada could invade us but has no reason, Mexico might want to gain back land it was forced to sell but lacks the military power to pull off the trick.
    To say that the north had the right to invade Missouri because of what the legislature might do is a clear violation of the tenth amendment and of corse the ideals of the Declaration of Independence.
    When was it any of the southern states requested help with rebellion in their borders? The us government today can’t send in troops before the state request it even for help in natural disaster.again a clear violation of the tenth amendment.
    Virginia Arkansas Kansas Nevada et al belong to the people of those states, not the federal government. Violation of those borders sans permission of the owners of that state is trespassing.
     
  13. Oct 9, 2019 #2033

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    62 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,688
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    To force secession, that was the point of their rebellion. To win the war.
     
    Straekat likes this.
  14. Oct 9, 2019 #2034

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    62 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,688
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    Gee, sounds like they had a good legal argument. why didn't they use the courts?
     
  15. Oct 9, 2019 #2035

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    10,448
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    Location:
    Republic mo
    That’s silly, they left the union, had no need to invade it. And were no longer under federal courts. The same reason the colonies didn’t sue the crown, the Irish didn’t sue the crown, or the Dutch sue the Spanish crown.
    The basic human right to have a government they consent to was not something to be decided in court, especially a court that no longer had jurisdiction over them.
     
  16. Oct 9, 2019 #2036

    DaveC

    DaveC

    DaveC

    32 Cal. MLF Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Messages:
    278
    Likes Received:
    129
    Yes. Here are the relevant dates along the timeline of the start of the, erm, uh, "late unpleasantness" for those who care about facts:
    The late John Keegan, The American Civil War: a military history (2009), p. 49, e.g. February 28, 1861, [CSA] Congress [in Montgomery, AL] authorized Davis to accept state militias into national service. Confederate Act of Congress for "provisionals" on March 6, 1861, authorized 100,000 militia and volunteers under Davis' command. May 6, Congress empowered Davis to accept volunteers directly without state intermediaries. ISBN 978-0-307-26343-8

    Davis was, after all, a former Secretary of War...

    So the time line is:
    6 November 1860--Abraham Lincoln elected president with less than 40% of the popular vote, and the "Black Republicans" are not even on the ballot in many states that would soon secede...
    20 Dec. 1860--South Carolina secedes
    9, 10, 11 Jan. 1861-- Florida, Mississippi, Alabama secede
    19 Jan. 1861--Georgia secedes
    26 Jan. 1861 Louisiana secedes
    1 Feb. 1861--Texas secedes
    8-9 Feb. 1861--CSA Constitution and Jefferson Davis as POTCoS
    4 March 1861--Abraham Lincoln inaugurated.
    *6 March 1861, creating a Confederate armed forces, e.g. preparing to meet suppression of rebellion with force, defend gains of the rebels.
    *12 Apr. 1861--Bombardment and surrender of Fort Sumter, followed by ample public acclimation among would-be secessionists in remaining slave states, including those in Maryland, but also considerable Unionist reaction in many of those selfsame states...

    April-June 1861-- Four additional slave states secede and four opt not to do so.

    16 Aug. 1861--POTUS Abraham Lincoln declared secessionist states and POTCoS Davis to be in "a state of insurrection."
     
    Straekat, arcticap and Carbon 6 like this.
  17. Oct 9, 2019 #2037

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    62 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,688
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    The concept of "union" eludes you doesn't it ?
    There is no right of secession in the constitution.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2019
    Straekat and DaveC like this.
  18. Oct 9, 2019 #2038

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    62 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,688
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    Lincoln stated in his inauguration the he would not be the aggressor. A fact that was continually repeated by him and in newspapers across the land.

    Yet the South still threw the first punch.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2019
  19. Oct 9, 2019 #2039

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    62 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,688
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    upload_2019-10-9_7-58-59.png
     
    DaveC and Straekat like this.
  20. Oct 9, 2019 #2040

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    10,448
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    Location:
    Republic mo
    The right of the people to consent to their government eludes you doesn’t it. There is no clause in the constitution denying the right. The bill of rights is pretty specific, Rights exist even if not enumerated there in. There is nothing that says once you voluntarily join the union you can’t unjoin. In absence of a clause stoping disunion by one or more states it has to be assumed that the states have that right.
    The states are sovereign.
    Yes the new government of the south could gather military force. One of the few reasons for existence of government is to protect the right of the people.
    You have a right to your property, you have a right to self defense. Should a stronger person overwhelm you and take your property, and you are beaten and prostrate before him does not mean you were in the wrong to defend your self.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2019

Share This Page

arrow_white