Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 11th, 2017, 03:48 AM   #41
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Here
Posts: 4,176
Blog Entries: 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by M9Powell View Post
The attack on Ft Sumter was goaded by Lincoln. Ft Sumter is in SC. SC gave Lincoln plenty of opportunity too withdraw his troops from SC peacefully. They warned him not too try too reinforce FT Sumter. Which is exactly what he did.
So, a leader of a country feeding that country's troops in its own fort is military "aggression" just because a bunch of punk politicians threaten him with war if he feeds them. Can't you see that sounds ridiculous to people who know that 2,000 if much less than 3,800,000?

And please describe the federal government's "aggression" for each of these events before Lincoln took office:

1861:

January 2: South Carolina troops take control of dormant Fort Jackson in Charleston harbor.

January 3, 24, 26: Georgia state troops take Fort Pulaski at the mouth of the Savannah River on January 3, the United States Arsenal at Augusta, Georgia on January 24, and Oglethorpe Barracks and Fort Jackson at Savannah, Georgia on January 26.

January 4–5, 30: Alabama seizes the Mount Vernon, Alabama United States Arsenal on January 4, Fort Morgan and Fort Gaines at the entrance to Mobile Bay on January 5, and the U.S. Revenue Cutter Lewis Cass at Mobile, Alabama on January 30.

January 6–12: Florida troops seize Apalachicola, Florida Arsenal on January 6 and Fort Marion at Saint Augustine on January 7. On January 8, Federal troops at Fort Barrancas or Barrancas Barracks at Pensacola, Florida fire on about 20 men who approach the fort at night. The men flee. After the Federal troops move from Fort Barrancas to Fort Pickens on Santa Rosa Island,Florida in Pensacola Harbor on January 10, Florida forces seize Barrancas Barracks, Fort McRee, and the Pensacola Navy Yard on January 12.

South Carolina state troops at Charleston fire upon the merchant ship Star of the West and prevent it from landing reinforcements and relief supplies for Fort Sumter. After being struck twice, the ship heads back to New York.

January–February: Louisiana state troops seize the United States Arsenal and Barracks at Baton Rouge and Fort Jackson and Fort St. Philip near the mouth of the Mississippi River on January 10, the United States Marine Hospital south of New Orleans on January 11, Fort Pike, near New Orleans, on January 14, Fort Macomb, near New Orleans, on January 28, the U. S. Revenue Cutter Robert McClelland at New Orleans on January 29, the United States Branch Mint and Customs House at New Orleans and the U.S. Revenue Schooner Washington on January 31, and the U.S. Paymaster's office at New Orleans on February 19.

January 20: Mississippi troops seize Fort Massachusetts and other installations on Ship Island in the Gulf of Mexico.

February 8, 12: Arkansas troops seize the United States Arsenal at Little Rock and force the Federal garrison to withdraw on February 8. They seize the United States ordnance stores at Napoleon, Arkansas on February 12.

February 16: Texas forces seize the United States Arsenal and Barracks at (the Alamo) San Antonio.

February 18: U.S. Brigadier General and Brevet Major General David E. Twiggs surrenders U. S. military posts in the Department of Texas to the State of Texas and effectively surrenders the one-fourth of the United States Army which is stationed in Texas. Twiggs tells authorities in Washington he acted under threat of force but they consider his actions to be treason. On March 1, U. S. Secretary of War Joseph Holt orders Brigadier General Twiggs dismissed from the U. S. Army "for his treachery to the flag of his country" in his surrender of military posts and Federal property in Texas to state authorities. Twiggs soon joins the Confederate States Army.

February 19 – April 2: Texas forces seize United States property at Brazos Santiago on February 19 and the U.S. Revenue Cutter Henry Dodge at Galveston, Texas on March 2.
Jax Historian is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 11th, 2017, 03:52 AM   #42
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2014
From: appalacian Mtns
Posts: 4,204

All of the above are military installations in the South.
M9Powell is offline  
Old December 11th, 2017, 03:58 AM   #43
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Here
Posts: 4,176
Blog Entries: 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by M9Powell View Post
All of the above are military installations in the South.
They were U.S. federal property and just because they were in the south does not mean that taking them by force was not aggression in any normal use of the word "aggression."
Jax Historian is offline  
Old December 11th, 2017, 10:12 AM   #44
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 8,768

Quote:
Originally Posted by M9Powell View Post
The attack on Ft Sumter was goaded by Lincoln.
Good lord, really? So the North “forced” the South to attack Ft. Sumter? Pardon me while I choke on that bit of sophistry. Hm, so I take it then, that the Japanese were “forced” to attack Pearl Harbor too. Oh, and by the way, Lincoln wasn’t even president when the attack on Sumter took place.
royal744 is offline  
Old December 11th, 2017, 10:52 AM   #45
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 8,768

Let’s get it straight once and for all: the South attacked Ft Sumter. This was not the only example of Southern aggression, just an important one. So, it was the “War of Southern Aggression” and NOT the other way around.
royal744 is offline  
Old December 11th, 2017, 12:46 PM   #46
Scholar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Posts: 833

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jax Historian View Post
I'm not sure why you are telling me this. I never claimed tariffs had anything to do with the Civil War. I spoke about the 1833 tariff crisis as a key to understanding growing Unionism (nationalism).
I was recently reading an interesting argument that the growth in nationalism, in the sense of support for the United States, was partly driven by 19th century immigration from Europe.

Many of the Western and mid-Western states were populated by largely 1st and 2nd generation immigrants. A Pennsylvanian, or a South Carolinian, may have had a sense of state identity; South Carolina was a place with a culture and a population with two centuries of ancestry in the region. Somewhere like Nebraska, by contrast, was populated by immigrants who had come to make their fortune, not in Nebraska, but in the United States of America - or by their children. Their identity was much more focused on the Union than people who traced their families back to ancestors who colonised America in the 17th century.

Not sure how much truth there is to this, but it's an interesting thought.
Kaficek is offline  
Old December 11th, 2017, 12:53 PM   #47

Scaeva's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,148

Quote:
Originally Posted by M9Powell View Post
You're original post is right on the money. Slavery was still legal in the North at the time of the war of northern agression. Lincoln's much ballyhooed emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the South not those in the North. In other words he declared slaves he didn't have free & kept enslaved those that he did. Also notice the war had been going on for a couple of years before Lincoln's emancipation proclamation. Also note that Lincoln was dead & the war over before slavery was abolished in the North. Lincoln's Emancipation proclamation is a midwar grab on the moral high ground. Probably the most successful use of spin & propaganda in history. Don't get me wrong slavery is a terrible thing but the Yankees are just as guilty of it as the South. The war was fought over states rights.
No matter how often you repeat that on this forum it is still going to remain incorrect.

Slavery had been abolished to varying degrees in every northern state in 1860, some as far back as the 18th Century. There were some slave states that remained in the Union, but Union and Northern are not synonyms.

Neither Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, or Delaware are northern states. Pennsylvania and New Jersey are the southernmost northern states, and slavery had been abolished in those states in 1780 and 1846 respectively. Since New Jersey had opted for gradual abolition rather than immediate, there will still 13 elderly slaves remaining in New Jersey in 1860.

It would be quite frankly ridiculous however to make comparisons between New Jersey and any of the Confederate states. Compared to those "grandfathered" 13 slaves still held in bondage in New Jersey, there were 490,000 in Virginia, 436,000 in Mississippi, 462,000 in Georgia, and 402,000 in South Carolina. Every Confederate state had a population of more than 100,000 slaves with the exception of Florida which held 61,000, and it's slave population was "low" only because the free white population of the state was almost as low. (78,000) More importantly New Jersey did not secede to protect those slaves, while every one of the Confederate states did.

Your claim that the war was over states rights completely ignores which "rights" the Confederate states were fighting over. Thankfully the Confederates themselves recorded for posterity what they were fighting for, and no amount of spin-doctoring by Neo-Confederates on internet forums can alter that. Facts are stubborn things that can't be wished away.

Quote:
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.
Mississippi Declaration of Secession

Quote:
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.
Georgia Declaration of Secession

Quote:
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States.

By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.
Texas Declaration of Secession


Quote:
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.
South Carolina Declaration of Secession


Quote:
"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal."
Alexander Stephens' Cornerstone Speech. Stephens was Vice-President of the Confederacy.

Quote:
I say, then, that viewed from that standpoint, there is but one single subject of complaint which Virginia has to make against the government under which we live; a complaint made by the whole South, and that is on the subject of African slavery....

...But, sir, the great cause of complaint now is the slavery agitation, and the questions growing out of it. If there is any other cause of complaint which has been influential in any quarter, to bring about the crisis which is now upon us; if any State or any people have made the troubles growing out of this question, a pretext for agitation instead of a cause of honest complaint, Virginia can have no sympathy whatever, in any such feeling, in any such policy, in any such attempt. It is the slavery question. Is it not so? We have heard, for days past, the great issues before the country discussed by able and eloquent gentlemen upon this floor—and I ask this Committee if any man has yet been heard, in all the recounted injuries that we are alleged to have suffered from the administration of the Government—if he has heard, in the long list of apprehended wrongs in the future, the slighest reference to anything else, to any other ground of complaint, except this subject of slavery? Thus we have it confessed, upon all hands, that in the main—with this one exception—this great government of ours, from its origin down to the present time, in its administration, in all the departments that concern the industry, the energy, the business of thirty millions of people, has been conducted upon the principles and in a manner satisfactory to the people of Virginia.
John B. Baldwin speech to the Virginia Secession Convention. Baldwin was a delegate to that convention and would serve in the Confederate Congress.


Quote:
What do we go to war for, if not to protect our property?
Former Confederate Secretary of State Robert M.T. Hunter in response to European pressure for emancipation


Quote:
The Ordinance of Secession rests, in a great measure, upon our assertion of a right to enslave the African race, or, what amounts to the same thing, to hold them in slavery. The most fatal and scandalous declaration ever made by the late Federal Government against the people of the South, as it has affected our standing amongst the nations of the earth, especially those who are strangers to our social organization, is contained in those acts of Congress which denounce the African Slave Trade as piracy--a declaration at once degrading to every slaveholder, and a living rebuke to the Federal Constitution, which expressly prohibited the suppression of the trade prior to the year 1808.
Remarks by John Tyler Morgan, delegate to the Alabama Secession Convention. Morgan would go on to serve as a general in the Confederate army during the war.

Quote:
Now, Mr. President, I submit that while our commission is of much higher import and dignity, it is, in one respect, by no means so broad. We are sent to protect, not so much property, as white supremacy, and the great political right of internal self-control---but only against one specified and single danger alone, i.e. the danger of Abolition rule.
---Remarks by Jefferson Buford, delegate to the same.

Last edited by Scaeva; December 11th, 2017 at 12:59 PM.
Scaeva is offline  
Old December 11th, 2017, 01:25 PM   #48
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2015
From: Virginia
Posts: 511

Ave Scaeva!
Dentatus is offline  
Old December 11th, 2017, 04:27 PM   #49

Fiver's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,553

Quote:
Originally Posted by M9Powell View Post
All of the above are military installations in the South.
Gauntanamo Bay Naval Base is in Cuba. If Cuba was to forcibly seize the base, would that be an act of war on Cuba's part?
Fiver is offline  
Old December 13th, 2017, 07:22 AM   #50
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 8,768

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiver View Post
Gauntanamo Bay Naval Base is in Cuba. If Cuba was to forcibly seize the base, would that be an act of war on Cuba's part?
Yes it would.
royal744 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
civil, newbie, war



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Newbie Cameronian New Users 3 July 17th, 2017 09:11 PM
Hello from a newbie JoanGF New Users 4 February 3rd, 2015 10:00 AM
Hello Everybody...a newbie here! dale1257 New Users 12 August 6th, 2012 10:55 AM
Newbie Caelyn New Users 24 December 22nd, 2010 09:18 AM
Newbie rokerman New Users 23 September 16th, 2010 01:01 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.