# American Civil War/When/how would the south have abolished slavery without it **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 10, 2014, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359 "2014-03-10T16:42:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/161 "2014-03-13T02:57:25Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > The analogy is nailed down by the fact that the continued presence of Fort Sumter under Federal control violated the Treaty of… of… help me out here… > > Oh, wait. The analogy isn’t nailed down at all; instead if falls apart. A sovereign state gets to decide to what level it will permit foreign military forces or personnel on its territory. There are various agreements that allow for example Canadian military planes to do patrols over Alaska periodically as part of NORAD, but we renew the NORAD agreement every ten years. If we did not, we could still continue operating but either side would be perfectly within their rights to cease the operations at any time. While the 10 year agreements themselves are in force, you couldn’t do that so much without having violated international norms. But the **default** is that a sovereign state gets to decide who can be on its territory. When the Confederate States seceded they were asserting that they were sovereign states–a not unreasonable, and not legally settled one way or the other argument. If they were sovereign states they have unilateral right to kick any base off their territory anytime they want _unless a treaty or agreement establishes or grants the right for that base to exist_. We have a perpetual lease that Cuba cannot unilaterally cancel that entitles us to keep the Guantanamo Bay Naval base in Cuba, for example. There were no specific treaties entitling an American military presence in the CSA and thus innate powers of sovereign states mean the CSA had the authority to expel the U.S. forces. They tried to do so politically and through negotiations before using force to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/162 "2014-03-13T03:34:35Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > But the **default** is that a sovereign state gets to decide who can be on its territory. When the Confederate States seceded they were asserting that they were sovereign states–a not unreasonable, and not legally settled one way or the other argument. If they were sovereign states they have unilateral right to kick any base off their territory anytime they want _unless a treaty or agreement establishes or grants the right for that base to exist_. We have a perpetual lease that Cuba cannot unilaterally cancel that entitles us to keep the Guantanamo Bay Naval base in Cuba, for example. There were no specific treaties entitling an American military presence in the CSA and thus innate powers of sovereign states mean the CSA had the authority to expel the U.S. forces. They tried to do so politically and through negotiations before using force to do so. I’m not denying any of this. But it doesn’t alter the central issue: the CSA declared war on the USA not the other way around. ---
**Author:** ![crucible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@crucible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crucible)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/163 "2014-03-13T14:19:12Z")
I always chuckle to myself that if the war had not been fought, if the South had successfully seceded…then today the United States government would be fighting a losing battle to keep companies from exporting their jobs and work to the cheap labor Confederacy where Unions and Labor Laws are far less powerful than in the US. wait… ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/164 "2014-03-13T15:36:33Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > A sovereign state gets to decide to what level it will permit foreign military forces or personnel on its territory. There are various agreements that allow for example Canadian military planes to do patrols over Alaska periodically as part of NORAD, but we renew the NORAD agreement every ten years. If we did not, we could still continue operating but either side would be perfectly within their rights to cease the operations at any time. While the 10 year agreements themselves are in force, you couldn’t do that so much without having violated international norms. Even accepting that this argument is applicable to a situation where the purported existence of full “sovereign state” status is itself the point of contention (which it obviously isn’t, being a textbook case of circular argument), the claim falls apart unless you’re prepared to document the history showing that the US federal government unilaterally placed the fort without the consent of the South Carolina state government. Given the ludicrousness of such a scenario in times when states’ prerogatives were considerably wider than they have been recently, that documentation will need to be quite ironclad. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/165 "2014-03-13T17:52:39Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > The South tried to solve the Ft. Sumter issue through negotiations, with repeated messages sent to the Federals informing them they viewed the occupation as an illegal occupation of sovereign soil of South Carolina. And Hitler tried to solve the Danzig corridor issue with Poland by repeatedly telling them it belonged to Germany. When he decided to solve the issue with force, that doesn’t make it debatable as to who started the war, Germany or Poland. When the South decided on war to solve the issue and started shelling Fort Sumter, you can’t say it’s debatable as to who started the war. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > It’s not that absurd, a war would never come of it but if the Scots vote for independence from the United Kingdom should they be required to host British military bases on their soil for all time? When would they have the right to say “yeah, you need to leave” ? Yes, it is that absurd. As has been pointed out to you several times, the Federal government didn’t sail into Charleston Harbor and build a fort there in 1861 unlike your hypothetical example of the British sailing into Chesapeake in 1880 and building a fort. If Scotland declared its independence from the United Kingdom, the pre-existence of UK military bases on Scottish soil is not an occupation, is not an act of war, and when the Scots start shooting at them you can’t claim the British started the war. As I said earlier, following the actual belief that the very existence of Fort Sumter was an act of war, it follows that the Federal government de facto declared war the instant South Carolina seceded. Applying this same belief to your Scottish example, the UK declares war the instant Scotland declares independence, as the existence of the bases under your logic is an act of war by the UK against Scotland. This is clearly an absurdity. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/166 "2014-03-13T18:18:16Z")
According to [this article](http://www.thenation.com/article/178509/how-slavery-made-modern-world), the economic importance of slavery throughout the New World was even greater, far greater, than is generally appreciated. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/167 "2014-03-13T19:09:27Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > And Hitler tried to solve the Danzig corridor issue with Poland by repeatedly telling them it belonged to Germany. When he decided to solve the issue with force, that doesn’t make it debatable as to who started the war, Germany or Poland. When the South decided on war to solve the issue and started shelling Fort Sumter, you can’t say it’s debatable as to who started the war. Germany signed a treaty saying it belonged to Poland prior to Hitler being Chancellor. > [@](#): > > Yes, it is that absurd. As has been pointed out to you several times, the Federal government didn’t sail into Charleston Harbor and build a fort there in 1861 unlike your hypothetical example of the British sailing into Chesapeake in 1880 and building a fort. If Scotland declared its independence from the United Kingdom, the pre-existence of UK military bases on Scottish soil is not an occupation, is not an act of war, and when the Scots start shooting at them you can’t claim the British started the war. As I said earlier, following the actual belief that the very existence of Fort Sumter was an act of war, it follows that the Federal government de facto declared war the instant South Carolina seceded. Applying this same belief to your Scottish example, the UK declares war the instant Scotland declares independence, as the existence of the bases under your logic is an act of war by the UK against Scotland. This is clearly an absurdity. And? If a new government takes over then as long as they comply with the treaty terms they can certainly evict existing foreign bases. I have no idea what the base agreements we have with the UK are that allowed for a U.S. military presence in the United Kingdom, but I’d assume (be shocked otherwise) that the UK has the option to terminate the agreement at some fixed point or it automatically expires. After which the UK is fully within their rights to say “leave.” It doesn’t matter that the U.S. “didn’t just sail in” that day, but has had bases there for decades, the UK is a sovereign country. There was no treaty between the USA and the CSA allowing for the U.S. military installation at Fort Sumter, and the CSA had instructed the USA to abandon it. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/168 "2014-03-13T19:42:02Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Germany signed a treaty saying it belonged to Poland prior to Hitler being Chancellor. So? Hitler was the new government in Germany, Germany had historic claims to the land, and Hitler tried negotiating with Poland. You still can’t say it’s debatable if Poland or Germany started the war. > [@](#): > > And? If a new government takes over then as long as they comply with the treaty terms they can certainly evict existing foreign bases. They can certainly do whatever they want, treaty terms or no treaty terms. When they decide to evict an existing military base by shelling it, they are starting a war though. Cuba has complained about [Guantanamo Bay Naval Base](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base) ever since Castro took power in 1959, calling it illegal and imposed on Cuba by force. The US currently has _no_ diplomatic relations with the government of Cuba. If Cuba decides tomorrow to start shelling the base, it’s not debatable who started the war; a half-century of prior protests doesn’t shift the onus of starting the war to the US. You can’t say the UK started the 1982 Falklands War because Argentina had been protesting ownership of the Malvinas for over a century. > [@](#): > > There was no treaty between the USA and the CSA allowing for the U.S. military installation at Fort Sumter, and the CSA had instructed the USA to abandon it. Now you’re just being completely absurd. The was no treaty between the USA and the CSA **because the CSA didn’t exist** before 1861. An existing treaty between the USA and the CSA regarding military installations in the CSA would be an impossible act, one of the entities was not in existance. This goes back to the absurdity of your argument that the existence of Fort Sumter was an act of war: by this logic, war was _de facto_ instantaneously declared between the USA and South Carolina the instant South Carolina seceded. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/169 "2014-03-13T20:27:52Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > So? Hitler was the new government in Germany, Germany had historic claims to the land, and Hitler tried negotiating with Poland. You still can’t say it’s debatable if Poland or Germany started the war. Irrelevant comparison–that land was not part of Germany and Germany agreed it wasn’t by treaty. > [@](#): > > They can certainly do whatever they want, treaty terms or no treaty terms. When they decide to evict an existing military base by shelling it, they are starting a war though. Cuba has complained about [Guantanamo Bay Naval Base](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base) ever since Castro took power in 1959, calling it illegal and imposed on Cuba by force. The US currently has _no_ diplomatic relations with the government of Cuba. If Cuba decides tomorrow to start shelling the base, it’s not debatable who started the war; a half-century of prior protests doesn’t shift the onus of starting the war to the US. You can’t say the UK started the 1982 Falklands War because Argentina had been protesting ownership of the Malvinas for over a century. Those are two unrelated and irrelevant comparisons. Cuba has given us a perpetual lease that it specifically had no legal right to rescind, the Falklands have essentially never belonged to Argentina. If a country has a military presence in another sovereign country and refuses to remove it after repeated warnings–it is the occupier, not the victim of occupation, who has started the war. Like I said, starting a war isn’t just “firing the first shot.” It’d be an act of war if you blockaded another country, for example. It’d also be an act of war to move military forces into another country’s territory even if you did so without firing a shot. > [@](#): > > Now you’re just being completely absurd. The was no treaty between the USA and the CSA **because the CSA didn’t exist** before 1861. An existing treaty between the USA and the CSA regarding military installations in the CSA would be an impossible act, one of the entities was not in existance. This goes back to the absurdity of your argument that the existence of Fort Sumter was an act of war: by this logic, war was _de facto_ instantaneously declared between the USA and South Carolina the instant South Carolina seceded. No, it’s absurd you don’t understand that a newly created country obviously has no treaties with anyone. That’s like saying because the United States hadn’t signed any treaties with Prussia in 1783 after the United Kingdom recognized our independence, Prussia could do whatever it wanted to us without violating international norms. The Federal government had bases in South Carolina, as a State in the United States, when South Carolina stopped being a U.S. State and was part of a different sovereign country the United States lost all legal right to have a military presence there, and said military presence represented a belligerent and hostile military occupation which in itself was an act of war no different than a blockade or an invasion. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/170 "2014-03-13T20:48:10Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > No, it’s absurd you don’t understand that a newly created country obviously has no treaties with anyone. That’s like saying because the United States hadn’t signed any treaties with Prussia in 1783 after the United Kingdom recognized our independence, Prussia could do whatever it wanted to us without violating international norms. The Federal government had bases in South Carolina, as a State in the United States, when South Carolina stopped being a U.S. State and was part of a different sovereign country the United States lost all legal right to have a military presence there, and said military presence represented a belligerent and hostile military occupation which in itself was an act of war no different than a blockade or an invasion. They can do all this, but it’s still ridiculous to say anyone started the Civil War except for the South. Arlington, VA could declare itself a sovereign nation, but if it attacks Fort Myer, Arlington is still the entity that starts the subsequent conflict. The South started the war, and it’s not reasonable to say otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/171 "2014-03-13T20:51:56Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > No, it’s absurd you don’t understand that a newly created country obviously has no treaties with anyone. That’s like saying because the United States hadn’t signed any treaties with Prussia in 1783 after the United Kingdom recognized our independence, Prussia could do whatever it wanted to us without violating international norms. The Federal government had bases in South Carolina, as a State in the United States, when South Carolina stopped being a U.S. State and was part of a different sovereign country the United States lost all legal right to have a military presence there, and said military presence represented a belligerent and hostile military occupation which in itself was an act of war no different than a blockade or an invasion. No, you are simply wrong. And repeating yourself isn’t making you right. What you are claiming has no basis in law or history. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/172 "2014-03-13T20:57:37Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > There was no treaty between the USA and the CSA allowing for the U.S. military installation at Fort Sumter, and the CSA had instructed the USA to abandon it. Yes. And then when the United States government did not comply with the Confederate demand, the Confederate government declared war against the United States. A country can declare war against another country if the other country refuses to do something. But that refusal is not a declaration of war. The declaration of war is the declaration of war. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/173 "2014-03-13T21:42:10Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Yes. And then when the United States government did not comply with the Confederate demand, the Confederate government declared war against the United States. > > A country can declare war against another country if the other country refuses to do something. But that refusal is not a declaration of war. The declaration of war is the declaration of war. Let’s not muddy the waters with “Declarations of War” versus who “started a war” because they are not synonymous. The U.S. never declared war on the CSA for example because it didn’t view them as a sovereign state, in fact Lincoln was usually pretty specific in saying he was waging war on the _rebels_ within the CSA and not the States themselves as he viewed those States as always being part of the United States, simply “overrun by dangerous rebels” at that point in time. I find it laughable that you guys think if I was President of Russia I could land 10,000 troops in a sovereign country, keep them there against said country’s will, and if it resulted in a shooting war _anyone but me_ would be responsible for said war. This is like blaming the UK and France for declaring war on Germany in 1939, and thus taking a regional war into a “world war.” ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/174 "2014-03-13T21:44:28Z")
If you guys don’t recognize that a military occupation is _no different_ from shooting a cannon, then there’s obviously no grounds for debate. But that’s because you are being unreasonable, not I. Since everyone reasonable and all of history and international relations recognizes occupying territory as itself waging war, then _if_ you accept that the CSA was legally sovereign (a debatable point, not an immutable truth) then it’s a perfectly valid position (though again, not the one I hold) that the United States started the war with its illegal occupation which is technically no different from firing a cannon or dropping a bomb. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/175 "2014-03-13T21:59:12Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I find it laughable that you guys think if I was President of Russia I could land 10,000 troops in a sovereign country, keep them there against said country’s will, and if it resulted in a shooting war _anyone but me_ would be responsible for said war. This is like blaming the UK and France for declaring war on Germany in 1939, and thus taking a regional war into a “world war.” We don’t think that. We think that if some group declares sovereignty, and then attacks the military base of the country that has been there for decades, then it is that group that started the war. Always. Not landing troops elsewhere, not establishing a base on foreign territory, but the situation akin to my town of Arlington declaring sovereignty and then immediately attacking Fort Meyer. ---
**Author:** ![Zero-syde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Zero-syde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zero-syde)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/176 "2014-03-13T22:21:54Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > If you guys don’t recognize that a military occupation is _no different_ from shooting a cannon, then there’s obviously no grounds for debate. It really depends on the nature of the military “occupation,” which you are flagrantly ignoring. > [@](#): > > Military occupation is effective provisional control of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign. [Know your legalese](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation) And any argument based on sovereignty falls flat on its face - the sovereignty of the CSA was only recognized by the CSA, and someone calling themselves sovereign does not make them sovereign. It was not, therefore, a “foreign” occupation. Until the CSA had legally established sovereignty, they were not sovereign. Even if their claims to sovereignty were justified, until it was legally established, they were not sovereign. > [@](#): > > But that’s because you are being unreasonable, not I. It is unreasonable to ignore facts to try to misconstrue history to produce some sort of appologetic revisionism, so yes, you very much are. > [@](#): > > Since everyone reasonable and all of history and international relations recognizes occupying territory as itself waging war, then _if_ you accept that the CSA was legally sovereign (a debatable point, not an immutable truth) then it’s a perfectly valid position (though again, not the one I hold) that the United States started the war with its illegal occupation which is technically no different from firing a cannon or dropping a bomb. “Occupying territory” does not mean “being there at any point in time under any circumstance” - you are confusing colloquial English with the way laws and treaties work. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/177 "2014-03-13T22:43:21Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > The Federal government had bases in South Carolina, as a State in the United States, when South Carolina stopped being a U.S. State and was part of a different sovereign country . . . Irrelevant, since the U.S. did not recognize it as such. That’s what the war was **about.** ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/178 "2014-03-13T23:19:54Z")
Indeed you could make an argument that South Carolina declared war on the United States by its act of secession. By doing so, it was invading and conquering 32,000 square miles of territory that belonged to the United States. If Fort Sumter was somehow an invasion of the Confederacy then South Carolina’s secession was an invasion of the United States. Except that the Confederacy recognized the legal existence of the country they were invading so they had no basis to claim their act wasn’t directed against a foreign country. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > The Federal government had bases in South Carolina, as a State in the United States, when South Carolina stopped being a U.S. State and was part of a different sovereign country the United States lost all legal right to have a military presence there As others have pointed out, South Carolina never stopped being a state and it was never part of a different country. South Carolina was part of the United States, even if it didn’t admit it, and Fort Sumter was an American military base located in American territory. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/179 "2014-03-14T15:25:56Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Let’s not muddy the waters with “Declarations of War” versus who “started a war” because they are not synonymous. The U.S. never declared war on the CSA for example because it didn’t view them as a sovereign state, in fact Lincoln was usually pretty specific in saying he was waging war on the _rebels_ within the CSA and not the States themselves as he viewed those States as always being part of the United States, simply “overrun by dangerous rebels” at that point in time. And you don’t see how refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the CSA also means a refusal to recognize the legitimacy of ‘negotiations’ consisting of calling Fort Sumter an illegal occupation and demanding Federal troops abandon it? > [@](#): > > I find it laughable that you guys think if I was President of Russia I could land 10,000 troops in a sovereign country, keep them there against said country’s will, and if it resulted in a shooting war _anyone but me_ would be responsible for said war. This is like blaming the UK and France for declaring war on Germany in 1939, and thus taking a regional war into a “world war.” No, what’s laughable is that you continue to make absurd comparisons of the British sailing up the Chesapeake to in 1880 to build a fort (where, exactly, by the way, would they build this fort that wouldn’t be on US soil, thus making landing to build said fort an invasion) and the President of Russia landing 10,000 troops in a sovereign country and think that they have the slightest bit in common with or relevance to Fort Sumter. Again, since you appear to be unable to digest this fact: Fort Sumter existed and was garrisoned when South Carolina declared it had seceded. The Federal government did not sail into Charleston harbor after South Carolina declared it had seceded, disembark 10,000 soldiers and begin building a fort. When South Carolina decided to deal with the situation by shelling the fort, they started the war. They knew they were starting the war. “Laughable” is your insistence that the existence of Fort Sumter, which pre-dated South Carolina’s declaration of secession and the formation of the CSA was an act of war. Again, if you honestly believe this to be the case, then _de facto_ war had existed between the USA and South Carolina from the instant South Carolina declared its secession. Seeing that this state of war was triggered by South Carolina declaring its secession, guess who still started the war even under this twisted [il]logic? ---
**Author:** ![crucible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@crucible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crucible)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2014, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/180 "2014-03-24T12:44:25Z")
Well, how does all of this argument apply to Crimea? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359.md?page=10)