# SDMB Retrospective US Presidential Elections 1856 **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [July 14, 2014, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-retrospective-us-presidential-elections-1856/693048 "2014-07-14T04:11:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**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:** [July 20, 2014, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-retrospective-us-presidential-elections-1856/693048/41 "2014-07-20T22:38:51Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > The commander who refused to acknowledge secession and decided to arm a fort in foreign waters started the war. That’s not how it works. Military commanders don’t bow to the demands of anyone who walks up to their doors. They responded appropriately when they were attacked. > [@](#): > > I don’t speak in Comic Book or in Bible Thump so my inclination is to not use words like “evil”. They were terrible people, of course, they were a government. They were terrible people even as far as governments go. Among the worst regimes in the last couple of centuries. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2014, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-retrospective-us-presidential-elections-1856/693048/42 "2014-07-20T22:55:52Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > That’s not how it works. Military commanders don’t bow to the demands of anyone who walks up to their doors. They responded appropriately when they were attacked. They were arming a fort in another country’s waters. It was self defense and nobody was harmed by the Southerners. > [@](#): > > They were terrible people even as far as governments go. Among the worst regimes in the last couple of centuries. Among them. I wouldn’t put them as the worst in American history. Lincoln’s, Truman’s, LBJ’s, and GWB’s were worse. Other contenders as well. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2014, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-retrospective-us-presidential-elections-1856/693048/43 "2014-07-20T23:04:19Z")
Wilson’s ---
**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:** [July 20, 2014, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-retrospective-us-presidential-elections-1856/693048/44 "2014-07-20T23:18:30Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > They were arming a fort in another country’s waters. It was self defense and nobody was harmed by the Southerners. Countries don’t magically generate just on someone’s whim. There was no legitimate vote in the south, and a huge proportion of the south’s adults would have very likely opposed secession had they the opportunity. There was no reason why the fort’s commanders should or would have taken seriously any demands from a group of armed men outside their door. They reacted appropriately. The men (and their leaders) who shot at US soldiers started the war. Making countries doesn’t just occur by whim of rich landowners. > [@](#): > > Among them. I wouldn’t put them as the worst in American history. Lincoln’s, Truman’s, LBJ’s, and GWB’s were worse. Other contenders as well. They weren’t worse, because their regimes were not enshrined in white supremacy and dedicated to exploiting chattel. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-retrospective-us-presidential-elections-1856/693048/45 "2014-07-21T00:25:13Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > They weren’t worse, because their regimes were not enshrined in white supremacy and dedicated to exploiting chattel. > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Wilson’s Well, maybe Wilson’s counts. 😉 **Will** , you still haven’t supplied a citation to support your statement, “The vast majority of Americans hold a **deeply perverse** ideological view of the sanctity of the union. As I stated, it was a contorted view pioneered by religious fanatics.” It’s the deep perversion I’m asking about, preferably from an 1856 standpoint and not your 2014 Big-L-Libertarian view. ---
**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:** [July 21, 2014, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-retrospective-us-presidential-elections-1856/693048/46 "2014-07-21T02:04:06Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > They were arming a fort in another country’s waters. It was self defense and nobody was harmed by the Southerners. A country doesn’t get to set its borders to wherever it wants and then declare that it’s been invaded because some other country is holding land it now feels it’s entitled to. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-retrospective-us-presidential-elections-1856/693048/47 "2014-07-21T02:22:48Z")
I wonder how much of the 1856 electorate was horrified over the fact that Fremont was, gasp, born out of wedlock? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-retrospective-us-presidential-elections-1856/693048/48 "2014-07-21T13:25:26Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > They were arming a fort in another country’s waters. The U.S. is one nation-state, not two, not 50. Has been since independence, and the nation as distinct from the state predates independence. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-retrospective-us-presidential-elections-1856/693048/49 "2014-07-21T15:49:01Z")
On another note… just read George R.R. Martin’s 1985 time-travel/alt-history short story “Under Siege,” in which a Swedish expatriate soldier with considerable knowledge of later history comes to the U.S. in the early 19th century, becomes a wealthy publisher, and helps found the Republican Party. In an alternative timeline, his writings are influential in the 1856 election of John C. Fremont to the Presidency. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-retrospective-us-presidential-elections-1856/693048/50 "2014-07-21T23:46:10Z")
And Fremont fucked it up? Because from a 2014 standpoint we can see that he was likely to. From an 1864 standpoint, too. 1856 was his year. **Rick Kitchen** , that’s an interesting question I can’t answer, but as he was a glamorous explorer, being a bastard probably just adds to his mystique. It’s all for the best that women can’t vote because Buchanan wouldn’t stand a chance. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-retrospective-us-presidential-elections-1856/693048/51 "2014-07-22T17:27:25Z")
**dropzone** , the story only mentions Fremont’s 1856 win in passing. It doesn’t say how good a President he was, or if he was able to either avert or win the Civil War. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2014, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-retrospective-us-presidential-elections-1856/693048/52 "2014-07-26T20:37:33Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > Well, maybe Wilson’s counts. 😉 > > **Will** , you still haven’t supplied a citation to support your statement, “The vast majority of Americans hold a **deeply perverse** ideological view of the sanctity of the union. As I stated, it was a contorted view pioneered by religious fanatics.” It’s the deep perversion I’m asking about, preferably from an 1856 standpoint and not your 2014 Big-L-Libertarian view. Perhaps you weren’t following along. I was responding to **Brainglutton**. > [@](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by BrainGlutton: > > You will find the \*\*vast majority \*\*of Americans today (and foreigners too) agree with Captain Amazing’s assessment, not yours. Are you right where all the world is wrong? > > Originally Posted by WillFarnaby: > > The vast majority of Americans hold a deeply perverse ideological view of the sanctity of the union. It is my sense that most Americans today do hold this view as \*\*BG \*\*claims. It is my opinion that it is deeply perverse. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > A country doesn’t get to set its borders to wherever it wants and then declare that it’s been invaded because some other country is holding land it now feels it’s entitled to. Are you suggesting that the American War for Independence was also not a legitimate use of force? As I have stated before, if the Japanese told the US government to abandon Okinawa, and instead of making efforts to do so attempted to send further supplies to Okinawa, the Japanese government would be within its rights to attack the US forces there. In any case, if a few shots fired in which nobody was killed by the Confederates is a legitimate casus belli there would be far more wars than have occurred thus far. If not for the fanatical propaganda from the Northerners after Ft. Sumter, it could have been a minor footnote in a much more peaceful history. Its the equivalent of Gaza launching a rocket that makes a pothole in the parking lot of a Israeli gas station, and Israel proceeding with a land invasion. Oh nevermind. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > The U.S. is one nation-state, not two, not 50. Has been since independence, and the nation as distinct from the state predates independence. This is a view pioneered by fanatical Christians who also happened to worship John Brown as a Christ-like figure. It is also the view of historians with an agenda. The compact theory still stands despite your pronouncements. It quite simply was a minority viewpoint in 1856. When it did gain adherents, it was always couched in religious terms. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2014, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-retrospective-us-presidential-elections-1856/693048/53 "2014-07-27T02:16:20Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > …As I have stated before, if the Japanese told the US government to abandon Okinawa, and instead of making efforts to do so attempted to send further supplies to Okinawa, the Japanese government would be within its rights to attack the US forces there… False analogy. The U.S. has never claimed that Okinawa is U.S. territory; we have a base there because of a treaty with another sovereign nation. That treaty, as far as I know, contains the means for its peaceful and lawful abrogation by either party. None of that was true of Ft. Sumter in 1861. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2014, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-retrospective-us-presidential-elections-1856/693048/54 "2014-07-27T02:58:34Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Perhaps you weren’t following along. I was responding to **Brainglutton**. And nobody you did not address directly can respond? I think you have this message board thing all wrong. > [@](#): > > This is a view pioneered by fanatical Christians who also happened to worship John Brown as a Christ-like figure. It is also the view of historians with an agenda. > … > It quite simply was a minority viewpoint in 1856. A lot of Americans had simply not thought about it deeply by 1856. Like all people they were preoccupied with their own lives and did not yet see how they were a part of something bigger. It was only the “four score” part of the quote and America, as a nation, was just getting its sealegs. Yes, Americans in 1856 were generally quite religious, but they weren’t any more stupid than other people in other times, and were perfectly capable of making decisions on their own. And my question stands: > [@](#): > > **Will** , you still haven’t supplied a citation to support your statement, “The vast majority of Americans hold a **deeply perverse** ideological view of the sanctity of the union. As I stated, it was a contorted view pioneered by religious fanatics.” It’s the deep perversion I’m asking about, preferably from an 1856 standpoint and not your 2014 Big-L-Libertarian view. IOW, WHY does “1856 you” think nationhood, as a philosophical concept, is **deeply perverse** and only held by religious extremists? As a Libertarian do you see the Antebellum South as a Libertarian ideal, with each plantation the owner’s fiefdom? ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2014, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-retrospective-us-presidential-elections-1856/693048/55 "2014-07-27T16:35:16Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > And nobody you did not address directly can respond? I think you have this message board thing all wrong. No, you can respond, but you should follow along so I don’t have to spoon feed you. > [@](#): > > A lot of Americans had simply not thought about it deeply by 1856. Like all people they were preoccupied with their own lives and did not yet see how they were a part of something bigger. Oh ok, so when did the religious Awakening take place? When John Brown started his slaughter? We are not a part of something bigger if you mean a nation. We are a part of society formed by voluntary associations, that is all. You make the US seem like a cult. > [@](#): > > It was only the “four score” part of the quote and America, as a nation, was just getting its sealegs. Yes, Americans in 1856 were generally quite religious, but they weren’t any more stupid than other people in other times, and were perfectly capable of making decisions on their own. Yes, and they wanted to make decisions for everyone else as well. It was this form of Christian pietism, a throwback to Puritanism, that envisioned the government as a tool of God, to wipe sin from the world. This view was threatened by the influx of Catholic and Lutheran immigrants who held a more laissez-faire view of government. These fanatics were in favor of an activist government so they could wipe out the perceived sins of the Catholic and Lutheran newcomers, and create God’s kingdom on Earth. I don’t have a problem with religion per se, but I do have a problem with religious fanatics when it comes to them using the government to accomplish their ends. > [@](#): > > IOW, WHY does “1856 you” think nationhood, as a philosophical concept, is **deeply perverse** and only held by religious extremists? Well I think it’s only held by religious extremists because it is, and I live in 1856 remember, so I read the papers. It is deeply perverse because it is not based on voluntary association, but forced on an arbitrary geographical area by men with guns. > [@](#): > > As a Libertarian do you see the Antebellum South as a Libertarian ideal, with each plantation the owner’s fiefdom? Hm. Libertarians of the age were among the most outspoken of abolitionists. So 1856 me would have found pockets of libertarianism in the upper Midwest as well as parts of the frontier. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2014, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-retrospective-us-presidential-elections-1856/693048/56 "2014-07-27T16:49:20Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > This is a view pioneered by fanatical Christians who also happened to worship John Brown as a Christ-like figure. It is also the view of historians with an agenda. The compact theory still stands despite your pronouncements. > > It quite simply was a minority viewpoint in 1856. When it did gain adherents, it was always couched in religious terms. It might have been a minority view in 1856…I don’t know. The lack of opinion polling at the time means that it’s hard to tell exactly what the public was thinking, and the fact that large portions of the country tried to secede showed that not everyone believed it. But it wasn’t a fringe viewpoint, nor a view held only by fanatical Christians. It had a fairly long and distinguished history…there’s a reason the full name of the Articles of Confederation was “The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union”. Some of these quotes are fairly long, and I’m sorry about that, but here are some examples of people who had the viewpoint who can’t just be derided as “fanatical Christians”, and none of their arguments are explicitly religious. From George Washington’s Circular to the States in 1783: > [@](#): > > There are four things, which I humbly conceive, are essential to the well being, I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an Independent Power: > 1st. An indissoluble Union of the States under one Federal Head. . . . > > That it is indispensable to the happiness of the individual States, that there should be lodged somewhere, a Supreme Power to regulate and govern the general concerns of the Confederated Republic, without which the Union cannot be of long duration. That there must be a faithful and pointed compliance on the part of every State, with the late proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue, That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independency of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly. And from his farewell address: > [@](#): > > To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a Government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances however strict between the parts can be an adequate substitute. They must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all Alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a Constitution of Government, better calculated than your former for an intimate Union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. . . > > The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'til changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the People to establish Government presupposes the duty of every Individual to obey the established Government. From James Madison’s letter to Edward Everett: > [@](#): > > The Constitution is a compact; that its text is to be expounded according to the provision for expounding it, making a part of the compact; and that none of the parties can rightfully renounce the expounding provision more than any other part. Daniel Webster, in a speech before the Senate: > [@](#): > > Mr. President, I should much prefer to have heard from every member on this floor declarations of opinion that this Union could never be dissolved, than the declaration of opinion by anybody that, in any case, under the pressure of any circumstances, such a dissolution was possible. I hear with distress and anguish the word “secession,” especially when it falls from the lips of those who are patriotic, and known to the country, and known all over the world, for their political services. Secession! Peaceable secession! Sir, your eyes and mine are never destined to see that miracle. The dismemberment of this vast country without convulsion! The breaking up of the fountains of the great deep without ruffling the surface! Who is so foolish, I beg everybody’s pardon, as to expect to see any such thing? Sir, he who sees these States, now revolving in harmony around a common center, and expects to see them quit their places and fly off without convulsion, may look the next hour to see the heavenly bodies rush from their spheres, and jostle against each other in the realms of space, without causing the wreck of the universe. There can be no such thing as peaceable secession. Peaceable secession is an utter impossibility. Is the great Constitution under which we live, covering this whole country, is it to be thawed and melted away by secession, as the snows on the mountain melt under the influence of a vernal sun, disappear almost unobserved, and run off? No, Sir! No, Sir! I will not state what might produce the disruption of the Union; but, Sir, I see as plainly as I see the sun in heaven what that disruption itself must produce; I see that it must produce war, and such a war as I will not describe, in its twofold character. > Peaceable secession! Peaceable secession! The concurrent agreement of all the members of this great republic to separate! A voluntary separation, with alimony on one side and on the other. Why, what would be the result? Where is the line to be drawn? What States are to secede? What is to remain American? What am I to be? An American no longer? Am I to become a sectional man, a local man, a separatist, with no country in common with the gentlemen who sit around me here, or who fill the other house of Congress? Heaven forbid! Where is the flag of the republic to remain? Where is the eagle still to tower? or is he to cower, and shrink, and fall to the ground? Why, Sir, our ancestors, our fathers and our grandfathers, those of them that are yet living amongst us with prolonged lives, would rebuke and reproach us; and our children and our grandchildren would cry out shame upon us, if we of this generation should dishonor these ensigns of the power of the government and the harmony of that Union which is every day felt among us with so much joy and gratitude. What is to become of the army? What is to become of the navy? What is to become of the public lands? How is each of the thirty States to defend itself? I know, although the idea has not been stated distinctly, there is to be, or it is supposed possible that there will be, a Southern Confederacy. I do not mean, when I allude to this statement, that any one seriously contemplates such a state of things. I do not mean to say that it is true, but I have heard it suggested elsewhere, that the idea has been entertained, that, after the dissolution of this Union, a Southern Confederacy might be formed. I am sorry, Sir, that it has ever been thought of, talked of, or dreamed of, in the wildest flights of human imagination. But the idea, so far as it exists, must be of a separation, assigning the slave States to one side and the free States to the other/ Andrew Jackson’s Proclamation Regarding Nullification: > [@](#): > > The Constitution of the United States, then, forms a government, not a league, and whether it be formed by compact between the States, or in any other manner, its character is the same. It is a government in which ale the people are represented, which operates directly on the people individually, not upon the States; they retained all the power they did not grant. But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure. > > Because the Union was formed by compact, it is said the parties to that compact may, when they feel themselves aggrieved, depart from it; but it is precisely because it is a compact that they cannot. A compact is an agreement or binding obligation. It may by its terms have a sanction or penalty for its breach, or it may not. . . … A government, on the contrary, always has a sanction, express or implied; and, in our case, it is both necessarily implied and expressly given. An attempt by force of arms to destroy a government is an offense, by whatever means the constitutional compact may have been formed; and such government has the right, by the law of self-defense, to pass acts for punishing the offender, unless that right is modified, restrained, or resumed by the constitutional act. In our system, although it is modified in the case of treason, yet authority is expressly given to pass all laws necessary to carry its powers into effect, and under this grant provision has been made for punishing acts which obstruct the due administration of the laws. . . . > > So obvious are the reasons which forbid this secession, that it is necessary only to allude to them. The Union was formed for the benefit of all. It was produced by mutual sacrifice of interest and opinions. Can those sacrifices be recalled? Can the States, who magnanimously surrendered their title to the territories of the West, recall the grant? Will the inhabitants of the inland States agree to pay the duties that may be imposed without their assent by those on the Atlantic or the Gulf, for their own benefit? Shall there be a free port in one State, and enormous duties in another? No one believes that any right exists in a single State to involve all the others in these and countless other evils, contrary to engagements solemnly made. Everyone must see that the other States, in self-defense, must oppose it at all hazards. ---
**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:** [July 27, 2014, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-retrospective-us-presidential-elections-1856/693048/57 "2014-07-27T18:22:28Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > As I have stated before, if the Japanese told the US government to abandon Okinawa, and instead of making efforts to do so attempted to send further supplies to Okinawa, the Japanese government would be within its rights to attack the US forces there. There was no Japanese equivalent in the case of the Civil War – there was no reason for the US government to consider the Confederacy as a legitimate country or government. There was no legitimate vote, and no reason for them not to be treated as a bunch of organized, violent criminals. ---
**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:** [July 27, 2014, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-retrospective-us-presidential-elections-1856/693048/58 "2014-07-27T18:58:09Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Are you suggesting that the American War for Independence was also not a legitimate use of force? > > As I have stated before, if the Japanese told the US government to abandon Okinawa, and instead of making efforts to do so attempted to send further supplies to Okinawa, the Japanese government would be within its rights to attack the US forces there. You’re confused on the issues. We’re talking about what constitutes a declaration of war not what constitutes a cause for war. If Japan decided that the United States shouldn’t be on Okinawa, then the American presence there might be a cause for war. But it wouldn’t be a declaration of war. The Japanese government attacking the United States would be the declaration of war. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2014, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-retrospective-us-presidential-elections-1856/693048/59 "2014-07-27T21:06:52Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > This is a view pioneered by fanatical Christians who also happened to worship John Brown as a Christ-like figure. It is also the view of historians with an agenda. The compact theory still stands despite your pronouncements. > > It quite simply was a minority viewpoint in 1856. When it did gain adherents, it was always couched in religious terms. You do know Lincoln was an atheist, don’t you? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2014, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-retrospective-us-presidential-elections-1856/693048/60 "2014-07-27T21:09:30Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > This view was threatened by the influx of Catholic and Lutheran immigrants who held a more laissez-faire view of government. Those did mostly fight for the Union, you know. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-retrospective-us-presidential-elections-1856/693048.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-retrospective-us-presidential-elections-1856/693048.md?page=4)