The Civil War was about “states’ rights” in the same sense that that damn flag it left behind is about celebrating Southern heritage. :rolleyes:
Slavery, Jim Crow, lynchings, the Klan, segregation, redlining, voter suppression … the war isn’t over yet.
Ah, yes, the “Look what you made us do!” argument … a timeless classic.
Lincoln’s first inaugural speech The Avalon Project : First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln
"In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. "
Yes. They fired on a tax-collection fort in their harbor and killed nobody. Of course the trigger happy warmongers of today say that total war and devastation was the only choice after such an isolated event.
Thanks. Here we have Lincoln saying there will be bloodshed if he can’t hold the tax collection forts.
He’s also saying it will be the rebels who shed it. Did you miss that part?
Oh then he was just wrong. The rebels didn’t inflict casualties at Sumter.
You really are ignorant about the meaning of Intent to kill, also referred to in many states as malice aforethought.
What *were *they trying to do?
It’s not as simple as your ideology either. But then the real world never is.
Lincoln didn’t “chose to not negotiate the practicalities of the secession.” He opposed secession for both moral and practical reasons. And he was the representative of both a government and a general population which opposed secession.
Lincoln wanted the seceding states to return back to the United States. He was willing to negotiate for that purpose.
In his inaugural speech, he did not promise bloodshed. That is ridiculous. He spoke of his willingness to compromise and to acknowledge the rights of the southern states.
I assume this is the portion of his speech you’re referring to:
I know it’s inconvenient for you that history doesn’t support your beliefs. But that doesn’t mean you get to make up a different history.
So according to you it wasn’t the people shooting the cannons who were the trigger happy warmongers. It was the people who objected to having cannons shot at them.
So the ethical supremacy of the Confederacy is based on bad aim with their artillery?
That is one hell of a logical kludge. I’m going out on a limb here, and guess that if “stand your ground” laws in those same states were to be amended to exclude “attackers who missed” you would find a counter argument some where.
Tris
When I am trying to not inflict casualties, I always use 32lb cannon fire.
You realize those forts were designed for harbor & coastal protection, yes? They were designed in the light of the War of 1812 where it was realized that there were not enough fortifications to protect the coasts and waterways of the USA. (The fact the the British made it all the way to Baltimore before finally coming across a fort that could stop them should speak volumes). Calling Sumter a ‘tax-collection fort’ is disingenuous at best.
No, it is a bad idea, because the “entire society” was made up of racist ignorant men who wanted to keep a evil way of life and treat people like property based on the color of the skins.
The “small group of men” being those elected by the nation.
The root cause of slavery was economic profitability.
The trigger-happy warmongers of that day, on both sides, said the same. Once Sumter was fired on, there was no going back.
They certainly tried , bombarding it for 34 hours.
Lets pause a moment and think about this. Many nations today were once a region of smaller city states and regions. The UK for example - England, Wales, Ireland, Scotland, etc… but all under Londons rule. France - held power over the different french states and in ancient times independent nations, by making all roads and later railroads go thru Paris. Germany only became a nation maybe 150 years ago when Prussia united all the German states under rule from Berlin. The Soviet Union was a mix of nations ruled by the Russians in Moscow. Look how they later broke up.
So Washington wanted more control over the states. Especially the ones that had been purchased by the federal government via treaty like Texas and Florida. They were afraid of states splitting off and becoming their own countries. Partly why Lincoln said “A house divided cannot stand”. Lincoln and others did want a strong federal government.
Different states were not big on the federal government levying taxes and setting up laws which they then had to follow. For example Illinois tried to have a law forbidding blacks from living there (slave or free). Some states wanted the right to deal with indians as they wished and not have to abide by treaties signed by the federal government. Think about how later in Little Rock Arkansas it took federal troops to enforce laws set by the supreme court.
Slavery was the cause of the civil war. But at the heart of that was the right of different states to allow slavery or not.
Nope, it was racism and the desire of ignorant men to have people to feel superior over.
Money was important but secondary.