The Civil War was not about states' rights

Reread my statement.

Doesn’t matter. They didn’t shed blood.

Lincoln chose to not negotiate payment for federal assets. Very few people wanted to actually make war on the rebels for secession whether they supported it or not. Unfortunately for many victims of the war, Lincoln went against his advisors and attempted to supply fort Sumter with the intent of drawing the first shot. This is made clear by his correspondence with Fox.

Yes Lincoln plainly stated in his April 19th war proclamation that he was invading to collect taxes.

“Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed therein conformably to that provision of the Constitution which requires duties to be uniform throughout the United States”

No. The people who fired the cannons were defending their homeland. The people who responded to what should have been an isolated incident with invasion and total war were warmongers.

Denying that is was a tax-collection fort is disingenuous at best, because that was its purpose in the relevant timeframe.

A part of the nation elected the men, yes. Does that mean that they made the right decision? Interesting endorsement of the Trump Administration.

Yes it was profitable in the days of mercantilism but had been supplanted in more advanced capitalist economies. See Eric Williams.

Once Lincoln had decided to arm the fort, there was no going back. Yes we can go on and on stating causative factors.

Point is they didn’t. There was no reason to eschew negotiation of purchase of the fort and others.

Sovereign citizen like arguments do not fly on the courts, and less so over here.

Unintelligible.

And so did the Founding Fathers. The Constitutional Convention was necessary because the Articles of Confederation created too weak a government.

So? If someone shoots me, and misses, am I not allowed to return fire until he hits?

And the American government was the one that said states could decide. The Confederate government was the one that said states didn’t have that right.

So if the Civil War was fought over the issue of states rights, then the United States was defending states rights while the Confederates were fighting against states rights.

No the convention was a coup conducted in secret. Madison admitted the nationalists were defeated at the convention. A few states explicitly retained the right to secede in their ratifying document.

The idea that “the Founding Fathers” spoke from one voice for a “strong government” is a fairy tale for schoolchildren.

They did return fire. Once the conflict was over wise men could have noticed an opportunity for negotiation instead of escalation.

Nope, your reply was. It was nonsensical to avoid the fact that Intent to kill is a thing.

Will, this is probably the worst argument you’ve ever made on this board.

The United States government owned Fort Sumter. It was their property. They were under no obligation to have to turn it over or to even negotiate to sell it if they didn’t want to. That’s basic property rights.

Shooting at somebody is wrong. It’s wrong to shoot at somebody to try to make them give you their property. And it’s wrong to shoot at somebody even if you’re a bad shot and you don’t hit the person you’re trying to shoot.

You are also wrong about the Confederate government wanting to buy Fort Sumter or any other property belonging to the United States government. They never made any offers to pay for anything. They just took everything. Fort Sumter was one of the last pieces of property they stole because it was one where the taking was more difficult. In no case did they offer to negotiate for the property they took or offer any payment after they took it.

What we have here is a government that took somebody else’s property literally at gunpoint. And you of all people are defending it.

But I guess you have succeeded in taking over another thread and making it all about you.

Really. Just how many taxes were collected there?

And Fort Barancas, what taxes was it collecting?

Fort Sumter needed to conserve ammunition so it did not return fire for two hours.

And historians do agree that the first fatalities of the war came indirectly, but as a result of the the hostilities.

The Confederates attempted to negotiate payment for federal “property”. The fact that you are ignorant of this is no excuse as I’ve repeatedly pointed out to you in the past. You insist on pulling from grade school narratives.

The “property” in question happened to be a hostile fort. Even the most ardent statist would admit that if your neighbor attempts to fortify and collect taxes from you, there is a legitimate cause for self-defense.

I also note your refusal to admit that the North declared war to collect taxes, even when confronted with a primary source with clear and express language.

So they did return fire and the rebels hurt nobody. Thanks for that one, bud.

That is still a nonsensical reply, read it again, Attempted Murder is not “nothing”. And history does point at the 2 Union soldiers dying as a result of what the Confederacy did.

Of course the ones at Fort Sumpter also did not hurt anybody from the confederacy either, so your by own “logic” they are blameless of what you think.

2 union soldiers died because Anderson had them do some ridiculous jingo move.

The Union began calling up troops after Ft Sumter right after Lincoln congratulated Fox for drawing the first shot. That was the start of the invasion.

It’s fascinating how quickly you abandon literally every one of your oft-stated principles when it comes to defending the South.

I love how your premises seem to be “How dare the Fort Sumter fire back”, followed by “How dare the Union Fight back!!”

No I am against all wars. Same here.

No the event at Ft Sumter could have been an isolated incident.