An isolated incident, with the Confederacy drooling over attacking multiple other Federal Forts in the South (Fort Pickens anyone?). Right. Sure.
An ‘isolated incident’ does not involve huge fortification cannon firing on someone for hours on end with the approval of the firing group’s chosen leaders.
Not if your “neighbor” is the state.
At the time, the South, and especially SC, was full of “fire-eaters” itching for war.
Let’ also note that Sumter and Pickens were the only properties in Federal hands by the time shots were fired. Confederates had already seized all other Federal forts, Arsenals, and properties in their frenzy to go war. Neither fort was in a position to take offensive action. The slave-owners could have easily ignored them.
That is not the action of someone ‘negotiating peacefully’.
That’s enough. Do not mock other posters. If you don’t want to engage the debate stay out of it.
Including Missouri.If you look closely at their state seal, underneath the 2 bears, is a belt with a buckle. This is to symbolize that Missouri could always have the right to secede, or “unbuckle” itself from the USA.
And yet here you are, bending over backwards to defend a government engaging in military action against a peaceful opponent.
And done in order to steal their property, no less.
Worse than that, several members of the war department had ordered military supplies shipped to southern forts in the months preceding the succession. They knew the supplies would then fall into confederate hands. WHILE they were on federal payroll.
They were TRAITORS.
Their is speculation that the war could have been stopped before it started if they had ordered additional troops to forts in the south with orders to shoot any reb who tried to take down the flag.
Luckily the secretary of the navy saw what was happening and ordered all navy ships to foreign ports so the confederates hardly got any ships except for the Merrimac which was under repair.
But its work was ratified in public. At the time, every state decided a strong federal government was desirable.
Well to be fair, so were the abolitionists in the north. Remember John Brown.
Then it was pretty much inevitable that they would have it out on the battlefield sooner or later.
Yet it could have been an isolated incident. What had changed fundamentally after the event? Nothing really. The South would have gladly negotiated payment for the forts. It had no desire to be invaded.
Why? Is that a magic word?
If they were so desperate to start a war, why didn’t they simply declare war? No, they sent a delegation to DC to negotiate payment for federal assets.
Even with the forts in Confederate control, Lincoln was unwilling to negotiate. Would he have negotiated if the Confederates had no leverage?
The Union was not a peaceful opponent under Lincoln. That much we know from hindsight.
No. Like I said, Madison had admitted defeat. The US under the Constitution as ratified was still a largely decentralized republic. Several states ratified with the understanding that secession was permissible. The nationalization of the federal government occurred under Lincoln and the subsequent military occupation of the South.
They were already doing this as part of bloody Kansas. Look up The Battle of Black Jack with free soilers vs pro slave forces.
Again, false.
Isolated? No. Sorry. Once the other side demonstrates that it is willing to commit violence to seize what does not belong to them, you’re beyond ‘isolated incident’. Especially in light of the seizure of other Federal Property and Arsenals.
If a single coastal cannon had fired and hit the Fort I would call that an isolated incident. This was a hours-long bombardment with the express purpose of seizing the Fort.
Except the South demonstrating it wanted war.
Where exactly is the evidence that the South was willing to pay for the forts? And what were they going to pay with, exactly? Confederate script? Then money and precious metals they had stolen from Federal banks and reserves?
This ignores the fact that any negotiation with the South was always predicated on them wanting all Western states and territories to be slave states even if they had voted against it.
Nothing the South did was in good faith, so why would anyone trust them to pay for any Federal property they seized?
Explain why he should negotiate with people who were seizing and stealing things?
The South had decades to negotiate prior to Lincoln being in office. Their attitude was always ‘my way or no way’. Lincoln drew the line, the South stepped over it, again, thinking they’d get away with it, again. Didn’t happen this time.
The US government didn’t want to enter into a voluntary exchange with the Confederates. The South didn’t like that, so they used violence to attempt to force the government to enter into an agreement the government did not want to enter. Normally, you’re all about the primacy of voluntary exchanges as a basis for society. Except when it comes to the Confederate states - they couldn’t get the deal they wanted, so they started a war. You’re usually really down on warmongers, so, again, it’s interesting how far you’re willing to bend over to justify this naked use of aggression by the state.
The Union was completely peaceful until the South decided that it was justified in using force to acquire someone else’s property. Which is also usually something you’re dead-set against. Except, again, when it comes to the Confederate states.
I would say the first statement is closer to being correct than the second. Human beings are a naturally tribal species, and a degree of xenophobia and ethnocentrism is an all too “natural” thing for us. That said, “race” is not really an inherent or “natural” category; for most of human history it wasn’t recognized as the way to divide up human beings. You had lots of categories like “Greek” or “Roman” (or “Egyptian” or “Chinese”) versus “barbarian”, “Christian” versus “pagan”, “Muslim” versus “infidel”, and so on–but not necessarily this idea that people are divided into “whites” and “blacks” and “yellows”. That was an idea that only really got started after Europeans began making long-range ocean voyages (which allowed them to come into immediate and relatively rapid contact with people from distant parts of the planet, but without–as with someone like Alexander the Great or Marco Polo–having to schlepp all the way across Eurasia to do so, observing as they went all the gradual changes in the way people looked, talked, and behaved).
Chattel slavery based on “race” is also, in the great sweep of human history, a very new idea. (Slavery, of various kinds, is of course very old.) Slavery in America was initially justified on the grounds of religion–it was claimed to be acceptable to enslave Africans because they were “heathens”. But there’s a problem with religion-based slavery–a problem from the slave owner’s P.O.V., of course–what if your slaves say “Hallelujah, Master, I’ve found Jesus! Praise the Lord, I’m saved! Can I go now…Brother?”
So, in 17th century colonial America, you got a shift from a form of unfree labor that wasn’t based on “race”, and also included a lot of “indentured servitude” rather than chattel slavery, a system where people of both European and African ancestry were part of the underprivileged–but potentially upwardly mobile–group; to a major legal transformation where the status of chattel slave was based on “race” rather than religion. Also crucially, there was a major legal shift from a system where your status as free or slave was inherited from your father (like most things were inherited in a patriarchal society like colonial America) to a system where your status as free or slave was inherited from your mother, and your father’s status was irrelevant to yours. (FYI, I’m basing this account of the origins of race-based slavery in America very heavily on the book Strange New Land: Africans in Colonial America by Peter H. Wood.)
This whole transformation was pretty obviously driven by economic factors–by pure, cold-blooded greed that is; the desire of plantation owners to have a labor force they didn’t have to pay, who couldn’t get a better offer from someone else (or quit and go clear land for a farm of their own), and to whom the plantation owners would have zero obligations as far as furnishing them with land or anything else to enable them to get a new start in the New World when their “indenture” ended–chattel slavery never ends.
The justification of this system of brutal economic exploitation in terms of the alleged superiority of one “race” and the alleged inferiority of another “race” certainly took on a life of its own–thus, you have things like Georgia Governor Joseph Brown appealing to non-slave-owning whites for support for secession, which certainly included appealing to those whites in terms of “racial” solidarity. And we are clearly still dealing with the cultural and psychological legacy of centuries of telling “white” people that we are superior to “black” people, because of our “race”.
But even after two centuries of constructing a social and political system based on “race”, the economic issues involved in slavery and white supremacy were still very much at the forefront to the pro-slavery side at the outbreak of the Civil War. That was crystal clear, from Mississippi’s claim that slavery was “the greatest material interest of the world” and that it “supplie[d] the product which constitute[d] by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth”, to Georgia’s claim that abolitionism represented a threat to "3,000,000,000 of our property". (According to Mississippi, it was 4,000,000,000 worth of “property”. If you run the numbers, depending on how you slice it that’s the equivalent in today’s money of between seventy to ninety-plus billion dollars–which is a hell of a lot of money–all the way up to a fairly astonishing fourteen to well over eighteen trillion.)
None of that is real, Will.
Seriously, take a break and pull it together.
There are worse places to pull from.