U.S. Civil War question

The position of the United States government is and was that secession is illegal. So they were upholding American law, which was their duty as public officials.

Government officials also have a duty to defend the rights of American citizens. The residents in southern states were American citizens but the seceding governments in those states were making it impossible for the American government to do its duty to its citizens. (And keep in mind that the desire to secede was not universal. There was a substantial minority of southerners who wanted to remain in the United States.)

Imagine if Canada invaded and occupied Maine and declared it was now a Canadian province. Would the American government say “Oh, well, nothing to be done about it then. It’s a domestic issue for Canada now.”? No, we would say “Those people in Maine are American citizens and we’re going to fight for them in order to get them back into the United States.”

Sam Houston had an idea

Of course, he was not in “any position of decision making.” He’d just been kicked out of the Governorship because of his refusal to swear allegiance to the Confederacy. The slavemasters chose to break the Union because they feared their power might ebb as the country grew. From the Texas conference on secession:

They were wrong. Their traitorous cause failed. Although the North went to war to defend the Union, the result was the end of slavery. (How often do we have these threads? How many people still mourn the end of slavery?)

So? I don’t think anyone has presented one side as having white hats, unless it’s the side presenting the “poor south’s” case.

But the fact is, the CSA fired first. They could have negotiated their extreme political position, but they decided they didn’t need to. They were wrong, and paid the price. I will shed no tears for them. The greatest sin on the Union side, IMHO was having useless generals for the first part of the war, dragging it out.

I generally agree with your post, but to present that war as being over slavery isn’t very accurate. While retaining slavery for Texas was one of the many reasons that the war of independence was fought, it was far from the primary one for most of them. For example, Juan Seguin (and most of the Mexicans on the Texas side) had a political reason to oppose the government of Santa Anna that was entirely separate from slavery.

It also had little to do with expanding slavery into the U.S., as it wasn’t sure that it would join, and not all of the Texas rebels advocated it. Incorporating Texas into the U.S. did have quite a bit to do with expanding slavery, but that’s a different event, ten years later.

This view is common now and is a poor synopsis of the situation then. Consider that West Point was a school for those interested in engineering and/or political advancement as well as martial interests. Consider the common Union soldier didn’t have a clear motivation to kill his countrymen early in the war, our nation as we know it now was founded truly though this not before it. Consider the Union would survive no matter what battlefield mishap occurred so the pressures for mistakes were greater for Union generals. Consider the standard formula for a successful concentration of force was 3:1 which the Union didn’t enjoy as often as would be supposed. Consider the vastness of the South, for every inch advanced the union advantage in men and material is spent to protect supply and communications. Consider the poor theater military hierarchy established on both sides but effected an attacking force far more. Finally, Lincoln was a political wizard but he was a military fool, consider the political minefield any successful union general had to walk in a viper nest of vested political interests.

Can we have Vermont instead?

Disunion was so obviously an undesirable thing that politicians had spent decades coming up with compromises to avoid secession crises. Even after Lincoln’s election as states started seceding, there were 11th hour attempts to work out an acceptable solution (see the Crittenden Compromise for example). Some hoped that secession was an impulsive move pushed by a minority of firebrands, and that cooler heads would prevail given time. A few even advocated letting the seceding states go, rather than buy their loyalty by surrendering to the southern platform and making slavery the law of the land throughout the country. The lame-duck president Buchanan claimed he had no constitutional authority to “compel” the states (and more cynically, politically he would have had nothing to gain and everything to lose by trying). When Lincoln came into office he had next to no standing army, no funding, no congressional mandate, and was faced with the problem that a second wave of southern states would rebel if he resorted to force, making everything worse. The best he could do before Sumter was to adopt a policy of “masterly inactivity”- neither taking provocative steps nor recognizing the secession. That of course meant holding on to federal forts in rebel territory like Sumter, and eventually the South Carolinians forced the issue.

Even after the war started, it was at first hoped that the rebellion was a sort of overgrown riot, essentially hot air and hot heads, and that a strong demonstration by the federal authority would shock the rebels into terms. Or that a blockade alone would eventually force the rebel states to come to terms. And when that wasn’t borne out it was still hoped that a “silent majority” of southerners would repudiate the secessionists. It wasn’t really accepted by most in the North until the Emancipation Proclamation that the war would require totally crushing and conquering the South.

In a democracy it is indispensable that when a free and fair vote has been taken, that the losers gracefully submit. If a state could secede at will any time it didn’t get its way, the USA would become a loose alliance of effectively sovereign states, undoing the whole 1787 constitution. If the North had acquiesced to secession, the federal government would have been reduced to a ghost, with as little real power as the UN has today. By the time of the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln had taken the position that the war was nothing less than a test of the viability of democracy itself, of whether you could have freedom without anarchy. Practically speaking, it comes down to this: No government can voluntarily accede to the diminishment of its authority without risking total dissolution. This is more or less what happened to the Soviet Union.

Hoo boy is THAT ever a complete load of nonsense. [Bolding mine to specify my issue]

Lincoln was inexperienced in military matters, but he learned very quickly and had far better grasp on the strategic concepts than nearly any general on either side. One of the first things he did in office was to get all the books on military theory he could, and proved to be a first-rate organizer. Granting that he made mistakes, there is always a level of tension between military and political needs, and there aren’t many people who were able to balance them better. If anything, he was too willing to defer to supposed professionals and too patient with failed generals. But he did the most critical task for a national leader in wartime - to find capable military talent, find ways to support them, and make the hard choices necessary.

Indeed, I’d say that even some of his worse choices - McClellan or Burnside or Hooker, for instance - had real talents and proved to be capable commanders at several points. And finally, I’m not sure to whom you’re comparing him. I can think of few civilians leaders in any war ever who handled complex political and military strategies with more deftness.

I’d say a better analogy is that you sell me a clock, you die, and your descendants decide they want the clock back. They enter my house and shoot me to take it back.

Well, I wasn’t so much making an analogy to what happened, but trying to present various analogies to examine the legal question.

Our current understanding of “Federal Land” is that the Federal Government owns it outright, and it is no longer “state land” at all. Yellowstone National Park is not part of Wyoming. When the state sold or donated the land, it ceased forever to be state property.

But it is not wholly unreasonable for South Carolina to have held a different opinion in 1861. In those times, when “States’ Rights” were stronger than today, and state sovereignty was believed by many to be absolute, it isn’t wrong, exactly, for them to have considered the state’s claim to trump the Federal claim.

That’s why I presented another analogy, of the “gift” of exchanged house keys. It isn’t an analogy that carries weight today…but it is at least a rough idea of how some thought of the matter.

Just as the Constitution didn’t exactly specify that a state could not secede, it also doesn’t exactly specify that a state legislature cannot rescind the sale of land to the Federal government (Article I, Section 8.)

One side was fighting to preserve/expand the enslavement of black Americans. That’s the most clear-line moral war the US has ever fought (tied with WWII).

They really need remedial history courses.

[QUOTE] [*John Green*] Hi, I'm John Green, this is Crash Course US History, and today we discuss one of the most confusing questions in American history: What caused the Civil War?

Just kidding, it’s not a confusing question at all; slavery caused the civil war.

[High School Mr. Green]
Mr. Green, but what about, like, states rights and nationalism, economics–

[John Green]
Me from the Past, your senior year of high school you will be taught American Government by Mr. Fleming, a white Southerner who will seem to you to be about 182 years old, and you will say something to him in class about states rights.

And Mr. Fleming will turn to you and he will say:

A state’s rights to what, sir?

And for the first time in your snotty little life, you will be well and truly speechless.
[/quote]

No. It fits next to New Hampshire and we don’t want to break up the set.

But Fort Sumter wasn’t just owned by the United States in the sense that it was in land that was part of the United States. It was a building and a piece of land whose owner was the United States government. It was owned by the United States in the sense that a homeowner owns his house.

So the confiscation of property owned by the federal government wasn’t just an issue of states rights or national sovereignty. It was also an issue of property ownership. If the Confederate government was confiscating that property (along with a bunch if other property owned by the United States government) it was legally obligated to pay its legal owner the fair market value of the property. You’d think the Confederate government, which had been making such an issue over the sanctity of property, would have comprehended this.

It might have turned into another Guantanamo fiasco, where they might offer to pay, and the Federal government might refuse to accept it.

The two sides were short on troops, cannons, powder, raw steel, etc., but they both had plenty of lawyers…

But at least they should have made the effort to follow the recognized legal principles. If the newly formed government wanted to be recognized as a legitimate government by other countries it should have been acting the part.

The Confederate government should have done three things once it declared its independence:

  1. Declare that it planned on paying fair compensation for the property it had confiscated and wanted to meet with representatives of the United States to settle the amounts. This would have put the American government in a bind. Refusing to meet for this purpose would have given the Confederate government the ability to claim it had attempted to follow the law while costing them nothing. But agreeing to meet to discuss the issue would have been an implied recognition of Confederate sovereignty and they could have dragged out the negotiations to delay actual payment. Either way, the Confederates would have gained something. Instead they just took the property which allowed the United States to declare their actions a crime.

  2. Ship all the cotton it could overseas and store it in Europe. This would have placed the cotton beyond any ability of the American government to interfere with its sale and enabled the Confederates to sell the cotton on European markets for badly needed income. Instead the Confederate government declared an embargo on cotton sales in an ill-advised attempt to pressure European governments into supporting them. The Confederates essentially blockaded themselves before the United States was able to put its own blockade into effect. By the time they realized their mistake, the American blockade made it impossible to overturn this decision.

  3. Avoid war with the United States as long as possible. The Confederates had already achieved de facto independence - all they needed to do at this point was continue to exist. The longer they existed as a de facto country, the more legitimate they would become. The United States was the one that was under time pressure and would have to eventually take action. An American declaration of war against a government that was openly seeking to remain at peace would have gained the Confederates international support and created domestic opposition in the United States. But once again, the Confederates handed an easy out to the United States by starting the war and taking the responsibility off Washington (and made the strategic blunder of declaring war on a more powerful country).

More than that, Fort Sumter was built on an artificial island made from seventy thousand tons of granite brought down from New England. That’s probably not apropos to much, but it’s great symbolism. Even the land it was built on wasn’t South Carolinian.

In hindsight yes, but reading about the civil war one gains the impression that the southern states had an almost delusional superiority complex. Of course they could never be beaten; their society was so superior, so right, that it had the blessing of God himself. The Yankees either wouldn’t dare try to impose their will on the South, or if they did they’d be sent scurrying back north with their tails between their legs. :rolleyes:

None of you are actually answering the OP’s question, even though this is in Great Debates now. He asked “why was secession such a problem that it was worth losing all of those lives?” He didn’t ask who “started the war”, which is a pointless discussion that never goes anywhere.

If Lincoln had not wanted a war, he easily could have ignored the capture of Ft. Sumter. In fact we had ignored and have ignored far greater provocations from other countries over the years without declaring war. It ranks as “relatively mild” in terms of provocations.

Lincoln genuinely believed that a divided United States would ultimately be disastrous for the country. Instead of being a great colossus that spans from the Atlantic to the Pacific, with no serious challenger to the title of master of North America instead we’d be a more fractured continent. While the Northern States would undoubtedly be the stronger, the South would always be a thorn in the North’s side. Instead of being separated by two great Oceans from the world’s troubles and any chance of serious conflict, we’d have a troublesome neighbor beside us at all times. While Lincoln probably didn’t foresee the two World Wars, it’s undoubtedly the truth the CSA’s existence would have gravely complicated America’s position in both wars. Instead what Lincoln probably saw is the politically fractured States of Europe basically fought wars constantly for the prior 1200 years, Lincoln was not formally educated but he adored reading and read books like some men of his time drank whiskey. I think he literally felt that his phrase from the “house divided” speech was true. That a divided country would eventually degenerate into the fractured political reality of Europe and all the constant ruinous warfare that comes with it.

Lincoln also was a lawyer and a student of the constitution. It was his interpretation that his duty as President required him to preserve the Union founded by Washington, Adams, and all the other Founding Fathers. It was his interpretation of the constitution that secession had no legal or constitutional basis. That the Southern states had no right to leave the Union and that he had a responsibility to quell domestic insurrection. Lincoln was a grave and serious man, who took his oath of office seriously.

The South was an aristocratic society with only a veneer of democracy. The South seceded to protect its aristocratic ruling class, or rather, that class caused secession to protect themselves. And protect themselves meant protecting slavery, which they viewed as necessary to maintaining their place at the top of society.

**But Lincoln fought the civil war for legal and moral reasons primarily relating to his beliefs about a unified United States and his legal responsibilities as President. **It was fortunate for Lincoln the Confederates attacked Ft. Sumter, as it gave him the pretext to raise large amounts of troops–and once that happened and the rest of the Southern States seceded it helped commit a shaky North to the war, at least at first.

While the South may or may not have “started” the Civil War, it was not a defensive war where the North had no choice but to invade and fight for four years after Ft. Sumter. There was no imminent risk of invasion from the South, and the South would have been happy to negotiate after Ft. Sumter. Lincoln mostly was not willing to negotiate with the South as long as they remained in a State of rebellion, as he viewed it as giving credit to their claim of being an independent state. So there’s a lot more to why we actually fought the war that killed so many, and it wasn’t because of a silly provocation in South Carolina.

Also to note, while historically the number of dead has long been “fixed” in the public consciousness as 620,000, a pretty respected/accepted analysis of statistics from the era has now revised that figure to around 750,000.

Lincoln was right.

And my response was:

Which seems to be similar to the response you gave.