That was not my argument. I know Ft. Sumter long preexisted the civil war and was not established to provoke the south. *But there troops of a foreign nation on it. * What if Russia set up camp (as I said) on US soil with its troops in the camp. Wouldn’t we ask them to desist and get out!
And the Confederacy was a separate country for its short existence. Note that all the states in the Confederacy had to be re-admitted into the Union. For some states, that was not until ten years later.
And, now that you bring it up, Ft. Sumter was occupied by northern troops to provoke the gunfire. Lincoln wanted one united nation, but he needed an excuse to start an invasion of the south. So he provoked the south into firing the first shots by having the troops occupy Ft. Sumter, which at that time, had no military purpose.
The Confederate States of America were never granted complete diplomatic recognition by any country in the world. Some countries accord “belligerent” status to the Confederacy, including Britain and France.
The former states of the Confederacy were “readmitted” to the Union because Congress deemed their governments to be unconstitutional. Once they established governments that were in accordance with the Reconstruction Acts of 1867 AND ratified the 14th Amendment, then would Congress allow those states to send representatives to Congress.
The incipient United States had much better success in getting foreign recognition back in the 1770s.
I still fail to see any relationship between this example and the Civil War. If the South suddenly claimed Vladivostok, would they be justified in evicting the Russian troops?
Ft. Sumter is located in the state of SC, which seceded from the Union. Ergo, Ft. Sumter became located in the Confederacy. It was not in the Union, but in the Confederacy, yet Union troops occupied it. The analogy would be if Russia suddenly claimed Washington, DC, would we be justified in evicting Russian troops.
barbitu8:
If Hawaii decided to return to the United Kingdom, would they be able to include the US’s naval base in Pearl Harbor with it? How about the ships as well?
The US had no obligation to surrender Fort Sumter just because the surrounding areas decided they didn’t want to be part of the US.
Actually, I did and I do. I will cheerfully delete any further GD posts. The OP asked a fair GQ question, and by Cecil he is getting and will get a GQ answer.
Wow, manhattan’s keeping this in GQ. Next we’ll see him quoting Michael Moore to back up his arguments.
Sticking to the OP, I can’t pinpoint the first use of the term “War of Northern Aggression” but that concept was first aired almost as soon as the (Insert Name Here) War was over.
In 1866, a northerner by the name of George Lunt published “The Origin of the Late War” which held that slavery was not the primary cause of the ______ War, but merely the manifestation of the most apparent societal difference between the North and South. Lunt believed that Lincoln precipitated the war by garrisoning Fort Sumter.
Also around that time, Edward Pollard published “The Lost Cause : A new Southern History of the War of the Confederates.”
From 1868-1870, Alexander Stephens, former VP of the Confederacy had a series of lectures published as “A Constutional View of the Late War Between the States.”
If you can dig up any of these books at your library (some have been reprinted), you can find out the initial theories that some historians had about how the ______ War was caused by the North.
I’m guessing that the “War of Northern Aggression” probably didn’t come in to usage until the 20th Century, probably during the Civil War Centennial.
Much of my information is from a 1958 book called “Americans Interpret Their Civil War” by Thomas J. Pressly. The phrase “War of Northern Aggression” does not appear in the book, although you can find
- War of the Rebellion
- The War Between the States
- The Needless War
- The Irrepressible Conflict
- The Second American Revolution
I don’t want to go off the thread, but I must respond to this. Hawaii was never in the United Kingdom, so how could they return to it? And Ft. Sumter was not surrounded by the Confederacy, it was in it. Ft. Sumter was just an unoccupied island until 1861. The Union troops stationed in Charleston realized their position was perilous and untenable in Charleston, so they moved to the offshore island, where they could better defend themselves in case of hostility. With the analogy of Hawaii, if they decided they wanted to form an independent country before troops were established in Pearl Harbor, would they be entitled to include Pearl Harbor? Of course. It’s in Hawaii.
Construction began on Fort Sumter in 1829.
Yes, but it was unoccupied until 1861. As I said, the troops were in the city of Charleston.
GD post deleted, as promised.
[Edited by manhattan on 12-16-2000 at 04:24 PM]
Barbitu8, Federal troops were not sent to South Carolina. They were already there in Charleston when South Carolina seceeded. Sixty soldiers were stationed in Fort Moultrie on the outskirts of the city. Because the commander felt that Fort Moultrie could not be defended from an possible attack by the South Carolina militia and to avoid any incidents, he moved his troops from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter, a more isolated and easily defended position. Again to avoid provocation, no troops were sent to reinforce the garrison already present.
However both forts (along with others) where clearly the property of the United States government. Not just in the sense of nationality but in terms of actual ownership. Fort Sumter was a recognized army base. Neither South Carolina nor the Confederacy disputed that Fort Sumter was Federal property. The Southern argument was that once they announced their independance, all Federal property in the seceeding states should be turned over to the new government. The United States, which did not recognize southern independance, certainly was not going to recognize any property claims which derived from that independance.
GD post deleted, as promised.
[Edited by manhattan on 12-16-2000 at 04:24 PM]
GD post deleted, as promised.
[Edited by manhattan on 12-16-2000 at 04:25 PM]
What is it called in other countries? I mean we refer to foreign wars by our own names, what do, say, people in Europe call the Civil War? Also, does anyone call the Revolutionary War “the British Civil War”? And if the CW had gone the other way, what do you think we’d call it now?
GD portion of post deleted, as promised.
As to another post, I know it was US property, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t in the state. For example, take a federal building in your city. You have one, don’t you? Or if not, there is one in your state somewhere. So who has jurisdiction over the building? The fedl gvt you say. Yes, but so does the city in which it is located. They have concurrent jurisdiction.
And I said the troops were in Charleston at the time, or more exactly at Ft. Moultrie. It still remains the fact that Ft. Sullivan was unoccupied until April 1861. The US said it was gvmt ppty and belonged to the gvt. SC maintained it was within their jurisdiction and they were trespassing. Since SC no longer considered themselves part of the USA, it was logical they wanted the troops out.
More GD stuff deleted, as promised.
[Edited by manhattan on 12-16-2000 at 04:27 PM]
I have never heard a Southern person use this phrase, and I have spent most of my life in the South. The only people I have ever heard say “The War of Northern Aggression” were Yankees who were saying it to make fun of Southerners who they thought would say such a thing.
From their secession until their readmission, the southern states lost their rights as states. However, the United States still considered them as American territory. Thier readission as states was no different than Alaska’s admission as a state in 1959. That admission does not imply that Alaska was a foreign country in 1958.