I agree with most of your post except this. I disagree with your categorical statement that the hostility was entirely one sided.
So the fact that they had a few cannonballs makes them less of a threat?
Resupply can very well be a hostile action.
How am I defending slaveowners?
I don’t think you understand how I am using the phrase “would not, could not”
Was it physically possible for them to abandon slavery, of course. Did their culture allow them to do so? Or course not.
I am not defending them. Why do you insist that anyone that disagrees on any detail is sitting in the other camp? I challenge you to find ANYONE on this board that defends slavery or slave owners.
Yes, but it does mean that the attack wasn’t out of nowhere
That is silly. By this time both sides were clearly somewhat hostile to one another. Reinforcing or resupplying a fort in Charleston bay could easily be seen as provocation.
Not a “surprise attack”, but it was unprovoked. The South (or the rich white assholes in charge) had an irrational mindset, such that pretty much any action short of complete surrender was considered a “provocation”. In a reasonable sense, the attack was entirely unprovoked. From an irrational mindset, it might have been provoked, but I assumed we were only discussing it from a rational point of view.
Hostililty to the point of violence? Yes, entirely one sided. I’m sure many non-Southerners in the Union had bad feelings for the South, but by “hostility”, I mean hostility approaching violent action.
That they didn’t fire them when their supply ship was attacked by cannons shows that they were uninterested in firing on Charleston.
Perhaps, but it wasn’t in this case.
By insisting that some of their violent actions (in the case of the war) were “provoked”, or that anyone other then them was “at fault” for the attack of Fort Sumter.
Cultures can be changed, and of course it eventually was changed. But they didn’t need to abandon slavery or change their culture immediately – they just needed to not start a war. Had they not declared secession, but just continued to grumble and advocate for stuff like the Fugitive Slave Act, then that would have been in keeping with their culture (even if it resisted their long term desires). Not starting a war could have been consistent with their culture. That wouldn’t have been “abandoning slavery” immediately, but it would have eventually resulted in its abolition eventually, most likely.
I don’t insist on anyone that disagrees on “any detail” is “in the other camp” (or whatever) – just that acting as though the Southern ‘rationale’ for war was anything but bullshit, or provoked in any reasonable sense, or that the Union was as hostile (to the point of violence) to the South as the South was to the Union, are bullshit and disproven positions that, whether you intend to or not, lend some small bit of legitimacy to the actions of the rich assholes in charge of the South.
Have you heard of something called the American War of Independence or the Revolutionary War? What the US did was NOT an example of peaceful secession, hence the whole ‘War’ thing. Saying ‘look, the South did what the US did when the US started a war’ isn’t a good argument for ‘the South didn’t start the war’. The debt most certainly was an indicator, that the south had ‘fuck all’ intention of negotiating a clean, peaceful separation.
Are you asserting that blacks are not human beings deserving of individual rights? If not, then you can’t base an argument justifying secession on the false belief that they aren’t. If you are, then my opinion of you is only appropriate for the pit. I’m not interested in silly semantic games, and there appears to be nothing but semantic games going on in the last line there.
No, I myself did not indicate that. But discussing it requires getting into semantics about what is referred to in multiple levels of quotes from a week ago, and that’s way outside of my ‘worth the effort’ zone.
I think you are defining hostility a little narrowly.
South Carolina was engaging in hostility when it laid seige to Fort Sumter.
The supply ships were engaging in hostile acts when they attempted to resupply a ship under seige.
I’m not sure what that proves?
Why did the north need or want a military installation in Charleston harbor?
Do you really not see why that would be threatening to the people of South Carolina at the time?
What do you think those supply ships carried? Food and blankets?
How is arguing about who the aggressor is at fort sumter a defense of slaveowners? And I’m not even saying that the north were the aggressors, I am saying that the firing on fort sumter was not unprovoked or “out of the blue” after 30 years of peace. Or is any defense of anything that the south did a defense of slaveowners?
And how would that abolition have taken place? Someone would propose a constitutional amendment and it would get passed and ratified as more and more states no longer had economic incentives to create justifications for something as clearly immoral as slavery.
I don’t think the culture has changed all that much. If they had never abolished slavery I suspect that we would have seen slavery provide labor for all the stuff that illegal immigrants do now unless we FORCED them to give it up. There is no lack of demand for cheap labor, just look at China.
The southern rationale for secession was slavery and they defended their right to secede with force. Of course the only reason they seceded was slavery (which I think everyone in this thread agrees with).
Who gives about small bits of legitimacy on those fronts? Does talking about the crippling toll of WWI reparations somehow absolve the nazis from the extermination of millions of civilians? I don’t see how admitting that the attack on fort sumter was not as simple and clear as some of us want to believe makes the south any less wrong in the macro sense?
The supply ships first tried to resupply a fort (lawfully held by blah blah blah) that wasn’t under siege. Attacking is far more hostile than resupplying.
Attacking the fort endangered the people of South Carolina far, far more than not doing so. It doesn’t matter why the Union “wanted” or “needed” Sumter – it was theirs, continuously worked on and then occupied. US troops moving from one piece of US owned and operated property to another.
Doesn’t matter at all, for this discussion.
“Unprovoked” is not the same as “out of the blue”. It wasn’t out of the blue, but it was unprovoked. Arguing that it was provoked is defending an action that is indefensible.
Yep. That could have happened more peacefully than it did in the Civil War, even considering “Southern Culture”. Probably would have had lots of death and resistance, but war was not required.
Actually, in my view Civil War was probably a better outcome, since otherwise there would have been many years more of slavery.
Possibly. But this doesn’t excuse the South for starting the war, or attacking Sumter, or change the facts that they did so.
It’s not “admitting”, since it’s false. The Union didn’t do anything wrong or unjust, and bear no blame for “provoking” an attack at Fort Sumter.
To defend Charleston, obviously, against foreign powers. The rationale behind the First and Third Systems of fortress construction can be found in any number of history texts or online sources. It’s not a mystery as to why the US built all those forts, and it wasn’t to threaten the South. Alcatraz was not built to be mean to slaveholders.
Had an amendment been passed the South would have seceded and civil war would have started. They seceded just because of the possibility of losing political influence.
Can you name any examples of peaceful secession where the region attempting to secede peacefully did not engage in negotiations with the original country about sovereign debt? And, for that matter, negotiation about property that belongs to the original country (like the various government offices and military bases that the Confederacy siezed outright)? Or did you think that just saying ‘wrong’ is enough evidence in and of itself, and that the actual examples of such behavior that I gave are something we should all ignore in favor of one word declarations from you?
(And I’ll note again that the US did not peacefully secede from Britain, so it isn’t a relevant example).
Either you you think that justifications for actions that rely on treating blacks as non-human are invalid, or you think that blacks are actually non-human. Any argument that ‘well, the south was justified in secession because of these moral or ethical principles’ is either invalid or requires treating ‘blacks aren’t human as valid’. You were trying to paint an argument that relies on treating blacks as non-human as at least somewhat valid, with ‘from their point of view’ weaseling going on around it, so I asked you directly what you thought of that particular point. If it’s really so abhorrent to you, maybe you should reconsider using that belief as a justification for, well, anything.
There aren’t levels of hostility. You either meet the threshhold for the other side to respond or you don’t.
Pulling my gun out of my holster is much less hostile that shooting someone but drawing my weapon could justify shooting me. I’m not saying that the resupply of a military base in the harbor of one of the South’s largest cities meets the threshhold but you don’t really seem to think that its much of anything at all.
Of COURSE it matters. Things were not peachy keen between the union and South Carolina. That’s like saying that 1960’s Cuba shouldn’t really give a shit if the US army moves a couple of brigades of tanks and howitzers onto Guantanamo. They have an interest in what is happening in the harbor of one of their largest cities. I can’t believe you don’t see how that is a concern for them.
Of course it does. If they were carrying explosive cannonballs do you think the purpose of the resupply is to protect Charleston harbor from the Brits? Of course not. Should we give a shit that the USSR put a bunch of nuclear missiles in Cuba, its not OUR fucking land.
I forget if it was you or Pantastic that used the phrase out of the blue or out of nowhere but lets forget that.
If the USSR puts nuclear missiles in Cuba, is that a provocation? What if its just regular missiles? If we tell the USSR not to send any military supplies to Cuba and they do it anyways, is that provocation?
I don’t see how sending military supplies to a fort in the harbor of one of your largest cities is not a provocation.
And that series of events is exactly what the south wanted to avoid. They wanted to keep admitting states in pairs or require newly admitted states be slave states. As horrible as that is, it is also a pretty irreconcilable difference.
I don’t see why slavery would have been abolished any time before WWI and probably not before the Vietnam War.
I don’t want to quibble about fort sumter because I think we agree in all other respects but if the south started supplying a fort on Ellis island with military supplies I suspect that the north would have felt that was threatening.
There doesn’t have to be an injustice on one side to justify an attack by the other side. You don’t have to stand there while the other guy readies his weapon to shoot you. You’re allowed to shoot him first. You are not required to trust that he isn’t going to shoot you because he;s a nice guy.
Union army was at Fort Sumter to protect Charleston? Or do you mean that was the original purpose? I agree that was the original purpose but in light of the situationa t the time why did the NORTH UNION ARMY want to keep Fort Sumter? They had a reason, didn’t they?
I’ll single this out since it’s the main part of our disagreement – the South’s attack on Fort Sumter was not justified in any way. No way whatsoever. Not comparable to Cuba in the least, not comparable to Ellis Island, and not at all comparable to a guy drawing a gun.
You mean the US Army, right? They wanted to “keep” it for a few reasons – firstly, there were US soldiers there, and they wanted a defensible position. Secondly, giving it up/surrendering necessarily lends legitimacy to the South’s position that they are a separate country with their own Army, while the US position was that there were rebellious criminals in the South attacking US military forces. One doesn’t surrender to criminals; at least not unless there’s no other choice.
I can’t see any way in which the CSA was justified in its attack on Ft Sumter. The troops at Ft Sumter went out of their way to avoid taking any aggressive actions. The only thing the fort was doing was existing.
And if you put forth the argument that something can provoke an attack merely by existing, you can justify any war. I don’t want to Godwinize the thread, but Germany didn’t want Poland to exist in 1939. Poland refused to stop existing so Germany attacked. Does that mean that Poland provoked Germany into attacking?
The selective quotes and “interesting” interpretations of events and declarations that DiLorenzo provides are textbook examples of polemics rather than legitimate explorations of history.
He is welcome to his beliefs, but he is not persuasive.
Yes, that was the fort’s original purpose and, indeed, the only purpose it usefully served, as plainly evidenced by the fact it could not continue on under attack by rebel artillery.
It belonged to the United States of America. What other reason did they need? They wanted to keep it because it was sovereign territory and they had a right to keep it. To simply surrender a military base to people who didn’t like the outcome of the Presidential election would be an astounding disgrace. It would be legally and morally equivalent to letting the governor of the State of New York have state troopers take over Fort Drum and let them do it so as not to “provoke” anyone.
South Carolina was not a sovereign country and neither was the Confederacy; they had no right to take Fort Sumter, fire on it, or raise any objection to it whatsoever. It was a public work (a very expensive one) undertaken by the United States, maintained and operated by the United States, for the purpose of defending the United States, which Charleston was a part of.
Captain Fox duped the Confederates into attacking? How exactly did he do that? Did he put on a rubber mask to disguise himself as Francis Pickens and order General Beauregard to fire the cannons?
I’m guessing Buchanan was in on it as well. He was still President when the Confederates fired on the Star of the West.