When Pear Harbor was attacked, were there people who proposed we do nothing?

[mangeorge]

Very silly question ahead. Feel free to skip.
Was the Civil War an attack on US soil? Didn’t the south secede and fire on Fort Sumpter? Did I spell that right?
Peace,
mangeorge

[BobT]

It’s Fort Sumter. And that wasn’t much of a surprise attack as the Confederates had been keeping supplies from reaching the fort and were standing around with cannons ready to fire on the fort.

And tensions between the North and South had been simmering since Lincoln’s election in November and South Carolina had already seceded in December 1860.

There just wasn’t any shooting between the two sides until April 1861. Then there was quite a bit of shooting.

[elfkin477]

*Originally posted by Mandelstam *
**I really think this analogy to Pearl Harbor is being way underexamined. (Perhaps this has been discussed in another thread?) Yes, there are similarities: the surprise, the shock, the loss of life. And, yes, the United States has so little historical experience of direct attack that it’s tempting to lump these events together. But putting that aside, in most ways–in the political and military ways that matter–this attack is not like Pearl Harbor. One was a preemptive strike, an open declaration of war, made by a sovereign nation that, at the time, was itself at war with nations that the US was likely to be sympathic to. Where are the parallels here?
**

This is what I find mind-blowing too, that so many people are ignoring the key difference: in WWII there was a war going on so therefore a certain enemy. We don’t, for all the speculation, know exactly who commited these acts, nor how much government support they recieved in them. Until we find out that their government sanctioned attacks, I’ll continue to find it to be deplorable that so many people are ready to attack another country’s citizens(as if these men wouldn’t find a way to leave before they were bombed, allowing innocent people to die in their steads.) Don’t get me wrong, this can not go unpunished, but unless we find out that afganstan itself wanted this, I think that hunting down the individuals responsible is more like justice.

[VarlosZ]

I just can’t resist a Civil War question. . .

Was the Civil War an attack on US soil? Didn’t the south secede and fire on Fort Sumpter?

Depends who you ask. From the North’s point of view, the CSA was nothing more than an unusually large bunch of rebels and traitors, not an independednt country. From this it follows that the attack on Fort Sumter wasn’t “an attack on U.S. soil,” as that would (I assmue) entail someone not from U.S. soil to do the attacking.

If, on the other hand, you believe that the CSA became an independent nation the minute they got together and decided to write a Constitution, then Fort Sumter (not to mention Lee’s two invasions of the north and Jubal Early’s raids) was certainly an attack on U.S. soil.

To be a little more helpful: Since the official U.S. line was (and is, I suppose) “no” as regards your question, then I guess that’s your answer; I mean, hey, who else you gonna believe?

[Mandelstam]

*Originally posted by elfkin477 *
**Until we find out that their government sanctioned attacks, I’ll continue to find it to be deplorable that so many people are ready to attack another country’s citizens(as if these men wouldn’t find a way to leave before they were bombed, allowing innocent people to die in their steads.) Don’t get me wrong, this can not go unpunished, but unless we find out that afganstan itself wanted this, I think that hunting down the individuals responsible is more like justice. **

elfkin I think these are strong setiments. If you haven’t already, you should e-mail (or mail) them to your representatives and to President Bush.

I have heard that thousands of mails are pouring in from all over the world cautioning against premature and possibly unjust warfare. The more they receive the better.