None of this has any connection to reality.
The legal fiction of declaring oneself independent does not make that fiction fact.
We agree, there is no basis for the claim that most people did not believe it was an illegal act.
Have you ever even heard of bleeding Kansas?
Calling land yours doesn’t make it so. Attacking people in that land doesn’t then make it self defense.
I mean, what, was Stalin’s invasion of Poland “self defense” in your book? Or any conquest, really, just up and declare the land is yours and suddenly anyone returning fire against your “rightful occupation” is the real aggressor, right?
Every historical revisionist with a serious hardon for the confederacy, maybe…
Quite the revisionist statement in itself.
:dubious:
Others here have done yeoman work refuting your unsupported assertions about the CSA, but I don’t think I’ve seen anyone rebut this particular doozy.
The Swiss concept of a federation comprised of largely independent cantons actually predates Columbus’s expeditions by two centuries. The Founding Fathers indeed paid attention to European models, including Swiss and Dutch examples, in devising the governmental structures of the USA. Not the other way around.
Hectorik:
I am curious, plus I think it is directly pertinent to the subject, that you explain one thing in particular:
Why exactly and specifically are you trying to rewrite the history of the United States as you are? What is your specific modern day, here and now motivation?
You clearly are not “simply trying to correct the record,” since (as all of these particular kinds of revisionists do) you insist on specifically and forcibly IGNORING the most salient and applicable facts (i.e. that all of the seceding states declared that they did so to preserve Slavery). So what do you possibly hope to gain with this?
I’ve seen some people who retold the lies you have, who did so because they got excited at the idea that if they fooled enough people into believing it all, that they could stop paying federal taxes; and I’ve seen a few who were upset that some Northerners were self-righteously pretending that the “Yankee” states were all saintly; and I’ve seen plenty of people who played these silly games because they wanted to somehow excuse and encourage a return to white supremacy in the South, by putting the rest of the country through some kind of confusing guilt trip, hoping they would cease enforcing equality for all citizens because they were distracted.
But what specifically is your motivation here?
Hectorik’s version: the South fired first and started the war… But it was that sneaky Lincoln’s fault because he tricked them. “Lincoln MADE them do it.”
To me, the truth looks simpler: the South was SPOILING for a fight.
Even Lincoln idolaters wax lyrical about how the Great and Cunning Lincoln outmaneuvered the evil confederates. It is really not a controversial claim. I can see still arguing that the South initiated the conflict, especially after a couple decades of public school, but to argue he did not trick them is a fool’s errand.
The South did not go to war reluctantly or by accident. They were (and often still are) EAGER for war. That’s why William Tecumseh Sherman was writing desperate letters to Southern friends begging them to reconsider. He saw Southerners all around him chomping at the bit to go to war, and he told them exactly what the result would be.
The South wanted a fight. They started one. It didn’t turn out the way they hoped. Southerners SHOULD be saying, “Maybe that was a horrible idea.” Instead, many (like you) are feigning innocence- as if everyone in the South was sitting on the porch sipping mint juleps when suddenly, out of nowhere, the Yankees swept in and destroyed everything for no reason at all.
Can you support this at all?
New theory: The North originally shot first but George Lucas went back and re-edited the war.
It is a claim I have never heard before, so I too would really like some evidence that 1) it happened and 2) that “Lincoln idolators” have waxed lyrical about this.
“You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Ft Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.”
Lincoln to Gustavus Fox
That should give you something to chew on. I will try to dig up more time allowing.
I really like the idea that a political party’s name has to reflect that party’s platform. One would assume the Whigs were really into driving (or wigs) and the Tories into banditry.
Discussion of the provision of the fort and the potential failure of said provisioning is not maneuvering Confederates into an unprovoked attack.
I think Will Farnaby’s theories are preposterous and dishonest. But let’s play along a second.
Let’s pretend that the South didn’t want a fight (ha!) and that they were TRICKED by the evil, devious Lincoln into firing shots.
Wouldn’t that make Jefferson Davis a moron? Wouldn’t that make him an idiot? Wouldn’t that make him a fool of historic importance? By YOUR reasoning, Lincoln baited the South into a war… and Jeff Davis was dumb enough to fall for it.
So… why does the South have statues of this dickhead all over the place?
Clearly he provoked them by not surrendering.
Given that Lincoln 1) wasn’t going to shed first blood and 2) wasn’t going to surrender the forts, and given that 3) the forts needed provisioning, what else was he going to do? That’s not “tricking” the Confederacy into attacking. The Confederacy had the same option to withdraw that Lincoln did. Unless someone wants to argue that the Confederates tricked Lincoln into tricking them…
I’m pretty sure the South didn’t want a fight. They just wanted to be independent.
That actually sounds like exactly what happened, according to the documentary, Gone with the Wind.
I do wonder how much of the southern historical revisionism is because of that movie, and people thinking that the movie had any basis or fact to it.
If anyone ‘tricked’ anyone it was the South. By firing on Sumter, Lincoln reacted by calling for 75,000 volunteers. This action actually led to many states in the south going with secession. Prior to that a lot of the states were very unseen on the secession. without that kind of support the Confederacy would have likely collapsed on itself in a matter of months.
Whatever they wanted, they (meaning the relatively small number of rich white Southerners who were making these decisions) chose to arm themselves and attack US soldiers.
The claim that Fort Sumter was a fort which “existed to collect taxes” is erroneous, and the only support online I can find for it is in Confederate apologist cites.
In reality, Fort Sumter was conceived after the War of 1812 as protection for the harbor. By the time of the Civil War, it was still not completed. In fact, it was only occupied because federal troops had retreated from another, less defensible, fort due to the hostilities of the Confederate locals.
Lincoln was not “arming” Ft. Sumter. He was bringing supplies. He made that explicitly clear before he did it.
This requires context (but first, note the use of the word “provisions”; As stated, Lincoln was not arming Ft. Sumter).
See, the Confederates had already shot on a ship that had attempted to bring supplies to Ft. Sumter - The Star of the West; only this had happened in January, 1861, while Buchanan was still President, as Lincoln would not be sworn in until March.
So, Lincoln is responding to the fact that a) he has federal troops stranded on a half-built fort and b) a previous President had encountered hostilities when a seemingly peaceful private vessel had attempted to bring them supplies.
Thus, Lincoln was facing a bullying, aggressive Confederate government before he had even taken office. Sure, he wanted the authority to preserve the Union; as others have pointed out, secession was an illegal act.
But it is a historical fallacy to say that he laid a trap to engender hostilities. The Confederates had already shown a willingness to use arms to prevent U.S. soldiers from being aided. So, Lincoln and his men responded with resolve. There was no subtlety or trickery involved.
Meanwhile, it appears that if you dig into the specifics of the famous attack, it occurred after the Union commander had pledged to evacuate, albeit in a few days.
From here: