the civil war in the usa 1861–1865, who's to blame PART 1

[bhsup]

You were never "not" okay

 

[emzie]

You were never "not" okay

yay!

 

[Miles Teg]

To stop the north from Resupplying a Union fort located in a Confederate state.

So? It's still a Federal fort.

 

[Death_Machine]

So? It's still a Federal fort.

A federal fort in a foreign land. If Germany told us to get out troops out of Ramstein then we would go. Same principle with a Union fort in the Confederate nation.

 

[Heretic_Cata]

Communists

 

[Theige]

To stop the north from Resupplying a Union fort located in a Confederate state.

The USA couldn't be expected to simply hand over forts it had spent many years and countless dollars building, with no compensation.

Unfortunately the south jumped the gun and started a war; Lincoln was committed to never firing the first shot.

If the south never fires the first shot, there is no war, and the CSA survives

 

[Miles Teg]

A federal fort in a foreign land. If Germany told us to get out troops out of Ramstein then we would go. Same principle with a Union fort in the Confederate nation.

Yes, we'd go, because the risk of war would outweigh the importance of the fort. But we wouldn't be required to go, and it would be fully our choice. In the case of Ft. Sumter, the government made the fully legal decision not to abandon federal property.

 

[Death_Machine]

The USA couldn't be expected to simply hand over forts it had spent many years and countless dollars building, with no compensation.

Unfortunately the south jumped the gun and started a war; Lincoln was committed to never firing the first shot.

If the south never fires the first shot, there is no war, and the CSA survives

Read my initial response to prevent looking ignorant. Jefferson Davis sent a delegation to meet with Lincoln to preserve peace. Part of that was offering to pay for the forts in the South. Lincoln would not meet with the delegation & had his secretary of state string them along while he made war plans.

Yes, we'd go, because the risk of war would outweigh the importance of the fort. But we wouldn't be required to go, and it would be fully our choice. In the case of Ft. Sumter, the government made the fully legal decision not to abandon federal property.

What risk of war? The confederates actively sought to leave peacefully & maintain a peace. This is part of why I refer to this stain on American history as the War of Northern Aggression. Come on dude, they couldn't even win a defensive war, how the hell would they be expected to campaign an offensive one?

 

[BasketCase]

The North started the war--and it was the right thing to do.

I've heard talk that the North actually didn't start the war over slavery (that the North only wanted the secessionist states back), and frankly I don't care. The end result was abolition of slavery in the entire United States, and slavery is something abominable enough to be worth a war.

 

[Miles Teg]

What risk of war? The confederates actively sought to leave peacefully & maintain a peace. This is part of why I refer to this stain on American history as the War of Northern Aggression. Come on dude, they couldn't even win a defensive war, how the hell would they be expected to campaign an offensive one?

If they sought to leave peacefully, they shouldn't have fired on the entirely legal forts within Confederate territory. That's casus belli right there.

 

[Death_Machine]

The North started the war--and it was the right thing to do.

I've heard talk that the North actually didn't start the war over slavery (that the North only wanted the secessionist states back), and frankly I don't care. The end result was abolition of slavery in the entire United States, and slavery is something abominable enough to be worth a war.

England & France would have enticed the south to end Slavery. To do so at the time the war was started would have been financially devastating to the folks who invested in the slaves (south) while those who turned a profit in the trafficking of flesh (north) would laugh all the way to the bank. Slavery would have ended either way, and all those American lives on both sides would have been saved.

You're trying to have your cake & eat it too.

If they sought to leave peacefully, they shouldn't have fired on the entirely legal forts within Confederate territory. That's casus belli right there.

The south delegation offering to buy the forts was stonewalled intentionally. Lincoln attempting to resupply the forts was an act of war. Please explain to me why the USA had a legal right to keep forts in the CSA.

 

[Miles Teg]

The south delegation offering to buy the forts was stonewalled intentionally. Lincoln attempting to resupply the forts was an act of war. Please explain to me why the USA had a legal right to keep forts in the CSA.

The United States was not under any obligation to sell their property. And as previously noted, it was their property. When the feds build something, the states cede the land to the government. They don't get an opportunity to take it back.

So, to summarize, the south started the war by illegally rebelling against a lawful government. Said government was willing to go easy on them, but the South illegally fired on their forts.

 

[MeteorPunch]

I think the North is to blame because they are warring with someone who they want to have on their side.


South: We don't want to be on your side, and we will fight you if you try and make us.

North: Come to our side, or we will fight you.

...huh? It's like, "Be my friend, or else."

 

[Bill3000]

Karalsia, everything hinges on whether secession was legal or not. If it was, then once they seceded and were no longer part of the USA, all of those restrictions simply do not apply because they are no longer bound by the Constitution.

It doesn't follow that US federal property suddenly goes away if they secede.

 

[Death_Machine]

It doesn't follow that US federal property suddenly goes away if they secede.

It should not just go away, it should be bought so that the party selling (USA) suffers no loss or even turns a profit. However the fact that Lincoln deliberately strung the delegation from the south along with no intention of being offered compensation for the property states clearly what the intent was.

You're statement is kind of asinine when you look at the fact that the US was losing damn near half of its geographic mass, to think that wouldn't apply to "federal property" as well is an incredible stance not based in any type of logical thinking.

 

[Death_Machine]

The United States was not under any obligation to sell their property. And as previously noted, it was their property. When the feds build something, the states cede the land to the government. They don't get an opportunity to take it back.

So, to summarize, the south started the war by illegally rebelling against a lawful government. Said government was willing to go easy on them, but the South illegally fired on their forts.

You know that we have bases all around the world, if the host country wants to kick us out then we are under no obligation to leave.

If the South would have known how it would turn out they probably would have just stayed in the union & continue to be financially raped by the north seeing how they were treated worse than our defeated foes in foreign wars.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Americans, obviously.

 

[Bill3000]

It should not just go away, it should be bought so that the party selling (USA) suffers no loss or even turns a profit. However the fact that Lincoln deliberately strung the delegation from the south along with no intention of being offered compensation for the property states clearly what the intent was.

Okay then.

If the USA had to be compensated for their property, then that means they had a right to it before the compensation. That means that the property was legally speaking part of the United States, and thus the South had illegally seized their property and thus is to blame for the conflict by attacking sovereign US territory. The South was the aggressor, so the South was to blame.

And yes, it still doesn't follow. States declare independence with the original State keeping their bases all the time. Cyprus is a good example of this. If there was a negotiation to be required then that means that the country which the state was declaring independence from had the right to the land in the first place.

 

[Death_Machine]

Okay then.

If the USA had to be compensated for their property, then that means they had a right to it before the compensation. That means that the property was legally speaking part of the United States, and thus the South had illegally seized their property and thus is to blame for the conflict by attacking sovereign US territory. The South was the aggressor, so the South was to blame.

You just argue in circles. It doesn't matter if your defending child rapists, attacking homeschooling, or setting up straw-men as fast as the winds of reason blow them down.

It is equally stupid to argue that the CSA wasn't obligated to compensate the USA for the forts as it is to claim the USA had some divine right to them after the CSA legally left the union.

 

[Miles Teg]

It is equally stupid to argue that the CSA wasn't obligated to compensate the USA for the forts as it is to claim the USA had some divine right to them after the CSA legally left the union.

It's not divine right, it's international law.