Origins of the US Civil War

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by eric/, Mar 18, 2013.

  1. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #1
    That's certainly an interesting take on it....

    I would probably say that the US government made the decision in the Southern States to secure federal property because they feared the "south" would try to take them over - which, in fact, they began to do.

    The aggression was with the ceceded states IMHO. And we all know who fired the first shot - (although shots had been fired months before by troops from the ceceded states in an effort to stop Federal Troops from occupying Federal property).
     
  2. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #2
    I think your timeline is pretty clear ...

    The South had stopped it's membership from the union, then the North invaded the South to keep the country as one.

    I think it's pretty clear according to the Constitution and the dictionary that the first act of aggression was the South's attempt to secede from the Union.
     
  3. eric/ thread starter Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #3
    So by refusing to associate with somebody you're aggression against them? Interesting concept, to say the least.

    Even more interesting considering the whole right to self determination thing.
     
  4. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #4
    The South attempted to take control of Federal property. And in some cases they attempted it by force. I have a hard time saying that the North (IE Federal Government) invaded the South. They were protecting their property from armed agressors.

    Do you believe that the goverment shouldn't have protected their property?

    The states that ceceded shouldn't have been able to have their cake and eat it too. If they don't want to be part of the United States, than any attempt to access federal property is agression.

    Do you disagree? Do you really believe that the South asked politely for those Forts in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida (among others)?
     
  5. eric/ thread starter Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #5
    Their property, in the South's land. Juts think of it as nationalization of a few forts.

    nope

    It wouldn't have mattered, any leaving of the Union would have led to war, because the North never would have allowed it.

    I know you're harping on "federal property" but that's really a non-issue.
     
  6. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #6
    The federal property was a huge issue - and it was the beginning of the Southern agression on federal troops. Once you leave a nation, and it's government behind, you don't have any claim on it's property.

    Any prudent government would move to secure their property (which obviously included arms) - lest it be used against them. No matter who the invaders were.

    You said the North invaded the South? When? The military of the US (or the North, if you want to call it that), were already, in many cases, stationed in these places. Troops of the state militias did fire upon the military in an attempt to secure these Forts (railraods and ports as well) to cut off supplies for the northern states. What purpose do you think the South was trying to achieve when they fired on Fort Sumter?
     
  7. eric/ thread starter Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #7
    Um, well they knew the war was coming.

    It's not like the North was sitting there saying "oh go ahead and leave, let us get our troops back and our guns and stuff we've paid for (although some was paid for by southern states), you keep the forts, have a nice day.

    there's no way to get the forts back. And the fact that a few forts exist in Southern states isn't like some reason that they can't leave the Union.
     
  8. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #8
    Wow. That's spun in a totally incorrect way.

    I'd have expected nothing less.
     
  9. eric/, Mar 18, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 18, 2013

    eric/ thread starter Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #9
    Well, it kind of was. Despite the merits of ending slavery (which wasn't done until well after the war had started), the South had stopped it's membership from the union, the North then invaded the South to keep the country as one.

    I think that you can certainly make an argument that it was a war of aggression on the part of the North.

    MOD NOTE: This thread spun out from http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1557896
     
  10. balamw Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #10
    I think eric/ has a very utopian view of human interactions and how easy it is to make or break "associations".

    I would argue that anyone who has been through or even near a divorce may suggest otherwise. Even when the members of a union have some overlapping interests these may get pushed to the side when trying to dissolve what was originally a willful association.

    What about the rights of any individuals in the South that may have aligned better with the North? Was secession then an act of aggression on the part of the Southern state governments toward those individuals who lived there?

    What was their recourse if they no longer wanted to be part of the new Confederate States of America, but instead wanted to be part of the United States of America?

    B
     
  11. eric/ thread starter Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #11
    Oh it's surely messy, but I think that issues like federal bases in the South are but details, and miss the whole picture.

    and the rights of the individuals, well, I've seen it argued far too often that they are part of society, and if they don't like it, they can move.

    If you don't believe that to be the case, then I think you could make an argument, but I think it's an argument that is in favor of even further breakdown of the government as a whole.
     
  12. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #12
    Yeah, no.

    And even what you're describing is a long way from saying that the North invaded the South.

    That just isn't what happened.

    And it's impossible to have a discussion with someone who is projecting his personal (and extremely impractical) views of the world onto something that has already happened.

    ----------

    The sum of the "little" details may actually add up to the whole picture.

    What do you think the whole picture is.
     
  13. eric/ thread starter Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #13
    Federal government and states disagreed over the proper role of the federal government toward states, stemmed by issues like slavery.

    south said screw you we're leaving, and started kicking federal troops out.

    North said no you're staying, and bam we have a war.
     
  14. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #14
    Right, the North was protecting their "property" from aggressors. Again, a long way from the North invading the South.
     
  15. eric/ thread starter Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #15
    what property? forts?
     
  16. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #16
    Forts, barracks, supply yards, ships....
     
  17. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #17
    Southerners alive in 1860 had no such confusion about the cause of the war. It was about slavery, plain and simple. In fact, they said so unequivocally.

    The Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union, after first establishing what they percieved as South Carolina's rights to secede, clearly outlined that the principle complaint was the northern states failure to enforce the fugitive slave act:

    The issue could not be about state's rights if South Carolina's chief complaint was about what other states were doing in their own territory (granting voting rights to blacks, not returning escaped slaves).

    The confederacy then went on to create a constitution that differed from the U.S. constitution basically in one way: it outlawed the banning of slavery.

    Pretending the civil war wasn't about slavery, or any other southern-inspired revisionist history, is shameful, and needs to stop.
     
  18. eric/ thread starter Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #18
    Which partly belong to the South, too.

    ----------

    Well yeah, but slavery was the contention between the federal government and Southern governments, hence, states rights issues. They didn't want the federal government telling them not to have slaves, especially when you're an agricultural society using that labor.
     
  19. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #19
    Ohh, so they don't want to remain a part of the United States but they want to keep their stuff? It just doesn't work that way.

    That's like refusing to pay your taxes, but still expecting to utilize the services those taxes pay for.

    Calling it the "War of Northern Agression" implies that the Southerners in the states that ceceded were just minding their own business, hanging out in their rockers on their plantations when the "North" invaded them for no reason. And that is absolutely not what happened. There was plenty of agression on the side of the militias of the Southern states in an effort to seize US government property.
     
  20. eric/ thread starter Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #20
    Did the South not pay federal taxes?

    Well they were seizing the property within their states. Hardly see that as aggression. Governments do that to this day, they call it nationalization. Some have even called for a nationalization of the health care industry :O
     
  21. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #21
    Hmmm.

    What did France and England do when Egypt nationalized the canal in 1956?

    What did the United States do after Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry in Iran in 1951?
     
  22. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #22
    Come now.

    Even your use of the word "seize" implies aggression:


    As I said, calling it the "War of Northern Aggression" is just not historically, or factually, accurate. It's an attempt to mitigate the South's own role in the war.
     
  23. eric/ thread starter Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #23
    Ok. If the South seized the forts and whatever, which the North never could have possibly been allowed to keep (because it would be like letting a foreign country keep a base on your land) would the North have ever just let the South leave?
     
  24. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #24
    We can talk about we want about what ifs, but there really is no point.

    I'm talking about what happened. I understand you may not want to admit it, because you wouldn't be the contrarian you obviously enjoy being if you did, but there is not point in talking about what could have happened.

    And you have a weird idea of ownership. The South couldn't have it both ways.

    I stand firm in saying that calling it the War of Northern Agression is an attempt by those in the South to mitigate their role in the war. And, history agrees with me.
     
  25. eric/ thread starter Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #25
    Well there is a point. The point is that the North never would have allowed the South to leave. Not even if it was done peacfully.

    what do you mean? It's their state. The federal government can't just take the fort back.

    I stand firm in disagreement.
     

Share This Page