Go back
Fort Sumter

Fort Sumter

Debates

Clock
2 edits

Let's take a little break from the Orange Man Great/Orange Man Bad fighting, shall we?

Yesterday, I took advantage of a meeting I had in Charleston to invest a couple of hours on riding the ferry to Fort Sumter and exploring it for maybe an hour.

I'm a bit of a military history buff, though the Civil War has never really been my favorite area to study and read about. I certainly learned a lot yesterday that I hadn't known before.

So, I'll pose this question:

If the South had never attacked Fort Sumter, would things have turned out differently? People forget that the Civil war didn't start until several months after the south had seceded, 5 months after SC had seceded.

Certainly, the United States controlling a strong fort at the entrance to this very important harbor was something the CSA would have had difficulty brooking.

Still, the USA wasn't actively firing at or interfering with CSA commerce. If the CSA had simply ignored Fort Sumter and went on with its business and avoided all possible provocations, could they have maneuvered the US into striking first, thereby improving the PR battle?

The war itself was probably inevitable, but did the CSA HAVE TO fire on Fort Sumter? Did they, by essentially agreeing to be the "aggressor" to some extent, lose any possibility of some sort of negotiated settlement?

On thing I learned yesterday that I had never known: Rather than "surrender" the US forced on Fort Sumter were allowed to simply withdraw and leave, rather than go into captivity. In fact, they were allowed to lower the flag with a full gun salute and honors. It was an accident during this process that caused the first "civil war death" as it turns out.

Clearly, at that point at least, there wasn't as much animosity between the USA and the CSA.

There are some interesting parallels between Fort Sumter and Pearl Harbor. While Fort Sumter wasn't a surprise attack and while the Union navy obviously wasn't stationed at Sumter, in both cases, war was probably inevitable. Still, in both cases, the "weaker" side had to choose between letting the "stronger" side choose the kickoff time, but chose to kick off with an attack to gain a tactical advantage, at the cost of uniting the population of the stronger enemy.

Obviously, PH was much bigger, but Fort Sumter would have been a very strong union weapon in enforcing a blockade had it been held by the Union throughout the war.

Clock
2 edits

@sh76
It was not a civil war. It was an invasion from the north.

A civil war is when two sides fight for control of the government. The southern states that seceded did not fight for control of the US government. They fought because they were invaded. The northern states fought to prevent secession. Nothing in historical documents is more clearly established. Yet the War of Northern Aggression is falsified as a war to free black slaves from southern racism, despite Abe Lincoln’s many assurances to the contrary.

When wars seemingly start needlessly look at the economics of war. It was the north that started the war. The Southern states seceded because the Republicans passed a high tariff. It was as if Lincoln wanted an expensive war. The high tariffs were not necessary. If Lincoln's goal was to preserve the union why endanger the union with high tariffs to begin with? Because Lincoln was controlled by the bankers who threatened to out him as a homosexual.

Jay Cooke sold a lot of war bonds for the north. Did any foreigners buy some of these war bonds? If so, what percentage of the bonds were held by foreigners and from what countries?

Clock

@sh76
Lincoln was a horrible dictator.
Being gay was shunned upon back then. If the bankers had outed him he would have been impeached. He was the perfect puppet. He slept with men.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/07/21/how-lincoln-destroyed-the-united-states/

Clock

@Metal-Brain said
@sh76
It was not a civil war. It was an invasion from the north.

A civil war is when two sides fight for control of the government. The southern states that seceded did not fight for control of the US government. They fought because they were invaded. The northern states fought to prevent secession. Nothing in historical documents is more clearly established. Yet ...[text shortened]... hese war bonds? If so, what percentage of the bonds were held by foreigners and from what countries?
BS.

The US government had sovereignty over the entire territory of the nation including its Southern States. The Union was perpetual; no State or combination thereof had a legitimate power to withdraw from it without express permission. And even at that, it was the rebels who started the war, by attacking a US military installation.

Your "history" must have been written by long discredited Lost Causers.

Clock
1 edit

@no1marauder said
BS.

The US government had sovereignty over the entire territory of the nation including its Southern States. The Union was perpetual; no State or combination thereof had a legitimate power to withdraw from it without express permission. And even at that, it was the rebels who started the war, by attacking a US military installation.

Your "history" must have been written by long discredited Lost Causers.
sh76 said this in his OP:

" People forget that the Civil war didn't start until several months after the south had seceded, 5 months after SC had seceded."

Is sh76 wrong?

From the link below:

"In response to a question posed to him by a viewer of his September 11 “Liberty Report” video podcast, Ron Paul said he supports a state’s authority to secede from the union.

“Ron Paul, do you favor the rights of states, communities, and individuals to secede?” the viewer asked, according to the statement read by Paul. “The answer is yes,” Paul answered. “I think the founders of this country believed that states should be able to secede. They went together voluntarily, it’s a voluntary contract and they should leave. But, of course, that principle was destroyed with the Civil War.”

https://thenewamerican.com/us/politics/constitution/ron-paul-right-of-secession-destroyed-by-civil-war/

Your assertion that secession was somehow illegal is debatable, but it doesn't really matter. They seceded. Then Lincoln invaded. Lincoln did not have to invade to preserve the empire. That was a choice. An expensive choice that destroyed a lot of wealth and surrendered sovereignty to the bankers like Chase.

Clock
1 edit

@Metal-Brain said
sh76 said this in his OP:

" People forget that the Civil war didn't start until several months after the south had seceded, 5 months after SC had seceded."

Is sh76 wrong?
No.

That's how long it took the rebels to decide to start the war.

Lincoln had been inaugurated a few weeks before the attack.

Clock

@no1marauder said
No.

That's how long it took the rebels to decide to start the war.

Lincoln had been inaugurated a few weeks before the attack.
You contradicted yourself. You said this:

"And even at that, it was the rebels who started the war, by attacking a US military installation"

Now you say this:

"That's how long it took the rebels to decide to start the war"

Get your story straight. When did the confederacy start the war?

Clock

@Metal-Brain said
You contradicted yourself. You said this:

"And even at that, it was the rebels who started the war, by attacking a US military installation"

Now you say this:

"That's how long it took the rebels to decide to start the war"

Get your story straight. When did the confederacy start the war?
There's no contradiction between those statements; both are accurate.

Clock

@no1marauder said
BS.

The US government had sovereignty over the entire territory of the nation including its Southern States. The Union was perpetual; no State or combination thereof had a legitimate power to withdraw from it without express permission. And even at that, it was the rebels who started the war, by attacking a US military installation.

Your "history" must have been written by long discredited Lost Causers.
“The US government had sovereignty over the entire territory of the nation including its Southern States”

No, it didnt

Clock

@Mott-The-Hoople said
“The US government had sovereignty over the entire territory of the nation including its Southern States”

No, it didnt
https://www.britannica.com/event/Texas-v-White

Clock

@no1marauder said
There's no contradiction between those statements; both are accurate.
That is BS and you know it. You said the confederacy started the war at Fort Sumter. sh76 said it started later and you did not say he was wrong. You want it both ways.

Who invaded who first for what reason?
Lincoln did not fight the war over slavery, he fought it to preserve the union and no southern state seceded at Fort Sumter.

Clock

@Metal-Brain said
That is BS and you know it. You said the confederacy started the war at Fort Sumter. sh76 said it started later and you did not say he was wrong. You want it both ways.

Who invaded who first for what reason?
Lincoln did not fight the war over slavery, he fought it to preserve the union and no southern state seceded at Fort Sumter.
You're functionality illiterate.

The war started at Fort Sumter which was 5 months after South Carolina seceded. There is no contradiction between my statements and sh76's.

Clock

@no1marauder said
BS.

The US government had sovereignty over the entire territory of the nation including its Southern States. The Union was perpetual; no State or combination thereof had a legitimate power to withdraw from it without express permission. And even at that, it was the rebels who started the war, by attacking a US military installation.

Your "history" must have been written by long discredited Lost Causers.
Had the rebels decided not to attack Fort Sumter, do you think it was inevitable that the Union would have attacked (or at least instituted a blockade) to preserve the union?

Clock
1 edit

@no1marauder said
No.

That's how long it took the rebels to decide to start the war.

Lincoln had been inaugurated a few weeks before the attack.
A lone nut that shoots a gun is not starting the war. It is either an accident or a setup to have an excuse for the north to wage war.

When did the north invade the south and for what reason?

Clock

@no1marauder said
https://www.britannica.com/event/Texas-v-White
Indian reservations have sovereignty

The 1924 Indian citizenship act, made them citizens, Kind of blows a hole in your birthright stance doesnt it?

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.