veji1 wrote:
This is to me a real question. Could the Union, as just the northern states, survive if it let go of the south ? Wouldn't it have exploded from the tension this would have brought upon it ? Wasn't in the end the Civil War not a war to save the Union, not so because of the secession in itself, but because the secession would have created so much tension that the leftover union would have exploded as a functioning state ?
What do you guys think ?
granitestater, I don't want to be rude, but you have a way of discussing matters which is really not very helpful... Saying that the war could have been avoided, because seceding was wrong and therefore those who seceded because they lost an election bear the responsability for the war... Well sure, fair enough, it is your opinion.
But it has nothing to do with the question !!!!
Le Ricain wrote:In 1784, Thomas Jefferson, during the Articles of Confederation period, presented a bill that would have prohibited slavery in the new territories. This would have affected all of the new territories north and south. For example, Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee would have been free states. The bill was defeated in Congress by a single vote as one of the representatives from New Jersey failed to appear. The reason that this bill was even considered was that producing cotton even with slave labour was unprofitable.
Everything changed with Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin in 1793 as cotton production became extremely profitable. The South never again considered restricting access to new lands for cotton planting as being acceptable.
A great 'what if'.
bob. wrote:Germany wasn't justified starting WW2. Doesn't mean you can't ask the question "what could France and the UK have done to save Poland".
To paraphrase the greatest military genius in American history, "from where the thread now stands, I will write no more forever."
Not to pick on you too much, but I don't believe Chief Joseph was a military commander. From what I know, he would be more comparable to the civilian commander in chief, while Looking Glass was the one calling the shots. Now, I would argue that Grant is the greatest military genius in American history, but that's for another time
veji1 wrote:Come on dude... Saying well not seceding would have avoided the war is like saying "well not coming into existence is sure way to avoid death"....
If some leave in some sort of nostalgy where they want to justify secession, well it is stupid but let them be. The question to be discussed is, seeing the dynamics at play in the north and the south, what could have been done, by whom ? Could some southern moderate governors be swayed by the union ? Could Virginia or Tennessee not have seceded with clever diplomacy/cajoling ? etc... Doesn't mean seceding in the first place was acceptable.
It may be that after Lincoln's election secession and therefore civil war were inevitable, seeing the dynamics at play, but was it really ? I don't know, and this why I find the question and would have found the discussion interesting. But whichever way you may see, you arriving and straight away quoting the inaugural address, saying that secession caused war and therefore only non-secession would have prevented it (without contributing as to how after the election secession might have been avoided or limited to some states etc...) is just the type of thing that straight up kills a conversation.
This is a what if conversation with a goal of fun and intellectual enlightenment. Share with us what you know, how you could see an alternative history unfolding where after the election, secession is avoided. That would be interesting, but going on you high horse, sorry mate.
khbynum wrote:veji1 Might this not have been a time when a true statesman could have nipped the revolution in the bud by doing nothing?
Not by condoning secession, which obviously most of you think was unwise if not outright illegal. Rather, by pointing out to the South that they had no support beyond the hard-core, cotton-growing plantation states and simply couldn't win if it came to war. Lincoln's call for volunteers tipped three of those states into secession, which need not have been.
Kensai wrote:Can a country leave the Union nowadays? Say Texas or California or Alaska or Hawaii? Would it be allowed if its people voted for secession in a state referendum?
Kensai wrote:Sounds kind of a forced marriage to me. But I guess this is practically what happens to other federated nations around the world as well.
Kensai wrote:Sounds kind of a forced marriage to me. But I guess this is practically what happens to other federated nations around the world as well.
GraniteStater wrote:Way off topic, but I would be highly interested to hear your quick description of the subject per Der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Hope I got that right.
pgr wrote:The question of the thread wasn't what could have been done by Lincoln after secession to avoid the war. That would be like saying what could F.D.R. do to avoid war with Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor. You complain about quoting the inaugural address, but it presents the case by the North why what the South was doing was illegal (in their view) and that rejoining the Union was the only way to avoid war. As long as the South insisted that the North recognize Southern independence and surrender all Federal property in the South, the only choice is war or one side totally capitulating. Could Va or Tennessee been kept in the union and out of the Confederacy? Possibly, but so what? As long as there were Southern states, of any number, claiming independence, the North would have fought to stop them. So the answer of no secession= no war is entirely accurate.
Let's do a quick chronology:
November 6 1860: Lincoln is elected President. James Buchanan is still the chef executive.
December 20 1860: South Carolina secedes from the Union. The issue of the status of Federal property in separated states, especially the coastal forts, becomes critical.
December 20 1860-Febuary 4 1861: 6 additional states secede from the Union and start to organize the Confederate States of America. This includes the suspension of the enforcement of federal law in these states, suspension of tariff collection by the federal government, and the demand that Federal arsenals and forts be turned over to state authorities. The Buchanan administration states that secession is illegal but that the Federal government lacks the legal authority to prevent it. (To the horror of inhabitants of the Granite State I'm sure) Republican governors in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New York begin training militia for eventual federal service.
February 4 1861: The Washington Peace Conference is held in the Willard Hotel in Washington D.C. For 3 weeks delegations from several states attempted to draft a constitutional amendment acceptable to all sides of the slavery debate. No Deep South states participated or delegates from Arkansas, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, California, and Oregon. 14 free states and 7 slave states participated. President elect Lincoln was nearby, but did not participate. The proposed amendment broadly restated the failed Crittenton Compromise of December 1860. It was rejected by the Senate 28-7.
March 4 1861: Lincoln is sworn in to office and uses his inaugural address to elaborate his views on the secession crisis. (You may obtain a copy from GS) Lincoln holds the constitution to be a perpetual contract and that any declaration of secession is legally void. To steal liberally from the Wikipedia article:
"He had no intent to invade Southern states, nor did he intend to end slavery where it existed, but said that he would use force to maintain possession of federal property. The government would make no move to recover post offices, and if resisted, mail delivery would end at state lines. Where popular conditions did not allow peaceful enforcement of Federal law, U.S. Marshals and Judges would be withdrawn. No mention was made of bullion lost from U.S. mints in Louisiana, Georgia and North Carolina. In Lincoln's Inaugural, U.S. policy would only collect import duties at its ports, there could be no serious injury to justify revolution in the politics of four years. His speech closed with a plea for restoration of the bonds of union."
March 4 1861- April 12 1861: Southern representatives are sent to negotiate a peace treaty with the United States that includes the purchase of Federal installations in the South. Lincoln refuses to meet the commissioners on the grounds that the Confederacy was not a legal government and that singing a treaty would be effectively recognizing the Confederacy's independence. Secretary of State Seward started unauthorized indirect negotiations that failed. Lincoln decides to hold all 7 forts remaining in Federal hands in the South.
April 12-15 1861: Fort Sumter is bombarded to prevent its re-supply. Lincoln calls for 75,000 volunteers, MA, PA, and NY respond within a day, and the final 4 states of the Confederacy leave the union.
It is not as though there weren't attempts at settlement, but by the time Lincoln assumed office the choice was accept Confederate independence or war. (Or for the rebels, accept the constitutional authority of their Federal government or war).
There were alternatives to war. The Crittenten Compromise for example, but it they were unacceptable to a country split on the idea of if it should be all one thing or all another.
GraniteStater wrote:Now you see why Lincoln was one of the canniest politicians who ever sought a vote. He outwaited them. Sumter was a fishbone in their throat & he knew those who were clearly hotheads would not abide it for long.
my follow question would be, say the confederates stay disciplined and cool headed, keep asking to buy the federal land and such making "civilised" ouvertures and at the same time surrounding not too aggressively the federal forts without attacking them or preventing resupplying. What happens next and why ? Does the Union eventually attack after a few months once its army is ready or could that situation just last for a while and lead to a de facto secession, although officially not accepted, in a sort of Taiwan / communist china type of way ?
Return to “ACW History Club / Histoire de la Guerre de Sécession”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests