What Side is Responsible for the Civil War?

[??????????]

Lincoln was required to turn the forts over for one simple reason. Federal land is unconstitutional. Federal parks, preserves, military installments are unconstitutional unless the states approve it or request such and if the state asks the feds to leave they have every right to do so.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The reason why the south invaded Fort Sumter was not some sort of arbitrary invasion. When the south seceded, Jefferson Davis met with Lincoln on several occasions to discuss everything, and Lincoln had agreed to give several military bases in the south, except for two- Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie. Davis tried very hard to get Lincoln to peacefully hand the forts to the south, but Lincoln refused. Instead, Lincoln sent several thousand forces to Fort Sumter, which initially had next to no soldiers present at the fort- and the ones who were present were being supported by the south with food.

Where do you get your "facts" Brambila?
First off, Davis never met with Lincoln, he was back in Mississippi before Lincoln even entered Washington.  Davis did try to get Buchanan to turen over Sumter, but never Lincoln. I don't think the two ever met face to face, and if they did it was was probably during Lincoln's sole term as a Representative, a decade before the Civil War. There were southern representatives that Seward met with without Lincoln's approval, and Seward certainly left them with the impression that an arrangement for Sumter could be made, but Lincoln never agreed to surrender any federal fort, by the time he took office, he didn't have much he could have given in the first place.

The two main forts still  held by the Union in the seven confederate states at the time of Lincoln's innauguration were Forts Sumter and Pickens, not Sumter and Moultrie.  Moultrie was the obsolete Revolutionary War era fort that Maj. Anderson moved his men from to the still incomplete but defensible Fort Sumter. The South never provided the men at Fort Sumter with food and even refused to allow the Union to resupply the fort with food only.  The only attempt at sending reinforcedments was an attempt to send 200 soldiers on the Star of West, and that occurred in January, well before Lincoln took office.

Not only that, if South Carolina hadn't tried to euchre the Union, there never would have been a crisis at Fort Sumter in the first place.  The reason SC failed to occupy it before Anderson moved his men there was that Governor Pickens wanted the Union to continue paying for its construction which was ongoing at their time.  By attempting to scam the United States, he gave Anderson the ability to move from indefensible Moultrie to defendable Sumter.  The Civil War could never have started at Fort Pickens, Pensacola was not a major harbor, there was no good place for the Confederates to launch an attack on Fort Pickens, and why would anyone want to start a war by attacking Pensacola?

Brambila, before you next offer your opinion, please check your facts.  There are others on this thread who while I disagree with their opinions on this subject, at least have their facts straight.

[??????????]

Did you know the man who fired the first shot at Sumter wrapped himself in the CS flag and committed suicide at the end of the war!

[Brambila]

Where are your sources? I have a hard time believing many of your points. I have to go to the store, but let me pick at your post a bit.

I did make a mistake- Davis did not meet Lincoln, or any periods that I know of. It was his Secretary of State, William Sweard, who met with them. What had happened in the meeting was that Seward told the southerners that the north wasn't going to make any effort to send relieve trrops the fort, but the truth was Lincoln was already sending the troops to the south. When the southerners discovered this, they decided hesistantly to invade the fort before more troops were stationed in it.  (According to The March of Democracy, pgs 24-25).

okay, I need to go.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The main source I use is Battle Cry of Freedom by James M. McPherson which is in my opinion is one of the best one volume histories of the Civil War. Foote's three volume Narrative is a good read and often exceeds Battle Cry in depth, but Battle Cry covers the breadth of the Civil War better.  I also have Catton's Army of the Potomac trilogy, but that doesn't cover Sumter and his Picture History, but that volume doesn't have much depth in its topics.

[??????????]

Shelby Foote is a novelist not a historian. I take most of what he writes with a grain of salt.

[Brambila]

I also get some sources from Paul Johnson's History of the American People, even though Johnson is extremely anti-CSA, and also from a video called "Let the South Speak Out".

[ATFFL]

In the you learn something everyday category, we have Texas V. White, which did establish there is no right of secession.

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/380/

The relevant bit:

The Court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature--even if ratified by a majority of Texans--were "absolutely null." Even during the period of rebellion, however, the Court found that Texas continued to be a state.

Not saying the ruling was right or wrong, but that the Supremes have answered the question.

[dbpman]

In the you learn something everyday category, we have Texas V. White, which did establish there is no right of secession.

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/380/

The relevant bit:

The Court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature--even if ratified by a majority of Texans--were "absolutely null." Even during the period of rebellion, however, the Court found that Texas continued to be a state.

Not saying the ruling was right or wrong, but that the Supremes have answered the question.

surprise surprise.. the courts rule right after the war, in 1869.  And look at that the court also ruled this verdict in a federally occupied Reconstructed state in which they controlled the government

[??????????]

In the you learn something everyday category, we have Texas V. White, which did establish there is no right of secession.

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/380/

The relevant bit:

The Court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature--even if ratified by a majority of Texans--were "absolutely null." Even during the period of rebellion, however, the Court found that Texas continued to be a state.

Not saying the ruling was right or wrong, but that the Supremes have answered the question.

surprise surprise.. the courts rule right after the war, in 1869.  And look at that the court also ruled this verdict in a federally occupied Reconstructed state in which they controlled the government

I usually question most federal government and SCOTUS decisions from 1865 - around 1900. They tried to destroy the south and did use any means necessary to get the point across. Look what they did to the schools for example. Sent northern teachers into southern schools and made the kids feel bad about what their parents had done.

[dbpman]

what a great example of legislation from the bench

Chase never addressed the constitutional question of the legality of secession, just declared it illegal.

from the verdict:
"It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interest, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessaries of war, and received form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to be 'perpetual." And when these Articles were founded to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?,"

Nevermind that the radification of the Constitution nullified the Articles of Confederation and made it nothing more than a historic document

This baseless argument is like having the King of England claim Parliament has no right to legislate because before the Magna Carta the King had all the power to legislate.

Professor David P. Currie, University of Chicago Law School, in, "The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The First Hundred Years,1789-1888" says, "In Texas v. White the Court went out of its way to embrace the Radical position that secession and all acts that served it were illegal, that the seceding states had nevertheless forfeited their rights, and that Congress could determine under the guarantee clause how they were to be governed. It did so essentially by fiat, without serious consideration of the opposing arguments ... In Texas v. White, Chase finally succeeded in writing most of the Radical philosophy of Reconstruction into the Constitution."

[A18]

The North for violating the constitution in trying to stop the south from leaving. For whatever reason you want to debate them leaving for.

What part of the Constitution allows states to secede?

[??????????]

The North for violating the constitution in trying to stop the south from leaving. For whatever reason you want to debate them leaving for.

What part of the Constitution allows states to secede?

Amendment 10.

[A18]

The North for violating the constitution in trying to stop the south from leaving. For whatever reason you want to debate them leaving for.

What part of the Constitution allows states to secede?

Amendment 10.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Secession is the assumption of powers that are delegated to the United States.

[A18]

Basically, the Constitution is a treaty between the states. The South clearly violated it -- which sovereign States can do, but it's not really justified. You have to look at the environment in which the treaty was forged:

"Resolved, That the General Assembly of Virginia, doth unequivocally express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic ... That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them." - James Madison

The Union should be perpetual, as the Articles of Confederation said (IMHO). The Constitution was not violated, so secession wasn't just. However, if it had been due to extreme violations of the Constituion, I would support secession.

The States each have a certain amount of limited ownership over one another. I do, of course, support nullification and soforth.

[J. J.]

Basically, the Constitution is a treaty between the states. The South clearly violated it -- which sovereign States can do, but it's not really justified.
The Union should be perpetual, as the Articles of Confederation said (IMHO). The Constitution was not violated, so secession wasn't just. However, if it had been due to extreme violations of the Constituion, I would support secession.

The States each have a certain amount of limited ownership over one another. I do, of course, support nullification and soforth.

I would see this, more basically, as a contract.

Now, when SC seceeded, on December 20,1860, what act did the Federal government take to break this contract?  The electors were chosen and Lincoln received a majority, an act completely within the contract.

The new Confederacy was worried that Lincoln was an abolitionist, even though he stated he wouldn't during the campaign.  Well, he took office on March 4, 1861.  One year later, March 4, 1862, how many slaves were freed by Federal action?  Zero.

In 1862, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclaimation, freeing slaves where?  Only in those areas in actual rebellion and only after January 1, 1863.  This was more of a means of military action than a change in policy.

Now here is the kicker.  The Republlicans controlled Congress in 1861-63.  The Fugitive Slave Act was not part of the Constitution, but a simple act that could be repealed.  Did Lincoln and the Republicans repeal it.  Nope.  It was repealed in 1864.   See:  http://www.iath.virginia.edu/fdw/volume2/folsom/fugitive/index-critintro.html

The Confederacy decided that it didn't like who the democratic process legitimately placed in the White House and decided to split.  We have states where the majority of the people don't like the results of the election (a true statement for every election since 1860).  Do they have the right to seceed?