If the USA had just shot the Southern attackers for treason,

[Ernie S.]

How do you shoot the Confederates who orchestrated the secession without going to war? It doesn't seem likely that they'd simply turn themselves in or let Union soldiers come hang them in their own states.

Execute them on the spot for attacking US interests.

They didn't attack US interests. They formed a separate nation which the North invaded.

Well, no. They attempted to steal US property.

No, they didn't. With the exception of a few forts, the US government owned nothing in the Confederacy.

And one of those forts was filled full of American troops when the rebel forces started firing upon it.

The OP is full of BS, but let us not forget- Federal troops didn't fire first.

Yes some over zealous military school kids did. You yankee pigs shot at children.

 

[Ernie S.]

They didn't attack US interests. They formed a separate nation which the North invaded.

Well, no. They attempted to steal US property.

No, they didn't. With the exception of a few forts, the US government owned nothing in the Confederacy.

And one of those forts was filled full of American troops when the rebel forces started firing upon it.

The OP is full of BS, but let us not forget- Federal troops didn't fire first.

And not one of those soldiers was killed, and they were allowed to return home. Lincoln, of course, knew the fort would be fired on when he tried to resupply it, and that's exactly what he wanted..

Not for lack of trying were no Federal troops killed. And yes- Lincoln knew attempting to resupply the forts would likely prompt a response- but not resupplying the forts would have been a response too.

Yes- Lincoln was smart enough to wait until the South fired on Union troops first.

Lincoln could have abandoned Sumter and saved us 4 years of Civil War.

 

[Ravi]

How do you shoot the Confederates who orchestrated the secession without going to war? It doesn't seem likely that they'd simply turn themselves in or let Union soldiers come hang them in their own states.

Execute them on the spot for attacking US interests.

They didn't attack US interests. They formed a separate nation which the North invaded.

Well, no. They attempted to steal US property.

They attempted to purchase all federal property as well and pay off their portion of the federal debt, but were completely ignored. Ignoring the fact that the secession of the southern states could have been handled peacefully and diplomatically seems dishonest.

They seized federal property, including arsenals, and only months later offered to pay for it. Why not try this yourself and see what happens.

 

[Ravi]

Well, no. They attempted to steal US property.

No, they didn't. With the exception of a few forts, the US government owned nothing in the Confederacy.

And one of those forts was filled full of American troops when the rebel forces started firing upon it.

The OP is full of BS, but let us not forget- Federal troops didn't fire first.

And not one of those soldiers was killed, and they were allowed to return home. Lincoln, of course, knew the fort would be fired on when he tried to resupply it, and that's exactly what he wanted..

Not for lack of trying were no Federal troops killed. And yes- Lincoln knew attempting to resupply the forts would likely prompt a response- but not resupplying the forts would have been a response too.

Yes- Lincoln was smart enough to wait until the South fired on Union troops first.

Lincoln could have abandoned Sumter and saved us 4 years of Civil War.

That's like saying Bush could have abandoned NYC and saved us 10 years of war in the ME.

 

[Anathema]

I didn't say it would be simple. If there was no war fought, however, the Cons wouldn't feel like such losers. Nipping the idiocy in the bud by executing traitors on the spot seems like it would have been a better idea. No one whines and moans about the Whiskey Rebellion.

There would not have been a means to simply arrest and execute the leaders of the Southern revolutionaries. Hell, several members of my family left Connecticut to go fight with the Confederates AGAINST the United States. Unfortunately, once Mr. Lincoln was elected and Union troops refused to evacuate military positions inside Southern territory, a War became inevitable.

 

[Anathema]

That's like saying Bush could have abandoned NYC and saved us 10 years of war in the ME.

I would have been fine with abandoning NYC to its own devices. New Orleans too.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How do you shoot the Confederates who orchestrated the secession without going to war? It doesn't seem likely that they'd simply turn themselves in or let Union soldiers come hang them in their own states.

Execute them on the spot for attacking US interests.

They didn't attack US interests. They formed a separate nation which the North invaded.

Well, no. They attempted to steal US property.

They attempted to purchase all federal property as well and pay off their portion of the federal debt, but were completely ignored. Ignoring the fact that the secession of the southern states could have been handled peacefully and diplomatically seems dishonest.

They seized federal property, including arsenals, and only months later offered to pay for it. Why not try this yourself and see what happens.

Actually they sent a delegation prior to the firing on Fort Sumter in April where they offered to pay for federal property within the Confederacy and pay their portion of the national debt, but were rebuffed by the Lincoln administration. Again, ignoring that there was a peaceful way to handle the situation is patently dishonest. Lincoln was willing to go to war to force the southern states to remain in the Union and pay their taxes and the newly passed Morrill Tariff.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, they didn't. With the exception of a few forts, the US government owned nothing in the Confederacy.

And one of those forts was filled full of American troops when the rebel forces started firing upon it.

The OP is full of BS, but let us not forget- Federal troops didn't fire first.

And not one of those soldiers was killed, and they were allowed to return home. Lincoln, of course, knew the fort would be fired on when he tried to resupply it, and that's exactly what he wanted..

Not for lack of trying were no Federal troops killed. And yes- Lincoln knew attempting to resupply the forts would likely prompt a response- but not resupplying the forts would have been a response too.

Yes- Lincoln was smart enough to wait until the South fired on Union troops first.

Lincoln could have abandoned Sumter and saved us 4 years of Civil War.

That's like saying Bush could have abandoned NYC and saved us 10 years of war in the ME.

That's about the worst analogy of all time. Of course the War on Terror was and is a terrible idea, but the two are nothing alike.

 

[Ravi]

Execute them on the spot for attacking US interests.

They didn't attack US interests. They formed a separate nation which the North invaded.

Well, no. They attempted to steal US property.

They attempted to purchase all federal property as well and pay off their portion of the federal debt, but were completely ignored. Ignoring the fact that the secession of the southern states could have been handled peacefully and diplomatically seems dishonest.

They seized federal property, including arsenals, and only months later offered to pay for it. Why not try this yourself and see what happens.

Actually they sent a delegation prior to the firing on Fort Sumter in April where they offered to pay for federal property within the Confederacy and pay their portion of the national debt, but were rebuffed by the Lincoln administration. Again, ignoring that there was a peaceful way to handle the situation is patently dishonest. Lincoln was willing to go to war to force the southern states to remain in the Union and pay their taxes and the newly passed Morrill Tariff.

Hello? Where did I ignore that there was a peaceful way to handle the situation? Certainly there was, the USA could have caved to petty terrorists.

The southerners took the federal property in December. In April they offered to pay for it. Again, I invite you to try it and let us know the outcome.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

They didn't attack US interests. They formed a separate nation which the North invaded.

Well, no. They attempted to steal US property.

They attempted to purchase all federal property as well and pay off their portion of the federal debt, but were completely ignored. Ignoring the fact that the secession of the southern states could have been handled peacefully and diplomatically seems dishonest.

They seized federal property, including arsenals, and only months later offered to pay for it. Why not try this yourself and see what happens.

Actually they sent a delegation prior to the firing on Fort Sumter in April where they offered to pay for federal property within the Confederacy and pay their portion of the national debt, but were rebuffed by the Lincoln administration. Again, ignoring that there was a peaceful way to handle the situation is patently dishonest. Lincoln was willing to go to war to force the southern states to remain in the Union and pay their taxes and the newly passed Morrill Tariff.

Hello? Where did I ignore that there was a peaceful way to handle the situation? Certainly there was, the USA could have caved to petty terrorists.

The southerners took the federal property in December. In April they offered to pay for it. Again, I invite you to try it and let us know the outcome.

They actually didn't take the federal property until April. If they had taken it in December they wouldn't have been firing on themselves in April. And your use of the term terrorist is noted, but it's yet another example of that word having no meaning. It's simply applied to people you don't like.

 

[Ravi]

Well, no. They attempted to steal US property.

They attempted to purchase all federal property as well and pay off their portion of the federal debt, but were completely ignored. Ignoring the fact that the secession of the southern states could have been handled peacefully and diplomatically seems dishonest.

They seized federal property, including arsenals, and only months later offered to pay for it. Why not try this yourself and see what happens.

Actually they sent a delegation prior to the firing on Fort Sumter in April where they offered to pay for federal property within the Confederacy and pay their portion of the national debt, but were rebuffed by the Lincoln administration. Again, ignoring that there was a peaceful way to handle the situation is patently dishonest. Lincoln was willing to go to war to force the southern states to remain in the Union and pay their taxes and the newly passed Morrill Tariff.

Hello? Where did I ignore that there was a peaceful way to handle the situation? Certainly there was, the USA could have caved to petty terrorists.

The southerners took the federal property in December. In April they offered to pay for it. Again, I invite you to try it and let us know the outcome.

They actually didn't take the federal property until April. If they had taken it in December they wouldn't have been firing on themselves in April. And your use of the term terrorist is noted, but it's yet another example of that word having no meaning. It's simply applied to people you don't like.

You are confused. They took federal property in December. Look it up. Because they took more in April doesn't mean they took federal property the previous December.

 

[Ernie S.]

No, they didn't. With the exception of a few forts, the US government owned nothing in the Confederacy.

And one of those forts was filled full of American troops when the rebel forces started firing upon it.

The OP is full of BS, but let us not forget- Federal troops didn't fire first.

And not one of those soldiers was killed, and they were allowed to return home. Lincoln, of course, knew the fort would be fired on when he tried to resupply it, and that's exactly what he wanted..

Not for lack of trying were no Federal troops killed. And yes- Lincoln knew attempting to resupply the forts would likely prompt a response- but not resupplying the forts would have been a response too.

Yes- Lincoln was smart enough to wait until the South fired on Union troops first.

Lincoln could have abandoned Sumter and saved us 4 years of Civil War.

That's like saying Bush could have abandoned NYC and saved us 10 years of war in the ME.

Not at all, but thanks for playing.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

They attempted to purchase all federal property as well and pay off their portion of the federal debt, but were completely ignored. Ignoring the fact that the secession of the southern states could have been handled peacefully and diplomatically seems dishonest.

They seized federal property, including arsenals, and only months later offered to pay for it. Why not try this yourself and see what happens.

Actually they sent a delegation prior to the firing on Fort Sumter in April where they offered to pay for federal property within the Confederacy and pay their portion of the national debt, but were rebuffed by the Lincoln administration. Again, ignoring that there was a peaceful way to handle the situation is patently dishonest. Lincoln was willing to go to war to force the southern states to remain in the Union and pay their taxes and the newly passed Morrill Tariff.

Hello? Where did I ignore that there was a peaceful way to handle the situation? Certainly there was, the USA could have caved to petty terrorists.

The southerners took the federal property in December. In April they offered to pay for it. Again, I invite you to try it and let us know the outcome.

They actually didn't take the federal property until April. If they had taken it in December they wouldn't have been firing on themselves in April. And your use of the term terrorist is noted, but it's yet another example of that word having no meaning. It's simply applied to people you don't like.

You are confused. They took federal property in December. Look it up. Because they took more in April doesn't mean they took federal property the previous December.

Are we referring to Fort Sumter specifically, or federal property generally? I was under the impression we were discussing Sumter. Though I would advise instead of saying "look it up," you should provide a link when discussing something so that people know exactly what you're referring to. Regardless, yes, the Confederates took federal property. They also offered to pay for it, which means that the war was unnecessary. But Lincoln wasn't concerned merely with the federal property, except as an extension of his actual aims, but rather wanted to force the south to pay the tariff. For that, he needed to go to war. It's hard to imagine how anybody would have been worse off if Lincoln had simply let them go.

 

[Syriusly]

Well, no. They attempted to steal US property.

No, they didn't. With the exception of a few forts, the US government owned nothing in the Confederacy.

And one of those forts was filled full of American troops when the rebel forces started firing upon it.

The OP is full of BS, but let us not forget- Federal troops didn't fire first.

And not one of those soldiers was killed, and they were allowed to return home. Lincoln, of course, knew the fort would be fired on when he tried to resupply it, and that's exactly what he wanted..

Not for lack of trying were no Federal troops killed. And yes- Lincoln knew attempting to resupply the forts would likely prompt a response- but not resupplying the forts would have been a response too.

Yes- Lincoln was smart enough to wait until the South fired on Union troops first.

Lincoln could have abandoned Sumter and saved us 4 years of Civil War.

The South could have not attempted to secede- and saved us 4 years of Civil War.

 

[Syriusly]

Well, no. They attempted to steal US property.

No, they didn't. With the exception of a few forts, the US government owned nothing in the Confederacy.

And one of those forts was filled full of American troops when the rebel forces started firing upon it.

The OP is full of BS, but let us not forget- Federal troops didn't fire first.

And not one of those soldiers was killed, and they were allowed to return home. Lincoln, of course, knew the fort would be fired on when he tried to resupply it, and that's exactly what he wanted..

Not for lack of trying were no Federal troops killed. And yes- Lincoln knew attempting to resupply the forts would likely prompt a response- but not resupplying the forts would have been a response too.

Yes- Lincoln was smart enough to wait until the South fired on Union troops first.

Yes, not resupplying the forts would have sent the message that Lincoln was interested in diplomacy, but he wasn't. He wanted to bring the south to heel and force them to pay their tribute to his government. .

Lincoln intended to keep the Union intact- it had nothing to do with 'paying tribute'.

The South provoked the War- they made the decision to attempt to leave the Union- and they fired the first shots of the war.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, they didn't. With the exception of a few forts, the US government owned nothing in the Confederacy.

And one of those forts was filled full of American troops when the rebel forces started firing upon it.

The OP is full of BS, but let us not forget- Federal troops didn't fire first.

And not one of those soldiers was killed, and they were allowed to return home. Lincoln, of course, knew the fort would be fired on when he tried to resupply it, and that's exactly what he wanted..

Not for lack of trying were no Federal troops killed. And yes- Lincoln knew attempting to resupply the forts would likely prompt a response- but not resupplying the forts would have been a response too.

Yes- Lincoln was smart enough to wait until the South fired on Union troops first.

Lincoln could have abandoned Sumter and saved us 4 years of Civil War.

The South could have not attempted to secede- and saved us 4 years of Civil War.

But why fight a war to stop them? Lincoln's reasons are obvious: He didn't want the protectionist U.S. to compete with a free trade Confederacy. But what reasons could anybody alive today possibly have? Certainly most people in the Union were in fact happy to see the south leave, especially the abolitionists who knew that the fugitive slave clause was now even less enforceable. It wasn't until Lincoln orchestrated Fort Sumter that he was able to change public opinion. So, again, who cares if the south secedes?

 

[Ravi]

They seized federal property, including arsenals, and only months later offered to pay for it. Why not try this yourself and see what happens.

Actually they sent a delegation prior to the firing on Fort Sumter in April where they offered to pay for federal property within the Confederacy and pay their portion of the national debt, but were rebuffed by the Lincoln administration. Again, ignoring that there was a peaceful way to handle the situation is patently dishonest. Lincoln was willing to go to war to force the southern states to remain in the Union and pay their taxes and the newly passed Morrill Tariff.

Hello? Where did I ignore that there was a peaceful way to handle the situation? Certainly there was, the USA could have caved to petty terrorists.

The southerners took the federal property in December. In April they offered to pay for it. Again, I invite you to try it and let us know the outcome.

They actually didn't take the federal property until April. If they had taken it in December they wouldn't have been firing on themselves in April. And your use of the term terrorist is noted, but it's yet another example of that word having no meaning. It's simply applied to people you don't like.

You are confused. They took federal property in December. Look it up. Because they took more in April doesn't mean they took federal property the previous December.

Are we referring to Fort Sumter specifically, or federal property generally? I was under the impression we were discussing Sumter. Though I would advise instead of saying "look it up," you should provide a link when discussing something so that people know exactly what you're referring to. Regardless, yes, the Confederates took federal property. They also offered to pay for it, which means that the war was unnecessary. But Lincoln wasn't concerned merely with the federal property, except as an extension of his actual aims, but rather wanted to force the south to pay the tariff. For that, he needed to go to war. It's hard to imagine how anybody would have been worse off if Lincoln had simply let them go.

You may have been referring to Ft. Sumter in particular but the fact of the matter is, federal property, including arsenals, were seized by people that had no right to seize them. Offering to pay for them months later doesn't change that fact.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, they didn't. With the exception of a few forts, the US government owned nothing in the Confederacy.

And one of those forts was filled full of American troops when the rebel forces started firing upon it.

The OP is full of BS, but let us not forget- Federal troops didn't fire first.

And not one of those soldiers was killed, and they were allowed to return home. Lincoln, of course, knew the fort would be fired on when he tried to resupply it, and that's exactly what he wanted..

Not for lack of trying were no Federal troops killed. And yes- Lincoln knew attempting to resupply the forts would likely prompt a response- but not resupplying the forts would have been a response too.

Yes- Lincoln was smart enough to wait until the South fired on Union troops first.

Yes, not resupplying the forts would have sent the message that Lincoln was interested in diplomacy, but he wasn't. He wanted to bring the south to heel and force them to pay their tribute to his government. .

Lincoln intended to keep the Union intact- it had nothing to do with 'paying tribute'.

The South provoked the War- they made the decision to attempt to leave the Union- and they fired the first shots of the war.

Lincoln's own words from his first Inaugural Address:

"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."

Abraham Lincoln First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

So yes, he intended to keep the Union intact--because he wanted the south to continue paying their taxes and tariffs, in other words, their tribute, to the federal government.

 

[Ravi]

And one of those forts was filled full of American troops when the rebel forces started firing upon it.

The OP is full of BS, but let us not forget- Federal troops didn't fire first.

And not one of those soldiers was killed, and they were allowed to return home. Lincoln, of course, knew the fort would be fired on when he tried to resupply it, and that's exactly what he wanted..

Not for lack of trying were no Federal troops killed. And yes- Lincoln knew attempting to resupply the forts would likely prompt a response- but not resupplying the forts would have been a response too.

Yes- Lincoln was smart enough to wait until the South fired on Union troops first.

Lincoln could have abandoned Sumter and saved us 4 years of Civil War.

The South could have not attempted to secede- and saved us 4 years of Civil War.

But why fight a war to stop them? Lincoln's reasons are obvious: He didn't want the protectionist U.S. to compete with a free trade Confederacy. But what reasons could anybody alive today possibly have? Certainly most people in the Union were in fact happy to see the south leave, especially the abolitionists who knew that the fugitive slave clause was now even less enforceable. It wasn't until Lincoln orchestrated Fort Sumter that he was able to change public opinion. So, again, who cares if the south secedes?

How did Lincoln orchestrate Ft. Sumter when he wasn't even president when the first shots of the war were fired by the South OVER Ft. Sumter?

 

[Ernie S.]

No, they didn't. With the exception of a few forts, the US government owned nothing in the Confederacy.

And one of those forts was filled full of American troops when the rebel forces started firing upon it.

The OP is full of BS, but let us not forget- Federal troops didn't fire first.

And not one of those soldiers was killed, and they were allowed to return home. Lincoln, of course, knew the fort would be fired on when he tried to resupply it, and that's exactly what he wanted..

Not for lack of trying were no Federal troops killed. And yes- Lincoln knew attempting to resupply the forts would likely prompt a response- but not resupplying the forts would have been a response too.

Yes- Lincoln was smart enough to wait until the South fired on Union troops first.

Lincoln could have abandoned Sumter and saved us 4 years of Civil War.

The South could have not attempted to secede- and saved us 4 years of Civil War.

Yes, I suppose they could have, but the Southern states wanted a divorce so rather than part on amicable terms, Husband Lincoln beat his wife to force her to stay in a failed marriage.