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

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Lincoln was President in April, when the shots that actually started the war happened. The war obviously did not start in January when Buchanan was still in office. Dishonestly attributing what I said to the obvious wrong date doesn't make you clever.

Wrong.

Carolina and then from Confederate Brigadier General P. G. T. Beauregard were ignored. Union attempts to resupply and reinforce the garrison were repulsed on January 9, 1861 when the first shots of the war, fired by cadets from the Citadel, prevented the steamer Star of the West, hired to transport troops and supplies to Fort Sumter, from completing the task.

Except that nobody on Earth actually argues that that was the start of the war, you know, because the war didn't start until after the April firing on Fort Sumter when Lincoln initiated the blockade on Southern ports.

You claimed Lincoln orchestrated Ft. Sumter. Clearly, he did not. Clearly, the Confederates had already fired on Ft. Sumter before Lincoln was president.

Again, purposefully misconstruing which event I'm talking about doesn't make you clever.

You are pretending something that simply isn't true and getting upset because I've pointed it out.

So you're claiming that it's not true that the Civil War did not start after the attack on Fort Sumter in April, after which Lincoln put a blockade on southern ports causing four more states, including Virginia, to secede. You're making the fantastical claim that the war started after the January attack on Fort Sumter under James Buchanan. What policies did Buchanan enact to make you come to this conclusion? He didn't enact a blockade of his own, he didn't send any troops to invade the south, and he didn't ask for a declaration of war. He left it for his successor, Lincoln, to handle. So no, the war did not start in January under Buchanan.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

LOL- that is the only thing you got out of his entire address on the issue?

Lincoln spoke at length about why the separation of the Union was wrong:

But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity. 15

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. 16


I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.

And his closing was very prophetic:

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it." 34


I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.



And the South chose to fire the first shots of the civil war.

Yes, I quoted the relevant part. Yes, he made up nonsense about how the Union is perpetual and how it somehow predated its own establishment, but his reasoning for why he wanted to save the Union was clear. To collect his tariff. The tariff was, of course, one of the central platforms of his campaign.

He mentions the tariff once in that address- and to you that is the only issue.

Republican Party National Platform 1860
At the 1860 Republican National Convention, Abraham Lincoln became the Presidential nominee. The Republican platform specifically pledged not to extend slavery and called for enactment of free-homestead legislation, prompt establishment of a daily mail service, a transcontinental railroad and support of the protective tariff

I've mentioned several times in this thread that tariffs weren't the only issue regarding the war as a whole. Obviously the south had several reasons for seceding; northern apprehension, in many cases, about enforcing slavery laws and the spread of slavery to new territories chief among them. Lincoln's prime motivator for fighting the war, however, is clearly tariffs, and taxes more generally.

Lincoln's prime motivator for fighting the war, however was clearly maintaining the union. As he said many times- he would do what was necessary to maintain the Union.

From the Second Inaugeral Address

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil-war. All dreaded it -- all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war -- seeking to dissolve the Union, and divide effects, by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.

One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern half part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.

"Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope -- fervently do we pray -- that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said f[our] three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether"


With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan -- to achieve and cherish a lasting peace among ourselves and with the world. to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with the world. all nations.

Not one word about tariffs.

And in his first Inaugural Address, as I've already shown, he explains why he wanted to maintain the Union. Tariffs. Taxes.

 

[Ravi]

Wrong.

Carolina and then from Confederate Brigadier General P. G. T. Beauregard were ignored. Union attempts to resupply and reinforce the garrison were repulsed on January 9, 1861 when the first shots of the war, fired by cadets from the Citadel, prevented the steamer Star of the West, hired to transport troops and supplies to Fort Sumter, from completing the task.

Except that nobody on Earth actually argues that that was the start of the war, you know, because the war didn't start until after the April firing on Fort Sumter when Lincoln initiated the blockade on Southern ports.

You claimed Lincoln orchestrated Ft. Sumter. Clearly, he did not. Clearly, the Confederates had already fired on Ft. Sumter before Lincoln was president.

Again, purposefully misconstruing which event I'm talking about doesn't make you clever.

You are pretending something that simply isn't true and getting upset because I've pointed it out.

So you're claiming that it's not true that the Civil War did not start after the attack on Fort Sumter in April, after which Lincoln put a blockade on southern ports causing four more states, including Virginia, to secede. You're making the fantastical claim that the war started after the January attack on Fort Sumter under James Buchanan. What policies did Buchanan enact to make you come to this conclusion? He didn't enact a blockade of his own, he didn't send any troops to invade the south, and he didn't ask for a declaration of war. He left it for his successor, Lincoln, to handle. So no, the war did not start in January under Buchanan.

I'm saying that Lincoln didn't orchestrate Ft. Sumter, which was YOUR claim. There were problems at Ft. Sumter (i.e., blockade, firing upon) before Lincoln was president.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Except that nobody on Earth actually argues that that was the start of the war, you know, because the war didn't start until after the April firing on Fort Sumter when Lincoln initiated the blockade on Southern ports.

You claimed Lincoln orchestrated Ft. Sumter. Clearly, he did not. Clearly, the Confederates had already fired on Ft. Sumter before Lincoln was president.

Again, purposefully misconstruing which event I'm talking about doesn't make you clever.

You are pretending something that simply isn't true and getting upset because I've pointed it out.

So you're claiming that it's not true that the Civil War did not start after the attack on Fort Sumter in April, after which Lincoln put a blockade on southern ports causing four more states, including Virginia, to secede. You're making the fantastical claim that the war started after the January attack on Fort Sumter under James Buchanan. What policies did Buchanan enact to make you come to this conclusion? He didn't enact a blockade of his own, he didn't send any troops to invade the south, and he didn't ask for a declaration of war. He left it for his successor, Lincoln, to handle. So no, the war did not start in January under Buchanan.

I'm saying that Lincoln didn't orchestrate Ft. Sumter, which was YOUR claim. There were problems at Ft. Sumter (i.e., blockade, firing upon) before Lincoln was president.

Yes, that is my claim. Of course there were problems regarding Fort Sumter prior to April, as I've already acknowledged the incident in January. That's how Lincoln knew that the Confederates would fire, because it'd happened once before. Lincoln knew that if he tried to resupply Fort Sumter, which had already been attempted once before by Buchanan, then the Confederates would fire and he could spin that to turn northern opinion in favor of the war, because prior to the April incident at Fort Sumter the north was glad to be rid of the south and they had no interest in going to war to bring them back. So yes, Lincoln knew what would happen and he did it because that's exactly what he wanted.

In Lincoln's own words:

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result."

http://www.familytales.org/dbDisplay.php?id=ltr_abl7020&city=washington

It's clear that Lincoln wanted to provoke the Confederates into firing first, and he was successful.

 

[Ravi]

How do you spin the other side? The cons were in the wrong.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How do you spin the other side? The cons were in the wrong.

Spin what? I have no romantic notions regarding the Confederacy and couldn't care less about the south rising again. I simply see that the right to secede is clear, and that Lincoln started a war to force people into a government they didn't want because he wanted their money. Yet somehow people who would laugh at him as just another crook if he were from some other country regard him as "Father Abraham" and so on and so forth.

 

[Roadrunner]

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.

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. Public sentiment was against forcing the south to remain in the Union, and Lincoln needed an inciting event to change that. That's not to excuse the south for firing on Fort Sumter, of course, because that was obviously dumb.

Regardless, I don't understand the idea of calling these people traitors or wanting them to have been executed. Who cares if they wanted to leave the Union? How would you be worse off today if the southern states had a separate government? Frankly, I think most northern Democrats would enjoy getting their way more often if that were the case. Of course, I can see why Lincoln didn't want them to leave. He wanted them to pay their taxes and he didn't want his protectionist Union to have to compete with a free trade Confederacy, but I don't get the modern sentiment that the south and north are better off together. The political rancor I see seems to suggest otherwise.

Nobody was tried and convicted of treason after the war.

He can call them frogs, cats or dogs, won't make them frogs, cats or dogs.

It is fuckin' over.

I wonder how Michigan, other Rust Belt states would have done if they could have looked into the future and seen what blacks eventually did to their states.

I imagine they would have just let the South go, if they could have gotten a look ahead at modern day Detroit.

 

[Roadrunner]

How do you spin the other side? The cons were in the wrong.

Spin what? I have no romantic notions regarding the Confederacy and couldn't care less about the south rising again. I simply see that the right to secede is clear, and that Lincoln started a war to force people into a government they didn't want because he wanted their money. Yet somehow people who would laugh at him as just another crook if he were from some other country regard him as "Father Abraham" and so on and so forth.

There is no right to secede; never was.

There is a method to call a Constitutional convention, if enough states ever want to discuss dissolving the Union.

Playing "what if" now, about what happened then, is pointless.

Shit, we have major problems here; the next Presidential election is going to hinge on whether gays can order dick and balls cakes from Christian bakeries.

Let's get real!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How do you spin the other side? The cons were in the wrong.

Spin what? I have no romantic notions regarding the Confederacy and couldn't care less about the south rising again. I simply see that the right to secede is clear, and that Lincoln started a war to force people into a government they didn't want because he wanted their money. Yet somehow people who would laugh at him as just another crook if he were from some other country regard him as "Father Abraham" and so on and so forth.

There is no right to secede; never was.

There is a method to call a Constitutional convention, if enough states ever want to discuss dissolving the Union.

Playing "what if" now, about what happened then, is pointless.

Shit, we have major problems here; the next Presidential election is going to hinge on whether gays can order dick and balls cakes from Christian bakeries.

Let's get real!

The states are not banned in the Constitution from seceding, and the understanding in the ratifying conventions was clear that states had every right to secede from this voluntary Union.

 

[Ernie S.]

Except that nobody on Earth actually argues that that was the start of the war, you know, because the war didn't start until after the April firing on Fort Sumter when Lincoln initiated the blockade on Southern ports.

You claimed Lincoln orchestrated Ft. Sumter. Clearly, he did not. Clearly, the Confederates had already fired on Ft. Sumter before Lincoln was president.

Anyone who has bothered to study the event, knows Lincoln purposely provoked the attack on Ft. Sumter for nefarious reasons. Those reasons included changing public opinion in the North to go to war and invade the South.

All other federal installations in the South were relinquished without a fight. One would think you might wonder why Ft Sumter held out. Did you know that not one person died in S. Carolina's bombing of Ft Sumter?

An attack on federal property is an attack on federal property. This isn't rocket science.

Please stop the misdirection. Can we debate honestly?

No one disputes S. Carolina fired on Ft Sumter. Why the strawman argument?

It is clear Lincoln set up events at Ft Sumter. Does this mean anything to you?

Is it your belief that since S. Carolina militia fired on Ft Sumter, Lincoln was justified in invading the entire Confederacy causing the deaths of 800k Americans and destruction of half the nation?

It is my belief that the Confederate States set the entire war in motion by first declaring a separate government and then by firing on Federal troops, thereby causing the deaths of 800,000 Americans and destruction of much of the rebel states.

The Union could have just said "See ya later guys." and not violated the South's right to leave a confederation that clearly violated the pact they made 80 some years earlier.

 

[Ernie S.]

How do you spin the other side? The cons were in the wrong.

Spin what? I have no romantic notions regarding the Confederacy and couldn't care less about the south rising again. I simply see that the right to secede is clear, and that Lincoln started a war to force people into a government they didn't want because he wanted their money. Yet somehow people who would laugh at him as just another crook if he were from some other country regard him as "Father Abraham" and so on and so forth.

There is no right to secede; never was.

There is a method to call a Constitutional convention, if enough states ever want to discuss dissolving the Union.

Playing "what if" now, about what happened then, is pointless.

Shit, we have major problems here; the next Presidential election is going to hinge on whether gays can order dick and balls cakes from Christian bakeries.

Let's get real!

Where in the Constitution does it say states can't secede? I did notice a list of powers granted the federal government and a clause saying all other powers are granted the States or the People.

 

[Liminal]

instead of engaging in war for the theft of national lands and attacks on United States citizens, would the Confederate apologists still be whining or would we have been well past their century plus whine fest?

It took them 4 years to defeat the Confederacy even though the Southern army was outnumbered more than 3 to 1. No arms/ammunition plants in the south, no rail system to speak of and still fought a war that lasted four years. I don't believe it would have been simple to just execute a few people for treason except maybe in your weak ass mind. Next....

Another one who doesn't know any history.

 

[Ernie S.]

instead of engaging in war for the theft of national lands and attacks on United States citizens, would the Confederate apologists still be whining or would we have been well past their century plus whine fest?

It took them 4 years to defeat the Confederacy even though the Southern army was outnumbered more than 3 to 1. No arms/ammunition plants in the south, no rail system to speak of and still fought a war that lasted four years. I don't believe it would have been simple to just execute a few people for treason except maybe in your weak ass mind. Next....

Another one who doesn't know any history.

Translation: "I disagree with you, so I'll call you ignorant."

 

[Liminal]

instead of engaging in war for the theft of national lands and attacks on United States citizens, would the Confederate apologists still be whining or would we have been well past their century plus whine fest?

It took them 4 years to defeat the Confederacy even though the Southern army was outnumbered more than 3 to 1. No arms/ammunition plants in the south, no rail system to speak of and still fought a war that lasted four years. I don't believe it would have been simple to just execute a few people for treason except maybe in your weak ass mind. Next....

Another one who doesn't know any history.

Translation: "I disagree with you, so I'll call you ignorant."

His assessment of Confederate war industry is childishly simplistic, it simply doesn't fit reality.

 

[Porker]

instead of engaging in war for the theft of national lands and attacks on United States citizens, would the Confederate apologists still be whining or would we have been well past their century plus whine fest?

It took them 4 years to defeat the Confederacy even though the Southern army was outnumbered more than 3 to 1. No arms/ammunition plants in the south, no rail system to speak of and still fought a war that lasted four years. I don't believe it would have been simple to just execute a few people for treason except maybe in your weak ass mind. Next....

Another one who doesn't know any history.

The shit is oozing from your ears...that's how full of shit you really are. You obviously can't find your ass with either hand.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Try reading for comprehension.

Try sobering up, for a change of pace, Rati...

 

[Liminal]

instead of engaging in war for the theft of national lands and attacks on United States citizens, would the Confederate apologists still be whining or would we have been well past their century plus whine fest?

It took them 4 years to defeat the Confederacy even though the Southern army was outnumbered more than 3 to 1. No arms/ammunition plants in the south, no rail system to speak of and still fought a war that lasted four years. I don't believe it would have been simple to just execute a few people for treason except maybe in your weak ass mind. Next....

Another one who doesn't know any history.

The shit is oozing from your ears...that's how full of shit you really are. You obviously can't find your ass with either hand.

So then you are evidently completely unaware of the industrial infrastructure built up in Georgia and Alabama after secession. The confederacy produced over two thousand artillery pieces and more than 100,000 rifles, besides all the arms they imported from Europe.

 

[PredFan]

instead of engaging in war for the theft of national lands and attacks on United States citizens, would the Confederate apologists still be whining or would we have been well past their century plus whine fest?

SEIG HEIL!

 

[Liminal]

How do you spin the other side? The cons were in the wrong.

Spin what? I have no romantic notions regarding the Confederacy and couldn't care less about the south rising again. I simply see that the right to secede is clear, and that Lincoln started a war to force people into a government they didn't want because he wanted their money. Yet somehow people who would laugh at him as just another crook if he were from some other country regard him as "Father Abraham" and so on and so forth.

There is no right to secede; never was.

There is a method to call a Constitutional convention, if enough states ever want to discuss dissolving the Union.

Playing "what if" now, about what happened then, is pointless.

Shit, we have major problems here; the next Presidential election is going to hinge on whether gays can order dick and balls cakes from Christian bakeries.

Let's get real!

Where in the Constitution does it say states can't secede? I did notice a list of powers granted the federal government and a clause saying all other powers are granted the States or the People.

Where in the Constitution does it say you can secede? Why isn't there any clause or legal process specified in the Constitution? There is nothing in the Constitution that gives a state the power to dissolve the union.

 

[Ernie S.]

How do you spin the other side? The cons were in the wrong.

Spin what? I have no romantic notions regarding the Confederacy and couldn't care less about the south rising again. I simply see that the right to secede is clear, and that Lincoln started a war to force people into a government they didn't want because he wanted their money. Yet somehow people who would laugh at him as just another crook if he were from some other country regard him as "Father Abraham" and so on and so forth.

There is no right to secede; never was.

There is a method to call a Constitutional convention, if enough states ever want to discuss dissolving the Union.

Playing "what if" now, about what happened then, is pointless.

Shit, we have major problems here; the next Presidential election is going to hinge on whether gays can order dick and balls cakes from Christian bakeries.

Let's get real!

Where in the Constitution does it say states can't secede? I did notice a list of powers granted the federal government and a clause saying all other powers are granted the States or the People.

Where in the Constitution does it say you can secede? Why isn't there any clause or legal process specified in the Constitution? There is nothing in the Constitution that gives a state the power to dissolve the union.

There is no mention of dissolving the union, hence that power is left to the states.
The Constitution does not limit the states beyond several enumerated powers spelled out specifically.
Shall I mail you a copy of the Constitution? I keep several of the bar at Doc's