An Analysis of President Lincoln's Legal Arguments Against Secession

Apollo3 ^ | April 9, 1994 | James Ostrowski

[DoodleDawg]

That’s why I consider the war an act of aggression.

But the South started it. That would make them the aggressors.

[rockrr]

Diplomacy at the point of a gun eh? The fact is that the installations (such as Sumter) belonged to the federal government - not the state of So. Carolina. If THEY had wanted a “peaceful resolution” they would not have acted so belligerently.

[Ditto]

...a nation formed by consecutive secessions, first from Great Britain in 1776,

Not this crap again! (Imagine the photo)

1776 was not a 'secession.' It was a damn full blown, all out revolution against a tyrannical government. The Patriots of 1776 made no pretension that their cause was somehow legal under British law. They were 'rebels' and damn proud of that fact! They staked their "Lives, Fortunes, and Sacred Honor" on their cause, not bizarre interpretations of British law.

It really PO's me when the neo-confederates try to compare the events of 1776 with the totally unjustified (both legally and morally) events of 1860-61.

When the hard core slave power radicals began their violent revolution in 1861, the Federal Government had done nothing to violate any of their their rights. Not one single thing! They just thought they could get away with it and take total power to themselves.

All the blame for the bloodshed of 1861 to 1865 rightly belongs on the souls of the slave power fire eaters who intentionally created that awful war solely to advance their financial interests.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Google Knights of the Golden Circle. Most people have never heard of them.

[tacticalogic]

I’m not that young, but my son is young enough to have to bear the brunt of this in his lifetime. Whatever I do will be for him.

[Bulwyf]

I’m agreed, and I’m not American.

[Bulwyf]

That’s a negative, American warhawks kicked that one off, after winning the revolutionary war, certain folks thought they could keep going.

[Bulwyf]

All conservatives please report to Alberta, plenty of jobs await, and we need to localize and create a new free country.

[Bulwyf]

elections have no meaning, anyone hoping to win it through elections is extremely misguided or just has their head so far in the sand, they can’t see daylight.

[BroJoeK]

AlmaKing: "The Confederacy gave the Union multiple chances to peacefully leave Fort Sumter.
The Union refused. Lincoln could have backed down several times, if he truly wanted a peaceful resolution.
But, he went ahead with re-supply."

Sure, but any threats against a nation's military forces in their own bases (i.e., Pearl Harbor, 1941) are provocations for war.
Any military assault on those forces is an act of war -- at Fort Sumter in 1861 just as at Pearl Harbor in 1941.

The Confederacy launched war against the United States at Fort Sumter, just as surely as the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor in 1941:

"I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, Dec. 7, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire."

[MikefromOhio]

But the South started it. That would make them the aggressors.

Please note that neither AlmaKing nor any of the other wannabe Confederates with a warped sense of history disputed this observation.

The woe is us crap goes out the window the moment that first shot was fired. They wanted a war, were itching for a war, and they got it.

[BroJoeK]

AlmaKing: "It wasn’t a “civil war” as the southern states had no designs on controlling the central government.
Their design was to be independent of it.’
That’s why I consider the war an act of aggression."

Endlessly repeated, that claim is essential to the pro-Confederate Big Lie.
In fact, the Confederacy had every intention of military expansion well beyond the borders of the eleven states which more-or-less legitimately voted to secede.
Those Union states & territories included Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, Arizona and New Mexico.

Indeed, one purpose for Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania in June 1863, was to control major northern cities & land, for possible use in future negotiations.
Confederates also launched raids or guerrillas into Ohio, Indiana, Kansas, Colorado, California and even Vermont, not to mention West Virginia.

So clearly the Confederacy represented a major existential threat to the entire United States, and that made its unconditional surrender unconditionally necessary.

Of course, just as you say, it was a "war of aggression" -- Confederate aggression launched against the United States of America.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

The Confederacy gave the Union multiple chances to peacefully leave Fort Sumter. The Union refused. Lincoln could have backed down several times, if he truly wanted a peaceful resolution. But, he went ahead with re-supply.

Hey, I want your house. If you don't leave, you'll force me to beat you up. It will be your fault because you could have backed down, but instead you had groceries delivered.