Based on what rule of law?
The refusal of new governments to honor the previous agreements of the old, has such a long history as to be considered the norm.
And an even longer history of starting wars. Which the South did.
Had there been no war, the Fortress would have eventually been let go anyway. That being said, the Confederates were foolish to attack it. If they could have just kept their pride in check, they would have eventually had it anyway.
And you are most likely correct in that. But they didn't keep their pride in check, they resorted to war, and are responsible for all the death and destruction that followed.
Slavery was a very major portion of their reasons for leaving, but it was not the only one. There were a whole host of issues in which Northern Domination of the legislature yielded undesirable results for the South.
However only slavery was the issue that motivated them to rebellion. The other issues were irrelevant by comparison.
How do I answer this? This is cockamamie nonsense, yet it is obvious that you somehow believe it. Seven states seceded before Ft. Sumter. Did they chose war? Does the act of peacefully seceding equate to choosing war?
The act of bombarding a fort into surrender equates to choosing war. It was the avenue they chose, for whatever reason, to further their secession. You cannot divorce the two.
Did they gin up their troop levels when they seceded? Did they show any other indication that they were wanting to pick a fight with an entity four times more populous and far wealthier?
Yes they did. The Confederate Congress passed legislation in February 1861 authorizing an army of 100,000 men. That was 6 or 7 times the size of the U.S. army at the time.
Once again, they didn't CHOSE war, they were just so foolish as to think they could bombard a Union fort without getting one.
Once again, that is insane. To believe that you could launch an attack on another country and that it would not lead to war is the height of stupidity. Are you saying that the Confederate leadership were stupid men?
The War Started at Ft. Sumter. Unless you can demonstrate some sort of connection between Ft. Sumter and slavery, then you ought to quit asserting that they started the war to defend slavery. It's just dishonest.
Far from being dishonest, it's accurate.
The Large period of inactivity can only be interpreted as a tacit "yes." Had the Union opinion been as you seemed to believe, that Secession was illegal, then they would have immediately began taking steps to counteract it.
Buchanan believed secession was illegal. Lincoln believed it. But both men hoped for a peaceful solution. You seem to be blaming them for not resorting to war and robbing Jeff Davis of the opportunity to start one first.
I’ve heard of outcome-based “logic” before but I had never really seen it applied until this guy. Incredible.
Sigh. I might as well have written nothing. You certainly didn't understand what I wrote.
and are responsible for all the death and destruction that followed.
No, they are responsible for some of it, but it is dishonest to place all the blame on one side. Had Lincoln evacuated Fort Sumter, there would have been no war. It's also Northern Pride and stubbornness that is to blame.
However only slavery was the issue that motivated them to rebellion. The other issues were irrelevant by comparison.
The Issue of Slavery was the dominant issue which motivated them to secede. I'm not sure where you count the start of "Rebellion" at the point where they seceded, or at the point where they fired on Fort Sumter.
Fort Sumter was a land and pride dispute, not a slave dispute.
The act of bombarding a fort into surrender equates to choosing war.
So you don't count the secession as part of the "Rebellion"? Only the bombardment? Fine, the war was over revenge, not "Preserving the Union" or "Slavery", it was revenge, plain and simple.
It was the avenue they chose, for whatever reason, to further their secession.
But we've already decided the reason is very important. You say it's "Slavery" and I say it's Pride. When you can come up with a cognizant argument of how Fort Sumter has some connection with advancing Slavery, i'll concede the point, but till then, i'll continue to believe they attacked the Fort because of Pride and Arrogance.
Yes they did. The Confederate Congress passed legislation in February 1861 authorizing an army of 100,000 men. That was 6 or 7 times the size of the U.S. army at the time.
I stand corrected. Do you have a link?
Once again, that is insane. To believe that you could launch an attack on another country and that it would not lead to war is the height of stupidity. Are you saying that the Confederate leadership were stupid men?
One way or the other, I think History bears this out. That they could think this would not provoke a war is just as stupid as believing that provoking a war with a far larger and more powerful adversary was a good idea. It's stupidity either way.
But maybe not. Willful blindness, more like. Arrogance, excessive pride. Sometimes this stuff achieves the same result as rank stupidity.
The War Started at Ft. Sumter. Unless you can demonstrate some sort of connection between Ft. Sumter and slavery, then you ought to quit asserting that they started the war to defend slavery. It's just dishonest.
Far from being dishonest, it's accurate.
How is it accurate to keep linking Fort Sumter with Slavery? How? How do you even believe stuff like that?
Buchanan believed secession was illegal. Lincoln believed it. But both men hoped for a peaceful solution. You seem to be blaming them for not resorting to war and robbing Jeff Davis of the opportunity to start one first.
If your position is that secession is illegal, and it is your duty to stop it, and it is required that you use deadly force to do so, then yes, the War should have started immediately.
As a matter of fact, had they immediately sent troops to seceding states, it might not have gotten out of hand. By tacitly allowing it, they encouraged it. Nipping it in the bud would certainly have been preferable to killing 600,000 people.
The Problem was, there was absolutely no public support for such a measure anywhere in the country. The Northern public would have objected loudly to such a heavy handed tactic. It would have been regarded as dictatorial at THAT point in history. Later, people were willing to put up with ACTUAL dictatorial behavior.