Posted on 12/28/2023 7:26:59 AM PST by Fiji Hill
What if the Confederates had refrained from shelling Ft. Sumter and allowed it to remain a Union enclave, sort of West Berlin? Would Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas have remained in the Union? Would there be a CSA today?
I have read articles that this topic was discussed among the cabinet, and they were worried that if the South did nothing, they would be stuck with a useless fortress full of men with everyone wondering why the hell are they garrisoning the place?
They were concerned Lincoln would be made to look the fool and he would not have any leverage to force the South back in.
One might think that this would have allowed the South to remain separate and at peace, but this would be naive. Lincoln also sent a task force to Pensacola to seize Fort Pickens, and the Lieutenant he put in charge of one of his warships did everything he could to start the civil war in Pensacola.
Lincoln needed that war, and the South very much did not need it. The evidence indicates Lincoln was going to successfully provoke a war at some point, regardless of what the South did.
With control of 700 million per year at stake, there was going to be a confrontation.
If the South could have gotten recognition from Britain or France, and used their ships to carry the trade, it would have become unfeasible for Lincoln to stop them from maintaining their independence.
And so far has shown she cant handle it
By seceding.
The Southern economy was based on slavery. There were blacks that owned slaves, there were whites who did not. The bone of contention was that the North’s push to eliminate slavery was a threat to the south’s economy. The correct way would have been to transition so that the southern economy could have adjusted and developed ways of flourishing.
A house divided cannot stand. The North did not make the effort to stand in the South’s shoes. Alienation developed.
Anyone who ignores the economic impact of slavery and the pressures that lead to the war is a tool, like Nimrata who is trying desperately to navigate the political needle rather than reflecting the true, complex nature of the Civil War. Her comments were disgusting, a mishmash of platitudes, a disrespectful confirmation of her belief that Americans are stupid.
She continues to surprise to the downside which I thought was impossible.
“In 1861 Ohio Representative Thomas Corwin proposed an amendment to prevent Congress from interfering with slavery in any state. It would have been the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution. Congress approved it, but eleven southern states seceded from the Union before it could be ratified.”
Sounds like it was proposed after minds had already been made up.
Only Kentucky, Ohio, Rhode Island, Maryland, and Illinois voted for its approval, a far cry from the three fourths of states necessary.
Maybe in 1864. He did not in 1860.
That’s the spirit!
It’s been going on 200 years that we’ve De Facto been handing citizen out like candy to every Tom, Dick and Harry.
Can we please get over our national Dred Scott shame?
“Had Lincoln not sent those ships, the war would not have started there at that time and on that date.”
A true statement IMO. The war would have started when Bragg received orders from Davis to take Fort Pickens by force at Pensacola.
“Lincoln also sent a task force to Pensacola to seize Fort Pickens.”
Lincoln didn’t have to do that. Fort Pickens was already manned and equipped by Federal Troops. The issue was would Lincoln expend the forces necessary to defend Fort Pickens from an assault by Bragg’s forces.
Why should that cause a war? The first 7 did it in 1860, yet war didn't start until April of 1861.
Does not the Declaration of Independence say that people have a right to independence?
The salient point is that the Northern dominated congress, controlled by Republicans voted for this permanent slavery amendment by a 2/3rds majority.
What this demonstrates is that the North and the Union did not care about the issue of slavery.
They did not invade the South to interfere with slavery, they only wanted to stop the South from having the Independence to manage their own economic affairs.
You are researching this so that you can make excuses for why the North offered it. You didn't do enough research. William Seward, who was former governor of New York, and was one of it's Senators when Lincoln took office, and who was also the chief proponent of the Corwin Amendment in the Senate, Promised that he could get New York to ratify this amendment. With New York ratifying it, many of the satellite states that relied on New York for trade and revenue would have also passed it.
New York pretty much controlled everything from the Great Lakes bordering states. That it would pass was a forgone conclusion, *IF* war had not overtaken the amendment rendering it moot.
The issue here is that the Corwin amendment proves that the war was not about slavery. Certainly not on the side of the North. It was only about Southern states becoming independent from Washington DC.
That's as good a guess as any, though Lieutenant Porter seemingly did his best to start a war as soon as he arrived, and were it not for the interdiction of Captain Meigs, he likely would have succeeded.
This is where Union troops fired at locals coming to see what was going on. Some count it as the first shots of the Civil War.
It’s a gotcha interaction... BORING.
It started based on “States Rights 10th Amendment and Slavery followed right behind. As far as I’m concerned the south should have won to preserve “States Rights” As for Slavery the north Rightly won.
Too bad we couldn’t have both. Since then the feds have taken away so many of our rights it seems the 10th doesn’t even matter anymore. It Sucks!
https://www.amazon.com/Grant-Ron-Chernow/dp/159420487X
Have you ever heard such a statement from Grant? Might as well ping some others on this point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.