The first shots on Sumter weren in April, not January. You are confusing this with confederate shots fired on a supply ship attempting to reach Sumter.
And why wouldn’t it be legitimate to fire on a ship violating the confederacy’s sovereign territory? And of course this illustrates the problem with maintaining federal forts in confederate territory...how could Lincoln or anyone else expected anything other than armed conflict to be the ultimate outcome?
I’ll tell you a secret. Most of his cabinet and even the commander at Sumter understood this - and they begged Lincoln not to press for war. He ignored them.
We’re obviously never going to agree. But I refuse to believe the black and white history of the civil war that has become conventional wisdom. And party labels aside, the south acted in more of an originalist fashion than the north, hands down. I’m actually glad the union stayed together...and ours became a nation powerful enough to save the world from tyranny in the 20th century. But we never needed to have a war or even secession. The late 1850s marked the beginning of our robbing Peter to pay Paul, a watershed fork in the road in which our ancestors had to choose between the constitution or an ever bloating government. The urban centers chose the latter, and implememted tariffs that damaged the south’s export economy. Creeping big government reared its ugly head as it always does - taxes/tariffs and fees. The south wanted no part of it...and the government wrapped itself in a social issue, per usual, and the killing began. Imagine what type of nation we would now have, if originalists had won out and rescinded the new tariffs.
Because it wasn't confederate sovereign territory. It was part of the United States (or These United States if that makes you feel better) that just happened to be in a state of rebellion.
They only prevailed in the short term through the same "might makes right" that lost causers attempt to apply against the unionists.
Good catch again, but it still proves my point that the secessionist demorat confederacy shot the first shots. Even the Citadel admits on their web site that, “Many scholars consider the firing on the Star of the West to be the first hostile shots of the Civil War even though the attack on Fort Sumter did not begin until April 12, 1861.” It does go on to state, “Because the Star of the West was not a United States Naval vessel, some scholars do not consider it to have been a military engagement,” but I agree (as I’m sure you will disagree) with the scholars that state what the cadets did was an act of war, and that they shot the first of the Civil War.
And why wouldn’t it be legitimate to fire on a ship violating the confederacy’s sovereign territory? And of course this illustrates the problem with maintaining federal forts in confederate territory...how could Lincoln or anyone else expected anything other than armed conflict to be the ultimate outcome?
Not that I agree with you, but let’s take your argument here and say that the first shots of the war began on April 12, 1861. Lincoln took office on March 4 of that year. Conclusion: The slave holding demorat secessionists gave Lincoln 39 whole days to negotiate a peaceful outcome. Wow, how generous of them! This only shows that it was the demorat slavers who were just itchen’ to go to war! It was pretty stupid of them too, as they knew they were outnumbered and outgunned. Well, they got what they wished for and they lost.
I’ll tell you a secret. Most of his cabinet and even the commander at Sumter understood this - and they begged Lincoln not to press for war. He ignored them.
Lincoln didn’t “press” for war. If he had, he would have fired on the demorats way before they did. He knew that the demorat slavers were so blinded by their lust to keep slavery alive that they would fire the first shots. He still tried to negotiate a peace even after they fired.
We’re obviously never going to agree. But I refuse to believe the black and white history of the civil war that has become conventional wisdom.
As to, “the black and white history of the civil war that has become conventional wisdom,” the “conventional wisdom” is what is being taught in government schools. I came to know and accept the truth after the indoctrination they give in government schools. I hope you come to know the truth and accept it as well.
And party labels aside, the south acted in more of an originalist fashion than the north, hands down.
I have to repeat myself again? The demorat slavers used the federal government for their advantage every chance they got. Like I stated before, the demorat controlled SCOTUS made slavery a national institution and the demorat slavers loved it (so much for states’ rights). The demorat Fugitive Slave Act was also a federal law and the demorat slaver sates cleaved to it (again, so much for states’ rights). These are just highlights of some demorat slaver legislation that led to the war. I can write pages of other demorat stupidity making them responsible for the war.
I’m actually glad the union stayed together...and ours became a nation powerful enough to save the world from tyranny in the 20th century. But we never needed to have a war or even secession. The late 1850s marked the beginning of our robbing Peter to pay Paul, a watershed fork in the road in which our ancestors had to choose between the constitution or an ever bloating government. The urban centers chose the latter, and implememted tariffs that damaged the south’s export economy. Creeping big government reared its ugly head as it always does - taxes/tariffs and fees. The south wanted no part of it...and the government wrapped itself in a social issue, per usual, and the killing began. Imagine what type of nation we would now have, if originalists had won out and rescinded the new tariffs.
Again, you give too much credit to the Demorat Party here. We can argue how they did it from 1864 on, but that is a debate for another time.
Before I go on, answer a couple of simple questions. These questions will answer whether it is worth continuing this debate with you.
1) Do you think that the slaves held by demorats had a natural right of rebellion to rise up against their master?
2) Do you think Emancipation was the taking away of freedom?
I leave here with a couple of other things to think about as well.
By defending Demorat slavers’ history, it is a defense of Demorat slavers of today.
Always remind Democrats of their history, a history of slavery then and now!
Long live the Christian Conservative South!
You need to check your history on that. The South controlled the tariff issue in the Congress during the 1850s. No tariff could pass without the southern states consent. The South got everything they wanted on the tariff issue.
Secession was for slavery, pure and simple, as all four Declarations of Secession say.