Redmen4ever: ***”This was not a moral invasion.
At a later time (that is, with the Emancipation Proclamation), the war became a war to end slavery.
Only then was the invasion moral.”***
I disagree that Lincoln’s response to the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter was anything other than moral.
What US President would fail to respond to an attack on US troops in a US fort any other way?
What made total invasion and destruction of the Confederacy moral was not slavery, important as that was, but rather the Confederates’ formal declaration of War against the United States.
They attacked us, then declared war against us, so “morality” was not at issue.
Redmen4ever: ***”As it is, we, the U.S., are almost alone as the defender of peace and human rights in the world, and there is a limit to what we can do.
Pretending to be the world’s policeman in this effed up arrangement is a formula for bankruptcy.”***
True enough, but plenty of others are doing more than you might expect, if by nothing else, at least by behaving themselves.
When large countries follow normal laws, then the defense burden on the U.S. is less.
Not saying they shouldn’t do more, that would be nice, but it matters even more when they don’t oppose us militarily.
Redmen4ever: ***”The good news is that Donald Trump isn’t the only advocate of nationalism in conjunction with peace through strength.
We are being joined by others throughout the democratic world.”
Very interesting to watch, let’s hope it leads to a more rational world!
Thanks BroJoeK
Firing on Fort Sumter was a mistake. I am not aware when or how the Confederate States of American declared war on the United States of America. As the Confederate constitution only allowed a large army during time of war, I supposed they had to declare war.
Immediately after the firing on Fort Sumter, Lincoln proclaimed the states then in secession to be an insurrection, giving himself certain powers. At the time, there were eight states in secession. Lincoln called for a great expansion of the union army, and this lead to additional states seceding, including Virginia, and also to alliances with certain Indian nations. Each of these steps leading to war, other than the firing on Fort Sumter, could be criticized, but there are arguments for as well as against.
Now we come to the initial invasion. If it had been successful in quickly ending the rebellion, who would criticize Lincoln? The status quo antebellum would have been restored. There would have been more arrivals of free whites to the north, and more free states admitted to the union. The population, wealth and power in Washington of the free states would have only increased. Plus, Kentucky was inching its way to gradual emancipation.
At some point, some form of emancipation would have looked good to the border states, but I don’t know what could ever have been done in the deep south were the slave system was so much a part of the plantation system. Emancipation ruined the economies of the British sugar islands for many generations. The culture of slavery is antithetical to work. Culture is not genetic-based, but it is deeply ingrained. So, ending slavery was always going to be a problem in the deep south, even if the first invasion had been successful.
But, the first invasion was repulsed and once it became clear that suppressing the rebellion would involve a long and very costly commitment, a moral justification beyond “preserving the union” became required.