As I outlined to him [OIFVeteran], this was no different from what the colonists did when they seceded from the British Empire in 1775...a year before the Declaration of Independence in 1776."
Well... first there was no official "secession" in 1775.
Second, conditions in 1776 and 1860 were in no way analogous, for a long list of reasons -- see the Declaration of Independence for one list.
Especially important: there were no serious actions against the Brits until after Brits revoked Massachusetts' 1691 Charter of self government, May 24, 1774.
Even then, incidents remained very minor until British troops marched to seize American weapons at the militia armory in Concord.
That was a clear act of war, followed soon after by the King's formal Proclamation of Rebellion and Americans responded accordingly.
FLT-bird on "aggressive" vs. "defensive" war: " Its a truism in war which is very inconvenient for your argument."
Hardly, since the real truth is every good offense includes elements of defense and every good defense includes offensive actions.
So whether a war is "offensive" or "defensive" can depend on your start & stop points.
For example, Axis powers fought a defensive war from 1943 onward, just as Confederates fought mostly defensively from 1862 onward.
But in both cases, if you look at the war's beginning, there was nothing "defensive" about it.
FLT-bird: "Straw man argument.
I never said the Brits did not try to put down the colonial secessionists.
They did."
In this case our "straw man" would be DiogenesLamp who's often argued that the civilized Brits refused to spend as much of their blood & treasure defeating Americans as the barbaric Union did to defeat Confederates.
In fact, relatively speaking, Brits spent just as much but, thankfully for us, they had to spread their war over a vastly larger territory than just the circa million square miles of the US Civil War.
Spread too thin, fighting too many opponents, Brits lost.
FLT-bird: "OOOOOOK. I never disputed any of that."
Sorry... it's an important point to DiogenesLamp.
FLT-bird: "My point is that once a war starts, those who are fighting a defensive war...ie not seeking territorial aggrandizement...may well adopt aggressive tactics and strategies.
Its the nature of war.
Them adopting aggressive tactics and strategies does not mean they were the aggressors."
Sure, but it's pure sophistry to claim Confederates didn't seek "territorial aggrandizement" and therefore weren't aggressors -- they certainly did, from Day One.
Consider this: there was no time after December 20, 1860 when Confederates did not seek to expand their territory, by votes if possible but by any other method if necessary.
You claim Confederates behaved themselves lawfully before declaring war on May 6, 1861, but I've cited numerous times & places where that was just not the case.
The truth is they were as aggressive as they could be and laid claim to as much territory as they thought they could hold.
FLT-bird: "No they didn’t.
They exercised their sovereign rights to seize and control installations on their own territory."
Well, for starters, they didn't wait for states to declare secession before seizing whatever Federal properties they could.
Second, their claims to sovereignty over Federal properties amounted to nothing more than "might makes right".
Third, no serious effort was ever made for peaceful transition with the government body both the US Constitution and Confederate Constitution (identical: Article 4, section 3, item 2 in both) makes responsible for such properties: Congress.
Fourth, weeks before declaring war on May 6, 1861 Jefferson Davis was sending heavy military ordnance to support Confederates fighting in Union Missouri.
That alone should tell you Confederates were fighting a war of aggression even before formally declaring it.
FLT-bird: "Jefferson Davis did what anybody else would have in his place."
Only if they knew, as Davis did, that starting war at Fort Sumter would flip Virginia and maybe the entire Upper South from Union to Confederate thus doubling his white population and war-making economy.
In that sense, it was a No Brainer.
In hindsight though, it appears that long-term success was more likely to follow a more, ah, patient, even conciliatory path.
FLT-bird: "If you’re going to use the 'slaves didn’t consent' argument then the founding of the US was just as illegitimate.
The slaves didn’t consent then either.
Neither did women.
Yet somehow you want to apply this standard only to the CSA and not to the USA."
In fact, African Americans did consent, it this sense: by at least ten to one, more blacks served George Washington's Continental Army than answered Lord Dunmore's or similar British proclamations.
Continental Army blacks served in both integrated units and separate Black companies (1st Rhode Island), plus in numerous service jobs.
In exchange they were promised freedom and their owners, in Rhode Island at least, compensated.
Nothing remotely similar happened in the Confederacy.
FLT-bird: "The Southern states were content to go their own way in peace.
It is Lincoln who wanted a war."
Complete nonsense, as amply reported here.