View single post by Texas Defender
 Posted: Thu Jun 2nd, 2011 11:04 am
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Unionblue-

  To borrow a phrase from the article you linked to, you are again: "pounding that particular drum."

  I don't agree with the person referred to in the article, Mr. Bragg, that the southerners were: "Forced" to fire on Ft. Sumter. They could have waited out Major Anderson who actually told them that he would have to leave after the 15th of April. That would have been the more prudent thing to do.

  I do agree with Mr. Bragg that Mr. Lincoln had made his choice to fight. He would under no conditions accept secession. What he needed was an incident to inflame the northern public so that he could raise an army to occupy the states that had seceded. At Ft. Sumter, he got exactly what he hoped for. Aside from having the seven states rescind secession and rejoin the Union, they could not have given him a better gift.

  Once Mr. Lincoln was elected, it was inevitable that there would be war. Those who were determined to leave (Many more people than: "A small number of fire-eaters") in response to his election felt that they had the right to leave, and Mr. Lincoln felt that they did not. Neither side would back down.

  I would not place "Full and utter responsibility for the war" on the sixteenth president. His positions regarding slavery and regarding secession were no different in 1861 than they were in 1860. At least part of the blame for the war can be put on the democrats who split their party and allowed Mr. Lincoln to be elected with less than 40% of the vote. If northern and southern democrats had not handed Mr. Lincoln the election, its unlikely that the southern states would have seceded in 1860 or 1861. What would have happened after that if, say, Stephen A. Douglas had been elected president can only be speculated on.

  To me, the: "Hoary old trope" here is the contention that secession and the war were about slavery and nothing else. You have found a soulmate in Mr. Hall who chose to quote certain statements by those attending secession conventions and the state ordinances as well. No doubt Mr. Hall would discount the Kentucky Ordinance of Secession, just as you did when we went over some of this same ground in 2009. (See on this forum: "The Declaration of Independence" thread in the: "Other Civil War Talk" section).

Kentucky Ordinance of Secession  The Constitutional argument...

  I'll repeat what I said in the other section: "The issue of slavery was of course the catalyst issue, but it wasn't the only one. The larger question was (And do a degree still is) how much authority the federal government rightfully has over the states."

 

 Close Window