|View single post by ole|
|Posted: Thu Jun 7th, 2007 04:52 pm||
|perhaps the entire question hinges on the constitutionality of secession.
if secession is constitutional and legal, then the Northern response is beligerent and unjustifible.
if secession is insurrection, then the union president was right in using force.
That's a path into the woods. I've observed hundreds of pages of argument on this very subject between people far more knowledgeable than you and me -- well, me at least. The debates usually end up heated and amount to no more than: "Yes it was! No it wasn't!" If you want to tread that path, count me out. The war settled the matter (as well as subsequent SCOTUS decisions).
but the South certainly felt they had followed constitutional protocal and declared a new and separate nation.
More than one southern state did not follow constitutional protocol. And some of those that made motions in that direction required a voice vote or different colored ballots. For just one example, follow the procedures in Texas.
they demanded the Union turn over state property to the states, the forts & arsenals, etc. they demanded the surrender of Ft Sumter, now Confederate property and were refused. they took the post by force. the Union president raised an unprecedented army and invaded Virginia. (hence "The War of Northern Aggression")(and also, "The War to Supress Yankee Arrogance")
One hitch here: What they demanded was not state. but federal property, belonging to all the people of all the states. (How far would Texas get if it decided that Fort Bliss was state property?) Ft. Sumter was clearly US property. It had been deeded to the Federal Government and its purpose was to defend the harbor from foreign invasion. That its development was slow and was ready to repel nothing is quite beside the point. None of the seizures was to retrieve "state" property. Each was to gain armaments (arsenals and forts) and funds (customs houses and the New Orleans Mint).
One other remark that needs attention: "raised an unprecedented army and invaded Virginia." Lincoln's first concern was the safety of Washington. If you were president and the flag had been fired on in South Carolina and Militia Units were organizing in Virginia, would you not assemble some troops for the defense of the Capital? Oh yes, the army was unprecedented, but so was the CSA's declaration of war. By the way, Virginia militia siezed Federal installations before it seceded. Jackson had troops on the Maryland side of Harpers Ferry before Union troops "invaded" Virginia by securing Arlington. It would seem that pre-"invasion" provocations made "invasion" a pretty good idea.
man. I'm way too tired for this. doncha hate it when you only get a little bit of bacon fat in your collared green, instead of a big ole slab ?
Eating too much of that big ol' slab in one sitting gives one a bellyache. If you're saying you want to rush into the big picture and that what you've gotten is not satisfying, say so. You started out expressing a desire to understand the northern point of view. Hint: it is not, The South Was Right.
Last edited on Thu Jun 7th, 2007 04:58 pm by ole