0 sats \ 5 replies \ @Undisciplined 15 Jan \ parent \ on: On Lincoln history
As you said earlier, and I didn't dispute, secession was already going to happen. My point is that Lincoln chose to go to war over it. That's what I am claiming was both unjust and unnecessary.
Lincoln chose to go to war over it
This ignores the fact that the Confederates engaged in hostilities first and during negotiations for peace. If they didn't want war, they shouldn't have started shooting.
That's what I am claiming was both unjust and unnecessary.
What's unjust and unnecessary is building an entire society around the enslavement of human beings and being upset you can't make others enforce that ruleset on your behalf - this is why Confederates say they prepared for conflict and opened fire.
Pretending that this isn't the case, that if Lincoln just didn't retaliate that there would be no conflict simply ignores the publicly made statements and historical documents of that time period. It's simply not based in objective reality.
reply
What's unjust and unnecessary is building an entire society around the enslavement of human beings and being upset you can't make others enforce that ruleset on your behalf
I'm not arguing against this, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.
If you want to say people don't have a right to secede from their current rulers, that's fine. We can just stop talking then. However, you seem to be dodging that the war was about preventing secession to Lincoln. Since he was explicit about being willing to fight to preserve the union, why wouldn't the seceding states prepare for conflict?
Unless I missed it, you never answered my question about whether Lincoln was offering to acknowledge the independence of the states that initially seceded. My understanding is that he was not willing to do so.
If peaceful independence was rejected by the south it would change my perception of events.
reply
Since he was explicit about being willing to fight to preserve the union, why wouldn't the seceding states prepare for conflict?
The statement "fighting to preserve the union" is referring his willingness to have offered the Confederates anything to stay, except the expansion of slavery.
The Confederate belief was that he would abolish slavery and they should secede before he had the opportunity to do so.
Unless I missed it, you never answered my question about whether Lincoln was offering to acknowledge the independence of the states that initially seceded
This is a question that cannot be answered because the Confederates shot first while negotiating the surrender of property they asked for, thereby ending any possibility of Lincoln acknowledging them as independent. How can they reasonably negotiate in good faith when being shot at after offering what they wanted?
The bombardment was done by the Confederates with the intent of ending peaceful discussion.
If peaceful independence was rejected by the south
Yes.
They were offered every concession you have suggested in previous posts over decades before Lincoln's election and during the civil war, and refused concessions/shot at troops in response during negotiations.
reply
As you can tell, I'm no expert on the Civil War. However, I've never even heard the claim that Lincoln was willing to allow the south to secede. Any historian who I've heard discussing the lead up to the war has held the opposite view. Even today, people refer to the Civil War having settled the question of states' rights to secede, which certainly indicates that the war was about that.
Since one of the concessions I suggested (really the only one), is allowing the south to secede, I'm not sure what you're referencing when you say that they were offered every concession I suggested. Maybe you just mean some of the alternatives to war that I offered.
This was interesting. I'll keep your insights and arguments in mind next time I'm reading something about the Civil War.
reply
However, I've never even heard the claim that Lincoln was willing to allow the south to secede
again, not a claim that I'm making - but if Lincoln were to allow secession as you suggested, it'd be difficult for him to so without some form of negotiation with the CSA,(which was attempted) and the Confederates opened fire when that was attempted, after Fort Sumter was offered for surrender, with the stated goal of increasing the scope of the conflict.
Additionally, consider again he is only president for 4 months at this time. During this time period, multiple states have seceded. In order to pass laws, Congress must convene. The logistics of 'who is actually in Congress' and 'physically getting to DC to vote' were things that took time in the 1800s. To even decide legally to recognize them would have taken time - they were playing catch up to the Confederates that had already planned in advance before his election.
alternatives to war that I offered.
Yes. Every alternative that you offered to the war was offered in some capacity to the South, either advocated by Lincoln as congressman or president, and was rejected by them (and was actually granted to slave owning states in the North prior to the Emancipation Proclamation).
This was interesting. I'll keep your insights and arguments in mind next time I'm reading something about the Civil War.
I sincerely hope that you do, and you consider reading some of the first hand accounts of the individuals who participated in the conflict. Wikisource has a lot of their first hand documents up.
When you read the documents of the CSA, it's clear that they did not intend to be an alternative society across the border to the US but to totally replace the Union.
reply