I'm not racist, but....

[RZehr]

People who start wars of choice rarely see them end the way that they expected. Especially when they start them based on lies. It wasn't just the Confederates. Witness Germany in 1914 and 1939, Japan in 1941, The Palestinians and their Arab allies in 1948, 1967, and 1973. The US in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. And now the Russians in Ukraine. All wars of choice premised on lies.

European Americans completely conquered the native Americans by choice, from Canada to Argentina. The Western Hemisphere essentially speaks English, Spanish and Portuguese. Mayans, Aztecs, Incas, conquered and are now conquered. Australian, and NZ aren't run by the historical people either. All wars of choice.

Further back we have all the Roman and Ottoman empires that lasted hundreds of years. Mongols.

Yes, in the pre-modern era you had absolutely MASSIVE inequities in technology and organization when primitive societies encountered advanced societies. That was the case in the conquest of the Americas as well as the Roman empire. Those weren't wars between equal states.

Today that isn't the case. The US might have thought it was the case in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan but they discovered otherwise. As the Russians are discovering in Ukraine today. And as the Confederates discovered during the Civil War when they convinced themselves that their martial traditions and valor could beat industrial armies full of immigrants.

Russia helped themselves to Georgian land a few years back. And how did China come to own Tibet?

[Soloist]

Interestingly enough, it was South Carolina which attacked the fort following letters to the president seeking a peaceful resolution

" You say that the fort was garrisoned for our protection, and is held for the same purposes for which it has been ever held since its construction. Are you not aware, that to hold, in the territory of a foreign power, a fortress against her will, avowedly for the purpose of protecting her citizens, is, perhaps, the highest insult which one Government can offer to another ? But Fort Sumter was never garrisoned at all until South Carolina had dissolved her connection with your Government. This garrison entered it at night, with every circumstance of secrecy, after spiking the guns and burning the gun-carriages, and cutting down the flag-stafif of an adjacent fort, which was then abandoned. South Carolina had not taken Fort Sumter into her own possession, only because of her misplaced confidence m a Government which deceived her. A fortress occupied under the circumstances above stated, is considered by you not only as no cause of irritation, but you represent it as held for our protection !

" Your Excellency's Secretary has indulged in irony on a very grave subject. As to the responsibility for consequences, if indeed, it does rest on us, I can assure your Excellency we are happily unconscious of the fact.

" I return to Charleston to-morrow. With considerations of high regard,
" I am, very respectfully,

" J. W. Hayne,
" Special Envoy

South Carolina seceded on December 20th 1860
Request for diplomatic resolution for Fort Sumpter sought on Jan 12 1861
Intention to resupply the fort planned Jan 30th 1861
South Carolina was one of the founding members of Confederacy on Feb 1861 in response to intended resupply of fort
Shots fired after diplomatic recourse failed and Union attempted to reinforce and resupply the fort which was dissuaded by cadets
April 12 1861 the fort was attacked and taken.

From his letters and reports to the War Department, it was confidently believed that Major Anderson felt himself to be wholly equal to his position, and although the President and his Cabinet had determined that reinforcements should be made ready, and promptly sent to him in case of need, they were at this time under no immediate anxiety as to his safety.

But with the departure of the envoy, the President felt that he was no longer bound by the obligation imposed by the " truce,** and he proceeded to put on foot an expedition for immediately reinforcing Fort Sumter, and in regard to which a council consisting of the Secretaries of War and the Navy, accompanied by General Scott, had been requested to meet the President on the 30th of January, the day upon which the demand of the Government for the surrender of Fort Sumter had been made upon him.

But the subject of reinforcing Fort Sumter immediately had earnestly engaged the attention of certain members of the Cabinet whose influence with the President was potential

From this, we can conclude that South Carolina sought a peaceful resolution, and voted to start the Confederacy after negotiations broke down and the President launched resupply mission and taking that as an act of military aggression (which only a stupid person would not see foreign military within a shipping lane of your territory as a bad thing)
So, who started the war? the President who sent troops and ammunition to fortify the fort? or the Confeds who took the fort?

There is more nuance here then simply saying the South attacked the North.

[Ken]

From this, we can conclude that South Carolina sought a peaceful resolution, and voted to start the Confederacy after negotiations broke down and the President launched resupply mission and taking that as an act of military aggression (which only a stupid person would not see foreign military within a shipping lane of your territory as a bad thing)
So, who started the war? the President who sent troops and ammunition to fortify the fort? or the Confeds who took the fort?

There is more nuance here then simply saying the South attacked the North.

1. There was no legal avenue for secession under the Constitution. None. It was not legal. Nor was it recognized by any other nation.
2. Fort Sumpter was not South Carolina territory. South Carolina ceded it to the United States in 1836. So firing on Fort Sumpter was the equivalent of say Cuba firing on the US base in Guantanamo. Or Spain firing on the British base in Gibraltar.

[Soloist]

1. There was no legal avenue for secession under the Constitution. None. It was not legal. Nor was it recognized by any other nation.
2. Fort Sumpter was not South Carolina territory. South Carolina ceded it to the United States in 1836. So firing on Fort Sumpter was the equivalent of say Cuba firing on the US base in Guantanamo. Or Spain firing on the British base in Gibraltar.

Those are both separate from it.

Why did the Union spike the guns and destroy the mounts of the second fort before war actually broke out?

[temporal1]

There is more nuance here then simply saying the South attacked the North.

i believe this is honest in most if not all earthly conflicts.
i believe Jesus brought this message to mankind for all time, in more direct, less tender language.

from what you share on forum, i don’t know you elsewhere, i respect your pov, life experience, and life choices.

[Ken]

1. There was no legal avenue for secession under the Constitution. None. It was not legal. Nor was it recognized by any other nation.
2. Fort Sumpter was not South Carolina territory. South Carolina ceded it to the United States in 1836. So firing on Fort Sumpter was the equivalent of say Cuba firing on the US base in Guantanamo. Or Spain firing on the British base in Gibraltar.

Those are both separate from it.

Why did the Union spike the guns and destroy the mounts of the second fort before war actually broke out?

Because that is what you do in war if you are making a strategic retreat.

I'm not sure why you are so insistent on making the a-historical argument that it wasn't the South that brought the nation into Civil War. At every step of the way, President Lincoln and the United States tried to head it off.

[Soloist]

Because that is what you do in war if you are making a strategic retreat.

I'm not sure why you are so insistent on making the a-historical argument that it wasn't the South that brought the nation into Civil War. At every step of the way, President Lincoln and the United States tried to head it off.

I don’t overly care, but I think you need to reread the history. They destroyed the weapons of the fort next to fort sumpter before a shot was ever fired. That fort was owned by the state.
That is an act of war under any traditional understanding. The forts were not manned prior to the Union showing up to occupy the fort.
Perhaps it wasn’t shooting or causing death, but I would wager a guess if anyone did that to us we would be at war.
I don’t care to continue this but my point is the declaration of war was more complicated then an act of Southern aggression.

[ken_sylvania]

We can certainly make moral judgments about the reasons why societies go to war. The civil war was launched by the south. They told us exactly why. The defense of and expansion of race-based slavery. And it was folly from the start as General Sherman pointed out to southern politicians in New Orleans on the eve of the war

Why did the north go to war? Did they have a more righteous purpose than the south?

Initially because it (the United States) was attacked and to defend the union and and nation and constitution against a minority insurrection. And yes, the confederates were in a minority even within the south. They were just a minority that held power.

Later as the war evolved it became a war of abolition and liberation.

Humph, I'm sure that if Putin had sent soldiers to Kiev you would have said he started the war even if Ukraine fired the first shot.

Sounds a lot like the American Revolutionary war... a minority who held power...

... in the case of the Civil War the north fought to maintain the power of the US government over the southern states in violation of their claimed principle that governments obtain their authority from the consent of those governed.

Lincoln and his generals certainly had a cruel way of defending the people of the south from the "minority insurrection." Since when do you deal with a minority insurrection by burning the cities, raping the countryside, burning the crops and farms and starving the people?

Which, btw, it seems they didn't even manage to keep the southern states in the union.

[Ken]

Why did the north go to war? Did they have a more righteous purpose than the south?

Initially because it (the United States) was attacked and to defend the union and and nation and constitution against a minority insurrection. And yes, the confederates were in a minority even within the south. They were just a minority that held power.

Later as the war evolved it became a war of abolition and liberation.

Humph, I'm sure that if Putin had sent soldiers to Kiev you would have said he started the war even if Ukraine fired the first shot.

Sounds a lot like the American Revolutionary war... a minority who held power...

... in the case of the Civil War the north fought to maintain the power of the US government over the southern states in violation of their claimed principle that governments obtain their authority from the consent of those governed.

Lincoln and his generals certainly had a cruel way of defending the people of the south from the "minority insurrection." Since when do you deal with a minority insurrection by burning the cities, raping the countryside, burning the crops and farms and starving the people?

Which, btw, it seems they didn't even manage to keep the southern states in the union.

You are citing the Ukraine war? You do realize the actual Russian invasion was preceded by Russian missile strikes across Ukraine. Russian bombs and missiles were falling on Kyiv before Russian troops got there. No question about who started the war.

As for this business of the “consent of the governed?” That is a bit rich coming from South Carolina. According to the 1860 census, South Carolina has a white population of 291,000 and a black population of 412,000. Did the “governed” of South Carolina truly grant the state government the authority to secede in order to preserve and expand slavery? How many South Carolinians were actually allowed to vote for the legislature that decided to secede? The number is less than 10%. Over 90% had no say at all much less gave any consent to secession and war.

The fact is that a majority of South Carolinians celebrated the Union invasion and union victory and continue to celebrate it to this day: By the end of the war over 10% of the union army composed black soldiers, mostly former slaves, who were fighting for their freedom and for the freedom of their families.

Here are the First South Carolina Volunteers celebrating victory in Charlestown where the war started. None of these South Carolinians gave their consent to secession in the furtherance of slavery.

[ken_sylvania]

Initially because it (the United States) was attacked and to defend the union and and nation and constitution against a minority insurrection. And yes, the confederates were in a minority even within the south. They were just a minority that held power.

Later as the war evolved it became a war of abolition and liberation.

Humph, I'm sure that if Putin had sent soldiers to Kiev you would have said he started the war even if Ukraine fired the first shot.

Sounds a lot like the American Revolutionary war... a minority who held power...

... in the case of the Civil War the north fought to maintain the power of the US government over the southern states in violation of their claimed principle that governments obtain their authority from the consent of those governed.

Lincoln and his generals certainly had a cruel way of defending the people of the south from the "minority insurrection." Since when do you deal with a minority insurrection by burning the cities, raping the countryside, burning the crops and farms and starving the people?

Which, btw, it seems they didn't even manage to keep the southern states in the union.

You are citing the Ukraine war? You do realize the actual Russian invasion was preceded by Russian missile strikes across Ukraine. Russian bombs and missiles were falling on Kyiv before Russian troops got there. No question about who started the war.

You didn't even try to understand what I wrote, did you.

As for this business of the “consent of the governed?” That is a bit rich coming from South Carolina. According to the 1860 census, South Carolina has a white population of 291,000 and a black population of 412,000. Did the “governed” of South Carolina truly grant the state government the authority to secede in order to preserve and expand slavery? How many South Carolinians were actually allowed to vote for the legislature that decided to secede? The number is less than 10%. Over 90% had no say at all much less gave any consent to secession and war.

The fact is that a majority of South Carolinians celebrated the Union invasion and union victory and continue to celebrate it to this day: By the end of the war over 10% of the union army composed black soldiers, mostly former slaves, who were fighting for their freedom and for the freedom of their families.

Here are the First South Carolina Volunteers celebrating victory in Charlestown where the war started. None of these South Carolinians gave their consent to secession in the furtherance of slavery.

And so Lincoln sent his volunteers to butcher the Virginians.... and the civilians came along with their picnic baskets to watch the show....
Well, OK then.
BTW, I suggest you take a little more time to make sure your info is accurate. That engraving seems to have pre-dated Robert E. Lee's surrender at Appomattox by more than two years.