3 ms·

> Lincoln, then, decided he should call on the remaining states to build one of the largest armies assembled by the federal goverment to forcibly take back sou

> Lincoln, then, decided he should call on the remaining states to build one of the largest armies assembled by the federal goverment to forcibly take back south carolina. This extereme overreaction to the situation is the well known historical reason why the rest of the states promptly left the union in its fear of the clear millitary power grab that was occuring before their eyes. Interesting claim, but it doesn't hold up. The battle of Ft. Sumpter started in April 1861. South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas had already seceded. Only Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee waited until after the battle. > Did he use trade embargoes like a peace seeking consolidator would? He wasn't looking to be a piece seeking consolidator, he was looking to put down a revolt. You're welcome to make the argument that actually it would have been better realpolitik to appease the southern states. In fact, I'd love to see that argument!

piethesailorman 4y ago
Fair! My mistake, a little less than half of the states seceded due to the problem I addressed of excessive force which you have not discredited or properly justified. Again your second paragraph attacks a small technicality. Your saying destroying a run down building on a sandbar is the same as conquering a 32000 square miles? Or are you saying that ignoring the definitions found in all english dictionaries is null and void for this specific use case? Seperating from a definitional union is not a revolt. If my wife leaves me do i get to threaten her with violence and then beat her if she refuses, then chain her permanently to me?
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  I suggest you read something as basic as the Wikipedia article on sumpter, basically everything you've said about it is wrong, and I'm wholly uninterested in discussing this with someone from an alternate timeline. What I will say is first, that trying to equate families and countries is rarely valid, and this case is no exception (declaring yourself divorced, for example, does not make it so, and if you take certain actions after unilaterally claiming your union is solved, your partner would be within their rights to invite state force against you!). And second, that yes, firing cannons on soldiers is usually considered an act of war. Everyone involved knew that, the confederacy was already gearing up for war and some think that SC's intent was specifically to provoke a war. So your argument that it was just friendly ribbing doesn't really stand to scrutiny. Your just pushing transparent confederate propaganda at this point. Stop apologizing for traitors and insurrectionists.
  - piethesailorman 4y ago
    - joshuamorton 4y ago
      I mean no, I trust accurate historical sources. I'm just saying the stuff you're spouting is so completely obviously off base that it's directly contradicted by Wikipedia. Like you're not even trying to go for a thing that is debated. Literally no one pushes the story your telling, you've made it up! I cannot find anything, anything that corroborates any of the stuff you're saying. Sumter wasn't empty when shelled. The reinforcements were sent before Lincoln took office. No one was kicked out at bayonet point. You've created confederate fanfiction! > the north building a massive army and killing people to conquer northern virginia. Like how you're pretending the south wasn't also building an army at the same time! Lol.
      - piethesailorman 4y ago
        Its is so far past midnight where I am, Ill come back tomorrow to find sources better than a quick google search can provide. You are right, I jumped the gun on its occupation, thank you for calling me out on that. I think it was the lack of casualties and the fact I have read sources speaking to the intent of SC on damaging the fort and causing a fire storm was its strategy rather than the desire to cause casualties. Perhaps tomorrows search will prove my memory incorrect on that as well. But as for your last question. Where were the southern armamets being built up? Are you speaking to south carolina defending a marginal island fort just outside its own port? Does the third ammendment not strike a resemblance here? How could sc stand idle when a now foreign army is sneaking in just outside their major port in the middle of the night not be of major concern? Especially since it was unoccupied by the federal government, and james buchanan agreed to not have it taken. Its not like south carolina was sending boats to blockade washigton dc or new york or boston. Have I mistaken that stance? The south was segregated by states. Was another state building up forces on the border of pennsylvannia? Ohio? or even illinois? I genuinely have not heard of this and would appreciate tips!

piethesailorman 4y ago

Fair! My mistake, a little less than half of the states seceded due to the problem I addressed of excessive force which you have not discredited or properly justified. Again your second paragraph attacks a small technicality. Your saying destroying a run down building on a sandbar is the same as conquering a 32000 square miles? Or are you saying that ignoring the definitions found in all english dictionaries is null and void for this specific use case? Seperating from a definitional union is not a revolt. If my wife leaves me do i get to threaten her with violence and then beat her if she refuses, then chain her permanently to me?

joshuamorton 4y ago
I suggest you read something as basic as the Wikipedia article on sumpter, basically everything you've said about it is wrong, and I'm wholly uninterested in discussing this with someone from an alternate timeline. What I will say is first, that trying to equate families and countries is rarely valid, and this case is no exception (declaring yourself divorced, for example, does not make it so, and if you take certain actions after unilaterally claiming your union is solved, your partner would be within their rights to invite state force against you!). And second, that yes, firing cannons on soldiers is usually considered an act of war. Everyone involved knew that, the confederacy was already gearing up for war and some think that SC's intent was specifically to provoke a war. So your argument that it was just friendly ribbing doesn't really stand to scrutiny. Your just pushing transparent confederate propaganda at this point. Stop apologizing for traitors and insurrectionists.
- piethesailorman 4y ago
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    I mean no, I trust accurate historical sources. I'm just saying the stuff you're spouting is so completely obviously off base that it's directly contradicted by Wikipedia. Like you're not even trying to go for a thing that is debated. Literally no one pushes the story your telling, you've made it up! I cannot find anything, anything that corroborates any of the stuff you're saying. Sumter wasn't empty when shelled. The reinforcements were sent before Lincoln took office. No one was kicked out at bayonet point. You've created confederate fanfiction! > the north building a massive army and killing people to conquer northern virginia. Like how you're pretending the south wasn't also building an army at the same time! Lol.
    - piethesailorman 4y ago
      Its is so far past midnight where I am, Ill come back tomorrow to find sources better than a quick google search can provide. You are right, I jumped the gun on its occupation, thank you for calling me out on that. I think it was the lack of casualties and the fact I have read sources speaking to the intent of SC on damaging the fort and causing a fire storm was its strategy rather than the desire to cause casualties. Perhaps tomorrows search will prove my memory incorrect on that as well. But as for your last question. Where were the southern armamets being built up? Are you speaking to south carolina defending a marginal island fort just outside its own port? Does the third ammendment not strike a resemblance here? How could sc stand idle when a now foreign army is sneaking in just outside their major port in the middle of the night not be of major concern? Especially since it was unoccupied by the federal government, and james buchanan agreed to not have it taken. Its not like south carolina was sending boats to blockade washigton dc or new york or boston. Have I mistaken that stance? The south was segregated by states. Was another state building up forces on the border of pennsylvannia? Ohio? or even illinois? I genuinely have not heard of this and would appreciate tips!