8 ms·

From the CSA's point of view, it was their fort on their land that the Union not only took but were reinforcing. It was a defensive fort at the mouth of one of

From the CSA's point of view, it was their fort on their land that the Union not only took but were reinforcing. It was a defensive fort at the mouth of one of their most important eastern seaboard harbors. A fort that if taken would prevent the CSA from getting anything shipped through there, in or out. It was considered an act of war and the CSA retaliated by shelling it for 3 days after they refused to leave, amazingly with no casualties. Interestingly, the CSA commander was a protege of Anderson (who took the fort). You can't just hand wave that away because the CSA were "the bad guys," you have to be able to view both sides of it to fully understand the war, the causes and the affects, not play favorites, and especially not view it through modern eyes. There were no laws banning secession and it was deemed illegal by the SCOTUS ex-post facto. Do you think if the Southern states thought they wouldn't be able to leave the Union when they joined in 1788 they ever would have joined in the first place? Doubtful. >There is no indication that Anderson had any desire to "invade" the south, but rather the opposite. Sure, but that act has obvious consequences. The first battle of the Civil War was Bull Run/Manassas. It was fought in Virginia because the Union troops crossed into the CSA territory to take the capitol. That's an invasion, an invasion that was the consequence of firing on Sumter, which was a consequence of Anderson taking it and Lincoln reinforcing it. Had cooler heads prevailed, we might not have had to lose 700k+ people. Although the Civil War officially began when Confederate troops shelled Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, the fighting didn’t commence in earnest until the Battle of Bull Run, fought months later in Virginia, just 25 miles from Washington D.C. Under public pressure to end the war in 90 days, President Lincoln had pushed the cautious Gen. McDowell to embark on a campaign to capture the Confederate capital in Richmond, but McDowell’s troops were stopped at Bull Run by Brig. Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard’s Rebel forces. The Federals retreated to Washington, where the Lincoln administration retooled for a war that would be waged at great human and financial cost https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/bull-run https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/bull-ru...

shkkmo 3y ago
> From the CSA's point of view, it was their fort on their land that the Union not only took but were reinforcing The union didn't take it, they already possessed it. This is also besides the point because it's hard to imagine that there wouldn't have be similar concerns about Anderson remaining in Moultrie or that there wouldn't have been issues with the numerous other coastal forts in the south that were posses the by the US army. > It was considered an act of war and the CSA retaliated by shelling it for 3 days after they refused to leave That is inaccurate. Anderson refused to leave multiple times without the refusal being taken as an "act of war". The last (4th?) time Anderson actually didn't refuse to leave, but laid out the conditions under which he would leave. Those conditions were found unacceptable so the CSA started a war. > The first battle of the Civil War was Bull Run/Manassas. It was fought in Virginia because the Union troops crossed into the CSA territory to take the capitol. While that could be considered the first battle (depending on your definition of "battle"), there were a number of escalating skirmishes leading up to Bull Run. > That's an invasion, an invasion that was the consequence of firing on Sumter, which was a consequence of Anderson taking it and Lincoln reinforcing it. Had cooler heads prevailed, we might not have had to lose 700k+ people. That's an invasion that happened AFTER the CSA started the war. Thus you simply can't say that the choice to start the war was because of that invasion. There is an argument that the CSA started the war because they feared blockades, but again, that fear lead to preemptive action by the CSA, not responsive action. > There were no laws banning secession and it was deemed illegal by the SCOTUS ex-post facto. It was not "ex-post facto" as no new law was enacted. The SCOTUS interpreted the Consitution and decided that the states had agreed to a "perpetual" union As the case Texas Vs White makes clear: > "It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?" > Do you think if the Southern states thought they wouldn't be able to leave the Union when they joined in 1788 they ever would have joined in the first place? That is not at all clear, because they did clearly agree to join a "perpetual union" when they signed the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. My understanding is that the supreme court decided it is legal for states to leave the union, but they cannot do it unilaterally. You may, of course, disagree with this decision by the Supreme Court and with its interpretation of constitutional law. That does not mean that any new "ex-post facto" law was passed.
- Clubber 3y ago
  The "perpetual union" text was in the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution, which of course replaced the AoC. When the United States Constitution replaced the Articles, nothing in it expressly stated that the Union is perpetual. Even after the Civil War, which had been fought by the U.S. to prevent eleven of the southern slave states from leaving the Union, some still questioned whether any such inviolability survived after the U.S. Constitution replaced the Articles. This uncertainty also stems from the fact that the Constitution was not ratified unanimously before going into effect, as required by the Articles (two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, had not ratified when George Washington was sworn in as the first U.S. president). The United States Supreme Court ruled on the issue in the 1869 Texas v. White case.[3] In that case, the court ruled that the drafters intended the perpetuity of the Union to survive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Union The constitution wasn't explicit and the SCOTUS hadn't ruled on it yet. It wasn't certain and could be argued either way, particularly for North Carolina. The fact that the union was perpetual was confirmed in 1869 by the SCOTUS, after secession and the war, thus ex-post-facto. Great discussion, I want to respond to your other points later.
  - shkkmo 3y ago
    > The "perpetual union" text was in the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution, which of course replaced the AoC. The constitution explicitly says that it's aim is to perfect the (perpetual) union that was established in the articles. The SCOTUS viewed that as clear evidence that the framers intended the union to be indissoluble. > after secession and the war, thus ex-post-facto. Ex-post-facto means a law that makes an act illegal that was previously legal. In this case, that is not what happened. The legality of unilateral succession wasn't fully clear until the supreme court ruled. There was no new law created, just an official confirmation that Lincoln's position was indeed what the framers had intended and what the law had been all along. You are trying to change the meaning of "ex-post-facto" to one that would apply to pretty much every SCOTUS decision ever and render the term meaningless. The confederate states could have taken a case to the supreme court to challenge Lincoln's position. Perhaps the precedent would have been different if they had. The confederate states could also have waited for Lincoln to invade or even blockade before resorting to violence. Trying to paint the confederate states as a victim is simply inaccurate. They chose the path of violence and the entire country paid the price for their desire to maintain slavery. An institution that was not only highly immoral, but also one that was doomed and that would have put them at odds with the rest of the world within half a century.

shkkmo 3y ago

> From the CSA's point of view, it was their fort on their land that the Union not only took but were reinforcing The union didn't take it, they already possessed it. This is also besides the point because it's hard to imagine that there wouldn't have be similar concerns about Anderson remaining in Moultrie or that there wouldn't have been issues with the numerous other coastal forts in the south that were posses the by the US army. > It was considered an act of war and the CSA retaliated by shelling it for 3 days after they refused to leave That is inaccurate. Anderson refused to leave multiple times without the refusal being taken as an "act of war". The last (4th?) time Anderson actually didn't refuse to leave, but laid out the conditions under which he would leave. Those conditions were found unacceptable so the CSA started a war. > The first battle of the Civil War was Bull Run/Manassas. It was fought in Virginia because the Union troops crossed into the CSA territory to take the capitol. While that could be considered the first battle (depending on your definition of "battle"), there were a number of escalating skirmishes leading up to Bull Run. > That's an invasion, an invasion that was the consequence of firing on Sumter, which was a consequence of Anderson taking it and Lincoln reinforcing it. Had cooler heads prevailed, we might not have had to lose 700k+ people. That's an invasion that happened AFTER the CSA started the war. Thus you simply can't say that the choice to start the war was because of that invasion. There is an argument that the CSA started the war because they feared blockades, but again, that fear lead to preemptive action by the CSA, not responsive action. > There were no laws banning secession and it was deemed illegal by the SCOTUS ex-post facto. It was not "ex-post facto" as no new law was enacted. The SCOTUS interpreted the Consitution and decided that the states had agreed to a "perpetual" union As the case Texas Vs White makes clear: > "It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?" > Do you think if the Southern states thought they wouldn't be able to leave the Union when they joined in 1788 they ever would have joined in the first place? That is not at all clear, because they did clearly agree to join a "perpetual union" when they signed the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. My understanding is that the supreme court decided it is legal for states to leave the union, but they cannot do it unilaterally. You may, of course, disagree with this decision by the Supreme Court and with its interpretation of constitutional law. That does not mean that any new "ex-post facto" law was passed.

Clubber 3y ago
The "perpetual union" text was in the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution, which of course replaced the AoC. When the United States Constitution replaced the Articles, nothing in it expressly stated that the Union is perpetual. Even after the Civil War, which had been fought by the U.S. to prevent eleven of the southern slave states from leaving the Union, some still questioned whether any such inviolability survived after the U.S. Constitution replaced the Articles. This uncertainty also stems from the fact that the Constitution was not ratified unanimously before going into effect, as required by the Articles (two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, had not ratified when George Washington was sworn in as the first U.S. president). The United States Supreme Court ruled on the issue in the 1869 Texas v. White case.[3] In that case, the court ruled that the drafters intended the perpetuity of the Union to survive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Union The constitution wasn't explicit and the SCOTUS hadn't ruled on it yet. It wasn't certain and could be argued either way, particularly for North Carolina. The fact that the union was perpetual was confirmed in 1869 by the SCOTUS, after secession and the war, thus ex-post-facto. Great discussion, I want to respond to your other points later.
- shkkmo 3y ago
  > The "perpetual union" text was in the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution, which of course replaced the AoC. The constitution explicitly says that it's aim is to perfect the (perpetual) union that was established in the articles. The SCOTUS viewed that as clear evidence that the framers intended the union to be indissoluble. > after secession and the war, thus ex-post-facto. Ex-post-facto means a law that makes an act illegal that was previously legal. In this case, that is not what happened. The legality of unilateral succession wasn't fully clear until the supreme court ruled. There was no new law created, just an official confirmation that Lincoln's position was indeed what the framers had intended and what the law had been all along. You are trying to change the meaning of "ex-post-facto" to one that would apply to pretty much every SCOTUS decision ever and render the term meaningless. The confederate states could have taken a case to the supreme court to challenge Lincoln's position. Perhaps the precedent would have been different if they had. The confederate states could also have waited for Lincoln to invade or even blockade before resorting to violence. Trying to paint the confederate states as a victim is simply inaccurate. They chose the path of violence and the entire country paid the price for their desire to maintain slavery. An institution that was not only highly immoral, but also one that was doomed and that would have put them at odds with the rest of the world within half a century.