The American Civil War

[Wamitoria]

And it's still an invalid point. When you attack you are the aggressor. The South attacked a fort they had no legal right to.

When you attack you are the aggressor? That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard.

You're walking down a street, when suddenly, a man jumps out of an alley. He points a gun at your face, and orders you to give him your money. Now, he doesn't hurt you, he doesn't touch you - he is just pointing the gun, with his finger on the trigger. So, you hit him in the face, knocking him down.
You, therefore, struck first. You attacked. He did not. Does that make you the aggressor?

Strawman argument. The north did not point any guns at the south until federal property was seized.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

When you attack you are the aggressor? That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard.

You're walking down a street, when suddenly, a man jumps out of an alley. He points a gun at your face, and orders you to give him your money. Now, he doesn't hurt you, he doesn't touch you - he is just pointing the gun, with his finger on the trigger. So, you hit him in the face, knocking him down.
You, therefore, struck first. You attacked. He did not. Does that make you the aggressor?

Strawman argument. The north did not point any guns at the south until federal property was seized.

You don't call supplying a fort, that was already being fed by the State of South Carolina, and was on foreign soil, with ammunition, at the entrance to an important port, pointing a gun (figuratively)?

[Zathganastan]

Oohhhhh

So attacking Fort Sumter was a mistake by of blind gunner who kept tyring to fire a warning shot?

No, they were making an impression on the occupies of the fort. Have you seen the casualty report? A Confederate horse. It wasn't an accident there were no casualties. They wanted them out, peacefully, just like every other fort in the South had been abandoned peaceably. This fort was being supplied, unnecessarily, unless it was being supplied with ammunition, which is obviously aggressive. Defending.

Oh so if I go around and shoot at people I don't want in a certain area but don't kill anyone then that's ok? Fort Sumter barely had enough men to even hold the fortification and Lincoln even informed the confederate government he was going to resupply the fort to avoid something like what happened from happening.Also I don't call letting men that were fallowing threw on the orders they had been given die as unnecessary.

[Wamitoria]

Strawman argument. The north did not point any guns at the south until federal property was seized.

You don't call supplying a fort, that was already being fed by the State of South Carolina, and was on foreign soil, with ammunition, at the entrance to an important port, pointing a gun (figuratively)?

Never got around to supplying the fort. I believe it was attacked prior to it being resupplied.

And South Carolina had cut off food at that point.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

No, they were making an impression on the occupies of the fort. Have you seen the casualty report? A Confederate horse. It wasn't an accident there were no casualties. They wanted them out, peacefully, just like every other fort in the South had been abandoned peaceably. This fort was being supplied, unnecessarily, unless it was being supplied with ammunition, which is obviously aggressive. Defending.

Oh so if I go around and shoot at people I don't want in a certain area but don't kill anyone then that's ok? Fort Sumter barely had enough men to even hold the fortification and Lincoln even informed the confederate government he was going to resupply the fort to avoid something like what happened from happening.Also I don't call letting men that were fallowing threw on the orders they had been given unnecessary.

Answer me one question - why did Lincoln send supplies to the fort?

[Nazis in Space]

[...]I believe it was an awful war that should never have happened, the southern Rebels are at fault in my eyes.[...]

Going back to the OP...

Quite the opposite. The American civil war was the last real war the United States have fought. It was the last time it wasn't just a super happy fun adventure for a few hundred thousand young men to experience abroad, but an actual war with all of its consequences not just for soldiers, but for the civilian population as well (Though considerably more so for the South than for the North). It was the real deal, not just a colonial adventure that didn't touch the average person at home outside of hearing about news from the front every now and then.

It was a healthy lesson, and it's been forgotten. The consequence of this forgetfulness - the significantly higher-than-average belligerence of American public opinion, the de-facto militarism surrounding the country resulting in hero-worship for pretty much everyone at arms et al, the resulting spiral of ever-increasing protro-fascism evolving in society - can, at least in parts, be traced to this.

Not only had the American civil war to happen, but I dare saying that America should've experienced at least one more real war since then. Unfortunately, it didn't, which brings us to the sharply divergent values between the US and Europe when it comes to soldiers and war and their role in society and politics.

It's a pity, really.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

You don't call supplying a fort, that was already being fed by the State of South Carolina, and was on foreign soil, with ammunition, at the entrance to an important port, pointing a gun (figuratively)?

Never got around to supplying the fort. I believe it was attacked prior to it being resupplied.

And South Carolina had cut off food at that point.

Because they were getting desperate! The Confederate States had already sent ambassadors to talk with the President or Secretary of State, but they wouldn't be heard! The U.S. was already determined not to let them go, and they were the aggressors, plain and simple. The Deep South States seceded after the election was found in favor of him, and the rest seceded when Lincoln attempted to force them back into the Union.

[Frisivisia]

[...]I believe it was an awful war that should never have happened, the southern Rebels are at fault in my eyes.[...]

Going back to the OP...

Quite the opposite. The American civil war was the last real war the United States have fought. It was the last time it wasn't just a super happy fun adventure for a few hundred thousand young men to experience abroad, but an actual war with all of its consequences not just for soldiers, but for the civilian population as well (Though considerably more so for the South than for the North). It was the real deal, not just a colonial adventure that didn't touch the average person at home outside of hearing about news from the front every now and then.

It was a healthy lesson, and it's been forgotten. The consequence of this forgetfulness - the significantly higher-than-average belligerence of American public opinion, the de-facto militarism surrounding the country resulting in hero-worship for pretty much everyone at arms et al, the resulting spiral of ever-increasing protro-fascism evolving in society - can, at least in parts, be traced to this.

Not only had the American civil war to happen, but I dare saying that America should've experienced at least one more real war since then. Unfortunately, it didn't, which brings us to the sharply divergent values between the US and Europe when it comes to soldiers and war and their role in society and politics.

It's a pity, really.

Erm, the World Wars were just as drastic for the civilian populace as the Civil War was. Just because a war is not fought on your land doesn't make it any less a real war.

[Myrensis]

You don't call supplying a fort, that was already being fed by the State of South Carolina, and was on foreign soil, with ammunition, at the entrance to an important port, pointing a gun (figuratively)?

Being in rebel controlled territory does not make it 'foreign soil'. Nobody other than the Confederacy recognized the Confederacy or its territorial claims, it would literally be no different from a random town today declaring itself a sovereign state then shooting up the local national guard armory for being held by 'foreign occupiers'.

[Zathganastan]

Oh so if I go around and shoot at people I don't want in a certain area but don't kill anyone then that's ok? Fort Sumter barely had enough men to even hold the fortification and Lincoln even informed the confederate government he was going to resupply the fort to avoid something like what happened from happening.Also I don't call letting men that were fallowing threw on the orders they had been given unnecessary.

Answer me one question - why did Lincoln send supplies to the fort?

Because if he didn't the fort defenders would have died of starvation or would have been over run if attacked.No matter how you look at it unless extra troops were sent in that fort couldn't even put up a very good defense little lone launch organized attacks that cause any real damage.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Answer me one question - why did Lincoln send supplies to the fort?

Because if he didn't the fort defenders would have died of starvation or would have been over run if attacked.

Starved? Nope, they were being fed by the State.

Attacked? They didn't want to attack, the fort occupiers refused (yes, at the orders of Lincoln) to leave peacefully, just as every other fort in the South had been abandoned.

[Myrensis]

Never got around to supplying the fort. I believe it was attacked prior to it being resupplied.

And South Carolina had cut off food at that point.

Because they were getting desperate! The Confederate States had already sent ambassadors to talk with the President or Secretary of State, but they wouldn't be heard! The U.S. was already determined not to let them go, and they were the aggressors, plain and simple. The Deep South States seceded after the election was found in favor of him, and the rest seceded when Lincoln attempted to force them back into the Union.

The Confederates were traitors and rebels, plain and simple. You keep talking about the Confederacy like it was an established and recognized nation that suddenly fell under the Imperialist sights of the evil United States. They were engaged in rebellion against the lawful government, they had no recognition by that government or any other, and therefore no standing to send 'ambassadors' or to negotiate anything other than their return to the lawful authority of the United States.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

You don't call supplying a fort, that was already being fed by the State of South Carolina, and was on foreign soil, with ammunition, at the entrance to an important port, pointing a gun (figuratively)?

Being in rebel controlled territory does not make it 'foreign soil'. Nobody other than the Confederacy recognized the Confederacy or its territorial claims, it would literally be no different from a random town today declaring itself a sovereign state then shooting up the local national guard armory for being held by 'foreign occupiers'.

The States (or, in the case of Virginia, Commonwealth) of North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia, had been recognized as sovereign and independent States by Great Britain. They, in turn, recognized the rest of the States.

Not recognizing "the Confederacy" as sovereign is like not recognizing NATO as sovereign. Of course it isn't! It isn't a State!

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Because they were getting desperate! The Confederate States had already sent ambassadors to talk with the President or Secretary of State, but they wouldn't be heard! The U.S. was already determined not to let them go, and they were the aggressors, plain and simple. The Deep South States seceded after the election was found in favor of him, and the rest seceded when Lincoln attempted to force them back into the Union.

The Confederates were traitors and rebels, plain and simple. You keep talking about the Confederacy like it was an established and recognized nation that suddenly fell under the Imperialist sights of the evil United States. They were engaged in rebellion against the lawful government, they had no recognition by that government or any other, and therefore no standing to send 'ambassadors' or to negotiate anything other than their return to the lawful authority of the United States.

See my post above. The Confederacy was not a nation, that is what they were trying to avoid!

[Zathganastan]

Because if he didn't the fort defenders would have died of starvation or would have been over run if attacked.

Starved? Nope, they were being fed by the State.

Attacked? They didn't want to attack, the fort occupiers refused (yes, at the orders of Lincoln) to leave peacefully, just as every other fort in the South had been abandoned.

They stopped when the realized the fort defenders wouldn't willing give up the fort so they decided to switch tactic's.

So then they had nothing to fear from that fort for like I said it poses no real threat as even with more ammunition holding the fort was all the 85 men garrison was really capable of.

[Vousielle]

The Confederates were traitors and rebels, plain and simple. You keep talking about the Confederacy like it was an established and recognized nation that suddenly fell under the Imperialist sights of the evil United States. They were engaged in rebellion against the lawful government, they had no recognition by that government or any other, and therefore no standing to send 'ambassadors' or to negotiate anything other than their return to the lawful authority of the United States.

See my post above. The Confederacy was not a nation, that is what they were trying to avoid!

But in that era, you were either a Great Power (not just a nation but an influential one) or a current/soon-to-be colony. The 'Balance of Powers' was kinda like prison, you were a nation or you were somebody else's bitch. Without being recognized as a nation, the Confederacy had zero legitimacy on the world stage, just a rebellious polity to be re-absorbed by the legitimate government (this is how they would have been seen globally.) If any other country recognized them as literally anything other than that, it would have been a declaration of war against the U.S.

[Myrensis]

Being in rebel controlled territory does not make it 'foreign soil'. Nobody other than the Confederacy recognized the Confederacy or its territorial claims, it would literally be no different from a random town today declaring itself a sovereign state then shooting up the local national guard armory for being held by 'foreign occupiers'.

The States (or, in the case of Virginia, Commonwealth) of North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia, had been recognized as sovereign and independent States by Great Britain. They, in turn, recognized the rest of the States.

Not recognizing "the Confederacy" as sovereign is like not recognizing NATO as sovereign. Of course it isn't! It isn't a State!

Please to find one word from Great Britain recognizing the sovereignty or independence of the Confederacy or any State within it post, say, 1850? Or even better, post secession. You won't find it. I'll even make it easier, name the ambassadors of Great Britain to Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia from 1783 to 1860. Any relevant treaties signed between those states and Great Britain in the same time period?

[Tmutarakhan]

The Deep South States seceded after the election was found in favor of him

I declared the laws no longer apply to me, since they just passed a law that I don't like. And a policeman has the nerve to keep driving his cop car in my neighborhood!!! Obviously I had to shoot him, pure self-defense.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

The States (or, in the case of Virginia, Commonwealth) of North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia, had been recognized as sovereign and independent States by Great Britain. They, in turn, recognized the rest of the States.

Not recognizing "the Confederacy" as sovereign is like not recognizing NATO as sovereign. Of course it isn't! It isn't a State!

Please to find one word from Great Britain recognizing the sovereignty or independence of the Confederacy or any State within it post, say, 1850? Or even better, post secession. You won't find it. I'll even make it easier, name the ambassadors of Great Britain to Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia from 1783 to 1860. Any relevant treaties signed between those states and Great Britain in the same time period?

The Constitution left foreign affairs to the federal government.

King George III's Recognition of the States as Sovereign and Independent:

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety, and Territorial Rights of the same and every Part thereof.

[Tmutarakhan]

Going back to the OP...

Quite the opposite. The American civil war was the last real war the United States have fought. It was the last time it wasn't just a super happy fun adventure for a few hundred thousand young men to experience abroad, but an actual war with all of its consequences not just for soldiers, but for the civilian population as well (Though considerably more so for the South than for the North). It was the real deal, not just a colonial adventure that didn't touch the average person at home outside of hearing about news from the front every now and then.

It was a healthy lesson, and it's been forgotten. The consequence of this forgetfulness - the significantly higher-than-average belligerence of American public opinion, the de-facto militarism surrounding the country resulting in hero-worship for pretty much everyone at arms et al, the resulting spiral of ever-increasing protro-fascism evolving in society - can, at least in parts, be traced to this.

Not only had the American civil war to happen, but I dare saying that America should've experienced at least one more real war since then. Unfortunately, it didn't, which brings us to the sharply divergent values between the US and Europe when it comes to soldiers and war and their role in society and politics.

It's a pity, really.

Erm, the World Wars were just as drastic for the civilian populace as the Civil War was. Just because a war is not fought on your land doesn't make it any less a real war.

The point is, it wasn't "real" in that way for Americans.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Erm, the World Wars were just as drastic for the civilian populace as the Civil War was. Just because a war is not fought on your land doesn't make it any less a real war.

The point is, it wasn't "real" in that way for Americans.

True. Americans haven't experienced war on their soul since the 1860's.

[Myrensis]

King George III's Recognition of the States as Sovereign and Independent:

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety, and Territorial Rights of the same and every Part thereof.

the Articles of Confederation, which were in effect when the Treaty of Paris was signed, were superseded by the Constitution, which all of the Southern states were signatory to, which clearly subordinated the States to the Federal Government, and defined which powers each retained. I'm still waiting for any whisper of recognition of the sovereignty of those states by Great Britain or anyone else following adoption of the Constitution or the Secession.

Your argument is basically, "Well, 80 years before under a different system of government that was abandoned for being unworkable King George said they were sovereign states, so obviously that applies forever!"

[Tmutarakhan]

Cuba never owned that land. Spain did. We gave independence to Cuba, and if they don't like the way we did it, they can revert to Spain.

Not necessarily the point. Cuba recognized the right of the US to lease the land and there's a binding contract that the Castro regime, as the successor to the Batista regime, is bound by, regardless of whether they were involved in the process of drafting it or not. Treaties and agreements don't just get revoked simply because there's a change in management. Sometimes it becomes impractical to enforce them, but that doesn't make breaking them any less illegal.
(Sorry if I'm using your post as a springboard here.)

I'm just saying that it is not actually a good analogy here. No "Cuban" regime has ever had possession of Guantanamo. We could have declared that we were giving independence to the island of Cuba except for the Guantanamo region which we were annexing; instead we said we were considering Guantanamo to be "Cuban" territory but reserving to ourselves the right to "lease" it until we didn't want it anymore. If ever we do vacate, it will not be giving Guantanamo "back" to Cuba, but letting Cuba have it for the first time. This is not like Sumter, where South Carolina freely agreed to let the US own the land outright.

[Laerod]

No, they were making an impression on the occupies of the fort. Have you seen the casualty report? A Confederate horse. It wasn't an accident there were no casualties. They wanted them out, peacefully, just like every other fort in the South had been abandoned peaceably. This fort was being supplied, unnecessarily, unless it was being supplied with ammunition, which is obviously aggressive. Defending.

So every time we resupply Guantanamo Bay, it's a cause for war? Don't answer that, it's a rhetorical question and the obvious answer is "no". The Federal Government has and had the right to do silly things like resupplying military outposts.

When you attack you are the aggressor? That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard.

You're walking down a street, when suddenly, a man jumps out of an alley. He points a gun at your face, and orders you to give him your money. Now, he doesn't hurt you, he doesn't touch you - he is just pointing the gun, with his finger on the trigger. So, you hit him in the face, knocking him down.
You, therefore, struck first. You attacked. He did not. Does that make you the aggressor?

Robbing someone is an attack, ergo the robber is the aggressor. Not sure why you'd bring this up though, since it has absolutely nothing to do with the Civil War or Ft. Sumter.

You don't call supplying a fort, that was already being fed by the State of South Carolina, and was on foreign soil, with ammunition, at the entrance to an important port, pointing a gun (figuratively)?

No. Not even in such a fictional scenario as you brought up.

[Laerod]

Oh so if I go around and shoot at people I don't want in a certain area but don't kill anyone then that's ok? Fort Sumter barely had enough men to even hold the fortification and Lincoln even informed the confederate government he was going to resupply the fort to avoid something like what happened from happening.Also I don't call letting men that were fallowing threw on the orders they had been given unnecessary.

Answer me one question - why did Lincoln send supplies to the fort?

To resupply a federal installation near hostile forces that were threatening it. Which he had every right to do.

The States (or, in the case of Virginia, Commonwealth) of North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia, had been recognized as sovereign and independent States by Great Britain. They, in turn, recognized the rest of the States.

Not recognizing "the Confederacy" as sovereign is like not recognizing NATO as sovereign. Of course it isn't! It isn't a State!

This has got to be the dumbest thing you've posted yet.