The American Civil War

[Tmutarakhan]

The Constitution left foreign affairs to the federal government.

Foreign affairs had always been handled by the Union, going back to the Continental Congress, even before the Articles were drafted.

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

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States...

Exactly. Similarly he recognized all the Russias, viz. Volhynia, Podolia, Smolensk, Muscovy, etc. Recognizing what territories the country owns is the exact opposite of recognizing any right of the constituent parts to break away.

[Wikkiwallana]

The Constitution left foreign affairs to the federal government.

It also banned collusion amongst the States.

[Rio Cana]

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.

Not every fort.

Fort Pickens located on Santa Rosa Island at the mouth of Pensacola Harbor was not abandoned and the CSA was unable to capture it. The Port City of Pensacola was abandoned by the CSA in 1862 after they learned that New Orleans had been captured by the Union.

Fort Pickens


Fort Pickens Artillery



Location Map


Feeling that Fort McRee and Fort Barrancas would be difficult to defend, they hardly had any troops stationed there, those two forts were abandoned by the Union who sent there troops to Fort Pickens which was much easier to defend.

Fort McRee and Fort Barrancas exchanged heavy cannon fire with Fort Pickens

Fort McRee was put out of action one year later.

Map showing all the Forts guarding Pensacolas Harbor entrance -



Fort Zachary Taylor and the island of Key West, where the fort is located, also remained under Union control throughout the Civil war.

Fort Zachary Taylor Key West


Then there is Fort Jefferson on the Dry Tortugas in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. It is located 109 km or 68 miles west of Key West. It remained under Union control.

Fort Jefferson

[Rick Rollin]

85 men who were short on supplies, such a menace.

It's still a fort in the middle of the capital of the first state to secede.

Then siege 'em 'till 'em Northerners starve to death.

More Less sensible than the US Revolution. Fought more or less about some misplaced sense of unity for the slaveholders' interests, everything else is political dressing.

Corrected.

The "CSA" never existed before 1861. It could not have been provoked. And if you want to trade provocations, I think the Fugitive Slave Act went a long way toward making the South appear to be an evil bastion of darkness to the people of the North.

As Harper's Ferry and Uncle Tom's Cabin were to the slave states.

1. That guy was a justified nutcase. The South was just asking for it, by making the mid-19th Century equivalent of SOPA.
2. UTC was a result of the South's actions and did absolutely nothing to it except made them look bad, which they were.

As Harper's Ferry and Uncle Tom's Cabin were to the slave states.

True enough, there was provocation on both sides. War was still the fool's option.

The South was just asking for it.

We were starting to go off topic in the "Your favorite president?" thread so I decided to bring the conversation here.

What is your take on the Civil War? Who do you think was at fault? Was the war necessary? Was the war about slavery or state's rights? And what would side would you have supported?

I believe it was an awful war that should never have happened, the southern Rebels are at fault in my eyes.
I say that the war was over the issue of slavery and I would have fought for the Union.

Your turn, lets get this thing started. Bang. Bang.

(Image)
(Image)

Those who claim the Union was out to end slavery are also the same assholes who claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, or that "we've got to stop Joseph Kony (i.e. Bankers and War Profiteering scum)." The Civil War didn't end Slavery, it just made it more sophisticated. Why bother with owning peoples' bodies (but not their minds) when you can pretend to free them, then force them into the same position of servitude, but trick them into thinking they're free instead? Thus shackling their minds in the form of mindless mass entertainment (effectively turning them into what Orwell would call Proles) and an education system filled with pro-Government, Illumnati-made bullshit for those aren't stupid enough to fall for Prolefeed, yet too weak-minded to connect the dots.

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 he wasn't an asshole.

[Forsakia]

Democracy is founded on the consent of the governed, if this consent is lacking (for whatever reason good or bad) then they can legitimately secede. The shooting is a separate issue.

At what point do you draw the line? Is there a minimum number of people who need to be pissed about not getting their way in a democracy, or can any random individual decide that any time an election or law doesn't meet their approval they are now being governed without their consent and can just declare independence and use force to defend their sovereignty? Democracy is founded on the will of the majority, while maintaining protections for the rights of the minority, not "Any time I don't get what I want it's intolerable tyranny and they can take their democracy and stuff it!"

The short answer is I'm not sure, self-determinism gets tricky on a very small scale. I think South Carolina can be counted as big enough though.

Democracy is founded upon the will of the majority full stop. Ideally you hope that the majority will maintain protections of minorities but democracy in itself doesn't contain those protections. But essentially yes, down to if they don't like the colour of the flag or the President's favourite flavour of ice cream. Self-determinism rests upon whether the inhabitants wish to be part of a country or not, not whether others think their reasoning is valid or not.

This would be a foreign government though. What basis are they possessing the land?

Treaties, typically. You wouldn't be able to evict a foreign embassy on grounds of eminent domain, I guarantee you that.

In the case of embassies there's plenty of established precedents for sending a letter to the officials there telling them to get out of the country.

[TaQud]

The Constitution left foreign affairs to the federal government.

It also banned collusion amongst the States.

Not the best move in the constitution.

[Tmutarakhan]

It also banned collusion amongst the States.

Not the best move in the constitution.

It allows agreement among the states, just requires that they be approved by Congress. Under the Articles, any agreement among less than all of the states had to be permitted unanimously by the other states.

[Laerod]

Treaties, typically. You wouldn't be able to evict a foreign embassy on grounds of eminent domain, I guarantee you that.

In the case of embassies there's plenty of established precedents for sending a letter to the officials there telling them to get out of the country.

Which has doodly squat to do with eminent domain.

[Wikkiwallana]

It also banned collusion amongst the States.

Not the best move in the constitution.

Or a case of great foresight that was sadly ignored, depending on how you look at it.

[Forsakia]

In the case of embassies there's plenty of established precedents for sending a letter to the officials there telling them to get out of the country.

Which has doodly squat to do with eminent domain.

Which as we established was related to me mistakenly thinking you wanted to treat them as a private landholder. What do you want them treated as then.

[Laerod]

Which has doodly squat to do with eminent domain.

Which as we established was related to me mistakenly thinking you wanted to treat them as a private landholder. What do you want them treated as then.

It's not about what I want, it's about what they are. Generally, a military installation is an issue of international law or a bilateral agreement. There's instances where states own property, but military installations and embassies don't fall under this.

[Forsakia]

Which as we established was related to me mistakenly thinking you wanted to treat them as a private landholder. What do you want them treated as then.

It's not about what I want, it's about what they are. Generally, a military installation is an issue of international law or a bilateral agreement. There's instances where states own property, but military installations and embassies don't fall under this.

This whole thing started with my contention that South Carolina should and could just have told them to politely sod off out of Fort Sumter. I'm struggling to see why you don't think this would be legitimate, but that South Carolina would be required to allow a foreign power to have a military base within its territory against its will.

[Zeborg]

Good point

[Laerod]

It's not about what I want, it's about what they are. Generally, a military installation is an issue of international law or a bilateral agreement. There's instances where states own property, but military installations and embassies don't fall under this.

This whole thing started with my contention that South Carolina should and could just have told them to politely sod off out of Fort Sumter. I'm struggling to see why you don't think this would be legitimate, but that South Carolina would be required to allow a foreign power to have a military base within its territory against its will.

Because it wasn't an embassy. Besides, South Carolina had a binding agreement they needed to adhere to, and that meant that the Union could tell them to suck it after they asked for Federal property to be vacated. Just like with Cuba and Guantanamo Bay.

[Myrensis]

This whole thing started with my contention that South Carolina should and could just have told them to politely sod off out of Fort Sumter. I'm struggling to see why you don't think this would be legitimate, but that South Carolina would be required to allow a foreign power to have a military base within its territory against its will.

Because South Carolina was not recognized as a sovereign state by anybody but the rest of the Confederacy, the Union was not a "foreign power", it was the government that South Carolina was in a state of rebellion against. It would be roughly the equivalent of my declaring that my hometown is now a sovereign nation, then shooting up the local military base because they're hostile invaders and occupiers.

That's what happens when rebellions fail, you don't get to rail about international law and legal niceties, you were nothing but a treasonous rebel who was brought to heel.

Besides which the government of South Carolina had ceded that property to the Federal Government, there was no 'take backs!' clause.

[United Dependencies]

I would have fought for the confederates, but only out of loyalty to my beloved home state.

I fully recognize that the cause of slavery and illegitimage sucession were just that.

[Myrensis]

I would have fought for the confederates, but only out of loyalty to my beloved home state.

I fully recognize that the cause of slavery and illegitimage sucession were just that.

So..you know they were fighting for a horrible and illegitimate cause, but would have joined in anyway just for state pride? That kind of reasoning is what let the slaveowners convince the majority of southerners who saw little benefit from the practice throw themselves into the meatgrinder to protect their profits and social position.

[Ceannairceach]

I would have fought for the confederates, but only out of loyalty to my beloved home state.

I fully recognize that the cause of slavery and illegitimage sucession were just that.

It was for the same reason that one of the best military minds in American history fought for the Confederates as well.

He lost.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I would have fought for the confederates, but only out of loyalty to my beloved home state.

I fully recognize that the cause of slavery and illegitimage sucession were just that.

It was for the same reason that one of the best military minds in American history fought for the Confederates as well.

He lost.

We have already established why, and it wasn't because of lack of military genius.

[Tmutarakhan]

Which has doodly squat to do with eminent domain.

Which as we established was related to me mistakenly thinking you wanted to treat them as a private landholder. What do you want them treated as then.

The government of the country. You have decided to disobey the laws, so of course it bothers you that there is police station in the neighborhood. You shoot at the cops, and to your surprise, they react harshly to that.

[United Dependencies]

So..you know they were fighting for a horrible and illegitimate cause, but would have joined in anyway just for state pride? That kind of reasoning is what let the slaveowners convince the majority of southerners who saw little benefit from the practice throw themselves into the meatgrinder to protect their profits and social position.

I have different sentiments and values in regards to my home and homeland.

[United Dependencies]

It was for the same reason that one of the best military minds in American history fought for the Confederates as well.

He lost.

What's your point?

[Ceannairceach]

It was for the same reason that one of the best military minds in American history fought for the Confederates as well.

He lost.

We have already established why, and it wasn't because of lack of military genius.

Perhaps you missed the part where I admitted that he was one of the best military minds in American history, since you saw fit to reiterate.

He still lost, though, fighting for a cruel and vile cause.

[Ceannairceach]

It was for the same reason that one of the best military minds in American history fought for the Confederates as well.

He lost.

What's your point?

What's the point of fighting for the wrong side of the war, simply out of loyalty?

[The UK in Exile]

What's your point?

What's the point of fighting for the wrong side of the war, simply out of loyalty?

and doing a shit job of it to boot.