Here's why the soft civil war will go hot...

[Cypress]

Maybe. As Chaz pointed out, South Carolina was a different country and the Fort was on their territory. The Feds were given plenty of notice to leave.

Note that not all states seceded at once. Some didn't secede until after the fall of Fort Sumter, some after Lincoln invaded Virginia. Note that Virginia never attacked Fort Sumter, yet Lincoln attacked them anyway solely because they seceded. Invading a country is an act of war.

https://www.ushistory.org/us/32e.asp

https://www.ushistory.org/us/33.asp

The U.S. constitution explicitly gives the federal government the authority to use military force to suppress insurrections

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Dutch Uncle,

Not sure what is slippery. Correct; that's what secession means.

Then Lincoln did not order troops to attack any US States. He ordered them to attack subversive forces.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The U.S. constitution explicitly gives the federal government the authority to use military force to suppress insurrections

Correct. But the states which seceded were not "insurrectionists", the CSA was a different country as Chaz pointed out:

They declared themselves to be a separate country. They were no more "American" than are Canadians or Argentinians.

We didn't permit Revolutionary France and Great Britain to impress our sailors, Imperial Germany to attack our shipping, or Imperial Japan to attack our naval bases. There's no reason why we should have allowed the CSA to attack our forts, just because there are still people who are bitter that America won that particular war.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Hello Dutch Uncle,

Then Lincoln did not order troops to attack any US States. He ordered them to attack subversive forces.

Disagreed. He invaded an innocent country - Virginia. Virginia's only "crime" was seceding and being associated with South Carolina which at attacked Fort Sumter. It's like Trump ordering the arrests of innocent BLM protesters because one or two others threw a rock at a Federal building.

Let's be honest: Lincoln is on record going to war to drag the secessionist states back into the Union by force. It was no more about slavery than Bush invading Iraq was about "to free those people".

 

[Cypress]

Correct. But the states which seceded were not "insurrectionists", the CSA was a different country as Chaz pointed out:

I have consistently said the Confederates claimed they were a separate country - but I stand with our great president Lincoln that irrespective of their claims, they were actually rebels and traitors engaged in insurrection

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Dutch Uncle,

Disagreed. He invaded an innocent country - Virginia. Virginia's only "crime" was seceding and being associated with South Carolina which at attacked Fort Sumter. It's like Trump ordering the arrests of innocent BLM protesters because one or two others threw a rock at a Federal building.

Let's be honest: Lincoln is on record going to war to drag the secessionist states back into the Union by force. It was no more about slavery than Bush invading Iraq was about "to free those people".

I'm glad Lincoln did that. A split USA may have never saved the world from Hitler.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Hello Dutch Uncle,

I'm glad Lincoln did that. A split USA may have never saved the world from Hitler.

That's the funny thing about alternative timelines: There's no guarantee that Hitler would have existed as more than a failed painter and ex-soldier in a world with a US and a CSA. Without the US intact, Wilson probably wouldn't have sent the large army he had to WWI and pushed the war in favor of the Allies. If that didn't happen, then the Treaty of Versailles wouldn't happen. The war could have gone on for another 5 years or simply ended in stalemate and a peace treaty. No Hitler.

WWII was really WWI Part Deux because of the Versailles Treaty.

FWIW, I think by the 20th Century enough Americans would be pushing for reunification of the States, especially if slavery had been overtaken by machinery and finally abolished by Southern Christians themselves.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I have consistently said the Confederates claimed they were a separate country - but I stand with our great president Lincoln that irrespective of their claims, they were actually rebels and traitors engaged in insurrection

Of course you do. That's what all Yankees are taught. They're also taught the war was about slavery and only about slavery and that Lincoln freed all the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation.

 

[Cypress]

Of course you do. That's what all Yankees are taught. They're also taught the war was about slavery and only about slavery and that Lincoln freed all the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation.

But you are putting words in my mouth. I actually have recent posts here articulating who I think deserves moral credit for the abolition of slavery.

Being an independent nation requires international legitimacy. No major country on the planet recognized the Confederate States of America as a nation, or sent ambassadors to Richmond.

The Confederate leaders claimed to be a separate nation, but the facts are that they were rebels engaging in insurrection against the United States. And that gave Abraham Lincoln full authority under the U.S. constitution to use military force to suppress the insurrection.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

But you are putting words in my mouth. I actually have recent posts here articulating who I think deserves moral credit for the abolition of slavery.

Being an independent nation requires international legitimacy. No major country on the planet recognized the Confederate States of America as a nation, or sent ambassadors to Richmond.

The Confederate leaders claimed to be a separate nation, but the facts are that they were rebels engaging in insurrection against the United States. And that gave Abraham Lincoln full authority under the U.S. constitution to use military force to suppress the insurrection.

Irrelevant. You're applying 21st century standards to a mid-19th century event.

Of course Lincoln saw it that way. How else could he justify invading an innocent state and kicking off a war that killed 700,000 Americans?

 

[Guno צְבִי]

That's the funny thing about alternative timelines: There's no guarantee that Hitler would have existed as more than a failed painter and ex-soldier in a world with a US and a CSA. Without the US intact, Wilson probably wouldn't have sent the large army he had to WWI and pushed the war in favor of the Allies. If that didn't happen, then the Treaty of Versailles wouldn't happen. The war could have gone on for another 5 years or simply ended in stalemate and a peace treaty. No Hitler.

WWII was really WWI Part Deux because of the Versailles Treaty.

FWIW, I think by the 20th Century enough Americans would be pushing for reunification of the States, especially if slavery had been overtaken by machinery and finally abolished by Southern Christians themselves.

And when slavery was abolished the southern Christians instituted Jim crow,

just look to the corner stone speech on slavery as to why the civil war

In his March 21, 1861, Cornerstone Speech, Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens presents what he believes are the reasons for what he termed was a "revolution." This revolution resulted in the American Civil War. Stephens's speech is remembered by many for its defense of slavery, its outlining of the perceived differences between the North and the South, and the racial rhetoric used to show the inferiority of African Americans. A few weeks after the speech, on April 12, 1861, Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, initiating the American Civil War.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornerstone-speech

 

[Dutch Uncle]

And when slavery was abolished the southern Christians instituted Jim crow,

just look to the corner stone speech on slavery as to why the civil war

In his March 21, 1861, Cornerstone Speech, Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens presents what he believes are the reasons for what he termed was a "revolution." This revolution resulted in the American Civil War. Stephens's speech is remembered by many for its defense of slavery, its outlining of the perceived differences between the North and the South, and the racial rhetoric used to show the inferiority of African Americans. A few weeks after the speech, on April 12, 1861, Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, initiating the American Civil War.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornerstone-speech

Southerners claiming to be Christians or following a skewed version of it to be sure. Also, let's not forget that, like Newton's Third Law of Motion, that human society often operates "for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction". In this case the tragedy of Reconstruction. Had Lincoln not been assassinated by a handful of nutjobs, I think Lincoln would have overseen a firm but fair reconstruction of the South similar to what Marshall did in Germany and MacArthur did in Japan. As it was, after Lincoln's assassination, the North treated the South the same way the Euros treated Germany after the Treaty of Versailles. That, in itself caused a reaction and I believe part of that reaction was to blame African-Americans for Southern woes.

Obviously there will always be nutjobs who are racist assholes and quick to blame others for their own problems just because the others have a different skin-tone or different religion. When it becomes a majority opinion that tells me there is something else going on. IMO, it's reaction to Reconstruction and the still-common views Northerners have about Southerners.

Guno, you're certainly smart enough to see Northerners treat Southerners as less than human. Why do you think that is? Is it righteous? Based on sciences? Genes? Why is it okay for Northerners to shit all over Southerners but its not okay to fat-shame someone on Twitter?

 

[Minister of Truth]

Bigotry. Why are people living in southern States 'degenerate people'? Fuck you.

America is not a government. It is a continent. I have no more patience with you. Your continued denial of the United States and its constitution YOUR problem. The fort in question was NOT a U.S. fort. Fuck you.

They were in 1860, when supposedly married men were raping their slaves.

The only people denying the Constitution were the states that seceded. America is a people. It's what you call citizens of the US.

I know we've already established that Confederates did not honour contracts, but, Ft Sumter was an American fort.

 

[Into the Night]

Hello Dutch Uncle,



#24 should be #1

Deciding to completely ignore the necessity of guns and insult gun owners, eh jerk?

 

[Into the Night]

Hello Dutch Uncle,



Calling the Civil War by that term does not demonstrate loyalty to the United States of America.

Why should it? The Confederacy was not loyal to the United States of America. Why should they be? They seceded from the Union. Figure out this VERY basic fact of life, twit.

 

[Into the Night]

Hello Dutch Uncle,



Attacking Fort Sumter was an act of war.

Yes. Yes it was. So was the Union army occupying troops in a foreign nation, and attempting to resupply them. There were a lot of acts of war in the War of Secession. That's war, you know. Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about, dumbass?

 

[Walt]

Yes. Yes it was. So was the Union army occupying troops in a foreign nation, and attempting to resupply them. There were a lot of acts of war in the War of Secession. That's war, you know. Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about, dumbass?

So you are saying that Cuba should attack Gitmo?

The fact is that the Confederacy committed an act of war. Fort Sumter was legitimate and put there with the permission of South Carolina. If they wanted a new agreement, they should have discussed it. Instead, they attacked the USA.

Why did the Confederacy attack the USA? Many in the South did not want to leave the USA, so the Confederacy needed a war to force people into picking sides.

The Confederacy was started to defend slavery, and it started the Civil War to defend slavery. Those are just the facts.

 

[Into the Night]

The problem is we are so mixed. People of all views live in all States. There is no clear demarcation at which to draw the lines of battle.

War does not need demarcated lines of battle, idiot. Apparently you have never heard of guerilla warfare.

Some kooks may decide to start shooting somewhere, and then law enforcement will move in to restore order.

What law enforcement? They've been defunded and demoralized. Portland has been rioting for over two months. 150 rounds went into an apartment complex. Two kids were shot in their yard while playing. Think about that, idiot.

Anyone who thinks we are 'at a tipping point' and that 'all it takes is for the first bullets to fly' is sadly mistaken.

NO THEY AREN'T. Bullets are already flying. People are already shooting back. IT WILL GET WORSE if order is not restored.

Whomever starts shooting draws the attention of law enforcement,

BULLSHIT. You have to HAVE law enforcement before their attention can be drawn, dumbass.

is dealt with,

People are on their own. Defend yourselves. The police will not always be there to come to your door in time, if at all.

and the rest of the peaceful nation watches it on the news and/or talks about it on political chat boards.

Insurrection is NOT peace, jackass.

Most Americans actually like their country and don't want to break it up.

That's why they WILL take matters into their own hands, if they have to. Think about that, if you can.

If they have complaints, they try to enact change through civil means.

Complaints going unheard will result in people taking matters into their own hands. They have to. You have no idea what the 2nd amendment is about. You have no idea what inherent rights are. You deny the Constitution of the United States yet again, jerk. If Civil War breaks out, no one will come to save you.

 

[Into the Night]

The U.S. constitution explicitly gives the federal government the authority to use military force to suppress insurrections

Secession by a State is NOT an insurrection. Go learn English, dumbass.

 

[Into the Night]

I have consistently said the Confederates claimed they were a separate country - but I stand with our great president Lincoln that irrespective of their claims, they were actually rebels and traitors engaged in insurrection

Secession by a State is NOT an insurrection, dumbass. They are not traitors either. Yes, they were rebels. They rebelled against the United States and decided simply to leave it. You can't say the Confederation was a different nation and then turn around and say it wasn't!