American Civil War

Why not just let the South secede? On the one hand, if their economy collapsed, they would come crawling back to the Union without bloodshed. On the other, if they prospered, the Union would have a trading partner they were no longer socially or economically responsible for. I know it would set the precedent that a state could leave the Union whenever it wanted to, but I think that wouldn't be likely. The South and North were so radically different at the time and the South was a collection of States, not just one.

Because it would've provided legal basis on which all other states could secede.

because imagine all the banter the European monarchies would make if our republic failed

also at the very beginning no one knew that the secession would escalate into five years of bloody warfare, when the first battle of manassas happened the Union expected to put down some angry mob and everything would go back to status quo antebellum right there. But then it escalated.

They attacked Fort Sumter. don't attack Fort Sumter and Lincoln never would've been able to rally the country behind a war.

It would also sets the precedent of ignoring the results of elections if they don't go your way.

The whiskey rebellion made it perfectly clear that if you challenge the federal government, they will challenge you back. Well, the south challenged them.

This. Also, hypocrisy by the unionists
who conveniently forgot how the whole country was created in the first place.

It was created by a successful rebellion. The Confederacy did not have a successful rebellion, so was not created. We gave them a shot, but they lost.

You lost, get over it Seamus

I'm not even American, dude.

As if the FFs would have said anything like that had they lost. Sheesh.

There are only 2 valid pro-union arguments: 1) war was justified by ending slavery, and 2) the South fired first.

Saving the union is not a legitimate justification, given the secessionist origins of the US. End of story.

>not focusing on the two completely indisputable arguments

>Why not just let the South secede?
They did. South Carolina seceded and got away with if for a tear until the Dixies chimped out and attacked the Union at Ft. Sumter.

>the north was going to let the south secede willy nilly if they didn't attack fort sumter

The Confederates made it pretty clear that any attempt to enter Charleston Harbor and refortify the fort would be an act of aggression and Lincoln sent a ship into the harbor. The Confederacy was formed in December and the taking of Fort Sumter happened in April, in no way was it a rash reaction.

Look here for a second you fucking retard. The occupants of Fort Sumter were at serious risk of starvation and needed to have supplies delivered to them. it was made clear the ship was only delivering food supplies and the Confederates still fired on the ship. What were they supposed to do? Let the occupants of Fort Sumter starve to death in case the South chimped out?

I dunno, man. Like, leave, or something?

It was a federal fort. Why would they leave their own property?

Both sides had been itching to shoot each other since the 1850s.

Yeah just allow yourself to get cucked by an illegal state. Good idea retard. Bend over and give the cotton dependent southerners anything they want because they melted down when they couldn't win an election.

It was their harbor. Why wouldn't they want them to leave?

They gave up all the other forts in the South. What difference would Sumter make?

and it was South Carolina's harbor. Either deal with the CSA diplomatically (which Lincoln refused) or don't expect to enter their boundaries unbothered.

>Let the occupants of Fort Sumter starve to death in case the South chimped out?

it was an illegal state retards.

>election of 1861 was the a run of the mill election

there's a reason it caused secession. The Republican party was everything the founding fathers warned about.

Holy fuck these Lost Cause Southerners, why are they even on this board?

then why the fuck are you arguing about MUH FORT for? If secession is illegal than argue that case, don't beat around the bush with "dey attacked furst!"

>it was an illegal state
No, it wasn't.

Not an argument.

nice argument

>It was their harbor
But not their fort. And seeing as how the Union ships were moving into their own fort's wharf, the Confederacy had no business interfering. Moving supply ships between your territories is not an act of aggression.

>why the fuck are you arguing about MUH FORT for?
Because not only were the states seceding illegally, but they were outright attacking federal property illegally.
And i know you don't have education down in Dixieland, but it is possible to argue for multiple cases.

>no business interfering with ships entering their territory

kek

>but it is possible to argue for multiple cases.

If one is conditional on the other, then what's the point.

half of a country cant just declare that they are their own country now and not expect a fight. thats not how the real world works

saving the country and keeping all its land and people together actually IS a completely legitimate reason to fight

unless it's scotland

>tfw modern England is a joke

>entering their territory

The Union ships never entered Confederate territory.

quads confirm

>Its a south dindu nothing wrong thread

you realize that boundaries extend past the shoreline right? Russia can't just sit an aircraft carrier in New York Harbor.

>I can't make good arguments thread

Go suck on Molymeme's dick faggot.

Just like the South

>Russia can't just sit an aircraft carrier in New York Harbor.
No, but it can sit one in Kaliningrad. Just because you own the space around a territory doesn´t mean you have any right to that territory. Fort Sumter was in the middle of an open bay, and the Union had every right to move through the middle of the bay into the fort.

Incidentally, the entire Russian fleet wintered in New York harbor at one point during the war. In the event that European nations intervened, they were to join and take orders from the US Navy. A Russian flotilla defended San Francisco from rebel pirates.

because it owns Kaliningrad you idiot.

>that pic

lol, I can assure you that maritime territory expands further than a half mile. In what world would you think that Charleston Harbor wouldn't be the territory of SC?

yeah, the arguments were so bad that the Union dropped charges against Jeff Davis rather than allow him argue his case in a court of law in fear the press would reprint everything.

asking you to provide an argument isn't a meme, it's in the sticky.

>a high level of discourse is expected. History can be examined from many different conflicting viewpoints; please treat other posters with respect and address the content of their post instead of attacking their character.

don't tell me you didn't read the sticky

>THE WAR OF NORTHUN AGRESHUN

>europoors got over their civil wars even ones that happened just 70 years ago
>amerisharts and paddy's are still butthurt over their wars
really made me think

you forgot

>CLETUSSS
>MUH PICTURE OF SHERMAN
>TTTTRAITOR
>IT'S CALLED POP

I feel like the ACW was just a war that needed to happen. Besides all the events that directly led up to secession, the South had been chimping out for years over Kansas, Nebraska, Christiana, and Harper's Ferry to the point where there were guerilla groups on both sides crossing from Missouri to Kansas and vice versa going around executing civilians. There was just too much pent up aggression over the slave issue. I doubt the south would've lasted long economically anyway unless they actually pulled off the mass industrialization that the North had a huge headstart over them with.

Does the phrase "no taxation without representation" mean anything to you?
The American Revolution was justified because there was no way for Colonial Americans to change the system from within.
The Southerners had the chance to do that, but they ruined it by supporting the Representatives who passed petty, restrictive laws like the Fugitive Slave Act.

>but they ruined it by supporting the Representatives who passed petty, restrictive laws like the Fugitive Slave Act.


The Fugitive Slave Act only reinforced an existing clause of the constitution. I don't know why people act like it changed anything.

Also you make completely arbitrary rules for what makes a revolution justified. The colonies didn't even have a legal basis for revolution which is why the declaration was nothing but an appeal to natural law. The south on the other hand had some legal basis and an existing precedent for grievances. I could very well make the case that the rise of the Republican party did take away the South's self determination.

The North had been making constant concessions to the South for decades and everyone knew King Cotton held a disproportionate influence on America as a whole. Every time the North tried to stand up to the South on something the South would chimp out and threaten to secede.

Because the South were dicks and didn't want to just secede. Reminder that they shot the first bullet at Fort Sumter.

>Unilaterally declare independence
>Unilaterally declare that a "neighboring" country isn't allowed to send a ship to their own territory
>Hurr why they no negotiate

Sherman fucking do it again

>making constant concessions to the South for decades

like what?

>Every time the North tried to stand up to the South on something the South would chimp out and threaten to secede.

and the South did the same thing when New England threatened to secede during the war of 1812. Hell, southerners passed the first tariffs to help industrialize the north in order to placate them.

I never said that I'm against the union's actions, did I?

...

There is no such thing as a legal or illegal state. All states are legal in their own eyes, illegal in the eyes of their enemies.

this triggers the southerner

>responding to your own shit bait

>Incidentally, the entire Russian fleet wintered in New York harbor at one point during the war. In the event that European nations intervened, they were to join and take orders from the US Navy. A Russian flotilla defended San Francisco from rebel pirates.

Interesting.

South starts a war, gets BTFO then complains for the next 150 years. Fuck the south, no reason to live there back then or now

>Because not only were the states seceding illegally
That's wrong, though. Secession became illegal after the fact and as you should know from your constitution, ex post facto laws are a big fucking no-no.

Let me put this simply for you Lost Causers.
>Fort built with Federal Money
>Property of US (not CS) Military
>Need supplies
> MAKE IT KNOWN ITS PEACEFUL
>Still be attacked.
That is a declaration of war then, now and always will be. They could have stayed peaceful and attempted diplomacy, after years of coddling by congress, but they chose the hard way.

Only after the secession in which the Union, "Occupied" Fort Sumter. The union initiated the attack not the confederates. If someone invaded your house, claimed it theirs and did not leave, what would you do? The confederates even sent an envoy to ask the Union to leave, when the reply was that they would not, and killed the envoy. The confederates attacked the next day to reclaim the fort. So began the American civil war.

So you admit that the secession was legal in 1861 and only became illegal after the fact?

>secession was legal in 1861

What part of "perpetual union" do you not understand?

Because northerners are bloodthirsty

>quoting the articles of confederation

kek

>tfw Kansan
>tfw remember bleeding kansas

Is it true the whole modern conservative movement is born from the loss of civil war? The fact that they never truly had to take responsibilities for the war that they started?

It feels more and more like the "less government" is merely a cope out because the south were afraid of unions states imposing their will on the southern states.

This is why they feel pride in slavery, racism, and inequality.

>Is it true the whole modern conservative movement is born from the loss of civil war? The fact that they never truly had to take responsibilities for the war that they started?
not modern conservatism in the US, no
most modern conservationists don't want small government anywhere near the extent of previous centuries, and have different ideals altogether
personal liberties is still a virtue in modern US conservatism, but federal vs state power is hardly as big of an issue as it was before or near after the civil war