Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 snurl wrote:
Some states had already left the Union peaceably and properly before Lincoln was inaugurated. Shortly after, Lincoln issued a call for 500,000 soldiers to put down "the rebellion".
The war really started when when the federal army invaded Virginia. Virginia had at first voted not to secede, but after Lincoln's call to arms voted again and seceded.

If I'm remembering correctly, there were no call-ups until *after* Confederate forces attacked and seized a Federal US military installation in South Carolina.

I can find stuff on 75,000 *after* the fall of Fort Sumter, and after the first battle of Bull Run there as an authorization for up to 500,00 troops, but I don't remember anything about a call up for 500,000 any time near his inauguration One also has to remember at Bull Run that the US capitol was in play, suburbs of DC extend well into Virginia. Southern forces were already in the area and were a direct threat to the capitol, and hostilities between Confederate and Federal forces had already commenced months earlier. The idea that it was some sort of "invasion" in that sense is rather silly. It was a central focal point where everyone already had armies massing and a clash was largely inevitable, almost certainly in Virginia because anywhere else would be literally in DC.

Fort Sumter was under direct orders from the war office NOT to surrender under any circumstances. You know, the war office, where Lincoln hung out on a daily basis. It was just the excuse he needed to set the troops in motion.

While we're at it, lets talk about Forrest, the war criminal, mostly in reference to the massacre at Fort Pillow. Forrest's troops surrounded the fort in superior numbers, and asked for surrender, which was declined. The confederates assaulted the fort, took casualties, (that the troops felt were unnecessary) and encountered union troops that tried to surrender immediately after firing upon them. I don't think I'd stop shooting under similar circumstances.

No one seems to mention Forrest's life after he attempted to disband the klan. He became quite the champion of black rights, providing funding for them to attend schools and colleges.

 snurl wrote:
Fort Sumter was under direct orders from the war office NOT to surrender under any circumstances. You know, the war office, where Lincoln hung out on a daily basis. It was just the excuse he needed to set the troops in motion.

Well of course the fort was under orders not to surrender. Having forts that surrender to polite requests kind of defeats the purpose of having forts.

So, faced with a fort that is controlled by the Feds in your now seceded state, and shocked that the Feds aren't just giving up and going home despite your polite request, you have the option to tolerate the fort while you attempt negotiation to properly leave the union, or you can just attack that fort. Both options are understandable, but if you opt for the latter then you have to accept that when people hundreds of years later try to claim you didn't start hostilities, then they're going to get laughed at.

While we're at it, lets talk about Forrest, the war criminal, mostly in reference to the massacre at Fort Pillow. Forrest's troops surrounded the fort in superior numbers, and asked for surrender, which was declined. The confederates assaulted the fort, took casualties, (that the troops felt were unnecessary) and encountered union troops that tried to surrender immediately after firing upon them. I don't think I'd stop shooting under similar circumstances.

Well then you would also be a war criminal.

 sebster wrote:

Well then you would also be a war criminal.

So was George Washington, but he's hailed all over as a great hero. The difference being simply that he won.

South Carolina had been seceded for several months, and the surrender of the fort had been requested several times.

War criminal? Strangely I'm OK with that, under those circumstances.

Edit, I was incorrect earlier in quoting 500,000. The actual request was for 75,000
read it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_Lincoln%27s_75,000_volunteers

 snurl wrote:
Fort Sumter was under direct orders from the war office NOT to surrender under any circumstances. You know, the war office, where Lincoln hung out on a daily basis. It was just the excuse he needed to set the troops in motion.

Doesn't change the fact that the South started the war by attacking and seizing a US army installation. Lincoln didn't force these guys to attack the fort, they consciously chose to initiate the conflict, and the fort got orders to hold because it was a federal military installation and wasn't just going to be handed over because someone mad about the recent presidential election asked.

While we're at it, lets talk about Forrest, the war criminal, mostly in reference to the massacre at Fort Pillow. Forrest's troops surrounded the fort in superior numbers, and asked for surrender, which was declined. The confederates assaulted the fort, took casualties, (that the troops felt were unnecessary) and encountered union troops that tried to surrender immediately after firing upon them. I don't think I'd stop shooting under similar circumstances.

The defenders of Fort Pillow weren't simply shot only in the heat of the moment, the Confederates lost 14 men killed, while nearly 300 Union troops were killed, and all the black troops that came into Confederate hands were shot even after no longer being armed. Sources from both sides were pretty clear that there was a massacre. Trying to whitewash it as a simple heat of the moment thing flies in the face of pretty much all the evidence and the conclusions of multiple investigations of the incident. You don't get a 20-1 kill ratio just from a "heat of the moment" action. Either way, Forrest was in command, his is the responsibility.

Lets not forget it's not the choice of the grunts to surrender when an enemy officer asks, if their own officers refuse, they don't get to just give up. They'll try when they see it's clear they've been overrun, but they don't have much of a choice before that.

No one seems to mention Forrest's life after he attempted to disband the klan. He became quite the champion of black rights, providing funding for them to attend schools and colleges.

A "champion" of black rights is perhaps a wee bit of an exaggeration. IIRC he made a single speech on the matter. While yes, it was conciliatory and a radical departure from his earlier views, it does not absolve him of responsibility for his actions. It's a mitigating factor, sure, but not something that absolves him of everything.

 snurl wrote:
South Carolina had been seceded for several months, and the surrender of the fort had been requested several times.

And forts typically don't surrender to rebels simply when asked, particularly when many on both sides don't think it'll actually come to violence.

Edit, I was incorrect earlier in quoting 500,000. The actual request was for 75,000
read it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_Lincoln%27s_75,000_volunteers

Note that this came after Fort Sumter, not at the time of Lincoln's inauguration.

To be fair, even if there had not been an attack on Fort Sumter, there evertually would have been a Union attack on the Confederacy since the primary war aim of the Union was to preserve the Union and this required elimination of the Confederacy which pretty much could only be accomplished by force.

WEST POINT, N.Y. ─ Following the decision of the South Carolina government to remove the Confederate flag from a state memorial, and the subsequent, nation-wide uproar over all things Confederate, West Point has announced that it will posthumously revoke the diplomas of all cadets who graduated from the Academy and fought for the South during the Civil War.

“This sends a clear message to slave-owners and those who would fight for such a horrific cause that 150 years after most of them died we will not tolerate such atrocities on American soil,” said Lt. Col. Thomas Jackson, a spokesman for the school.

...USMA leaders are debating the merits of removing Gen. Robert E. Lee’s half of the Appomattox surrender document that ended the Civil War, currently stored in the Cadet Library.

http://www.duffelblog.com/2015/07/west-point-revokes-confederate-diplomas/

Cpt.Jake: Wait....is that The Onion or something?

NM I just read the authors pseudonym. LOL

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be fair, even if there had not been an attack on Fort Sumter, there evertually would have been a Union attack on the Confederacy since the primary war aim of the Union was to preserve the Union and this required elimination of the Confederacy which pretty much could only be accomplished by force.

Yep. According to the letters I have written by family members who fought in the Civil War for the Union, they didn't care about the slavery issue, but were instead concerned about preserving the Union. In fact, going by the letters, there appeared to be quite a bit of hostility between the southern Blacks and the Union soldiers.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Cpt.Jake: Wait....is that The Onion or something?

NM I just read the authors pseudonym. LOL

Duffleblog is the military version of The Onion. A good buddy of mine is one of the writers.

Relapse wrote:
In fact, going by the letters, there appeared to be quite a bit of hostility between the southern Blacks and the Union soldiers.

One of the forgotten oddities of the Civil War and Abolition. It's part of where the term 'Uncle Tom' comes from (besides you know... The book... named Uncle Tom's Cabin ). There are always people who find ways to thrive, even as members of an oppressed group, and such individuals can find themselves with a pretty good quality of life. Such individuals tend to not be happy when the status quo changes anymore than their masters. It's the only world view they know, and especially compared to their peers working the cotton fields, and even poorer white farmers, some slaves who worked in wealthy homes or as man servants (purely objectively speaking) had it pretty good and didn't respond well to the whole abolition thing.

Slaves with almost as much a stake in the institution of slavery as slave owners (that's called Irony )

 LordofHats wrote:

Relapse wrote:
In fact, going by the letters, there appeared to be quite a bit of hostility between the southern Blacks and the Union soldiers.

One of the forgotten oddities of the Civil War and Abolition. It's part of where the term 'Uncle Tom' comes from (besides you know... The book... named Uncle Tom's Cabin ). There are always people who find ways to thrive, even as members of an oppressed group, and such individuals can find themselves with a pretty good quality of life. Such individuals tend to not be happy when the status quo changes anymore than their masters. It's the only world view they know, and especially compared to their peers working the cotton fields, and even poorer white farmers, some slaves who worked in wealthy homes or as man servants (purely objectively speaking) had it pretty good and didn't respond well to the whole abolition thing.

Slaves with almost as much a stake in the institution of slavery as slave owners (that's called Irony )

See: Samuel L Jackson's character in Django Unchained.

Exactly. Should have just said that and saved myself the typing

I think exhuming a corpse because the man was confederate is the dumbest thing I have heard all day.

 snurl wrote:
South Carolina had been seceded for several months, and the surrender of the fort had been requested several times.

The fort doesn't matter. Repeat. The fort. Does not. Matter.

Hostilities were initiated the moment Southern States started shouting "screw you guys I'm going home!", as secession is, political speaking, an inherently aggressive action (rebellion is fighting words). There's a lot of nonsense in Southern Apologism, but the whole "North started it" is by far the most nonsensical. The South declared it intention to fight the North before any shots were fired, whether the people involved realized that was what they were doing or not.

 LordofHats wrote:

 snurl wrote:
South Carolina had been seceded for several months, and the surrender of the fort had been requested several times.

The fort doesn't matter. Repeat. The fort. Does not. Matter.

Hostilities were initiated the moment Southern States started shouting "screw you guys I'm going home!", as secession is, political speaking, an inherently aggressive action (rebellion is fighting words). There's a lot of nonsense in Southern Apologism, but the whole "North started it" is by far the most nonsensical. The South declared it intention to fight the North before any shots were fired, whether the people involved realized that was what they were doing or not.

I take it you're going to gloss over the fact that the southern states had the right to secede guarenteed by the Constitution? Their reasons are irrelevant, they had the right to take their ball and go home if they wanted.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

I take it you're going to gloss over the fact that the southern states had the right to secede guarenteed by the Constitution?

There is no such right elaborated in the Constitution, and when the Supreme Court was asked it found that no right existed (Texas v White, which ultimately found that no right to secede existed and that in fact secession runs counter to the purpose of the Constitution to make a "more perfect union"). Which makes complete sense mind you, because no state could function if territories could just leave whenever they wanted.

Their reasons are irrelevant, they had the right to take their ball and go home if they wanted.

Go find me a country that works that way. I'll wait.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

I take it you're going to gloss over the fact that the southern states had the right to secede guarenteed by the Constitution?

There is no such right elaborated in the Constitution, and when the Supreme Court was asked it found that no right existed (Texas v White, which ultimately found that no right to secede existed and that in fact secession runs counter to the purpose of the Constitution to make a "more perfect union"). Which makes complete sense mind you, because no state could function if territories could just leave whenever they wanted.

Texas v White, a case after the ACW when the Union had already demonstrated that they would allow no state to secede? I find that hardly relevant to anything.

Their reasons are irrelevant, they had the right to take their ball and go home if they wanted.

Go find me a country that works that way. I'll wait.

How about the EU? Not necessarily a country, but it is a union of several sovereign nations much like how the states viewed themselves.

@Sinful Hero,

Article 1, Section 10 of the constitution starts:

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance or Confederation..."

It seems pretty clear to me, though I am not a scholar of constitutional law.

Perhaps you could point out the section that grants the right to secede?

 Sinful Hero wrote:

Texas v White, a case after the ACW when the Union had already demonstrated that they would allow no state to secede?

Which I might add, just brings me to my second point; No sane state just lets territories secede, and even in an age where the 'right to secession' was at least debatable in America, the North was never going to let the South leave and only a fool would actually expect to be able to secede without having to fight. Hell, the secession bit of it, wasn't even much of a case. That decision is pretty much the height of rationality. "Of course you can't unilaterally secede that defeats the whole purpose of having a Union. Are we seriously having to explain this to you?" (quote from the Supreme Court to Texas that I just made up )

That's before we even get into the meat and potatoes of Texas v White itself, which is a really nice piece of reading on the subject of legitimate authority and sovereignty all on its own even without the whole Texas legislature selling US Bonds thing.

I find that hardly relevant to anything.

I know you don't.

How about the EU? Not necessarily a country, but it is a union of several sovereign nations much like how the states viewed themselves.

You're right it's not a country, and even then, look at all the hoops they are jumping through to keep Greece in the EU, not just to protect the Euro and the European market, but because the entire idea of the EU collapses into complete failure if they just let Greece leave, default, or kick Greece out. Any such scenario is the end of the EU as a practical body..

 Kilkrazy wrote:
@Sinful Hero,

Article 1, Section 10 of the constitution starts:

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance or Confederation..."

It seems pretty clear to me, though I am not a scholar of constitutional law.

Perhaps you could point out the section that grants the right to secede?

It appears I was wrong. My fault for just parroting what I heard without checking myself.

It's really embarrassing because I read this exact same exchange in the Flag thread.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
@Sinful Hero,

Article 1, Section 10 of the constitution starts:

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance or Confederation..."

It seems pretty clear to me, though I am not a scholar of constitutional law.

Perhaps you could point out the section that grants the right to secede?

Honestly, much like the fort, it doesn't really matter. As I keep saying, no state is going to let territories just leave of their own accord. The reality is that there has never been, and never will be, anywhere a right to secede in any country (until an actual functioning Social Anarchist government comes into existence mind you but I'm skeptical that will ever happen so I'm not counting it ). The only way to leave a country, is for said country to let you leave, in which case you aren't seceding so much as being granted independence, or to fight said country until it recognizes your independence. The entire idea of secession runs completely counter to the concept of nation and the only country that would enshrine it as a right is one that doesn't expect to exist for very long.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
@Sinful Hero,

Article 1, Section 10 of the constitution starts:

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance or Confederation..."

It seems pretty clear to me, though I am not a scholar of constitutional law.

Perhaps you could point out the section that grants the right to secede?

It appears I was wrong. My fault for just parroting what I heard without checking myself.

It's really embarrassing because I read this exact same exchange in the Flag thread.

Thanks for admitting your error. That actually helps discussions.

Why is challenging the celebration/honoring of people who took arms against America considered erasing history? These figures are still in the history books, right?

 AdeptSister wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
@Sinful Hero,

Article 1, Section 10 of the constitution starts:

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance or Confederation..."

It seems pretty clear to me, though I am not a scholar of constitutional law.

Perhaps you could point out the section that grants the right to secede?

It appears I was wrong. My fault for just parroting what I heard without checking myself.

It's really embarrassing because I read this exact same exchange in the Flag thread.

Thanks for admitting your error. That actually helps discussions.

Why is challenging the celebration/honoring of people who took arms against America considered erasing history? These figures are still in the history books, right?

But they got the Duke boys!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UfK5HAZFk40

For Dukes of Hazard I do wish the stations had gone with something like Warner Brothers did for the Looney Tunes and Tom and Jerry releases:



I feel it's a good way of saying "This was and is something that hurt people and we recognize times have changed" without going full MIB blinky red light thing.

Um
I was a Duke of Hazard fan
Do not remember racial "play" in the show or racial undertone like the Warner Cartoons
Been awhile so I could be outright wrong.
Could be influence to being Daisy Duke was my first Crush

Edit

Though my MatchBox General Lee got abused seriously and eventually met its end with a hammer in Crash Up Derby
Same as the Love Bug
Dune Buggy cartoon one
Night Rider one
Mach 5
......

 Jihadin wrote:
Um
I was a Duke of Hazard fan
Do not remember racial "play" in the show or racial undertone like the Warner Cartoons
Been awhile so I could be outright wrong.
Could be influence to being Daisy Duke was my first Crush

Er, that's the example from the Looney Tunes and Tom and Jerry releases. I didn't mean that they should use it verbatim, but rather a "we know the Flag is in there and it may bother some people, but blah blah blah" type of disclaimer that would keep Dukes of Hazard on the air.

Kind of figured that. Figure I go again this year at Halloween as a Confederate Cav officer. Need a new plume for my cover

 Jihadin wrote:
Um
I was a Duke of Hazard fan
Do not remember racial "play" in the show or racial undertone like the Warner Cartoons
Been awhile so I could be outright wrong.
Could be influence to being Daisy Duke was my first Crush

Edit

Though my MatchBox General Lee got abused seriously and eventually met its end with a hammer in Crash Up Derby
Same as the Love Bug
Dune Buggy cartoon one
Night Rider one
Mach 5
......

Next thing you know, people will be getting into trouble for tying dynamite to arrows and shooting them!