Did Lincoln Err in not Letting the South Secede?

[apdst]

I thought McClellan he was sacked because he refused to engage the enemy.

After a brief google, there weren't any codefied laws of armed conflict, international or otherwise until 1863 when Lieber codified a set of instructions for the union army and Abraham Lincoln signed it. I don't recall Jefferson Davis signing any agreements to treat prisoners humanly.

Grants slash and burn tactics made the situation worse for the south so they'd give up sooner rather than later.

McClellan was sacked, because his ROE's were set to meet the accepted rules of war during the period. Lincoln wanted more brutality than McClellan was willing to deliver.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

McClellan was sacked, because his ROE's were set to meet the accepted rules of war during the period. Lincoln wanted more brutality than McClellan was willing to deliver.

lincoln Needed victories. McClellan was not the kind of general lincoln needed to win the war. Grant was the general with attituide needed to win a war.

 

[clownboy]

lincoln Needed victories. McClellan was not the kind of general lincoln needed to win the war. Grant was the general with attituide needed to win a war.

Yes, a corrupt drunken brute who was more than willing to commit war crimes against those who you claim Lincoln considered our own people.

 

[Wiggen]

There's your problem, you appear to have only read the one. If you had read a bit more you might know SC had already formally declared it's secession prior to the incident at Fort Sumter. But nice try and good show at displaying your lack of historical knowledge.

So you're telling me the traitors did not fire on the Federal Fort Sumpter? Wow - they really do teach alternate history to you wannabee's, don't they?

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Yes, a corrupt drunken brute who was more than willing to commit war crimes against those who you claim Lincoln considered our own people.

personally i would have preffered the south to have fallen to the anaconda plan, blockaded and unable to trade.

I may hate the idea of war, but i understand that when all else fails the only option is to fight.

 

[Wiggen]

Yes, a corrupt drunken brute who was more than willing to commit war crimes against those who you claim Lincoln considered our own people.

Sherman had the right idea on his march to the sea. Burn everything. And make them squeal.

 

[clownboy]

So you're telling me the traitors did not fire on the Federal Fort Sumpter? Wow - they really do teach alternate history to you wannabee's, don't they?

Did traitors fire upon the British at Concord? To accurately call something "alternate history" you must first have a clue as what the actual history is. Fail on your part. SC had already seceeded from the Union when Fort Sumter took place. And btw, if you're trying to school others best you learn to spell it right.

 

[clownboy]

Sherman had the right idea on his march to the sea. Burn everything. And make them squeal.

Hmmm, thanks for showing us all the lie to your constant objections on how the US treats it's citizenry. We now know how fungible your opinions are.

 

[newpublius]

The South didn't even receive belligerant status. That, by itself, would have given them recognition as a nation.

Lincoln's threat of war against England was the biggest deterrant to British allying with the Confederates.

The Union likely would've lost to an Anglo-Confederate alliance actually. Britain granted belligerent status to the Confederacy on May 13th, 1861. That was important because it allowed the Confederacy to order things like war ships from England. Likewise Lincoln did treat the Confederate prisoners of war as if they were prisoners of war. To be technical, the Confederacy being an unlawful rebellion and de jure treason being the levying of war against the United States, without belligerent status, the Confederate prisoners would've been tried for treason and hung, obviously none of them were.

 

[rocket88]

You really know nothing about the US and how it was formed. It would have been if the South had been allowed independence. Other states would have then gone for their own independence as well.

Not really. They weren't states that joined the USSR voluntarily. There was no Kazakhstan until it was created by the USSR. There were Kazaks, but they were largely subjects of the Russian Empire and the change to the USSR didn't really change that.

That's wonderful for states that "voluntarily joined the union," (which really, did they?) but what about the ones that were created by Congress? There was no Arkansas, or Iowa, or actually most states. Louisiana in its present form didn't exist, and wasn't independent. It was a giant territory that was subject to Napoleon before the United States bought it and carved it into a number of states. Kansas, Nebraska...most states outside of the original 13 were created by Congress, and even those states were truncated. You may have noticed that Virginia doesn't go all the way to the Pacific Ocean. Or that Tennessee is no longer part of North Carolina, Maine no longer part of Massachussetts, and the "Western Reserve" in Ohio is no longer part of Connecticut.

 

[newpublius]

You really know nothing about the US and how it was formed. It would have been if the South had been allowed independence. Other states would have then gone for their own independence as well.

So what? Political unions should not exist for the sake of having a political union. People's interests can diverge and they will tend to go their separate ways. In NJ where I live the town I live in was once part of what is now a small area town that has since been subdivided into other towns, meanwhile NYC was various municipalties which decided to come together.

Just because one portion of a political union gets smaller does it necessarily mean that all parts of that union will get smaller.

Just because the South goes its separate way doesn't mean anything about Ohio or Vermont....

 

[clownboy]

Not really. They weren't states that joined the USSR voluntarily. There was no Kazakhstan until it was created by the USSR. There were Kazaks, but they were largely subjects of the Russian Empire and the change to the USSR didn't really change that.

That's wonderful for states that "voluntarily joined the union," (which really, did they?) but what about the ones that were created by Congress? There was no Arkansas, or Iowa, or actually most states. Louisiana in its present form didn't exist, and wasn't independent. It was a giant territory that was subject to Napoleon before the United States bought it and carved it into a number of states. Kansas, Nebraska...most states outside of the original 13 were created by Congress, and even those states were truncated. You may have noticed that Virginia doesn't go all the way to the Pacific Ocean. Or that Tennessee is no longer part of North Carolina, Maine no longer part of Massachussetts, and the "Western Reserve" in Ohio is no longer part of Connecticut.

I don't see how any of that negates a thing I've said. Except for the bit about the USSR, I think you really need to read up on how the USSR was formed.

As to the rest, the states were created first and then admitted into the union. Texas, Florida and perhaps others would have seceded as their own countries had the Southern states been allowed to secede.

 

[rocket88]

Did traitors fire upon the British at Concord? To accurately call something "alternate history" you must first have a clue as what the actual history is. Fail on your part. SC had already seceeded from the Union when Fort Sumter took place. And btw, if you're trying to school others best you learn to spell it right.

Which part of South Carolina seceding made Ft. Sumter their property? It was the property of the United States government as ceded by South Carolina's legislature because they really wanted a fort in Charleston Harbor.

 

[clownboy]

So what? Political unions should not exist for the sake of having a political union. People's interests can diverge and they will tend to go their separate ways. In NJ where I live the town I live in was once part of what is now a small area town that has since been subdivided into other towns, meanwhile NYC was various municipalties which decided to come together.

Just because one portion of a political union gets smaller does it necessarily mean that all parts of that union will get smaller.

Just because the South goes its separate way doesn't mean anything about Ohio or Vermont....

I believe your taking that out of context. Go back and review the post it was answering. And at least two states had already announced their own independence from the union (Texas and Florida).

 

[clownboy]

Which part of South Carolina seceding made Ft. Sumter their property? It was the property of the United States government as ceded by South Carolina's legislature because they really wanted a fort in Charleston Harbor.

The basic right of nations to own and control the property within their borders. Fort Sumter was ceded to the fed by a state that no longer existed after they announced their secession. If you need historical examples, check out the dissolution of the Ottomon Empire.

 

[newpublius]

Which part of South Carolina seceding made Ft. Sumter their property? It was the property of the United States government as ceded by South Carolina's legislature because they really wanted a fort in Charleston Harbor.

Washington DC was actually land ceded by VA and MD to the Federal government, obviously the Arlington portion was given back to VA. Other property held by the Federal Government is held pursuant to the Property Clause of course, nothing wrong with that. But Fort Sumter is still in South Carolina in a way that Washington DC is just NOT in Maryland.

The Federal government is what it is, its assets and liabilities are the common assets and liabilities of the people of the United States. The Federal government doesn't own land in Charleston Harbor just because it wants to hold land there, it does so because that was a defensive fort to protect Charleston. There was a lot of Federal property much in the same way that appurtenant to the American Revolution the common property belonged to the crown.

If the secession is legal and goes forward, an arm's length negotiation results in an equitable distribution of the common assets and liabilities. So, on the one side of the ledger, South Carolina would get the Federal property located in South Carolina and South Carolina would give up its indirect claims to Federal property held elsewhere (ie. in the Union). Likewise South Carolina would have to assume its share of the debt.

Fort Sumter turned into the flashpoint simply because Anderson was THERE. Why wasn't it the post offices or Harper's Ferry, or anywhere else for that matter. Its difficult to tell, but ultimately that's where the nation came to grief.

Fort Sumter wasn't about property rights, it was about whether or not the United States was going to reognize the secession because obviously if they were they weren't going to have much of an interest in maintaining this particular enclave of Federal authority.

 

[clownboy]

Washington DC was actually land ceded by VA and MD to the Federal government, obviously the Arlington portion was given back to VA. Other property held by the Federal Government is held pursuant to the Property Clause of course, nothing wrong with that. But Fort Sumter is still in South Carolina in a way that Washington DC is just NOT in Maryland.

I agree with the rest, just one small codecil - DC was property George Washington owned (largely swamp land) that he in turn sold to the new government for a hefty profit. Most thought Pilly would be the new capitol, but thanks to their Quaker policy of freeing slaves, it was deemed unsuitable. Jefferson in particular objected to Philly as the capitol.

DC was ideal because of it's conditions. Wives would not make the journey with their legislator husbands because of the conditions freeing the fellows to behave as they wished. But swamp land was just fine for the legislator's slave and prostitute quarters.

 

[apdst]

lincoln Needed victories. McClellan was not the kind of general lincoln needed to win the war. Grant was the general with attituide needed to win a war.

Pointing out the obvious is definitely your niche.

 

[apdst]

The Union likely would've lost to an Anglo-Confederate alliance actually. Britain granted belligerent status to the Confederacy on May 13th, 1861. That was important because it allowed the Confederacy to order things like war ships from England. Likewise Lincoln did treat the Confederate prisoners of war as if they were prisoners of war. To be technical, the Confederacy being an unlawful rebellion and de jure treason being the levying of war against the United States, without belligerent status, the Confederate prisoners would've been tried for treason and hung, obviously none of them were.

The Federals would have definitely lost to an Anglo-Confederate alliance.

I never made mention that The Federals didn't treat POW's like POW's.

 

[Moot]

The South didn't even receive belligerant status. That, by itself, would have given them recognition as a nation.

The British considered both the north and the south belligerents and were preparing to offer mediation after the north had lost several key battles and that would have given recognition to the south.

Lincoln's threat of war against England was the biggest deterrent to British allying with the Confederates.

:thumbs: Exactly. The north had the wheat supply that Britain depended on. They could manage without southern cotton, but 40% of their wheat and corn supply came from the north. They couldn't risk a war and famine when they had so many colonial pursuits elsewhere.

The South desperately wanted Britain or France's recognition. But Jefferson Davis made a huge mistake in thinking that if he stopped supplying Britain with cotton that they would be desperate enough to come help them fight the war against the north. But Britain wanted to remain neutral mainly because Lincoln threatened war if they interferred....so they simply got their cotton from India and Egypt instead. The British didn't mind seeing both sides try to annihilate themselves one bit.

 

[Sherman123]

So what? Political unions should not exist for the sake of having a political union. People's interests can diverge and they will tend to go their separate ways. In NJ where I live the town I live in was once part of what is now a small area town that has since been subdivided into other towns, meanwhile NYC was various municipalties which decided to come together.

Just because one portion of a political union gets smaller does it necessarily mean that all parts of that union will get smaller.

Just because the South goes its separate way doesn't mean anything about Ohio or Vermont....

The point being raised is that the secession of the South could very well have brought about a cascade of centrifugal forces that tore the Union apart. A north-west confederation with interests rooted in unfettered access to the Mississippi, a New England Union of the nations maritime interests and the bedrock of anti-slavery sentiment, the independence of California thousands of miles from direct Federal rule and given a shining example of the possibilities of secession. It was an enormous contemporary fear and not one that can be dismissed out of hand.

 

[Sherman123]

The Federals would have definitely lost to an Anglo-Confederate alliance.

I never made mention that The Federals didn't treat POW's like POW's.

It would depend heavily on when Britain intervened. The last possible flashpoint was in 1864 and it is extremely plausible that the North which was just reaching the height of it's war potential would have been able to successfully defeat both the Confederacy and whatever British relief efforts were aimed to safeguard Canada or relieve the Confederacy.

 

[Sherman123]

The international laws regarding the conduct of warfare. Adherence to those laws is the reason McClellan was sacked. Sherman's march was considered illegal, according to international law at the time. Crop destruction, looting, destruction of private property and the harrassment and murder of civilians were considered war crimes. Grant's conduct at Vicksburg was also illegal, by targetting civilians and civilian centers.

The Confederates couldn't treat Federal prisoners better. They barely had food enough to feed the army, muchless POW's. The destruction of crops and livestock by the Federals made that situation worse, along with Lincoln's refusal to exchange prisoners.

There was no international law in 1863 only specific treaties and voluntary but uncodified conventions. Moreover if Vicksburg, the siege of a fortified city, was 'illegal' then there were no legal wars in that century.

 

[Moot]

The Union likely would've lost to an Anglo-Confederate alliance actually. Britain granted belligerent status to the Confederacy on May 13th, 1861. That was important because it allowed the Confederacy to order things like war ships from England. Likewise Lincoln did treat the Confederate prisoners of war as if they were prisoners of war. To be technical, the Confederacy being an unlawful rebellion and de jure treason being the levying of war against the United States, without belligerent status, the Confederate prisoners would've been tried for treason and hung, obviously none of them were.

It's my understanding the British put the belligerent status on both the North and the South and continued to do trade with both sides. But doing so, didn't give the South legitmacy or recognition as a sovereign nation. For if it had, Lincoln would have stopped the wheat export to Britain and gone to war on them in Canada. But the 'belligerent' status probably did help prevent both sides from a trial for war crimes no matter which side would have won.

 

[newpublius]

But doing so, didn't give the South legitmacy or recognition as a sovereign nation.

Yes, I understand that, that was the Confederacy's international diplomatic effort, which obviously failed. They wanted to get England/France to recognize them as a nation.

For if it had, Lincoln would have stopped the wheat export to Britain and gone to war on them in Canada.

And the Union would've lost that war. As it turned out historically, if the South had proven viability on the battlefield, ie if they had won at Antietam, England probably would've recognized and the Union wouldn't have been in any position to invade Canada anyway.

But the 'belligerent' status probably did help prevent both sides from a trial for war crimes no matter which side would have won.

Well, no actually, the belligerent status triggers the laws of war as opposed to the civil operation of the laws. It wouldn't excuse war crimes, the general failure to proseucte for them being a result of the political machinations of the era which does not transcend the theory of law underpinning culpability for war crimes.