"You are the President of the US in 1861..." Topic

Say you are the President of the US in 1861. The Confederacy has opened fire on Fort Sumter and you must decide how to resolve the crisis. do you

1) Fight it out (historical case)

2) Let them secede and take any Border States and Missouri with them if those choose to go and do not oppose Confederate actions against West Virginia if Virginia Secedes.

3) Let them secede and take any Border States and crush a West Virginia attempt to break away, but fight if they attempt to take Missouri

4) let them secede and take any Border States and Missouri but fight if they attempt to stop West Virginia from breaking from Virginia if it secedes.

5) Let them secede but oppose any Border States secession ,and taking of Missouri, and opposition to West Virginia Secession.

6) Offer to guarantee slavery's perpetual status in the Union, enforcement of Fugitive Slave Acts, and voting changes that favor the South in return for no secession

1). Anything less would be a deriliction of duty and an abrogation of campaign promises.

Number 1. Once the fighting starts at Sumter that's the only ethical and legally correct course.

-Will

I wouldn't have let things get so bad. So I reject the starting place presented. I would have allowed the secession of the Southern States. Federal troops would have been unconditionally withdrawn once the Southern States decided to secede. My administration would neither attack, nor help defend the Southern Confederacy. "Your on your own, gentlemen…"

Part of the "conflict" at Fort Sumter was SC wanting "Federal" land (the fort).

I might have let then have once the guns were removed and the magazines emptied (which IIRC was something SC did not want to happen)

Agree with Rrobbyrobot. 300,000 dead is a very high cost to keep people who don't want to be part of the USA under thumb. Border States as well. West Virginia would be a CSA problem. Hopefully the good will shown to the CSA would influence Virginia to do the same.

Ok Rrobby how exactly is what you say different from 2-6. Would you let them take the border states and Missouri? What about West Virginia? Those questions remain whether you want to start this in 1860 or 1861.

I'm with Rrobby, whoever wants to leave can leave- Border states, W. Virginia, anybody.

So on three 2) s by you guys?

1) But ensure all the factories producing small arms are turning our repeating rifles rather than muzzle loaders. The war lasts barely two years.

1. Crush the traitors. ..

Missouri is generally counted as one of the Border states.

And who decides if a state "wants to go". In Missouri and Kentucky, the Governor and a majority of the lame duck legislators were in favor of secession, but the voters, speaking through the state Conventions said otherwise.

Simple answers to a very complex question. Read "Our Man in Charleston" by Christopher Dickey for a behind the scenes look at the dynamics behind secession from the viewpoint of the British counsel in that city.

Even if the states had been allowed to secede peacefully, the Confederacy was too fragile to last, and it too would have eventually splintered. No European country was willing to recognize the Confederacy as long as it continued to import (key words) slaves from Africa, i.e., continue the middle passage.

1. The Union would not survive with a hostile neighbor to the South.
Control of California and Texas would be key to the development of dominance. Not the Border States which you seem focused on.

If you review the length of most wars in the 1800s, the most common length is three years.
Year One the Defeats and setbacks
Year Two the Build up of overwhelming force.
Year Three the crushing victory or negotiated peace due to a stalemate.
The South were beaten in 1863 but extended the war for no good reason. Just more ruin for us down here.

!. Crush the traitors (as we so roundly did).

You forgot 7:
Stay away from the Theater……………

8. – Flee to the wilds of Lancaster, PA and let someone else clean up the mess.

Amendment X
States' rights

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Where, precisely, in the Constitution of the United States of America does it prohibit a state having once joined the Union from legally reversing that decision and thereby seceding? "Traitor" is rather a strong word if the seceding states were in fact within their Constitutional rights.

Ron

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

stands to reason that if adding a state requires an act of congress, so would removing a state

Let us not debate the why and what and legitimacy or not of secession.

And people are making complicate what is a simple poll.

Extrabio writes

"Simple answers to a very complex question. Read "Our Man in Charleston" by Christopher Dickey for a behind the scenes look at the dynamics behind secession from the viewpoint of the British counsel in that city.

Even if the states had been allowed to secede peacefully, the Confederacy was too fragile to last, and it too would have eventually splintered. No European country was willing to recognize the Confederacy as long as it continued to import (key words) slaves from Africa, i.e., continue the middle passage."

You are not in Charleston. You are in Washington DC. You may believe all of this (as I do), but you still need to make a choice or decision.
If you are unhappy with the choices offered add one.

For example it seems many people would like a choice

7) Resign and let others take on this burden.

Your choice seems to be

8) Do nothing and wait for the Confederacy to implode. Not sure how it is diffrent de-facto from 2). I guess you do not recognise it, but still do not resist.

rmaker that does not change the options. Your belief that any decision in those states will be fair or not, will affect whether you fight it?

RudyNelson. That may be but it is Missouri on the headlines and center of the conflict over slavery. If for example the new Confederate government sent forces into Missouri or sent agents to forment conflict, you might decide to fight them even if you accepted secession. Missouri and West Virginia can be a proximate cause of a inter-state war.

1. Long live the Union, down with traitors.

Roll 1xd6 and apply any modifiers.
I did six times here's the result:
5,6,5,5,4,3.
No modifiers, must be why you have a President and not a die roller.

It may stand to reason TNE, but that's not what it says. Coelacanth is right and what he quotes is correct.
So Ivan, the traitors here are the Union, since they are acting against the Constitution. Still down on them?
All this is good fun, but probably best not to get past the original Poll's selection.

Was the Constitution violated by Lincoln? Yes, and would continue to be…

In War politicians (and Lincoln was a politician) tend to gather power to force their will upon people/institutions. Sometimes it is necessary in times of war/rebellion and most times it is pure and simple power plays by authority.

OP – It doesn't matter what we think we hypothetically would do in some past historical situation. The best answer, IMO, would be to not answer the poll. Therefore, though I will comment, I choose the "none of the above"/abstain from voting option.

1. On to Richmond.

Well Mute Bystander, I am glad to have furnished this opportunity for you to not be a mute bystander.

I am with Ivan!

You are, after all, the President – you don't have a lot of options beyond 1