"What can we all learn from the Confederacy?" Topic

The CSA is PART of my heritage. One sticks with one's own, to the death. "Me against my brother. My brother and I against the world."

"A man only gets one Alamo in his life. If he's lucky."

"A man only gets one Alamo in his life. If he's lucky."

Interesting. Is that why the Confederate statues went up, partly as an homage to a quixotic catastrophe…replete with cool flags?

"Who 'made war' upon whom? Seems to me it was South Carolina, one of the seceding states, that opened the ball at Fort Sumter.

One of the 'excuses' for the Confederacy is the idea that it was a war of 'northern aggression' which is nonsense."

I wasn't talking about South Carolina firing on Sumter….
But then again I think you knew that.

Have a good weekend.

Without a unified command and control structure well meaning rebels are doomed to fail in isolated pockets.

What I want to know is can I still root for Josey Wales, and, overlooking his failings, hope Rooster Cogburn gets Ned Pepper?

Not so bothered about Col Langdon or Major Benjamin Tireen

Er…nobody gets more than one Alamo. Who made this remark, doc?

When it comes to defending the CSA, I think, in some people's minds, every day is an Alamo.

@Brech

"Fort Sumter was federal property regardless of who controlled the port."

I keep seeing Sumter brought up.

We came very, very close to a nuclear war over another sovereign country placing missiles on their own land, because we felt threatened by it. Cuba, if anyone is unsure during the Kennedy administration.

Those who had succeeded at that point, viewed themselves as a separate country at the time they fired. So from their view, Sumter was controlled by a foreign power. Yes, we can disagree as to the validity of them as a country, but that does not take away how they viewed themselves.

Is that different and if so, why and how? Just Curious.

I agree the Confederates were idiots for opening fire on the fort and not letting Lincoln make the first "aggressive" move. One of many blunders they made.

I don't remember if it was this thread or one of the recent numerous others, comparing the revolution and the civil war.

But in the Revolution we invaded Canada, ie fellow English (and French) colonist. Does that not make it a Civil War as well? I'll skip over the Indian nations we violated at that time as well. As they too were doing the same to us.

So does that invasion differ from the Civil War and again why?

Thanks in advance.

I agree the Confederates were idiots for opening fire on the fort and not letting Lincoln make the first "aggressive" move. One of many blunders they made.

The blunders the CSA made are legion and could fill many books…and have. This thread is about what they did right. Further, what they did that is admirable, eternal and both well thought out and organized. There aren't any threads like this on TMP and it really isnt good that the CSA defenders on here cant really muster anything that the CSA produced that was positive and worthy of remembrance and celebration…and yet, they still want to hold them faultless.

At some point, denial like this is nothing more than ideology. Worse than a cult really because even a cult can set out what exactly it believes is worthy of worship.

This isnt about what everyone else has done, it's about what the CSA did. We dont have thousands of monuments celebrating the invasion of Canada. Do we have anything worth memorializing? Or are some of you just going to continue this "whataboutism" which is currently cranked up to paranormal levels?

The CSA seems to be the only freakin' organization in mankind's history that cant exist outside of "whataboutism?"

Is there anything good that the CSA accomplished that can stand on its own two GD feet?

As several have stated on this subject the CSA never did get a chance to show what it could do as a country. Four years of constant invasion by the North and the grinding effects of war ended any prospects for a compelling civilization to develop.

One of the things the South did right was to put a break on the robber baron capitalism that was bursting to get out. Many people forget that as the ACW was being fought the Union was in full swing in conquering the plains territories through mass migration and subjugating Indian tribes in the way. Unbridled capitalism was another feature of the Republican party of Lincoln. It is no accident that without the Southern point in the federal government robber baron capitalism got unleashed in the United States. This unleashing led to the extreme concentrations of wealth and power in a very select few people in the late 19th century. It took Teddy Roosevelt to bring things back to some kind of equilibrium.

"in full swing in conquering the plains territories through mass migration and subjugating Indian tribes in the way."

Although the Oregon-California immigrant traffic had become an increasingly destabilising factor since the 1840s, I believe the only significant settlement out on the plains was in the Colorado territory around Denver and the South Platte. Otherwise settlement was still restricted to the eastern fringes.

The pre-war US army was not in sufficient strength to subjugate the Plains Indian nations. Any dominance established by government troops, or the Texas rangers, over hostile groups tended to be local and short-lived.

As several have stated on this subject the CSA never did get a chance to show what it could do as a country. Four years of constant invasion by the North and the grinding effects of war ended any prospects for a compelling civilization to develop.

By several, you mean yourself? I didnt ask about what the South could do if given time. I asked if they organized themselves well. Did they think it through, was it the best it could be? Did they make good choices both here and abroad? Did they produce anything of lasting greatness or that we should honor and admire today?

Apparently, there doesn't seem to be that much that the Confederacy produced to brag about. At least that seems true for non-confederates. Either that, or like the real reason the South seceded, it's way too awesome to bestow upon mere mortals.

Incidentally, Lincoln accomplished a lot we still honor today and he did it in roughly the same time span. Those lasting accomplishments would include his inaugural speech.

Anything the Confederacy produced that we should teach to children?

With regards to the robber baron thing. Are you saying they stopped it in the South? Would that mean they allowed it to then run rampant in the North? Is that something we should be thankful for as a nation?

I sense a lot of anger (on this thread and others) held by people who were not there, nor talk to anyone who was to get an understanding of other viewpoints.

"As several have stated on this subject the CSA never did get a chance to show what it could do as a country. Four years of constant invasion by the North and the grinding effects of war ended any prospects for a compelling civilization to develop."

Rubbish! Some invasion, certainly, and lots later (Sherman). On the other hand, I remember the southrons marching north as well, and the long period of stalemate south of Washington.

As a nautical archaeologist, I have a fondness for the Confederate shipbuilding, blockade running, and ironclad efforts, but cannot really point at many serious innovations to support their side. Their ironclads were a challenge but they got squashed in the long run by the industrial capacity of the North. Is it a win for Northern designs versus Southern, I think yes… southern ironclads were often defined by with what they had to work with, northern ironclads show more diversity and development in MY opinion. YMMV.

And as a Californio son of midwestern parents raised in small town Hawaii, I don't have a dog in this fight, but as a student of history (though I veered into archaeology) I have a special HATRED for the whole Lost Cause revisionist B.S. Every Historian brings their biases to the study, but plain making s^^^ up is never acceptable.

As a Brit I don't really have a dog in this fight. But (you did know there was a but coming right?) one thing that is of interest is the Confederacies ability to keep in the fight for as long as they did given the huge imbalance in manpower and the lack of an industrial base compared to the Federals. Something was at work there in terms of either morale management or sheer bloody mindedness that has lessons to teach us. It seems to stand apart from the causes of the war, support or opposition for slavery, modern views on the rights and wrongs of Secession. Doing a great deal with very little is an interesting lesson to study. Something similar seems to be at work in Ukraine at the moment.

One thing the Confederacy taught us is the danger inherent in firing cannon at the U.S. Army.

Elenderil, yes, that is exactly so.

One factor was the massive revival that swept through the Confederate armies. It is the basis for the south's status as the "Christ-haunted" Bible-belt.

link

The Confederate States Army revival was a series of Christian revivals which took place among the Confederate States Army in 1863. It is generally regarded as part of the Third Great Awakening.

Benjamin R. Lacy suggests that the revival began in the camps and hospitals around Richmond, Virginia.[1] The revival began in the Army of Northern Virginia in early 1863.[2] In March 1863, for example, a new chaplain arrived at the 41st Virginia Infantry regiment and found the beginnings of a revival.[3] The revival was encouraged by Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee and by the middle of the 1863 it had spread to all the Confederate armies.[4] Mark Summers argues, however, that Jackson and Lee were exceptional as far as enthusiasm among the officers went, and rather than a "top down" revival (the traditional Lost Cause of the Confederacy view), it was much more "bottom up", as thousands of religious tracts were distributed among the soldiers. Summers suggests that due to the Union blockade, the soldiers had little else to read.[5]

According to the Confederate chaplain J. William Jones, by the end of the war, 150,000 soldiers had been converted.[4][6] Kurt O. Berends argues that the revivals were a major cultural event.[7] Ben House suggests that the revivals provided "the spiritual resources that would be necessary to enable the South to survive defeat and Reconstruction with a strong Bible base still intact."[8]

"You don't own slaves. Why are you fighting us so fiercely?"

"Because you are HERE."

And the US Army was 'here' because the Confederacy opened the ball.

Pretty simple, I think…

And the US Army was 'here' because the Confederacy opened the ball.
Pretty simple, I think…

Remind me again ….. where exactly was Fort Sumter located?

B

Its was, and still is, on U.S. property.

Exactly!

It was, and still is, on U.S. property.

Fort Sumter did stand on US property prior to 20 Dec 1860.

And it has stood on US property since the surrender of the Confederate states in 1865 to a US government which effectivd the right of secession by force of arms.

But between those two points in time, it stood on land of the sovereign seceded state of South Carolina.

You can make all the protestations you want about secession being invalid from your modern point of view, but it most certainly was a valid concept in 1860.

B

Secession was not allowed in the US Constitution, even though some tend to add it to the Constitution on their own, especially the adherents to the 'Lost Cause' version of Southern mythology.

And it should be remembered that there are two independent versions of the Civil War-the actual history of the war, the 'account of what actually happened' and the 'Southern interpretation' which 'originated in Southern rationalizations of the war.'-See the chapter 'The Anatomy of the Myth' by Alan Nolan in The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History edited by Gary Gallagher and Alan Nolan, 11-34.

No matter how much logic is used to express an opinion opposite of those who sympathize with the leaders of the southern states that seceded from the Union, to have the same form of government while strengthening their hold over slavery, such logic isn't going to change the opinions for some of those who have such sympathy. The amount of dancing around logic to continue to hold on to one's sympathy for the leaders of the southern states, this walks hand in hand with the kind of nationalistic ideology that those leaders themselves held on to then, and in some cases well beyond the ceasing of the ACW. Most if not all of the time, such beliefs continue to rise during times in which there seems to be increased and succeeding effort to bring about social equality, and where those harboring such nationalistic ideology seek to quench their fears of losing power while choosing to blame such in a way as to overly discriminate against those seeking the social equality.

The beauty of the situation is that under the same form of government that southern sympathizers live to this day, where they have the ability to express their mis-held beliefs, we who oppose them, have the ability to continue to bring our positions into the light for those who are interested in learning. Of course there are those who live outside the U.S. that will sympathize with those southern leaders too, although they could be expressing such for motives that are just as destructive as what those southern leaders attempted to do with the U.S. as well.

Back towards the original post … I can't see much redeeming value, if any, in what was done by the Confederacy, including the firing on Fort Sumter, which was, and still is on U.S. property, regardless of the forces of the CSA occupying the fort during the ACW.

But between those two points in time, it stood on land of the sovereign seceded state of South Carolina.

Besides the question of sovereignty, there is still the question of ownership. The U.S. government owned Fort Sumter and wanted to keep it.

One of the 'products' of the Southern defeat was the Lost Cause myth which still permeates the history of the period. In short, it is nonsense and it attempts to hide the fact that slavery was the cause of the war.

Both of those facts are clearly brought out in an excellent book edited by two credible Civil War historians-Gary Gallagher and Alan Nolan.

Nolan also wrote the first chapter in the book which makes the case that slavery was the cause of the war and Nolan's assembled facts and references clearly demonstrate it.

The book is The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History.

Secession was not allowed in the US Constitution,

The above assertion reveals a dangerous misunderstanding of the underlying format and logic of the US Constitution…. not that this surprises me based upon most of what I have read on such ACW threads as have appeared and metastisized here on a regular basis.

But high marks for consistency of opinion are well deserved … ;-)

B

"Nothing anyone says before the word 'but' really counts." George R.R. Martin

<The above assertion reveals a dangerous misunderstanding of the underlying format and logic of the US Constitution…

Perhaps you can show or demonstrate what you're implying here? That would be most helpful…

The subject of secession was covered in the afore-mentioned volume by Gallagher and Nolan, page 18, in relation to the 'Lost Cause doctrine':

'The Lost Cause doctrine endlessly asserted that secession was a constitutional right. Moreover, because it was lawful, those supporting it were not rebels or traitors; there had not been a rebellion or revolution. The premise of this contention was that because the Constitution was silent on the issue, withdrawal from the Union was permitted. It was argued that the states had entered into a compact from which they had the right to withdraw.'

And the 'Lost Cause doctrine' was invented after the war along with this misguided and false reasoning.

The above assertion reveals a dangerous misunderstanding of the underlying format and logic of the US Constitution….

Do you have a legal treatise that supports that unilateral secession was ever legal?

Do you have any legal reasoning that supports this?

Can you tell us how you think the Constitution operates, is interpreted and how you think unilateral secession is part of its logic and format?

Secession was not allowed in the US Constitution,

The above assertion reveals a dangerous misunderstanding of the underlying format and logic of the US Constitution…

Blutarski:

One of the salient points of the Lost Cause is conveniently forgetting past history. The first Articles of Confederation specifically allowed the states/colonies to leave the Confederation if they wanted to.

The Constitution purposely had no such provision, one that all the states agreed to. The idea that states had the right under the Constitution to leave the Union because the Constitution didn't address the issue is literally un-Constitutional. No such right was granted or suggested, even in the provisions for state powers in the Bill of Rights.

IF there is one thing to be learned from the Confederate States and their similar Articles of Confederation is that granting states sovereignty over the Federal Government doesn't work and any such union invariably falls apart after limping along.

+1 McLaddie

Both the Revolution and the Civil war were REVOLUTIONARY triangular struggles, with rival governments competing for control of the same civilian population. Neither war had (many or significant) combatants outside the authority of some government -- a requirement for rebellion.

Doc and others who noted this similarity. It is a false equivalency. There is a reason one was called a Revolution and one a Civil War. It is more that sophistry.

The Civil war vs The American Revolution

1. The Southern states all agreed to the Union, the Colonists did not, in fact they believed they had their own colonial governments agreed to and Britain was interfering from the outside. They were called Royal Colonies… because they were the property of the King and they were his subjects, not citizens. All white Americans who rebelled in the ACW were citizens.

2. The Southern States were represented in the government on equal terms [same rules of representation] as the North. The Colonists had no representation in the British government, and was refused representation when requested and demanded. They rebelled based on the BRITISH belief of no taxes without representation. The colonies were rebelling against a government who denied the colonists as being a part of Britain proper and the British government. The American Colonies were British possessions.

3. Britain had outlawed Slavery in England but had not suggested any abolition of slavery in their colonies
English Law was applied differently in different colonies, or not at all as suited the English. That wasn't the case with the U.S. Government regarding the Southern states or slavery.

4. Because the Colonies were not recognized as part of Britain or included as part of their representative government, but a colonial possessions, the Colonists were not engaging in Civil War, but revolution like a number of other colonies in the Americas were at that time… for the same reasons.

5. Both the South and the American colonists knew they were being Traitorous, but only the South was attempting to tear apart and destroy the United States of American and its government as it existed. The Colonists made no such attempt.

6. The U.S. under the constitution had existed as ratified by all the states since 1787, or 74 years before, one generation. The American Colonies had existed as British possessions individually since 1600s or over 100 years except Georgia which was added in 1735.

Different situations, different reasons for resistance and different causes… hence the different words, Revolution vs. Civil War.

Neither war had (many or significant) combatants outside the authority of some government -- a requirement for rebellion.

"Some government" misses the point. The AR was a war against an outside government--which the British were--the British said so,
telling the Colonial Governments what to do and that colonists did not enjoy the same status or rights as British subjects--Not a Civil War. It was a fight to form a new government--a revolution.

The ACW was a war started between members of the SAME nation, all citizens equal under the same government.

The Constitution purposely had no such provision, one that all the states agreed to. The idea that states had the right under the Constitution to leave the Union because the Constitution didn't address the issue is literally un-Constitutional. No such right was granted or suggested, even in the provisions for state powers in the Bill of Rights.

We've been over this ground extensively in previous discussions so I am not going rehearse the main points but the sovereignty of States was not surrendered at the point of the signing the 1787 Constitution. The 1787 Constitution was constructed for the purposes of delegating State authority to the Federal Government. The ability to assign or withdraw State sovereignty to a federal system belonged to the States and it did not need to be included in a constitutional document that prescribed and limited Federal powers.

Your six points to me are completely irrelevant to the matter of self determination which is at the heart of the Declaration of Independence. As the Declaration states

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,"

The question in such a declaration is who gets to decide when a government becomes destructive? The answer is The People. And the People gathered in state conventions and decided to leave this destructive form of government. Whether it was objectively destructive is quite up for discussion. But that is irrelevant to the right to decide the matter and then to decide to leave.

Your distinction between Revolution and Secession is one that I do not grant.

The US Constitution is the 'law of the land.' The Declaration of Independence is not.

The Articles of Confederation can be construed as allowing secession, the Constitution does not. There are many reasons the Articles were replaced and it appears that it was a conscious decision of the Founders to leave out the part about secession when writing the Constitution.

The ability to assign or withdraw State sovereignty to a federal system belonged to the States and it did not need to be included in a constitutional document that prescribed and limited Federal powers.

Marcus Brutus:

IF that was the thinking of the States, then why did they feel it was necessary to include a provision stating the states could leave in the Articles of Confederation? Limiting the Federal powers or securing the states rights to govern internally is not the same as any supposedly implicit
right to leave unspoken or reserved without comment. The ability to leave the union, once the Constitution was ratified by a state was a debate in the Convention and addressed, the reasons for the inability of states to leave is detailed in the Federalist Papers too.

Your six points to me are completely irrelevant to the matter of self-determination which is at the heart of the Declaration of Independence. As the Declaration states: As the Declaration states: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."

You are right, my arguments #1-6 are irrelevant to the matter of self-determination. I was noting the difference between a revolution and a civil war with regards to the Am. Colonies and the CSA, not their 'right' to carry them out.

So, by quoting the Declaration of Independence as the justification for the Southern States leaving the Union, are you agreeing that secession was an effort to abolish the Union, and usurp the powers and property of the Federal Government?

McLaddie, where in the Articles of Confederation does it layout that States can withdraw? I took another look at the AoC again this morning and I couldn't find it. What I did find was language of perpetual Union etc. In Article 13 is states the following

ARTICLE XIII. ….. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterward confirmed by the legislatures of every state.

You will notice that the 1787 constitutional accord did not follow the AoC amending formula. By what authority did the States leave AoC for the 1787 Constitution? It was certainly not on the basis on the AoC. By what authority did the 1787 constitution come into existence? It can only be the sovereign and reserved right of States to enter and leave constitutional compacts at their discretion.

I have found no evidence in the State ratifying Conventions that the matter of State sovereignty was ever seriously raised or debated. Considering at the time the Anti-Federalists were looking for any reasonable argument against the new Constitution the fact they did not raise this matter (ie irrevocable nature of the new Constitution) speaks volumes to me that everyone understood that ultimately States ability to enter or withdraw from constitutional compacts was not being abridged or abrogated. Otherwise, it would have been a natural line of attack for the Anti-Federalists.

So, by quoting the Declaration of Independence as the justification for the Southern States leaving the Union, are you agreeing that secession was an effort to abolish the Union, and usurp the powers and property of the Federal Government?

I don't see that. The Union was still in existence. Southern States simply exercised their reserved right to enter or exit a constitutional compact. Other states were within their right and capacity to stay or go as they pleased.

One final thought. In 1787 Constitution there is no doubt that a new citizenship was being created. One became bi-national in a certain kind of way. One was a citizen of one's State and also of citizen of the United States of America. It is not obvious to me that the States had the authority to abrogate the citizenship of the United States when they seceded without the consent of the United States. It really comes down to whether being a citizen of the United States was a derivative of being a citizen of a State or whether it is stood on its own terms. Certainly Lee, for instance, saw his US citizenship as a derivative of his State citizenship. Once Virginia left the Union he was no longer citizen of the United States. Others saw it differently. The 1787 Constitution is unclear to me on this so I am not sure on this point.

Does the US Constitution say that if you are born in the US you are a citizen of the US? Does/did any state constitution say the same thing about being a citizen of that state?

The Union was still in existence.

Was it? It was cut in half and all federal institutions, properties south of the Mason-Dixon line were taken, officers and courts expelled. Many who didn't wish to go with secessionists were now seen automatically as traitors to the CSA.

A Union doesn't exist with half of it denies that union.

Southern states simply exercised their reserved right to enter or exit a constitutional compact. Other states were within their right and capacity to stay or go as they pleased.

Did they? This is how James Madison viewed the issue in 1833:

James Madison to A Friend of Union & State Rights Alexander Rives, 1 January 1833

The case of a claim in a State to secede from its union with the others, resolves itself into question among the States themselves as parties to a Compact. A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact, absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it.

The characteristic distinction between free Govts. and Govts. not free is that the former are founded on compact, not between the Govt & those for whom it acts, but among the parties creating the Govt.

Each of these being equal, neither can have more right to say that the compact has been violated and dissolved, than every other has to deny the fact,

and to insist on the execution of the bargain.

An inference from the doctrine that a single State has a right to secede, at its will from the rest is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it, in other words to turn it, against its will out of its Union with them.

So,
1. The Southern states all succeeded individually at different times.

2. The 'abuse' of the Federal Government that was identified as the reason for the succession is outlined by the first state to succeed, South Carolina in its "Declaration of Succession."

Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 contest on November 6 with just 40% of the popular vote and not a single southern vote in the Electoral College. Within days, southern states were organizing secession conventions. On December 20, South Carolina voted to secede, and issued its "Declaration of the Immediate Causes."

The South Carolina reason for succession 1860

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution.

In other words, ironically, the grip is that the Federal Government didn't make the various states obey, rather than defend states rights and internal sovereignty …

McLaddie, where in the Articles of Confederation does it layout that States can withdraw?

Marcus Brutus: [Italics are mine]

AoC Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Any Federal powers were held by Congress WHEN assembled.

Only particular powers of the states' powers were 'delegated to the Congress assembled.' [That 'assembled' is important.] The powers of Congress are listed.

Each state was still deemed to retain its sovereignty, freedom and independence. That retention says it all. They could leave at any time because of that sovereignty and independence. No such words or state conditions are found in the Constitution.

By what authority did the States leave AoC for the 1787 Constitution?

AoC Article X. The committee of the states, or any nine of them, shall be authorized to execute, in the recess of congress, such of the powers of congress as the united states, in congress assembled, by the consent of nine states, shall, from time to time, think expedient to vest them with; provided that no power be delegated to the said committee, for the exercise of which, by the articles of confederation, the voice of nine states, in the congress of the united states assembled, is requisite.

The Constitutional Convention was called by a committee of nine states [with others adding to the committee later] while the Congress was not assembled. [In session]

+2 McLaddie.

A Union doesn't exist with half of it denies that union.

Then what was Lincoln President of?

A Union doesn't exist with half of it denies that union.

Then what was Lincoln President of?

Don: They fought a civil war to answer that question…

"Then what was Lincoln President of?"

A DisUnion

"Don: They fought a civil war to answer that question"

A ReUnion

😉

as a brit a series of alternative questions arise

why did Lincoln want to keep the union together, why tie the North to a backward, under-industrialised, agrarian South following a recognised immoral system ?

was western expansionism that critical to North and South?

why go straight to violence without giving negotiation a chance?

was the South really prepared for war or did they expect the North to "let it go"?

why did the South think the civilised European powers would support them – were there pacts in place? were any negotiations taking place prior to fort sumter?