"Preserve the Union" Topic

Don, so it was justified without slavery, correct? Then states rights and secession were the legitimate reasons for war? Slavery was not what caused Lincoln to raise the troops to do whatever word you want to call,, what he did.

I don't give 2 cents if it was an invasion, or putting down an insurrection. What it was does not matter to me. I am not defending the South or condemning the north. I am saying slavery was not the cause of war, it was the cause of secession. The secession of the south and the division of the country was what caused the war.

Please stop trying to read support of the South in what I am writing. I have tried to make it clear it has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Again my point is slavery did not cause the war, secession did.

Again for the defenders of that view, why must it be defended at all costs? Why a red line?

By the way, as to why you see wrong words, I write half these while working out, without my glasses on, using a cellphone, using my microphone on it. It of course goes by sounds.

Succession.

So initially the above read secession and then it auto changed to the above when I hit ‘space'.

Algnc23

All I can say, is your deleted post proves conversion and discussion was not your purpose.

So if a bullet enters your heart and it stops, you died of a heart attack.
Got it.

More to the point. The person pulling the trigger was the catalyst. The bullet entering your heart, was the "cause" of death.

Slavery without secession, was just slavery. As it was in the US before the war, for hundreds of years. Slavery could have continued to exist until he#l froze over, but without secession.., no war. The act of Secession "caused" the war.

I don't give 2 cents if it was an invasion, or putting down an insurrection. What it was does not matter to me. I am not defending the South or condemning the north. I am saying slavery was not the cause of war, it was the cause of secession. The secession of the south and the division of the country was what caused the war.

Technically, Confederate guns firing on Fort Sumter was what caused the war. Which, basically was because Jeff Davis wanted to force the other 8 slave states to choose sides. So you could therefore say that non-secession caused the war. That is, the fact that 8 slave states had NOT seceded.

Donlowry, yes on a technicality, one could say that the firing on Fort Sumter was the actual cause. I could live with that as well.

As it then becomes speculation on our parts, that without it, Lincoln would have attempted to reunify the Country by force. (I believe he would have, but that is my opinion only).

One could also ask, if Lincoln after the firing on Fort Sumter, had not called up volunteers, the other states would have seceded. Even with the call up some states did not secede (but force was required to do that. Each side using it, but the Confederacy failing). Making the South invade Kentucky first, was brilliant.

I don't see that anybody MADE "the South" (by which I suppose you mean the Confederate Army) invade Kentucky first. Any more than anybody MADE Jeff Davis appoint his old friend Polk (who actually chose to make that move) defender of the Mississippi Valley.

"In May 1861, Kentucky declared neutrality in the burgeoning US Civil War. Both the Union and Confederacy vied for the states loyalty by overtly respecting its neutrality and covertly currying support within it. By August 1861, the Union appeared to have the upper hand. Pro-Union supporters had won recent local elections and a Union recruitment camp was operating within the states borders. However, the Unions gains were nearly erased when Union General John C. Fremont declared all slaves in Missouri free on August 30, 1861. This proclamation caused an uproar in slave-holding Kentucky. The state threatened to tilt toward the Confederacy when, just days after Fremonts proclamation, Confederate General Leonidas Polk ordered troops to occupy Columbus, Kentucky. With its neutrality overtly violated by Polk, Kentucky declared its loyalty to the Union on September 18, 1861. Both Fremonts and Polks actions were contrary to the policies of Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis. Why did two senior military commanders ignore the strategic implications of their tactical actions Using Eliot Cohens unequal dialogue as a standard, this monograph argues that neither commander engaged in an adequate dialogue with their respective policymaker. A dialogue which adhered to Cohens model could have avoided disaster for either commander. Additionally, both commanders inexperience at military command, ignorance of Kentuckys political situation, and exclusive focus on tactical issues contributed to their mistakes. Fremonts and Polks actions serve as an important lesson for current and future military leaders charged with implementing policy."

If i remember correctly, Polk saw Columbus as a more strategic position to defend against what he saw as a potential Union offensive into Tennessee. Of course doing it was a disaster and failed altogether.

"Meanwhile, on the Mississippi River, a tense situation developed. The Mississippi flowed past Columbus, to the Gulf of Mexico; while the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers flowed northward, through Tennessee and Kentucky, emptying into the Ohio at Paducah and Smithland. Whichever side controlled these strategic points would likely dominate Kentucky, western Tennessee, and points further south. In April, western Kentuckians invited Jefferson Davis to occupy Columbus, and seize Cairo, a strategic point at the tip of southern Illinois, where the Ohio and Mississippi rivers merge. The next day, Federal troops seized Cairo; controlling river traffic thereafter. From Cairo, Federal troops made a few forays into Kentucky; and on August 22nd, a Federal gunboat removed a Confederate boat from the dock at Paducah. Northern politicians echoed Federal disregard for the state's neutrality. Indiana's Governor Morton stated, "Civil War in Kentucky is inevitable,"[18] and promised to send troops there.

Major General Leonidas Polk, commanding Confederate units just below the Kentucky-Tennessee border, told Magoffin, "I think it is of the greatest consequence to the Southern cause in Kentucky…that I should be ahead of the enemy in occupying Columbus and Paducah."[19] On September 2nd, Grant's Federals occupied Belmont, preparatory to seizing Columbus, across the river. Upon hearing the news, Polk ordered Brigadier General Gideon Johnson Pillow to occupy Columbus; which he did the next day. However, despite his statement above, Polk failed to advance on Paducah, 45 miles northeast of Columbus, and Grant's Federals occupied Paducah on September 4th, and Smithland a short time later. Paducah proved more strategically valuable than Columbus, as Grant's gunboats steamed up the Tennessee River, to Muscle Shoals, Alabama.

While residents of Columbus joyfully welcomed the Confederates, Secretary of War Walker opposed the move. Asking for an explanation, he instructed Polk to order Pillow's immediate withdrawal. Tennessee Governor. Isham Green Harris also advocated immediate withdrawal, opining that the move would hurt the Confederate cause in Kentucky. Simon Buckner likewise thought the move a great mistake. However, Davis agreed with Polk, that occupying Columbus was necessary to defend the Confederacy, and aid Kentuckians. Soon after Polk's occupation of Columbus, Brigadier General Felix Kirk Zollicoffer led his rebels into southeastern Kentucky, to prevent Federal occupation of that area. The state legislature formally declared neutrality ended on September 18, 1861."

I know, I'm writing books about that period.

What's your point?

You seemed concerned that I said MADE the south. You could use maneuvered the South into invading, if you like that better. But any way you look at it, the South believed they had to make the first move. I thought it was brilliant maneuvering on the North's part.

I don't think it was the intent of anyone on the Union site to maneuver the Confederates into invading Kentucky first. In fact, I think Fremont had hoped to get to Columbus before the Confederates.

Before Polk made his stupid move, both sides seemed content to leave Kentucky neutral, at least for a while, as it kept them from having to defend it.

Obviously our opinions differ, but no biggie. That is why we discuss.

Kentucky neutrality enormously benefitted the Confederacy by shortening the border they had to defend.

Yes, but it did the same for the Union. That's what drove Sherman into a nervous break-down, worrying about defending it.

But neither in the end, found a problem with violating it. Grant was ready to, or at least Polk and Davis believed it so. The Union as stated above had made "forays" into it already. Both sides had sent arms into Kentucky previously. I think the Confederacy always overestimated the support they had there, which never was much over a 1/3 of the State.

Interesting difference to today. When I have done Liiving history in Kentucky, by listening to the visitors, you would think it a bastion of the Confederacy and the first shot on fort Sumter came directly from Lexington. 🙂