Let's Talk About the Cause of the Civil War Here

Sheep

I wonder what the Bolsheviks would have done had the Confederacy successfully separated.

I wonder if Lenin would have thought "obvious oppressed worker class/proletariat" and the "war against communism" would have been drastically different.

Scalfin

Yar wrote: »

Scalfin wrote: »

You also seem to be forgetting that the states had joined to form a confederacy, and the troops that attacked the fort were under confederate demand, meaning that the action was a confederate attack, just like how it wouldn't just be Texas that Iran would go to war with if its reactors were bombed by a soldier from Texas.

Right, but if you are acknowledging some sort of sovereign government/entity known as the Confederacy, then it would follow that such a government was reasonably within its rights in trying peacefully to decide what foreign governments could own land and have military bases inside its borders. It's like if France told us they didn't want U.S. forts there anymore, and our forts in France started closing down and the residents there leaving peacefully to either come home or stay as French citizens, and France offered us a new peace treaty and money for the land and safe passage for the troops home, and we refused to talk to them about it and instead sent fortifications to one of our forts. At the very least it makes not so clear-cut as to who was being the aggressor when France attacks the fort.

The difference here being that South Carolina was at the time sort of still part of the U.S. and sort of not. That's the part that makes analogies difficult.

The bottom line is that the South wanted to peacefully separate, and the North wanted to fight to stop them. And it was only seven states that wanted to separate. The rest wanted to stay in the Union but separated because Lincoln was invading those seven states.

Or if Cuba wanted Guantanamo back... wait, they do!

Also, sending food doesn't count as fortification.

Fencingsax

Yar wrote: »

Fencingsax wrote: »

They attacked the Federal Government. You know that's what everyone means. Stop being a jackass.

I'm not being a jackass. There really isn't much of a historical analogy here, there aren't many countries constituted the way ours was..

Just to be clear, I said "They attacked the North!" You said "It was in South Carolina lol!"

You knew we were talking about attacking the federal government, because that's what all these pages are about. You were just trying to be a pedantic dick to make some point about how the confederacy weren't traitors. Here's a hint:THEY WERE TRAITORS.

Yar

Fencingsax wrote: »

Just to be clear, I said "They attacked the North!" You said "It was in South Carolina lol!"

Exactly. I acknowledged that I was pointing out a certain irony to the statement. Saying that the South attacked the North naturally implies something other than the specifics of what happened, as evidenced by the fact that it was not in the North. Calling it North vs. South as opposed to Rebels vs. the Federal Govt. has certain implications that this argument keeps wanting to conveniently flip back and forth between. It wasn't being a pedantic dick, I wasn't trying to use a trick of semantics concerning the "North" vs. Federally-owned land in SC. I think you just somewhat missed what I was saying.