 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
Just Testing Ideas
| Joined: | Wed Jul 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 66 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
I can see situations where a state would be justified in wanting to secede - but let me stick to 1861. I simply argue that it would have been wiser to secede legally or though a joint political decision. What the south did was to unilaterally secede, then intentionally start a war! My argument is that even if the north were not inclined to allow peaceful secession, in reality the south could have made the north sufficiently miserable that secession would be inevitable. What steeled the will of the north was the firing on fort sumter – without this act many in the north would have said, let them go.
Texas Defender says that Lincoln would not allow this, as if the day he arrived in the white house he had the power of a dictator. I argue he was not so powerful until the south started the war, which allowed Lincoln to assume and skillfully use war powers. In 1861 Lincoln was a county lawyer, elected by just 39.8% of voters with limited political connections. No sumter = no war = peaceful secession.