You need a frumpy looking English guy to tell you the truth nowadays. But I don't trust a society that couldn't make any advances in cosmetic dentistry for a few hundred years.
Actually he does ignores History. The first act of war was by the Union troops occupying territory in South Carolina. This was the result of Lincoln ordering troops to occupy the old never completed Fort Sumter. (Bullet no. 2 below) The second act of war was the blockade of Ports in the South Including Charleston. (Bullet no. 4 below) Popular history says the firing on Fort Sumter was the first act of war. But repelling invaders in your sovereign territory is never considered and act of war in international law. (Bullet no. 3 below. Firing on Sumter, sovereign territory of South Carolina, was repelling an act of war) Acts of war Declaration of war upon another State. Invasion by its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State. Attack by its land, naval or air forces, with or without a declaration of war, on the territory, vessels or aircraft of another State. Naval blockade of the coasts or ports of another State. The war began after the South seceded from the Union. The Union started the war by committing the first two acts of war. The secession by the Southern States provoke Lincoln into committing the acts of war, but he had no Constitutional authority to began Warfare. He did not ask Congress to declare War, he simply started it by committing the first two acts of war. Congress finally did Declare war which stated nothing about Slavery. It was to save the Union! Wow! nothing says a State can not leave the Union.
Not that it matters, but it seems like you are saying that putting soldiers at Ft. Sumpter was an 'invasion'. Doesn't that make every military base stateside an 'invasion'? barfo
No. But in this case, the South had seceded from the Union before Lincoln ordered troops to occupy the old fort. The was after in was another country. It would be like sending troops to occupy and old fort in the Panama Canal zone. It ain't US territory anymore. Lincoln tried to sell it both ways in those days. He argued the South was an insurrection, therefore his invasion was not and act of war. Then he argued with other nation that his blockade which is and act of war was necessary because the South was a belligerent Nation, and therefore his blockage should be respected. Tell this or that to serve your audience.
But didn't it belong to the USA anyway? Or are you saying that the secession somehow erased ownership of the fort? Seems like a hostile foreign power taking possession of US territory is an act of war, no? barfo
We have forts (bases) all over the world on the territory of other nations. and we have agreements or treaties with them to support this usage. The Union had no such agreement with the South. The fort was not ever even completed as a Coastal defense fort following the war of 1812. It was all but abandon. South Carolina informed Lincoln that any attempt to reinforce the fort would be considered an act of war. This is logical since it position in Charleston harbor is an effective blockage piece. Lincoln chose this tactic of sending ships to reinforce the fort to indeed provoke war. We had bases in the Philippines. The Philippines chose to end this agreement. We do not have those bases any longer. Same in Okinawa, New Zealand, and more.
Yeah... sometimes. Sometimes it's less than that. How could it, given that it didn't recognize the confederacy as existing politically? We also have a base in Cuba. They'd very much like us to leave, but we aren't leaving, are we? barfo
Your position that it was 'someone else's harbor' is unsupportable. The US has a right to put US troops on a US base. But this is all such a waste of time - it matters not at all who committed the first "official" act of war. You can't make an argument that, if it weren't for that first step, war would have been averted. So 'who started it' is about as relevant as it is when two children are fighting. barfo
>>> If you say so Barf but I think it fits this description; "Invasion by its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State." After all, the United States is nothing but the Union of several States. >>> Well of course this is the whole point here. Lincoln followed no accepted rule international nor did he have any support in the Constitution for war, and if he did, he fail the Constitution again as Congress must decide on war. Lincoln committed the first two acts of war before Congress declared war. and the most interesting thing is the declaration of war had nothing to do with Slavery. So while it matter not to you, I think a clear view of history is important if it is to be of any use when looking forward. Lincoln's actions should be understood in light of his oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution. His failures in this role were disastrous. Vary relevant to anyone that cares that this country remain under the rule of law. War is always and only averted by not taking the first step.
Some would say the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Guess you aren't one of those. Lots of other presidents since have gone to war w/o authorization from Congress. Yes, yes, the civil war had nothing to do with slavery. Slavery was just something some folks did in their spare time, like model railroading or baking pies. And it's very, very important that we all agree upon that. Easy to criticize with 150 years of hindsight and the impossibility of proof that any other path would have been better or worse. Sure. Now explain exactly how the last 150 years would have gone if Lincoln hadn't sent troops to Ft. Sumpter, and how that would have been a better outcome. barfo
Sorry, had some real life obligations. Can't spend all day debating the civil war... just most of it. barfo
