Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
It is a salutary exercise to imagine oneself in Jeff D.’s place, faced with the conundrum of what to do about Anderson’s command in Fort Sumter. The two options appear to have been:
1. Attack the fort, with the consequence that you allow the U.S.A. to embrace its beloved oxymoron, a “defensive” invasion of the Confederacy.
2. Don’t attack the fort, and engage in negotiations. Lincoln would then prevaricate
and stonewall indefinitely. The result would be to invite the fury of the Southern
public and the ridicule of international public opinion. What credibility does a
new “national” government have if it cannot even control the forts in its own
harbours?
Lincoln had the political nous to realise the advantage which he held once Anderson’s men occupied Sumter. He really could not lose, whatever the government in Montgomery did.
For those who say that the war resulted from Confederate aggression in Charleston Harbour, I simply ask whether there was ever any chance that Lincoln would have consented to recognise the independence of the Confederate States. If there was no chance (and I am unaware of anything that he ever said or wrote to indicate otherwise), it follows that a Federal invasion of the Confederacy was inevitable whatever happened with regard to Sumter. It was inevitable regardless of the number of volunteers that Montgomery sought to enlist. It was inevitable regardless of whether the new nation created an army or not.
For those who say that the war resulted from Confederate aggression in Charleston Harbour, I simply ask whether there was ever any chance that Lincoln would have consented to recognise the independence of the Confederate States. If there was no chance (and I am unaware of anything that he ever said or wrote to indicate otherwise), it follows that a Federal invasion of the Confederacy was inevitable whatever happened with regard to Sumter. It was inevitable regardless of the number of volunteers that Montgomery sought to enlist. It was inevitable regardless of whether the new nation created an army or not.
Isn't there another possibility..that without the galvanizing effect of armed conflict, secessionist zeal might cool off, latent unionism might gain ground, and the confederacy would be temporarily packed away in yet another compromise measure? Lincoln wins.
In regard to Davis's dilemma with Ft Sumter, just what could he do? With all the Federal installations in the seceded states still held by the Federal government, he was in a fine pickle, particularly with those around populated centers, and most particularly with Ft Sumter. Lincoln was not going to negotiate, Seward and others thought they might, but there is no way Lincoln could risk being seen as giving credence to a revolutionary government by negotiating with it, as Buchanan realized before him, and as Seward was finding out. Davis of course had to make the attempt, but I believe it would underestimate the man to believe he was not already rather certain of what would happen with the Confederate emissaries. What's more, he could not do nothing, or be perceived by the South as doing nothing about Sumter. He needed to take control of this situation for his government and for order before the rabid unruly elements precipitated an event which would spiral out of control and leave the still forming Confederate government very much unorganized and unable to meet the crisis. As long as the Federals continued to maintain a presence in Charleston harbor, the situation would stay inflamed. Sooner or later, the inflaming agent would have to be removed. Negotiation could not be realistically counted on to do it, and the longer Davis waited, the more likely the hotheads would act on their own and leave the new Confederate government in the lurch. Davis did have options, though unfortunately none of them were good ones. His best if not only one was one in which he kept the keys to the door in his own hands.
What's more, Davis knew war was coming. If he maintain control of the situation in Charleston, and if the fort must be assaulted, perhaps it could serve as a unifying force for the Confederate States, a factor not to be regarded lightly. Of course, great risk was involved, but of that, there was a plenty.
I confess that I dwell in a little obscure hole in the wall and far from the madding crowd, which has it's own unique sense of charm, until you actually need something, like a decent library. To find myself lately in a position where I cannot travel very far is hugely frustrating, to say the least, but I would still like to make a few comments until I am more mobile, if only to keep abreast of our discussion.
I read, very thoroughly, the information that you provided in your last posting, with many thanks. And I do understand that there were countless times President Lincoln was quoted out of context, like any other politician, and many other times when he was not. I can't find anything to dispute Reverend James Mitchell's letter to Lincoln in May, 1862 ("Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man") as being out of context, but perhaps by now you have.
To touch on the Chiriqui Project briefly, it would seem that Frederick Douglass was deeply angered when he was informed of President Lincoln's meeting regarding the shipment of blacks to Chiriqui, and to quote Mr. Douglass' reaction, "It expresses merely the desire to get rid of them, and reminds one of the politeness with which a man might try to bow out of his house some troublesome creditor or the witness of some old guilt." I think that this statement stands alone and would be difficult to take out of context.
To borrow a phrase from Ole, I have no wish to "whang on the deceased dobbin, " but it is very difficult for me to regard President Lincoln as the "Great Emancipator" or noble liberator of all time. It appears that you believe that the mass exodus of black people out of America would have been for their own good, and I suppose that to be true, if it is from the viewpoint that no one, including President Lincoln, thought blacks would ever achieve racial equality - with that belief freedom was bound to fail. Fair enough. But don't wrap it under the guise of liberating a people, only to enslave them again in coal mines and in other countries where opportunties were meagre and the success rate of adaption, minimal. Many blacks wanted to stay in the United States, but didn't have that option under President Lincoln's colonization program.
In truth Cash, I really don't see much difference in the facade of black colonization (the willingness to sweep a colossal problem under the carpet ) and the suppression of people who expressed their right to be unfettered from a government which they felt no longer served their purpose. In the words of our favourite Canadian songstress...that don't impress me much.
Getting in a quick one before Cash responds. I'll grant you that "Great Liberator" is the high-school version of history. Aside from the usual political desire to gain power for one's party, he saw a problem and was concerned with it. It wasn't a matter of political or social equality, he saw the friction that was to come. And he eventually saw that it could not be avoided by the pipe-dream of colonization.
We all agree that he didn't get into politics to liberate slaves. He wished they'd go away and ease the rifts in the union. But he did turn to liberation which was probably a political ploy to keep England out of the mix. England could not and would not take sides with a belligerant to preserve slavery.
I suspect he had no idea what he was going to with the slaves after the war. His only concern was to bring the nation back together.
Perhaps he would have tried to create a situation in which former slaves were at least free to earn their own bread. That might have been enough. And it might not have been.
We'll never know.
By the way, two years from now, when your ribs no longer plague you, you will look back on this episode and laugh. (Not.)
"We are sometimes asked in the name of patriotism to forget the merits of this fearful struggle, and to remember with equal admiration those who struck at the nation's life, and those who struck to save it--those who fought for slavery and those who fought for liberty and justice. I am no minister of malice..., I would not repel the repentant, but...may my togue cleave to the roof of my mouth if I forget the difference between the parties to that...bloody conflict."
Frederick Douglass, Address at the grave of the Unknown Dead, Arlington, Virginia, May 30, 1871.
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
As a representative of the race who were the main accidental beneficiaries of Northern imperialism, it is not surprising that Douglass took the line that he did. Nevertheless, the smugness of the words quoted above makes one want to punch him on the nose. Especially as he was speaking in a graveyard which was created as an act of spite to prevent Lee ever returning to his home.
As a representative of the race who had the most to lose in the event of a Southern victory over law and the Constitution, I submit Mr. Douglass more than likely has a far more honest and direct view of what the war was really about in the long run than any of us in this century.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Douglass had far too much emotional capital invested to see the war with anything like intellectual clarity. While he had a gift for articulating the moral outrage which African Americans felt about slavery, he is just about the last person alive in 1861 to whom I would look for an objective opinion.
And as for his view versuses ours, I invite you to consider whether people alive in 140 years time will have a better or poorer understanding of why our respective countries went to war with Iraq than we do. My money is on them.
Bill, by that reasoning was Jeff Davis any less likely to give an objective opinion?
As to 140 years from now and Iraq... a lot will depend upon who writes the history and what their agenda/motivation is. If it is the America always at fault crowd... well so much for intellectual honesty. I hope it is from the perspective of someone who was actually there and saw both the positive and negative aspects of the US actions. If it is a Peter Jennings or Dan Rather... well the intellectual honesty & integrity will go right out the window.
All I want for my descendets is that they can look at the actions of my fathers and my generation and see what was accomplished both positive & negative and not only the blatant contempt & hatred so common in the US... and international media.
Not one single mainstream news report on the good the US military ha done in Iraq. No stories on the schools & hospitals rebuilt and built. No stories how there is more potable water in Iraq today than there was in all of Iraq before we liberated the place etc.
I see this the mainstream media as a mirror of much of the modern writing on the Civil War... Lincoln was really evil, the South was really right, the EP really was only a political move etc... so much for a balanced look at history from many in this generation.
History should be unedited fact, not editorial.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
