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.
In an earlier post, Cash offered that a hotheaded secessionist in Charleston was not likely to start a war by firing a cannon at Ft Sumter. All Davis would have to do would be to stop the firing, send a note of explanation to the Federal authorities, and continue on the road of diplomacy and agreement- if that was his desire. This in answer to my assertion that Davis had to start the firing to prevent the hotheads from usurping his authority and starting the war on their own. My contention is that all of Charleston was hotheaded and likely to start the war on their own. Once the firing started by whomever it wasn't going to stop. Davis would not be able to, had he wanted, to stop it. He was going to have to ride this beast somehow, and had to figure out how best he could do that.
Not at all the case. The confederate army was in charge at Charleston, under the command of PGT Beauregard. They were under strict military discipline, and would have arrested anyone who started firing without orders. Beauregard knew how to enforce discipline and if that didn't stop the firing he would have fired on the perpetrators. Ed, I think your position ignores the presence of the military discipline that was enforced. It ignores Beauregard's abilities as well as the abilities of the officers under him to keep their men under control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ewc
Davis wanted no war, at least not yet; he knew perhaps better than anyone that the South was just not ready. But in the end, he would have to yield to expediency, because that was the state of affairs at the time.
On the contrary, Davis not only wanted a war, he needed a war. At the same time things were going on in Charleston, Davis was in correspondence with Bragg in Pensacola, looking to start the war down there.
"On March 10 General Braxton Bragg took command of Confederate forces near Pensacola with instructions from the War Department to report his 'wants in respect to artillery and the munitions of war, having in view the ... reduction of Fort Pickens.' " [Grady McWhiney, "The Confederacy's First Shot," Civil War History, Vol XIV, No. 1, March, 1968, p. 8]
"Bragg had been less than honest with Adams. Only insufficient means, not regard for the truce, prevented the Confederates from attacking Fort Pickens. By the end of March Bragg commanded a force of 1,116 men, and five thousand additional troops were on the way to Pensacola, but he was not yet ready to fight. He believed that the erection of a new battery at Pickens was 'a virtual violation of the [truce] agreement; and the threat of
President Lincoln in his inaugural is sufficient justification of the means we are adopting.' But Bragg 'deemed it prudent not to bring the agreement to an abrupt termination.' The Union fleet off Pensacola was too strong, and he was still unprepared." [Ibid., p. 8]
Well before the actual reinforcement of Fort Pickens, though, Bragg had received a letter from Davis saying:
"It is scarcely to be doubted that for political reasons the U.S. govt. will avoid making an attack so long as the hope of retaining the border states remains. There would be to us an advantage in so placing them that an attack by them would be a necessity, but when we are ready to relieve our territory and jurisdiction of the presence of a foreign garrison that advantage is overbalanced by other considerations. The case of Pensacola then is reduced [to] the more palpable elements of a military problem and your measures may without disturbing views be directed to the capture of Fort Pickens and the defence of the harbor. You will soon have I hope a force sufficient to occupy all the points necessary for that end. As many additional troops as may be required can be promptly furnished." [Jefferson Davis to Braxton Bragg, 3 Apr 1861]
As McWhiney writes, "This letter indicates that Davis was willing to start the war. He would have liked to do precisely what Ramsdell claimed Lincoln did--maneuver the enemy into firing the first shot--but the Confederate President considered such a scheme, in his own words, 'overbalanced by other considerations.' Davis counseled action--'your measures may without disturbing views be directed to the capture of Fort Pickens'--and the tone of his letter implied that he expected Bragg to take the fort should he fire the first shot." [Ibid., p. 12]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ewc
So it behooved the fireeaters and secessionists to start a war or have a war start. With this i agree, and that's just it- they needed a war, and Ft Sumter was mighty handy.
Include Davis in that. He saw the need for a war clearly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ewc
But it still could have been any event. Imagine how things would have looked if Buchanan had pressed the issue with the fort and arsenal seizures and the firing on the Star of the West. He had more provocation than any president could conceivably want. President Polk started his war against Mexico on a fraction of provocation. Buchanan didn't (sadly) because he didn't want to inflame affairs. The problem was that the situation was already so acute and so inflamed that the likelihood of calm and reason holding sway was minimal at best. History shows it.
Fort Sumter was a symbol of national power. The Star of the West was no such symbol and would not serve as a casus belli. If the war had started at Fort Pickens instead of Fort Sumter, Fort Sumter would still have been important for the role it played in the secession crisis, but Fort Pickens would then have been the important point where the war started, but Fort Sumter was never irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ewc
As to the question of President Lincoln maiintaining the status quo in regards secession and Ft Sumter and holding a middle course. He could not do so indefinitely.
He didn't have to. He only had to hold that course until one of two things happened: either the confederacy would fall apart as its individual states came back to the Union fold or the confederacy would start a war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ewc
He could not believe Unionism was dead in the South, and he believed that given time, it would come to the fore. He also knew that time was a precious commodity. Sooner or later, the tug was going to have to come.
Lincoln had all the time in the world. The one who was pressed for time was Davis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ewc
And he did have his own power base- the North and those who elected him to office, to think about.
Our best estimates of the prevailing public opinion of the time show that Union public opinion favored the course Lincoln was pursuing--do not acknowledge secession as a legality, but don't use force against the wayward brethren of the south, unless they used force first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ewc
If he was going to pull out of Ft Sumter, he had to consider it against the feeling at home.
Lincoln actually offered to withdraw the troops from Fort Sumter in exchange for the Virginia Secession Convention disbanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ewc
General Scott's Anaconda Plan whereby direct force against the South was not used, but great pressure exerted would indeed have been ideal. But again, he realized it would not have addressed the needs of his political base with his need to assuage the South. He was going to have to put this Unionism to the test at some point to see how faithful it was. The fireaters were going to keep at it until some definition must come focused. And in this, Lincoln was going to have no choice but to acquiesce, indeed it behooved him to do so. So much so that he might just go on and do so proactively. But as Bill says above, Lincoln didn't understand what was going on? No, he knew all he needed do was wait for the fireeaters to push till he didn't yield. That point was Ft Sumter. But again, it could have been at any point where Lincoln decided it was time for a showdown. It must come, and come it would, for emotion and hotheadness, not calm and reason, were driving this train on to its wreckage.
Ed, have you read Potter's and Stampp's books on the Secession Crisis?
David M. Potter, Lincoln and His Party in the Secession Crisis
Kenneth M. Stampp, And the War Came: The North in the Secession Crisis, 1860-61
I think if you read these you'll come away with a very different point of view.
The thing is, the fire eaters weren’t in charge of the Confederate government. Yancey wasn’t the President. Policy was determined by a President and Cabinet who were essentially conservative.
When people talk about how the Confederacy should have negotiated rather than fired on Sumter, I am puzzled. Firstly, Washington didn’t recognise the C.S. government or its commissioners. The medium for negotiation, therefore, didn’t exist. Secondly, much is made of the obligations on Lincoln which came with his office, of how he had to do certain things because of the presidential oath etc. But nobody seems to consider that identical obligations fell on Jeff Davis. I am aware of no nation on earth which would allow its head of state to acquiesce in the presence of foreign troops on its soil. The idea that he could allow months to go by with U.S. military personnel on Confederate territory is absurd and unfair. How long would Lincoln have tolerated the presence of a foreign garrison in New York harbour? Isn’t this a case of double standards?
Bill- The fire-eaters were loose cannons so to speak. Unfortunately for all, the loose cannons were holding all the lanyards of the actual cannons at Charleston, and so figuratively too to President Davis, President Lincoln, and every moderate in the land. You and I agree that this was a revolution, and in revolutions such elements unbidden, unwanted, but invariably, come to the fore. In fact, without this element, Southern nationhood does not come into being. Many Southerners then and now do not consider this element, these men, reprehensible. I understand and accept that and to a degree agree with that. President Davis must needs control this element in his Cabinet and his deliberations, but inherently such an element is very difficult, close to impossible really, to control when it is not calm and reflection loose upon the land, but zeal and zealotry at the fore. Davis wanted very much to calm the waters, given time, he, like Lincoln, could have done it. He, like Lincoln, wasn't going to have the luxury of time. It was a luxury the fire-eaters were going to give noone. This is not an element under control, by this time, noone really had control. Things were going to go as they were, and emotion and zeal were ruling the day.
And the problem with Fts Sumter and Pickens is that it was territory belonging to both sides. They were Federal institutions on federal land in states considered by the Federal authority to be under its jurisdiction; the Federal government never accepted the seceded states as no longer in the Union. They were in the Union in a state of rebellion. That they considered themselves outside the Union and with their own government is, consequently, irrelevant. As to negotiating for them and for other considerations with the Federal authority, the Confederate government and President Davis as well attempted it. Of course they would do this, as they considered themselves rightful authorities to do so. I must give Davis credit in conducting himself as a President of a nation should. He no doubt knew such an attempt would be futile, but still, it must be done, one national state to another. And no, i see no double standard.
Rob, very insightful post. The cultural differences presented a cleavage line upon which a split could occur once a disagreement became so profound as the ones we so happily debate here. I would like very much to hear more reflection along these lines. I gather you and Bill, i would include myself, put great emphasis on this.
Greatest regards, ed
__________________ 'It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag'
When people talk about how the Confederacy should have negotiated rather than fired on Sumter, I am puzzled. Firstly, Washington didn’t recognise the C.S. government or its commissioners. The medium for negotiation, therefore, didn’t exist.
Untrue. The confederates were in touch with William H. Seward at the time. Their problem was they insisted that secession be recognized as an accomplished fact and as a legal action. This is something no President who took their oath of office seriously could ever do. If instead of unilateral secession they had gone into Congress and said, "We find that our interests and your interests are no longer in accord and we wish to sever our connection with you. We now ask for your consent to this." Then they would have gone about things in a constitutional manner, whereby the Congress could then have passed an amendment authorizing the departure of the unhappy states and the states could have ratified that amendment. Then as part of the process, they would have had legal standing to negotiate with the President over possession of the Federal properties in those states and could have negotiated proper payment for those properties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
Secondly, much is made of the obligations on Lincoln which came with his office, of how he had to do certain things because of the presidential oath etc. But nobody seems to consider that identical obligations fell on Jeff Davis.
The confederacy was an illegal entity to start with, so none of its "obligations" can be considered binding. But, for the sake of argument, let's consider his obligations--1) Like Lincoln's, to take care that the laws are faithfully executed and thus to put down rebellions and insurrections. 2) Like Lincoln's to repel invasions. But one can hardly call the presence of troops that had always been there an invasion. 3) Like Lincoln's to preserve, protect and defend his constitution, which with the supremacy clause meant that no state could, on its own, claim the Constitution and US Laws no longer applied to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
I am aware of no nation on earth which would allow its head of state to acquiesce in the presence of foreign troops on its soil.
Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with Cuba, Germany, and Japan. And you might want to acquaint yourself with Great Britain.
In any event, the US troops were in a US-owned fort that sat on US-owned land which had been ceded to the United States Government by the State of South Carolina, in perpetuity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
The idea that he could allow months to go by with U.S. military personnel on Confederate territory is absurd and unfair.
Just because you say so doesn't make it so. The United States owned the fort and it owned the land the fort was on, free and clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
How long would Lincoln have tolerated the presence of a foreign garrison in New York harbour? Isn’t this a case of double standards?
No, it's a case of your scenario not fitting the facts in Charleston Harbor. Let's say the United States sold an island in New York Harbor to France, on which France erected a fort with a garrison. Well, that island and that fort belong to France and France would have every right to put a garrison there to protect their property. I don't see that Lincoln would have any choice but to acquiesce.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
Rob makes an interesting point about the inherent cultural differences between the two regions. As I have asked before, can anyone point to a period of peacetime between 1776 and 1861 when North and South weren’t pulling in opposite directions? To what extent was this ever really a single country before secession? And does this cultural diversity, amounting effectively (one might argue) to separate nationhood, weaken the case for the enforcement of the Union?
To use your word, it's absurd. The same cultural differences exist today, with one exception. The institution of slavery is no longer present. That was the overriding difference. That was the major cause of all the sectional strains.
And the problem with Fts Sumter and Pickens is that it was territory belonging to both sides.
Actually, Ed, from a legal aspect this isn't true. Whenever the Federal Government erected a fort, it was required to do so on land owned by the Federal Government. The State involved had to cede the land to the Federal Government forever, so that there were no issues of competing ownership of the land. The State of South Carolina, for example, ceded the land on which Fort Sumter was built to the Federal Government in 1836.
COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL RELATIONS
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836
"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.
"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.
"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:
"T. W. GLOVER, C. H. R."
"IN SENATE, December 21st, 1836
"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:
JACOB WARLY, C. S. "
The land on which Fort Sumter was built was now legally no longer a part of the State of South Carolina. Even if we assume secession were legal, Fort Sumter didn't become a part of South Carolina on the latter's secession anymore than the District of Columbia became a part of Virginia on the latter's secession.
So. Here we were talking about "irrepressible conflict" the whole time?
OK. There is ample evidence that the conflict was irrepressible. There is, however, evidence that there was a chance, however slim and improbable, that it might have been avoided if Davis hadn't (rightly or wrongly) pressed the issue.
'Bama raises sectional and cultural differences. I give these factors a lot of weight. I do however feel that people then were becoming accustomed to the idea that the differences were not important in the greater scheme of things. We still have them today. (Granted that we've had a lot more time to recognize that they have nothing to do with national cooperation).
Cedarstripper provided a quote from Mary Chesnut's diary that could use consideration: "December 27th. - Mrs. Gidiere came in quietly from her marketing to-day, and in her neat, incisive manner exploded this bombshell: "Major Anderson has moved into Fort Sumter, while Governor Pickens slept serenely." The row is fast and furious now. State after State is taking its forts and fortresses. They say if we had been left out in the cold alone, we might have sulked a while, but back we would have had to go, and would merely have fretted and fumed and quarreled among ourselves. We needed a little wholesome neglect. Anderson has blocked that game, but now our sister States have joined us, and we are strong. I give the condensed essence of the table-talk: "Anderson has united the cotton States. Now for Virginia!" "Anderson has opened the ball." Those who want a row are in high glee. Those who dread it are glum and thoughtful enough."
Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Texas had not yet seceeded on December 27th. Minor point, and I digress.
Bill raises an excellent point: Firstly, Washington didn’t recognise the C.S. government or its commissioners. The medium for negotiation, therefore, didn’t exist." How could there be negotiation? We might recognize that Lincoln would pull out all stops to save the union, including ignoring part of the Constitution to preserve the whole. For negotiations he would have waited until Congress was in session, for war powers, he didn't have to.
Bill continues with: "Secondly, much is made of the obligations on Lincoln which came with his office, of how he had to do certain things because of the presidential oath etc. But nobody seems to consider that identical obligations fell on Jeff Davis. I am aware of no nation on earth which would allow its head of state to acquiesce in the presence of foreign troops on its soil."
Here, the logic fails. Bill's bulldog jaws hold onto his prey long after it is dead. The unmentioned fort was not on South Carolina soil. This was proven months ago. The soil was symbolic to the Confederacy in that it made a mockery of the claim of independence. The comparison to New York harbor was, and still is, a lame example.
It might be admitted that Lincoln overestimated the loyalty of Unionists in the Confederacy, but there is no denying that the secessionists' majority was shaky if not questionable.
But now we get into a "what if." My vote is that the conflict was apparently irrepressible, but not definitely. There was a chance.
Ole
It is true that the fire-eaters were not WELL represented in the CS Congress. That does not mean that they didn't exert some control through the constituency.
The same is true of the abolitionists. Never a political power, they did comprise a very vocal influence on the voters.
The fire-eaters got the ball rolling and were a powerful impetus to its continuance.
Ole
Cash- i think on most of these points, we will have to agree to disagree. The Confederate government did not have things well in hand, at any time an incident could occur which would force Davis's hand. What happens say, if the resupplying vessels approach Ft Sumter, and the Carolinians start firing? It would not be Beauregard in charge then, but the forbearance of Anderson and the fleet commander which would have allowed this act of war to pass. War didn't start earlier because Buchanan didn't react, though he had every provocation.
Davis had to prepare for war. He believed from the getgo that war was inevitable. So i can go along with your reasoning that at some point, he would have precipitated war. But he was no fool, he would want no war before he was ready. And just maybe they could get enough concessions to push war back or conceivably give peace a chance. A long shot, but he was now a president, didn't he have to try? He knew war was coming, because as a Federal official himself, he could see the point from the Federal side, and he had this hotheaded element at home. I agree that he was put in a bad postion by Lincoln's resupplying expedition. At that point, he had to do something, he would then have to choose. I opine that he chose to fire then because of public feeling, he and his government would lose credibility, and instead of riding this wave, he like as not could be crushed by it. The Charlestonians were quite rabid on this point.
Lincoln did offer to remove the garrison from Sumter, but I'm rather certain he either did not think that proposal he made to Virginia Unionist representatives would amount to anything, and I remember reading somewhere, (can't recall where) that he later reconsidered the idea. He ewas going to have to sort out at some point just how loyal the slave states in the Union were going to be. Of course, the longer they were in the Union the better, but at some point, the tug was going to come, as he wrote in a letter to one of the Republican Peance Conference delegates. Sooner or later, something was going to prompt these states to make a decision. And it behooved the out and out secessionists to put that question forward forthwith.
Please explain to me why it is you believe feel it was necessary for Davis himself to drive home the issue of war? i would appreciate your taking the time to do that. i know you have said it was the Unionist feeling in the Upper South particularly. Is it a case where i say it was the zealots, and you say that Davis was of that way of thinking?
I haven't read the books you listed. Thank you for the reference. I don't know how soon, but I would very much like to take a read in that direction.
regards, ed
__________________ 'It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag'
Actually, Ed, from a legal aspect this isn't true. Whenever the Federal Government erected a fort, it was required to do so on land owned by the Federal Government. The State involved had to cede the land to the Federal Government forever, so that there were no issues of competing ownership of the land. The State of South Carolina, for example, ceded the land on which Fort Sumter was built to the Federal Government in 1836.
The land on which Fort Sumter was built was now legally no longer a part of the State of South Carolina. Even if we assume secession were legal, Fort Sumter didn't become a part of South Carolina on the latter's secession anymore than the District of Columbia became a part of Virginia on the latter's secession.
Cash, I know. My point was that the South Carolinians viewed it as rightfully theirs. Governor Pickens sent commissioners to President Buchanan on this very issue of transferring title. They saw this as the peacable manner to deal with the matter. But they were never going to back away from the idea that the land was theirs. This goes along with the usurpations of all the seceded states of the Federal property in their borders. It's just that the Federals refused to relinquish this one (and the Florida forts.) So the South Carolinians had no legality on which to act, how was that going to change anything in what they were doing? It really was no longer a question of legalities, but of zealotry.
__________________ 'It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag'
Ole- well spoken. As you say of the fire-eaters, the wild-eyed were not the people in power, but they exerted an influence most powerful, unto the most powerful, in the South.
__________________ 'It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag'
In your post #108, where you state, 'But they were never going to back away from the idea that the land (on which Ft. Sumter sat) was theirs.'
Doesn't this statement prove that Sumter was NOT irrelevant? To the people of South Carolina?
And the fact that the Federal government viewed the fort as sitting on land legally ceded to them and therefore the property of the Federal government a symbol of its right to be there and occupy it and reinforce it, NOT irrelevant to the Federal government? Thereby refusing to withdraw from it, was not the fort NOT considered irrelevant to the Lincoln administration and the North?
And many say that the Federal government and Lincoln could not recognize the CSA and negotiate with it, but was not Lincoln already in talks with Gov. Pickens and South Carolina? What if the state had conducted talks beyond those? Would these have been recognized by Lincoln and the government? Could these have calmed things down a bit if they had developed?
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
