The irrelevance of Sumter & slavery

[hawglips]

Bill, yes, I've noticed that. It's a phenomenon born of the myth, I fear. It's very difficult for most to break through the stereotypical south-bad north-good imagery

Cash, as Russ and others have demonstrated quite clearly, secession was indeed consitutional. But that's another topic.

I don't believe I've ever heard a pro-force unionist argue that Lincoln intended to allow the CSA to exist in peace. How do you square that with his "preserve the union" rationale for coercing the seceders back into the Union?

Hal

[cash]

Originally Posted by hawglips

Cash, as Russ and others have demonstrated quite clearly, secession was indeed consitutional.

Not according to James Madison and the US Supreme Court.

Originally Posted by hawglips

I don't believe I've ever heard a pro-force unionist argue that Lincoln intended to allow the CSA to exist in peace. How do you square that with his "preserve the union" rationale for coercing the seceders back into the Union?
Hal

Most proconfederates completely misunderstand Lincoln and what he was doing in 1861 before Fort Sumter. They're so busy constructing the caricature of the evil Lincoln bent on starting a war to subjugate the poor, peace-loving southerners that they gloss over the details of what Lincoln was doing, what he was not doing, and what was happening in the south.

Lincoln had all the time on his side. He believed secession was something the average southerner had been fooled into and that patriotic feelings for the old Union would assert themselves. All he needed to do was maintain the status quo and not recognize the legality of secession. Not recognizing the confederacy and being scrupulous in avoiding any recognition that secession might be legal was done to keep the confederates from claiming any sort of moral victory. Keeping the symbols of national sovereignty, Forts Sumter and Pickens, were part of that. Thus there would be no inflation of confederate morale. His strategy was working, too. There were already signs of discontent with the confederacy. Jefferson Davis was the one feeling most of the pressure to start a war. Lincoln's view was that he would deny the confederates a moral victory and wait them out. If they were going to start a war in the meantime, then he would accept such a war, because then the conditions would have changed and a peaceful strategy wouldn't work any longer. But just because he was willing to accept a war doesn't mean he wanted a war.

Regards,
Cash

[hawglips]

Cash, I find this fascinating.

If it was Lincoln's intent to allow the CSA to exist in peace rather than provoke a confrontation to ignite war, how do you explain the Fox expedition, for starters?

Hal

[cash]

Originally Posted by hawglips

Cash, I find this fascinating.

If it was Lincoln's intent to allow the CSA to exist in peace rather than provoke a confrontation to ignite war, how do you explain the Fox expedition, for starters?

Hal

----------------
Lincoln's aim was to preserve the status quo. In order to do that he had to reprovision the garrison at Fort Sumter. All the confederates had to do was allow the reprovisioning to take place peacefully and the status quo would be maintained.

Remember, Lincoln didn't recognize the legality of secession. The point he was making was that South Carolina, Charleston, and Charleston Harbor were all still part of the United States, and it was entirely legal for a garrison of U.S. soldiers to occupy a fort in the United States.

Regards,
Cash

[hawglips]

Are you saying that bringing provisions to Sumter was the sole aim of the Fox expedition?

Hal

[ole]

Lincoln's message to Pickens: ...expect an attempt will be made to supply Ft. Sumter with provisions only, and that if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms or ammunition will be made, without further notice, or in case of an attack against the Fort. The Fox expedition was sent to provision the fort and carried the wherewithal for the alternative.

Fox's vessel carried supplies and troops. The firepower was delayed. When the shooting started in the absence of the warships, Fox couldn't very well deliver his supplies. Had the warships been on hand, there may well have been a different story to tell about the USCW ... but then, we'll never know.

We can speculate on the reason for 200 armed soldiers aboard the supply ship. Were they a perfidious ploy to expand the garrison? Were they there to take down Ft. Moultrie? Were they there to replace the garrison? Or were they there for plan B and there was insufficient room on the warships?

I see Lincoln, like most men of his time, as a man of his word. If he said he would or would not do something, you could take that to the bank. Had the fort not been fired on, Fox would have had no choice but to unload the provisions and leave. Lincoln would have it no other way.

Ole

[cash]

Originally Posted by hawglips

Are you saying that bringing provisions to Sumter was the sole aim of the Fox expedition?

Hal

------------------------

Lincoln's orders to Fox were that if the landing were not resisted to land the provisions only. That was the sole aim of the expedition provided there was no resistance to the landing of the provisions.

Regards,
Cash

[MobileBoy]

Ole,
Friend unfortunately I don't know share your confidence in Lincoln being a man of his word.In fact I think he was about as honest as Bill Clinton.Surely the 200 soldiers were on board for some purpose other than enjoying a boat ride.Didn't Lincoln say he wasn't going to resupply the fort?Perhaps he said this through only intermediaries.At any rate he called himself a man of peace and promised not to interfere with slavery.It seems history proved him false on both of those counts.I believe Grant or Sherman were men of their word :as for Lincoln I'd believe a used car salesman sooner.

[cash]

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

Friend unfortunately I don't know share your confidence in Lincoln being a man of his word.

So you think he lied in his orders to Fox?

[begin quote]
WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, April 4, 1861.
Captain G. V. FOX, Washington, D. C.:

SIR: It having been decided to succor Fort Sumter you have been selected for this important duty. Accordingly you will take charge of the transports in New York having the troops and supplies on board to the entrance of Charleston Harbor, and endeavor, in the first instance, to deliver the subsistence. If you are opposed in this you are directed to report the fact to the senior naval officer of the harbor, who will be instructed by the Secretary of the Navy to use his entire force to open a passage, when you will, if possible, effect an entrance and place both troops and supplies in Fort Sumter.

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

SIMON CAMERON,
Secretary of War.
[end quote]
[OR, Series I, Vol 1, pp. 235-236]

And did he lie to Mercer in his orders as well?

[begin quote]
NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, April 5, 1861.

Captain SAMUEL MERCER,

Commanding U. S. S. Powhatan, New York:

SIR: The United States steamers Powhatan, Pocahontas, and Harriet Lane will compose a naval force, under your command, to be sent to the vicinity of Charleston, S. C., for the purpose of aiding in carrying out the objects of an expedition of which the War Department has charge.

The primary object of the expedition is to provision Fort Sumter, for which purpose the War Department will furnish the necessary transports. Should the authorities at Charleston permit the fort to be supplied, no further particular service will be required of the force under your command, and after being satisfied that supplies have been received at the fort, the Powhatan, Pocahontas, and Harriet Lane will return to New York, and the Pawnee to Washington.

Should the authorities at Charleston, however, refuse to permit or attempt to prevent the vessel or vessels having supplies on board from entering the harbor, or from peaceably proceeding to Fort Sumter, you will protect the transports or boats of the expedition in the object of their mission-disposing of your force in such manner as to open the way for their ingress and afford, so far as practicable, security to the men and boats, and repelling by force, if necessary, all obstructions towards provisioning the fort and re-enforcing it; for in case of resistance to the peaceable primary object of the expedition a re-enforcement of the garrison will also be attempted. These purposes will be under the supervision of the War Department, which has charge of the expedition. The expedition has been intrusted to Captain G. V. Fox, with whom you will put yourself in communication, and co-operate with him to accomplish and carry into effect its object.

You will leave New York with the Powhatan in time to be off Charleston Bar, ten miles distant from and due east of the light-house, on the morning of the 11th instant, there to await the arrival of the transport or transports with troops and stores. The Pawnee and Pocahontas will be ordered to join you there at the time mentioned, and also the Harriet Lane, which latter vessel has been placed under the control of this Department for this service.

On the termination of the expedition, whether it be peaceable or otherwise, the several vessels under your command will return to the respective ports, as above directed, unless some unforeseen circumstance should prevent.

I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,

GIDEON WELLES,
Secretary of the Navy.
[end quote]

[OR Series I, Vol 1, pp. 240-241]

Other than the fact that it is contradicted by the actual orders given to Fox and Mercer, the "Lincoln was lying" nonsense ignores military reality. Fort Sumter was surrounded by artillery pieces aimed at it. If the confederates allowed the landing to take place and the troops were landed, it would only exacerbate Lincoln's problems because he would have 200 more mouths to feed inside the fort. There would be no way the confederates would allow any more expeditions to provision the fort, so the garrison would eventually be starved out anyway, and 200 additional soldiers would have been added to the number of people surrendered.

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

Didn't Lincoln say he wasn't going to resupply the fort?

No.

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

Perhaps he said this through only intermediaries.

No.

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

At any rate he called himself a man of peace and promised not to interfere with slavery.It seems history proved him false on both of those counts.

Wrong. It was the confederates who started the war, and it was the effect of the war itself that led to the destruction of slavery. Had the confederates not started the war, Lincoln would not have touched slavery where it existed. He still would have attempted to keep it from expanding into the territories, which was his consistent position throughout.

Regards,
Cash

[MobileBoy]

Cash,
I don't think it is unreasonable to consider the possibility that Lincoln provoked the attack on purpose.

It was his Secretary of the Navy, Gideon Welles, who wrote: “It was very important that the Rebels strike the first blow in the conflict.”

It's not unreasonable to condider that Lincoln(who was very intelligent if still a scoundrel) also shared his sentiments. Did the failure of the expedition distress Lincoln? Not at all. On May 1, 1861, he wrote fox:
“I sincerely regret that the failure of the attempt to provision Fort Sumter should be the source of annoyance to you…
You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.”

There is no proof what Lincoln's intentions were either way, so it's a matter of interpretation.I believe Lincoln purposely provoked the South Carolinians.I'm inclined to agree with you on Lincoln's view on slavery but still he said one thing and did another.Abe was certainly no man of peace.Again I choose to evaluate what he said with his actions and I find him wanting.You choose to make excuses as to why he didn't do what he said.That being the case I can't understand how you justify your position. Lincoln's actions would seem to carry more weight with me since they occurred in reality for all to see.Yet you would have me base my opinion on your reasons or excuses why Lincoln didn't do what he said.I don't understand that reasoning but you're more than welcome to your views whether I consider them accurate or not.