The irrelevance of Sumter & slavery

[johan_steele]

Can someone explain to me how 200 Marines aboard ship constitute an invasion force... what were they going to do; join w/ the garrison of Ft Sumter & storm Charleston?

THe first shots were fired by SC & w/ the ok of Davis. It seems like a lot of mudslinging of Lincoln w/ a lot of white washing of Davis. Davis was the more experianced politician and certainly the more adept liar. Was war inevitable? Once Ft Sumter was fired upon it certainly was.

He gave an Oath at West Point; broken.
An Oath upon joing the US Army; broken.
An oath upon Becoming Secratary of War; broken.

In short his word was good only when convenient. How many other oathes did he ignore and to whom?

[cash]

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

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

It's not unreasonable to consider it. In my opinion it is unreasonable to conclude it.

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

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.”

If there was going to be a war, sure. That doesn't mean Lincoln wanted a war, though.

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

It's not unreasonable to condider that Lincoln(who was very intelligent if still a scoundrel) also shared his sentiments.

While I disagree about the scoundrel reference, I'll say unequivocally that Lincoln believed if somebody was going to start a war, then he wanted it to be the confederates. Just because he was willing to accept a war doesn't mean he wanted a war.

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

Did the failure of the expedition distress Lincoln? Not at all. On May 1, 1861, he wrote fox:

If you don't mind, I'd like to put the entire letter in the record:

[begin quote]
Capt. G. V. Fox Washington, D. C.
My dear Sir May 1, 1861
I sincerely regret that the failure of the late attempt to provision Fort-Sumpter, should be the source of any annoyance to you. The practicability of your plan was not, in fact, brought to a test. By reason of a gale, well known in advance to be possible, and not improbable, the tugs, an essential part of the plan, never reached the ground; while, by an accident, for which you were in no wise responsible, and possibly I, to some extent was, you were deprived of a war vessel with her men, which you deemed of great importance to the enterprize.

I most cheerfully and truly declare that the failure of the undertaking has not lowered you a particle, while the qualities you developed in the effort, have greatly heightened you, in my estimation. For a daring and dangerous enterprize, of a similar character, you would, to-day, be the man, of all my acquaintances, whom I would select.

You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort-Sumpter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. Very truly your friend A. LINCOLN

[end quote]
[Collected Works, Vol IV, pp. 350-351]

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

There is no proof what Lincoln's intentions were either way, so it's a matter of interpretation.

There are, of course, the orders given to Fox and Mercer, which argue against an attempt to provoke a conflict.

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

I believe Lincoln purposely provoked the South Carolinians.

Then you must think Jefferson Davis was an incredibly stupid man, since he's the one who ordered the firing on Fort Sumter. This is a repost of something I wrote regarding Davis and the decision to fire on Fort Sumter. I think you've already read it once, but it might be worth looking at again:

First of all, Jefferson Davis was not a fool, nor was he an idiot. He had a first-class mind with decades of political experience. A West Point graduate, a hero of the Mexican War, and a former Secretary of War, Davis did not take the issue of going to war lightly, and he wouldn't make the decision to go to war on a whim, or simply because his pride was wounded. The viewpoint that Lincoln maneuvered Davis into firing on Fort Sumter presupposes a Jefferson Davis with no such intellectual abilities. It presupposes a master strategist Lincoln and a Davis with no strategic forethought or abilities at all. After all, the confederates had plenty of warning about the resupply effort from Crawford, Roman, and Forsyth, who were reporting back to Davis from Washington nearly every day.

Let's look at the situation Davis was in. Secession had been stopped at seven states. The nascent confederacy was relatively tiny. "At the very least, as the most modest of the Southern imperialists envisaged it, the full-grown Confederacy would have to include Virginia, Maryland, and other slaveholding states of the Upper South and the border." [Richard N. Current,
Lincoln and the First Shot, p. 131] The Virginia convention voted 89-45 against secession on 4 April. "Thus, in early April, it appeared that (unless something drastic were done) the Confederacy was doomed to carry on, if possible, as a mere string of seven states, an aborted empire.

"What was worse, it appeared that, given time, one or more of the seven might abandon the Confederacy and return to the Union. If, in the lower South, true Unionists or 'reconstructionists' were few, they were nevertheless too numerous to suit the thoroughgoing, fire-eating secessionists. Especially in Alabama, the home state of the Confederate government, reconstructionism in one guise or another seeemed a threat to Southern independence. The outstanding secessionist, William L. Yancey, a resident of Montgomery, had failed to win election to the Confederate Congress. In one Alabama town this 'fire-eater' had, in a sense, actually eaten fire: he had been burned in effigy. 'We are in danger,' the Charleston Mercury warned (March 25), 'of being dragged back eventually to the old political affiliation with the states and people from whom we have just cut loose.' " [Ibid., pp. 132-133]

Time was not on their side. The Mobile Mercury said, "The country is sinking into a fatal apathy and the spirit and even the patriotism of the people is oozing out under this do-nothing policy. If something is not done pretty soon, decisive, either evacuation or expulsion, the whole country will
become so disgusted with the sham of southern independence that the first chance the people get at a popular election they will turn the whole movement topsy-turvy so bad that it never on earth can be righted again." [Quoted in Current, Ibid., p. 134]

In their Joint Resolution, the Virginia Assembly, without a single negative vote in both houses, said,

"JOINT RESOLUTION concerning the position of Virginia in the event of the dissolution of the Union. Adopted January 21, 1861.

"Resolved by the General Assembly of Virginia, That if all efforts to reconcile the unhappy differences existing between the two sections of the country shall prove to be abortive, then, in the opinion of the General Assembly, every consideration of honor and interest demands that Virginia shall unite her destiny with the slave-holding States of the South." [OR Series IV, Vol. I, p. 77]

Virginia was on record as saying she would join the confederacy if and when a war started.

Davis had advisors who were urging him in that direction as well. L.Q. Washington wrote, "I fear the present Virginia Convention will not pass an ordinance of secession unless a collision or war ensues; then public feeling will force them to it. There is a majority of old Federal submissionists, who got in by pretending to be resistance men." [OR Series I, Vol I, pp. 263-264]

"One Alabamian had warned Davis, 'Unless you sprinkle blood on the face of the Southern people they will be back in the old Union in less than ten days.' A sprinkle of blood, too, should bring the fencesitters--Virginia and the other border states--into the Confederate fold." [W. A. Swanberg, First Blood: The Story of Fort Sumter, p. 286]

There are the words of Virginian Roger Pryor, who, speaking to a Charleston audience on April 10, 1861, said, "But I assure you that just as certain as tomorrow's sun will rise upon us, just so certain will Virginia be a member of the Southern Confederacy; and I will tell your Governor what will put her in the Southern Confederacy in less than an hour by Shrewsbury clock. Strike a blow!" [Ibid.,_ p. 289]

That same day, Davis received a telegram from Louis T. Wigfall, urging, "General Beauregard will not act without your order. Let me suggest to you to send the order to him to begin the attack as soon as he is ready.
Virginia is excited by the preparations, and a bold stroke on our side will complete her purposes. Policy and prudence are urgent upon us to begin at once." [Wigfall to Davis, 10 Apr 1861, quoted in Richard N. Current, Lincoln and the First Shot, p. 151]]

In the cabinet meeting, Toombs warned Davis that firing on the fort would inaugurate the Civil War. Davis went ahead anyway and ordered the fort reduced. He's not going to put into his order, "We need Virginia so I want you to fire on the Fort." He'd have to be incredibly stupid to say something like that, and Davis was not a stupid man.

It was actually a good strategic move. It immediately brought 4 additional states into the confederacy, including, most critically, Virginia, and there had been a possibility of bringing a total of 7 in. Had all those 7 come into the confederacy, there would have been no way for the Union to prevail. Lincoln knew the border states were crucial. So did Davis. It unified the confederate populace and suppressed thoughts of reconstructionism as they rallied around the confederacy. The malaise talk of March and early April ceased at once and was replaced with patriotic exhortations and renewed recruiting of young men into the army.

I think if we look at the total situation, the viewpoint that Davis ordered the firing on Fort Sumter to bring the upper south and the border states into the confederacy fits the entire situation, whereas the viewpoint that Davis was merely passively reacting to bold, brilliant strategic moves made by Lincoln until he finally had to attack because there was no alternative is a misrepresentation of Davis and does him a great disservice.

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

I'm inclined to agree with you on Lincoln's view on slavery but still he said one thing and did another.

Regarding slavery, that's not the case.

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

Abe was certainly no man of peace.

No? If Person A is walking down the street and Person B comes up and hits Person A in the nose, is Person A no man of peace if he hits back?

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

Again I choose to evaluate what he said with his actions and I find him wanting.

Only if you make some assumptions about him that are not sustained by the record.

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

You choose to make excuses as to why he didn't do what he said.

As in not touching slavery where it existed? You do understand the difference between peace and war, right? What happened was the entire situation had changed. It certainly wasn't his intent to touch slavery where it existed absent a war. Even with the war it took him a year to write the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, showing that he came to the decision that the circumstances required it and allowed it.

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

That being the case I can't understand how you justify your position.

I don't approach it with the preconceived idea that Lincoln was a scoundrel. I look at the historical events and I can see how the changing circumstances required a different path that Lincoln didn't want to take in peace.

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

Lincoln's actions would seem to carry more weight with me since they occurred in reality for all to see.

And yet you close your eyes to the things that had happened surrounding those actions which made those actions necessary.

Let's say you put your home up for sale. You tell your wife you have no intentions of selling that home for less than $200,000. However, there is a glut in the market and you need to sell that house because you've already moved into a new house and the best price you can get is $180,000. If you sell for $180,000 does that make you a liar? If we judge you by your actions, do we say that you can't be trusted because your actions didn't fit your words? Or do we take into account the changing situation and say that the circumstances led to your not being able to meet your intent?

Regards,
Cash

[cash]

Originally Posted by johan_steele

Can someone explain to me how 200 Marines aboard ship constitute an invasion force... what were they going to do; join w/ the garrison of Ft Sumter & storm Charleston?

They weren't even Marines. They were raw, undrilled Army recruits.

Originally Posted by johan_steele

THe first shots were fired by SC & w/ the ok of Davis. It seems like a lot of mudslinging of Lincoln w/ a lot of white washing of Davis.

Not only that, but it's an insult to Davis's intelligence, education, training, and experience.

Regards,
Cash

[cedarstripper]

Originally Posted by cash

They weren't even Marines. They were raw, undrilled Army recruits.

As for the men Anderson already had at Sumter, I read a resolution proposed in Congress after the war, asking for the men under his command to be reimbursed for all of their musical instruments they had had to leave behind at Moultrie.

Cedarstripper

[samgrant]

One of these posts suggest that A. Lincoln 'provoked the attack' on Sumter.

Some points to consider:

The commander of the fort, Anderson, offered to leave at noon on April 15, if not ordered otherwise. Apparently, the confederates couldn't wait 3 days.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/anderson.htm

Also there is ample evidence that the would be secessionists had Their actions planned well ahead of the Sumter crisis:

As early as 1859, pro-Southern John B. Floyd, Secretary of War under Buchanan, ordered arsenals in the North to shift weapons into Southern arsenals. (almost 20% of the total of Federal arms!)

"During the period November 1859 to February 1860, arsenals in Northern states witnessed a decrease of 115,000 muskets and rifles, while Southern arsenals had their arsenals increased by 114,900 muskets and rifles. This shift occurred out of a total pool of 610,292 arms under Federal control."
- The Longest Night by David J. Eicher and noted from: "Report of James W. Ripley concerning John B. Floyd's transfer of arms to Southern arsenals, from U.S. War Department, The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, III, I, 321."

(I wonder what became of the missing 100 muskets and rifles? Well ...)


After South Carolina seceded, there was a frenzy of activity among Southern leaders to fan the flames:

A. P. Aldrich November 26, 1860): "I do not believe the common people understand it; but who ever waited for the common people when a great movement was to be made. We must make the move and force them to follow."

Christopher Memminger (January 24, 1860): " I am brought to the opinion that we ****her South will be compelled to act, and drag after us these divided states."

(Finally realized that the ****s replaced my letters because the word quoted is commonly spelled 'further' but was spelled with an 'a' in my source.
What is I said "passed gasher"? Let's see!)

[MobileBoy]

• Cash,

I understand your viewpoint and you did a nice job of explaining it.I don't think Davis was an idiot ,but yes I do feel like Lincoln was craftier and a better politician.

"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies.

Why does this seem like another situation where honest Abe should've had another nickname.What we're friends if you do exactly as I say otherwise I'll kill you until you do what I want.Lincoln was only a man of peace if he got what he wanted.Who wouldn't be a man of peace if nobody disagreed with them?His decision to use violence to force poeple to do his will hardly qualifies him as a man of peace in my book.I also generally consider violence to have the opposite meaning of peace.Ghandi was a man of peace Lincoln wasn't it.

[ole]

Ashley:

Pardon me, but I think you've overlooked one teeny weeny detail -- a war.

One can hate war; one can try with every fiber of his being to avert a war; but one can wage one if it comes. Most citizens, north and south, did not want war. But the war came. The game was changed.

You seem to be saying that a man who doesn't want a war should continue in that conviction after a war starts. That makes about as much sense as a Chappaquidick neck brace.

Thanks for hanging in there.
Ole

[cash]

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies.

Why does this seem like another situation where honest Abe should've had another nickname.What we're friends if you do exactly as I say otherwise I'll kill you until you do what I want.

Lincoln wasn't the one who fired on Fort Sumter. He wanted to be friends as long as the other side was willing to be friends and not start the war.

In you haste to demonize Lincoln you've forgotten who fired the first shots. It was Jefferson Davis who decided to use violence, not Lincoln. Lincoln accepted Davis's war. He didn't start it.

Regards,
Cash

[MobileBoy]

Ole,
The Confederate states wanted to be independent.They had no desire to conquer New York, Illinois, or any other Northern state.The lives of citizens in the North weren't endangered by the secession of some Southern states.It wasn't self -defense to send hundreds of thousands of troops across state borders into the South.Nobody asserts that the Confederacy had designs on invading or conquering the North.Self -defense is a poor example in my view trying to defend the war.I can't help but notice that at first Bull Run you had Northern men unwelcome on Virginia's sole.That battle didn't occur in Pennsylvania or Michigan did it?It was the Confederate soldier who fought for self-defense to comabt an invading army.I can't see how these facts are thrown away and the South is seen as the aggressors. If a robber comes into your house that is self-defense.If you go into a robber's house with the intent to kill him that is hardly the same thing.If citizens of the Confederacy were so backward and vile why in God's name wouldn't the North or Lincoln clap their hands and thank God they were rid of such backward poeple?It boils down to me to the fact nobody wants to admit that the Confederate states were of far greater value to the Union than the services the Union rendered to them .My point is the same being a man of peace only if you get your way isn't peaceful.Lincoln used violence not to defend Northern territory but to violently coerce the South to bend to his will.What Northern state was threatened when Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to invade the South?Exactly.

[MobileBoy]

Cash,
We almost agree.In my viewpoint Lincoln wanted to be friends as long as he got his way.History seems to prove that conclusively but the case could be made that Davis wasn't a great friend either.Lincoln had already made clear that he wasn't going to recognize the seceded states had he not?