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.
"Historians have also concluded that the no secession/no compulsion opinion vanished from public view like the melting snow immediately after the arrival of news of Ft. Sumter in any particular area of the North. It was replaced with anger and outrage -- followed by massive volunteer enlistment to avenge the insult.
From that, we can conclude that the declarations of secession and the subsequent provocative acts of the seceding states (January-early April, 1861) were not enough to cause a war. The violent assault on Ft. Sumter, coming on top of all that, was enough to cause a war in the minds of Northerners and Westerners.
That all seems clear and decided. We know why the North went to war: the South attacked them."
"Any story sounds true until someone tells the other side and sets the record straight."
Proverbs 18:17 (Living Bible)
"The Secret Out. -- It is evident now that the reason why the fleet did not assist Major Anderson was because the Government really wished Major Anderson to be defeated. The Tribune tacitly confesses it this morning. It says: 'We have lost Fort Sumter, but we have united the North.' This corresponds with the wish of a prominent Republican, who said he hoped Major Anderson would be defeated, in order to do just what the Tribune now claims it has done--expose a gallant band of soldiers to death in order to carry a political point!"
There is every reason to believe that the above paragraph from the New York Day Book speaks the truth, and unmasks the guilty authors of the war. The whole Charleston exhibition was a compound of treachery, dissimulation and devilishness. The war of coercion had been resolved upon, and afraid to assume the responsibility of their own act, the Cabinet secretly got up this affair only for the purpose of provoking a conflict in such a manner as to give them a plausible appearance of having been the attacked party. In this way have they imposed upon the Northern people and aroused them by their crafty appeals and false representations to the desired pitch of indignation. It was a smart trick, but an ineffably base one. They have accomplished their infernal purpose, and are now glorifying in their success.
Petersburg Express, April 1861
~
"...by an accident, for which you were in no way responsible, and possibly I, to some extent, was, you were deprived of a war-vessel [Powhatan], with her men, which you deemed of great importance to the enterprise....
...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."
Abraham Lincoln to Capt. G.V. Fox (commander of expedition to relieve Fort Sumter), 1 May 1861
It is strange that the one vessel considered absolutely necessary for the success of relieving Fort Sumter was diverted elsewhere by an "accident"...
It would be better if one read a few more history books rather than contemporary newspaper articles and Editorials.
It is no secret that Lincoln AND Davis knew that if one or the other did not back down over the question of Ft. Sumpter, there would be war. Both assumed that the other would not back down, so Lincoln made sure that the first shot of the war would be fired by the south. Davis knew the implications of firing the first shot, but Lincoln had out manuevered him.
No, that does not mean that Lincoln 'Really' started the war, Davis had the 'choice' of peace or war And he knew it. Davis, cooly, with deliberate forethought, chose war. Lincoln merely, manuevered such, that the responsibility for the starting of war would rest on the south, who waere the ones intent on (and preparing for) war.
Lincoln merely, manuevered such, that the responsibility for the starting of war would rest on the south, who waere the ones intent on (and preparing for) war.
"merely manuevered"
What hogwash...
The one who provokes a war has no responsibility for it?(...?????)
~
"...the south, who were the ones intent on (and preparing for) war..."
The one who provokes a war has no responsibility for it?(...?????)
~
"...the south, who were the ones intent on (and preparing for) war..."
...and the North wasn't preparing for war?
To be blunt: No, the US government had made no particular effort to prepare for war with the seceding states. However, the Confederacy had made substantial preparations for war, and had already used armed force.
Before the attack on Ft. Sumter, the seceding states had seized many arsenals, revenue service vessels, forts, weapons and equipment. They had begun purchasing arms in large quantities. They had used force against US government employees to do this. They had threatened to attack US forces in Texas (where Twiggs capitulated, handing much equipment to the secessionists). They were besieging US soldiers in Charleston and Pensacola. They fired on US flag ships twice at Charleston. They had already called up over 30,000 troops to Confederate service (doesn't count many state troops, such as the South Carolina Army) -- while the US Army consisted of only 16,000 men and about 14,000 of those were west of the Mississippi, maintaining order and defending against Indians, many as far away as California and Oregon.
The Buchanan administration never called for additional forces. All of this is BEFORE the Lincoln administration called for a single soldier. All of it is true, and can be documented and verified. Please explain the difference between known history and what you seem to be saying.
Exactly right, Trice. All the provocation for war was southern, Buchanan was trying to maintain the status quo, as was Lincoln when he assumed office, to be met immediately by the Sumpter question, the North was not prepared for a war, so all he could do was make sure the world knew Who were trying to change the status quo (by war, if necessary)
What does depending on newspapers to do ones thinking indicate? Is it a reflection on education or intellect?
18 guns & 200 men on four ships only two of which can even remotely thought as warships... now that is what I call a provacative invasion force.
Jefferson Davis calling for 100,000 troops well prior to Ft Sumter (while the US Army fielded about 16,000)... would that be viewed as provocative?
__________________ 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
"Be not righteous overmuch."
Ecclesiastes vii. 16.
Editorials do not a history make. If this were so, the South would have been in deep trouble with all those editorials that said the war was about slavery.
"Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting."
Daniel v. 27.
Again, it would help to know what you are trying to say vice just typing dates, names, etc. I gather from your posts you are trying to say Lincoln started the whole thing, had the Union armed to the teeth and was just waiting for an excuse (over the loss of the tariff, from what I gather) to conquer the South and extract tribute.
Trice and Opndownfall dispute this theory with debate and form, not just a ledger book with some figures and names.
"And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."
Matthew xv. 14.
Bible quotes are interesting, but like editorials, can be used to support almost any position or to highlight a post in a particular way. But on their own, they prove little.
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
OpnDownfall- "It would be better if one read a few more history books rather than contemporary newspaper articles and Editorials."
ublue- "Editorials do not a history make. If this were so, the South would have been in deep trouble with all those editorials that said the war was about slavery."
I believe you missed the Lincoln quote which backs up what is said in the editorial...
ublue- "I gather from your posts you are trying to say Lincoln started the whole thing, and was just waiting for an excuse (over the loss of the tariff, from what I gather) to conquer the South and extract tribute.
Trice and Opndownfall dispute this theory with debate and form, not just a ledger book with some figures and names."
Yes, I use statements, reports, facts and figures from the 1860s. Far more relevant than what the Glorious Unioners of 2006 have to say.
Before the attack on Ft. Sumter, the seceding states had seized many arsenals, revenue service vessels, forts, weapons and equipment. They had begun purchasing arms in large quantities. They had used force against US government employees to do this. They had threatened to attack US forces in Texas (where Twiggs capitulated, handing much equipment to the secessionists). They were besieging US soldiers in Charleston and Pensacola. They fired on US flag ships twice at Charleston.
Number of Federal soldiers and employees killed or injured from the time of the Secession of South Carolina (20 Dec 1860) thru the bombardment of Fort Sumter (12 April 1861) -
0
Number of Southern Civilians killed or wounded by Federal troops within one month of Fort Sumter-
250
I see no reason for any moral outrage at all on part of the North.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
To be blunt: No, the US government had made no particular effort to prepare for war with the seceding states. However, the Confederacy had made substantial preparations for war, and had already used armed force.
Here is the original statement- "the south, who were the ones intent on (and preparing for) war."
...and my reply- "...and the North wasn't preparing for war?"
"We have 5,000 infantry now armed and equipped and properly officered." Wm. Schouler, Adjutant-General, Massachusetts, to Simon Cameron, Sec. of War, 13 April 1861
- a force of 5,000 already organized, armed and equipped, before Lincoln's call for troops.
"I wrote on yesterday to Col. H.K. Craig, asking to anticipate now the quota of arms that will be due this State for 1862." Samuel J. Kirkwood, Governor of Iowa, to Joseph Holt, Sec. of War, Washington, 25 Jan. 1861
"I will have a save place of deposit for the 5,000 stand of arms to be sent to Indiana" (quota for 1862) O.P. Morton, Governor of Indiana, to Ordnance Dept., Washington, 4 April 1861
“I have the honor to inclose a letter tendering to the President the services of the Governor’s Greys, a military company at Dubuque in this State. The services of other military companies have been tendered directly to me.” Samuel J. Kirkwood, Governor of Iowa, to Joseph Holt, Sec. of War, Washington, 21 Jan. 1861
"Two regiments of volunteer infantry--the First and Second Regiments of the Washington Guards--have been organized in this city [Philadelphia] for immediate duty in defense of the Union" Wm. F. Small, Washington Guards, to President Buchanan, 28 Jan. 1861
…and several other volunteer companies, battalions, and regiments being organized throughout the North prior to Fort Sumter.
Number of Federal soldiers and employees killed or injured from the time of the Secession of South Carolina (20 Dec 1860) thru the bombardment of Fort Sumter (12 April 1861) - 0.
Nobody got killed or injured when I robbed the banks, so I should get a pass. Apples and dill pickles.
Quote:
Number of Southern Civilians killed or wounded by Federal troops within one month of Fort Sumter - 250
We demand the right to be in no danger whatever after we've opened hostilities.
A good many arguments have been and are being advanced on one side or the other on the questions and opinions on all aspects of the WBTS. Many of them are supported and debated with knowledge, logic and evidence. But the silliest I've ever encountered is the "no harm, no foul" position as it applies to the seizure of Federal property leading up to the ultimate outrage -- firing on the flag.
I can accept that SC and the CSA considered themselves a soverign nation claiming its right to regain control of a foreign fortress in their waters. Reducing that claim to, "hey! nobody got hurt," just boggles.
Pausing now to regain composure.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Fort Sumter 
Linear Mode
