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.
There is a debate on this board about if the south was provoked or not by Abe Lincoln into insurrection, secession, war and firing the first shots.
I ague:
Abe Lincoln did provoke the southern leaders into committing following acts of insurrection, secession and war.
A background to this argument.
Our nation had two earlier acts of insurrection before 1860. There was the Whiskey rebellion 1790's and the Nullification crisis 1832 in both the president at that time acted forcefully and made it clear that any acts of insurrection were illegal and they would use military force to end the insurrection. Neither insurrection lasted and both presidents Washington and Jackson made it clear an insurrection is illegal and set the present that the union must be preserved.
Now lets move the 1859 the Southern leaders see a weak waffling president in Buchanan and the fires of insurrection are lighted. In 1860, Southern leaders see a country lawyer from IL. become president and again they believe they have a weak president to contended with and the fires of insurrection explored.
President Lincoln reinforces this view(of weakness) with his first inaugural address where he tries to appease the leaders of the insurrection. This act appeasement reinforced Southern leaders view he was weak and fueled the fires of the insurrection that will lead to war.
I argue again:
Abe Lincolns act of appeasement(show of weakness) to leaders of the insurrection only provoked the leaders to increase their demands and set our nation toward civil war.
If only Lincoln had followed the precedents set by Washington and Jackson and forcefully rejected the insurrection demands and show resolve the war might never had happen.
It was Lincoln's appeasement to the Southern slavers, like England's appeasement to Hitler, fueled the Civil war as it fueled WWII.
Appeasement was the true provokator of the Civil War!!
Gonna hafta think on that some 5fish. Sounds about right. Maybe later.
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
Appeasement was the true provokator of the Civil War!![/quote]
O, Fish! Thou strikest close to the heart of something, but
as Ole, I am going to have to ponder it...
This much I know... and you are getting really close to THE REAL LINCOLN, here. Not Thomas J.'s, but Frank Conner's...
From Mr. Conner, page 93 of THE SOUTH UNDER SIEGE - 1830-2000...
"Lincoln's greatest advantage at the Chicago convention
was that nobody knew where he stood on most issues
(Hillary!) thus, had no reason to be angry with him.
Also, most underestimated him badly, believing that as president he could be easily managed. Lincoln did nothing to disabuse the delegates of their misconceptions. But in fact, both Lincoln and his campaign manager, Judge David E. Davis, were extraordinarily-skillful politicians. Davis and his staff were all over that 1860 nominating-convention, horse-trading and forming coalitions.
Having won the nomination largely because nobody knew much about him, Lincoln was careful to maintain his air of mystery, thereafter. He did not campaign following the Chicago convention, but sent others to do it for him.
He cautioned his surrogates to speak only to those issues
of great concern to the particular audiences they were addressing. The less the public knew about his policies, the better".
You have to understand. Liberals couldn't get established well enough in the executive branch prior to Lincoln to do any real damage. (President Tyler, who served in the Confederate Congress, actually betrayed the Whig party and changed sides, if I am not mistaken. Harrison got cursed for lying to Tenskatowa, (the Non-White Tecumseh's brother) and died of the famous Zero Year Curse (apparently, it only works on Liberals!) a month into office... Other Whiggish candidates before Lincoln had more moderate ways about them, collectivistically).
So, the rise of the radical Republican Liberals was a new thing to most people, who had been lulled into complacency by fairly decent presidents (it says much that Henry Clay could never score that office!) I have to give the credit to Thomas Jefferson, for whom Jefferson Davis was named, and for whom Davis patterned much of his policies while president of the Confederacy...
... and even though the South knew full well what awaited them in the party, if not the man, himself. Liberals are the blood-lust enemy of the true Conservatives! They are Collectivists, and consolidationalists, and of a mob-rules democracy, which our Conservative founding fathers feared most of all, as the death knell of a representative republic!
Will Nol Prosse this case, at this time, and will with-hold adjudication at this time. (Will only charge you court-costs, and will release you on your own recognizance! Court is adjourned! SLAM!)
Ok, this is, of course, my opinion. I have read this elsewhere by an historian but I can't think of where at this moment, but I agree with it regardless: Lincoln could see the writing on the wall. He knew what was coming. Everyone who was in government or politically active at all, on both sides, knew it was coming. Lincoln did not provoke the war by appeasement of any kind. He did not supplicate himself before representatives/emissaries of the South and promise them anything they wished, at all costs, so as to avoid the coming conflict. He was as conciliatory as he could be in his First Inaugural, even promising to leave slavery alone, but I see conciliatory and appeasement as different things.
What he did do was put the South in the position of having to fire the first shot of this war they so desperately wanted. The fire-eaters would have their war, and also the blood of the nation on their hands in the calamitous conflict that was to follow, all attempts by Lincoln to reassure them that their beloved slave system would be allowed to thrive undisturbed, aside. The South was not provoked into a war they insisted on having regardless of any provocation. Oh, they'd find their provocation somewhere, for sure, and Lincoln made that fairly easy for them.They were going to have their war regardless, come hell or high water.
Having been unable to dissuade them from their long sought-after conflict..unavoidable, irrepressible, whatever term you want, Lincoln was able to make them fire the first shots of the war, there in Charleston harbor, where he knew, (paraphrasing) "If the push is to come, let it come now." Various theories about the resupply of Fort Sumter etc. can be valid or invalid still, today, whichever view one wishes to take. If the bombardment of the Fort had not occurred, the war would have started elsewhere, possibly on a much bloodier note, but it would have started regardless. The leaders of the Confederate South would have full responsibility now, for the devastation and blood-letting that was to follow, when they alone were the only ones who could have stopped it.
Terry
__________________ "In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed. There is more involved in this contest than is realized by every one." Abraham Lincoln - August 18, 1864 Speech to the 164th Ohio Regiment
There is a debate on this board about if the south was provoked or not by Abe Lincoln into insurrection, secession, war and firing the first shots.
I ague:
Abe Lincoln did provoke the southern leaders into committing following acts of insurrection, secession and war.
A background to this argument.
Our nation had two earlier acts of insurrection before 1860. There was the Whiskey rebellion 1790's and the Nullification crisis 1832 in both the president at that time acted forcefully and made it clear that any acts of insurrection were illegal and they would use military force to end the insurrection. Neither insurrection lasted and both presidents Washington and Jackson made it clear an insurrection is illegal and set the present that the union must be preserved.
your exampes are of insurection, and nulification, insurection as defined in law are just that, examples of insurection. Secesion is not now nor was then, insurection, which was why Jackson was forced to obtain a force act through Congress because nulification was not insurection either.
Quote:
Now lets move the 1859 the Southern leaders see a weak waffling president in Buchanan and the fires of insurrection are lighted. In 1860, Southern leaders see a country lawyer from IL. become president and again they believe they have a weak president to contended with and the fires of insurrection explored.
President Lincoln reinforces this view(of weakness) with his first inaugural address where he tries to appease the leaders of the insurrection. This act appeasement reinforced Southern leaders view he was weak and fueled the fires of the insurrection that will lead to war.
I argue again:
Abe Lincolns act of appeasement(show of weakness) to leaders of the insurrection only provoked the leaders to increase their demands and set our nation toward civil war.
If only Lincoln had followed the precedents set by Washington and Jackson and forcefully rejected the insurrection demands and show resolve the war might never had happen.
It was Lincoln's appeasement to the Southern slavers, like England's appeasement to Hitler, fueled the Civil war as it fueled WWII.
Appeasement was the true provokator of the Civil War!!
Apeasement did not exist in that time frame, and the whole thrust of your argument is that secesion is insurection, when only a soveriegn has the atribute of secesion asa right, and sovriegns do not commit insurection, they use the right of secesion, instead.
there was no law on the books covering a state as commiting insurection, only parts of a state against the state.
If you look, at Munich UK apeasment bought time for the UK to rearm, at Munich the RAF was overmatched and without Radar, and the mil situation was less favourable then than it would be in 39, so the apeasement of Munich bought the time the UK needed to be able to compet milititarily in 39/40, there degrees of appeasment, one in which you trade time to prepare, and one in which you do not prepare.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Andrew Jackson and Zachery Taylor both threatened the use of force to head off secessionist threats from South Carolina. Nullification in 1830(or so) was a compromise effort by Calhoun as an alternative to secession, which Calhoun saw as hopeless because of the lack of support South Carolina had from the other slave states. But the secession threat was in the background, and there is little doubt that Jackson would have used military force against South Carolina had it formally announced it was seceding.
While the secession crisis of 1860 was unique, Taylor and Jackson both provide precedents of how an American president was likely to react to secession.
Much has been made of the advantage Lincoln would reap if the Confederacy fired the first shot on Ft. Sumter. But Jefferson Davis also hoped to gain an advantage by attacking the garrison.
1. Drive the upper south into secession by provoking Lincoln into responding to the attack.
2. Strengthen his infant government by not tolerating federal installations.
Davis was the president who acted, while Lincoln was attempting to keep the status quo.
The apologists for secession and attacking the garrison at Fort Sumter should look around the world. There are many examples of foreign outposts in, or near unfriendly countries that haven't been resolved by violence, just as the issues used to say, oh no it wasn't slavery, are routinely resolved politically.
5fish's idea that Buchanan's weakness encouraged the secessionists is valid. Whether a president like Jackson could have confronted and stopped the secessionist movement(in the late 1850s) is a trickier proposition.
Apeasement did not exist in that time frame, and the whole thrust of your argument is that secesion is insurection, when only a soveriegn has the atribute of secesion asa right, and sovriegns do not commit insurection, they use the right of secesion, instead.
Hanny, in the US Constitution, there is no provision or right for a "sovereign", and I'm assuming you mean a sovereign state, to secede. What the southern states did when they tried to leave the Union was rebellion.
Quote:
there was no law on the books covering a state as commiting insurection, only parts of a state against the state.
Your quote...I'm not sure... "books" would be US Constitution? I'm not following you here.
Quote:
If you look, at Munich UK apeasment bought time for the UK to rearm, at Munich the RAF was overmatched and without Radar, and the mil situation was less favourable then than it would be in 39, so the apeasement of Munich bought the time the UK needed to be able to compet milititarily in 39/40, there degrees of appeasment, one in which you trade time to prepare, and one in which you do not prepare.
I noted above that I don't think Lincoln "appeased" anybody. There's no comparison between he and Rebel leaders, and Chamberlain and Nazi Germany.
Terry
__________________ "In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed. There is more involved in this contest than is realized by every one." Abraham Lincoln - August 18, 1864 Speech to the 164th Ohio Regiment
5fish's idea that Buchanan's weakness encouraged the secessionists is valid. Whether a president like Jackson could have confronted and stopped the secessionist movement(in the late 1850s) is a trickier proposition.
weaness is one way to describe it to be sure, the weakness was that the Constitiona and law provided no remedy to the secesion, so Buck acted to the limit of the law and no further, which may appear as weak.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
LINCOLN did PROVOKE the WAR! 
Linear Mode
