What if Lincoln had pulled the troops out of Ft. Sumter and Ft. Pickens?

Neil,
Ahem....Shame on you. You forgot the great state of Tennessee.

You know, on the surface this seems a question with an all too simple answer. Nothing would have changed etc.

But after your last post I realized. You are right. Without Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee in particular the entire outlook is changed. (no offence to Arkansas)

Not just militarily but politically. These states were reluctant participants at best until the demand for troops.....To me that says neutrality was their watchword. They would have been essential in avoiding open war. And helping bring peace.

I mean realistically you ain't going get Mississippi to listen to you very much if you are demanding from New York but if you are being asked from Virginia it becomes a different story. They were in excellent position to broker a Reunion.

Now the question for me is would it have happened? I think you got a good chance for it. IF and only IF Lincoln steps up to the plate without threats. He calls up troops without congress is not going to fly in this situation.

Remember during the nullification crisis, it was not threats that brought appeasement but the other southern states saying don't worry we can fix your grievances (which were legit) and indeed they did. Also there has to be a recognition of southern leaders. The refusal to treat with them ain't going to help.
Remember the south wanted to go to court. They wanted it tried in Judicial branch not ignored by the Executive branch. Davis was hoping to be arrested etc.

The south on the other hand has to be able to have someone to represent them. I am not sure if such a person existed. Not that there weren't capable people that could have done the job, just that there was one acceptable by everyone.

Either way I think once a dialogue was initiated war could have been avoided. At least it gives you a chance.

Or at worst the deep south continues it's stance. (maybe it only secedes in part as Georgia wasn't united)

Or there is still a war but this time the Union has Tennessee Volunteers, North Carolina Tar Heels, & Sovereign Virginia with Robert E Lee (Can you imagine Lee leading an army with Little Mac, be a deadly duo) & Jackson, Hill & Longstreet on their side. With that you have not only saved a bigger part of the Union but you pretty much promise a much shorter war, especially in light of the contributions to the cause these 3 states provided. Not only is the war shorter but reconstruction has to be better as there is a brotherhood of the south the north just does not have. I know I know..all Americans etc...easy to say but in reality it just ain't totally correct. Not back then especially.

In semi conclusion I say it is excellent What If...I believe there was nothing to lose by yielding the Forts. Or even better, not demanding troops even after fired upn until congress agrees. That way, the upper south gets to weigh in, not arbitrarily commanded.

Nothing to lose, everything to gain.

YMOS
tommy
nope not going to proofread this rambling jabber neither.

[johan_steele]

Hmm my post never made it to the board. I was agreeing w/ Aphillbilly... honest I was. I know It's time to grab a snow shovel and hand it to the devil. I hadn't thought of it in quite that way Aphillbilly. Thanks, I appreciate the different perspective.

[unionblue]

Tommy & Shane,

Agreement? On an idea on this board? Concerning an issue that may have prevented secession? Pass the smelling salts Nurse!

Tommy, I am sorry about Tennessee, in more ways than one, believe me! I have seen this theory talked about in several books, to include Reluctant Confederates, Road to Disunion, etc.

However, I am not ready to agree that South Carolina came back to the Union over the Nullification Crisis simply because a lot of other Southern States said they would fix her problems for her. I think Jackson's threat of military force, via the Force Bill, and the fact that every other Southern State in the Union said that South Carolina was committing treason was the main reason. South Carolina would have been ALONE if it had made good on it's threat to leave the Union. As for legit reason? That's another thread as I see it because as far as I am concerned, South Carolina didn't have any legit reasons for so drastic an action and no other Southern State saw it either.

This example from history may have screwed Lincoln up as he might have used Jackson's take on the crisis of that time for his example to handle the secession crisis of his time. And remember, many, MANY times had the South threatened secession until the point most of the North yawned at the threat (something like crying "Wolf!' all the time.).

But I can't help but wonder if Lincoln had followed the advice of some and just let the Deep South act like spoiled little children and go home with their bat and ball and not play with the rest of the neighborhood kids for a while. They, or more importantly, their citizens, might have gotten bored and wanted back onto the ball field and back into the Union to play with the rest of the kids.

Just a thought,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on September 29, 2003)

(Message edited by Unionblue on September 29, 2003)

(Message edited by Unionblue on September 29, 2003)

[rivrrat]

I think that it is wishful thinking to believe that the war could have bee avoided by abandoning Ft. Sumter and Ft. Pickens. IMHO there was a war fever in both the North and the South. The seizure of Federal Property was going on all over the new Confederacy sometimes peaceful some times not. Those who committed these acts had to know that they were provocative. Often they did not even give the federal troops opportunity to ask for instructions. The idea that these many sites could have been reinforced in short order was laughable.

In Missouri, although a state convention had voted not to succeed, there was a concentrated effort to gather weapons and force the state into the Confederacy. If not at Sumter or Pickens the war would have started somewhere. I think that both sides just wanted to be able to say that they started it.

If Lincoln had pulled the troops out of Sumter and Pickens it's not likely the war would have happened. Removing the troops would have been an indication that Lincoln didn't want war, and would have been willing to deal with the Confederacy in order to keep the peace. Would have been wonderful if peace could have been kept, there would have been less blood shed and less hate.

[johan_steele]

Charlie, look to the situation of the Regulars in Texas, and at other forts throughout the CSA. If it hadn't been at Ft Sumter... I think it would likely have been the Regulars in Texas that sparked it.

More appropraite perhaps would be "What if" SC hadn't fired upon Ft Sumter, even allowing it to be resupplied... would the War have happened?

If SC had let the supplies into Fort Sumter without trouble, Lincoln would have found another way to trigger the war. SC was already hot over the troops of Major Anderson's being moved from Fort Moultrie into Fort Sumter, after having been promised that they wouldn't do that.

I'am not familiar with the Regulars in Texas, and what they were doing so I'am not able to base a judgement on that situation. But as to the question for this thread, I still feel that if Lincoln had pulled the troops from Sumter and Pickens, it would have only been done if he had been trying to keep peace. Which I think could have been done.

History has shown us in real life, that Lincoln didn't want peace. That was the reason that he sent ships loaded with troops, along with the supply ship after the south was told that only supplies would be sent. It was claimed that the troops were just to assure the supplies would be delivered, but if those ships had been allowed to unload at Sumter the supply ship would not have been the only ship to sail back empty.

Charlie