Why did the south fire on Fort Sumter?

Are you as exacting with the evidence when claiming Davis started a war to unite the South, I wonder? If Lincoln didn't provoke a fight and make sure the South fired the first shot, he sure blundered into the best possible situation for his purpose. That's certainly possible, but it seems very unlikely to me.

Andersonh1, I've posted the following response to several of your posts like this one, and yet you continually ignore it. Could you please tell me how you interpret this?:

'It is scarcely to be doubted that for political reasons the U.S. Govt. will avoid making an attack so long as the hope of retaining the border states remains. There would be to us an advantage in so placing them that an attack by them would be a necessity, but when we are ready to relieve our terrritory and juridsdiction of the presence of a foreign garrison that advantage is overbalanced by other considerations.'

- Jefferson Davis to Braxton Bragg, April 3, 1861

Source: <<http://books.google.com/books?id=7j1rLgwgO-4C&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85
 
Oops. Hit the Reply button when I meant to hit the Edit button, but since we can't delete a post, I guess this will just have to sit here. Oh well.
 
"Entertain no proposition for a compromise in regard to the extension of slavery. The instant you do, they have us under again; all our labor is lost, and sooner or later must be done over. [Steven] Douglas is sure to be again trying to bring in his [Popular Sovereignty]. Have none of it. The tug has to come & better now than later."

- President-elect Abraham Lincoln, "private and confidential" letter, December 11, 1860

Source: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln4/1:232?rgn=div1;view=fulltext
 
The cause of war had nothing with ending or expanding slavery. The cause of war had to do with whether the seceded states would be permitted to form a new, independent country or not. Or as historian Richard N. Current so succinctly put it: “When Lincoln expressed his desire for peace he was sincere, and so was Davis when he did the same. But Lincoln thought of peace for one, undivided country; Davis, of peace of two separate countries.”
I don't see how in the world there would be peace. In Missouri? In Kansas? In Kentucky? The slavery issue would still be there as run aways and abolitionist in the North tried to free the slaves in the south one way or another. Should the North allow the South to align with a foreign power on our door step?

Then there is the issue of the CSA being a "Nation." Were they? Or were they a Confederation of nation states or something? My point is that if you have laws and a local are disagrees, a city, a county, a state, can't they just declare independence, too? So the North was fighting against anarchy, too.
 
Are you as exacting with the evidence when claiming Davis started a war to unite the South, I wonder? If Lincoln didn't provoke a fight and make sure the South fired the first shot, he sure blundered into the best possible situation for his purpose. That's certainly possible, but it seems very unlikely to me.

There's actual evidence Davis started the war to unite the confederacy.
 
I don't see how in the world there would be peace. In Missouri? In Kansas? In Kentucky? The slavery issue would still be there as run aways and abolitionist in the North tried to free the slaves in the south one way or another. Should the North allow the South to align with a foreign power on our door step?

Then there is the issue of the CSA being a "Nation." Were they? Or were they a Confederation of nation states or something? My point is that if you have laws and a local are disagrees, a city, a county, a state, can't they just declare independence, too? So the North was fighting against anarchy, too.

You may have hit have hit on the gist of the matter, with the rise of the Republican Party it had become too much about the North and the North's economic and political interests to suit Southerners.
 
Andersonh1, I've posted the following response to several of your posts like this one, and yet you continually ignore it. Could you please tell me how you interpret this?:

'It is scarcely to be doubted that for political reasons the U.S. Govt. will avoid making an attack so long as the hope of retaining the border states remains. There would be to us an advantage in so placing them that an attack by them would be a necessity, but when we are ready to relieve our terrritory and juridsdiction of the presence of a foreign garrison that advantage is overbalanced by other considerations.'

- Jefferson Davis to Braxton Bragg, April 3, 1861

Source: <<http://books.google.com/books?id=7j1rLgwgO-4C&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85

Sorry, started typing up a response earlier today and never got back to it. I did go back and read the entire letter, and it's not really a letter of Confederate policy. It's a military discussion about tactics and time for preparation. Davis believes Pickens will be reinforced, and he's discussing with Bragg why an attack hasn't already come (because the border states wouldn't stand for it and Lincoln wasn't ready to lose them), and what's preventing that attack, and how to prepare. He discusses some of the optics of the situation and recognizes the same thing Lincoln did, that the side to fire the first shots would look like the aggressor, and if the US could be put in a position where they fired first, it would be good for the Confederacy.

But he also says that he is willing to fire the first shot if necessary. when we are ready to relieve our terrritory and juridsdiction of the presence of a foreign garrison that advantage (of having the US attack first) is overbalanced by other considerations.

I think if Davis was aware of the political advantages to be gained by having the other side fire first, Lincoln was certainly aware of the same thing.
 
Oops. Hit the Reply button when I meant to hit the Edit button, but since we can't delete a post, I guess this will just have to sit here. Oh well.
Always edit to a single period. System will reject zero length posts, but accept 1 character.
 
I think if Davis was aware of the political advantages to be gained by having the other side fire first, Lincoln was certainly aware of the same thing.

Yes, of course Lincoln was aware of it. But for Lincoln it was the lesser of the evils option. For Davis, it was an option that he felt would work to his advantage. As wrong as he may have been, Davis got his wish, and Lincoln didn't.
 
Always edit to a single period. System will reject zero length posts, but accept 1 character.

Yeah, you're right of course, but I felt like making a statement. :angel: (P.S. - I've done that before and have had people read things into my periods that weren't there!)
 
Be real nice to have evidence.

There was a dispute over sovereignty.
Davis shot first.
 
You may have hit have hit on the gist of the matter, with the rise of the Republican Party it had become too much about the North and the North's economic and political interests to suit Southerners.
That's not even close to what I was talking about.
 
If your existence is threatened, only a fool fires second.

Indeed, and glad to hear you admit it.

It involves not only our liberty, but, what is greater (if to freemen anything can be), existence itself. The relation which now exists between the two races in the slaveholding states has existed for two centuries. It has grown with our growth, and strengthened with our strength. It has entered into and modified all our institutions, civil and political. None other can be substituted. We will not, cannot permit it to be destroyed. If we were base enough to do so, we would be traitors to our section, to ourselves, our familes, and to posterity. It is our anxious desire to protect and preserve this relation by the joint action of this government and the confederated states of the Union; but if, instead of closing the door - if, instead of denying all jurisdiction and all interference in this question, the doors of Congress are to be thrown open; and if we are to be exposed here, in the heart of the Union, to an endless attack on our rights, our character, and our institutions; if the other states are to stand and look on without attempting to suppress these attacks, originating within their borders; and, finally, if this is to be our fixed and permanent condition as members of this confederacy, we will then be compelled to turn our eyes on ourselves. Come what will, should it cost every drop of blood and every cent of property, we must defend ourselves; and if compelled, we would stand justified by all laws, human and divine.

- John C. Calhoun, Senate speech, March 9, 1836

Source: <http://books.google.com/books?id=fjUDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA207&lpg=PA209
Of course, as it turns out, he was wrong about that. Are you?
 
Last edited:
Indeed:

It involves not only our liberty, but, what is greater (if to freemen anything can be), existence itself. The relation which now exists between the two races in the slaveholding states has existed for two centuries. It has grown with our growth, and strengthened with our strength. It has entered into and modified all our institutions, civil and political. None other can be substituted. We will not, cannot permit it to be destroyed. If we were base enough to do so, we would be traitors to our section, to ourselves, our familes, and to posterity. It is our anxious desire to protect and preserve this relation by the joint action of this government and the confederated states of the Union; but if, instead of closing the door - if, instead of denying all jurisdiction and all interference in this question, the doors of Congress are to be thrown open; and if we are to be exposed here, in the heart of the Union, to an endless attack on our rights, our character, and our institutions; if the other states are to stand and look on without attempting to suppress these attacks, originating within their borders; and, finally, if this is to be our fixed and permanent condition as members of this confederacy, we will then be compelled to turn our eyes on ourselves. Come what will, should it cost every drop of blood and every cent of property, we must defend ourselves; and if compelled, we would stand justified by all laws, human and divine.

- John C. Calhoun, Senate speech, March 9, 1836

Source: <http://books.google.com/books?id=fjUDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA207&lpg=PA209

:thumbsup:

I especially like where Calhoun states: “Come what will, should it cost every drop of blood and every cent of property, we must defend ourselves; and if compelled, we would stand justified by all laws, human and divine.”
 
Back
Top