Could the Fort Sumter Crisis have been Settled by Negotiation?

[Viper21]

Seems everybody is pretty entrenched so to speak. I wonder what Honest Abe's next move was....? We see that negotiation clearly wasn't on the table for Lincoln. What if Ft Sumter was never fired upon..? Then what..?

It is my opinion that, Lincoln wanted war, & provoked it. He NEEDED to get the CSA to fire first, & just like his plan.... played it to maximum political benefit.

Kind of shocks me at how many folks don't put any blame on Lincoln for the war. Let alone significant blame.

 

[NedBaldwin]

We see that negotiation clearly wasn't on the table for Lincoln.

Depends on what is being negotiated and with whom.
Negotiating the surrender of a US fort to rebellious citizens was clearly not on the table.
But there was other negotiation that could be on the table.

What if Ft Sumter was never fired upon..? Then what..?

He would resupply it and then wait and see what the rebels did next.

He would also probably continue to talk to loyal southern leaders who would meet with him (like how he had met with Virginia politician John Baldwin) and would continue to send out more emissaries to talk to people (like how he had sent his friend Stephen Hurlbut to South Carolina).

 

[58th Virginia]

He would resupply it and then wait and see what the rebels did next.

Then if there was war what a fix the South would have been in.

A well supplied Fort of the enemy right in the middle of the Confederacy.

 

[O' Be Joyful]

You probably know Buchanan said he had no Constitutional right to stop secession. IIRC

Yes.

Old Buck was a confirmed "doughface" who was wrong on that score as he was on many others. You have to give him credit though for further encouraging the Southern illusions that the Yankees didn't have the stomach for a fight, that was the biggest miscalculation in the entire lead up to Sumter.

 

[MattL]

Then Lincoln chose war. He had no problem meeting with "rebels" at Hampton Roads four years later, when time and experience had seasoned him as a leader. Had he sat down to talk in 1861, who knows what might have been achieved, and how many lives might have been saved? It wasn't the Confederates that were intransigent here, it was Lincoln.

Conversely if the Confederates hadn't fired on a Fort with US troops in it and declared "war is commenced" with the only immediate threat being a resupply ship that was ordered to do nothing more than resupply if allowed who knows where we would be? The what if game can cut both ways.

The CSA attacked a fort with cannons and declared "war is commenced"... Lincoln refused to sit down with commissioners he didn't deem legitimate.

Clearly there is an objective distinction between the scale of the intransigence here?

As to why Lincoln would later but not then, the most obvious answer that comes to mind would be waiting it out. Things had moved so fast. Lincoln was only elected 5 months previous to this, inaugurated for a single month. Secession itself and the CSA in it's entire existence (whatever you deem it was) was even shorter than the timeframe he was elected, only existing for 2 months. Negotiations for anything can take far longer than that, nevertheless with a group claiming they are an entire new Nation.

Can you objectively tell me that considering that fast timeline it was genuinely unreasonable for Lincoln to stall for more time to figure where things would end up and that it was indeed objectively genuinely reasonable for the CSA to fire on Fort Sumter in that context?

Diplomatic problem? You betcha there was a problem and from Lincoln's diplomatic position the only solution was to come back into his union or else.

Like the CSA, which was 2 months old at the time, only position to accept our unilateral secession and give up any claims we ceded on property or else.

Lincoln attempted a secret attack on South Carolina and then sent supplies, and Reinforcements! Who wouldn't fire on that.

This is untrue, this has been disproven. The orders clearly show they were told only to resupply and do nothing more if not resisted, matching his statement sent to SC. Please stop spreading provably false information.

It wouldn't have made any difference had the Confederate government ignored the forts, Lincoln would have found something else. He had no intention of letting the Southern States go in peace.

No way to know. If things had gone on longer maybe the CSA would've collapsed without the trigger for the upper south to join. Maybe if the standoff moved further and further eventually some sort of meeting would've happened. The fact is the CSA only existed for 2 months before directly attacking the US instead of pursuing other means longer.

Like I've been saying. What was the big deal. There wasn't much there anyway, they were politely asked to leave, they patiently gave them plenty of time to leave and no one got killed by enemy fire.

I like what someone said the other day. What a poor reason to go to war...

This cuts both ways, if it wasn't a bit deal why start a war an attack it? Why not just say the CSA should've just let it be longer since it wasn't important?

Also you should talk with Gov Pickens he was exuberant about going to war over it.

Seems everybody is pretty entrenched so to speak. I wonder what Honest Abe's next move was....? We see that negotiation clearly wasn't on the table for Lincoln. What if Ft Sumter was never fired upon..? Then what..?

It is my opinion that, Lincoln wanted war, & provoked it. He NEEDED to get the CSA to fire first, & just like his plan.... played it to maximum political benefit.

Kind of shocks me at how many folks don't put any blame on Lincoln for the war. Let alone significant blame.

Well we only see negotiation wasn't on the table yet. CSA actions prevent us from knowing what would have happened further. We should keep in mind that the CSA existed for 2 months and Lincoln was only technically President for a month at this time. The CSA's timetable was amazingly fast before resorting to an attack. Negotiations between established Nations take far longer than this, nevertheless the specifics of this situation.

I actually tend to think the opposite. I think Lincoln was fine with war but basically just wanted to stall. How could they say Lincoln said anything if he just didn't meet with them. Likewise his ships to send supplies but only attack if resisted is clearly a stall style tactic. Needed supplies to hold off longer but didn't want to order a direct attack.

Likewise I think the CSA was the one that was itching for a fight (hard to not get that out of Gov Pickens declaring "war is commenced") to prove they should be taken seriously. To secure the upper south. I think the biggest thread to the CSA was time. If time went on and the CSA didn't make any gains who would take them serious, all it takes is some of their existing support to second guess with more time and switch and the house of cards fall. Start a war that you know will lead to Lincoln sending troops South, well that is a good way to unify the South.

 

[unionblue]

I see that you don't want to drop this, lol.

With me and you it all boils down to the Fort itself. I say that they were in Confederate territory and the South also had "at least" a Military reason, if not more (as much debated on here), and you say different.

I still say that we should just let it go at that.

(See, I'm trying to be a peaceful negotiator)

And I say there was no such thing as "Confederate territory" and the South was never recognized as having such by any nation on Earth of significance.

(And you're not negotiating, your excusing yourself from the debate.)

 

[MattL]

To answer the OP, no. At least not with either side altering their views greatly. The US didn't recognize unilateral secession and the CSA. The CSA wanted to be taken seriously as a Nation. The CSA knew they had ceded the Fort to the US, they weren't stupid. They knew by taking it by force they were violating their own State's record and credibility. That means what they wanted out of that had to be more valuable then that. It certainly wasn't how valuable the Fort really was, or the thread of that small amount of troops where they were sitting still.

The greater issues go beyond Fort Sumter, it was a proxy for both sides to play their hands. The US to ignore secession and the CSA to establish it. One is changing the status quo, changing the perception of what had been. It takes action to change things and the CSA knew it. Likewise Lincoln knew they might act at any moment. The stall game was his best card, let the CSA play it's hand.

Honestly they both played their best hand for their goals

 

[unionblue]

You probably know Buchanan said he had no Constitutional right to stop secession. IIRC

But what did he say about secession itself? Don't leave out his other views for just the ones you like.

 

[unionblue]

The Union made South Carolina think they were going to give up Sumter right up to the Shot.

ALL of it? Every person in the North, every state official, every government office and official?

I say no and that such a sweeping opinion has very little foundation in actual history.

 

[unionblue]

Conversely if the Confederates hadn't fired on a Fort with US troops in it and declared "war is commenced" with the only immediate threat being a resupply ship that was ordered to do nothing more than resupply if allowed who knows where we would be? The what if game can cut both ways.

The CSA attacked a fort with cannons and declared "war is commenced"... Lincoln refused to sit down with commissioners he didn't deem legitimate.

Clearly there is an objective distinction between the scale of the intransigence here?

As to why Lincoln would later but not then, the most obvious answer that comes to mind would be waiting it out. Things had moved so fast. Lincoln was only elected 5 months previous to this, inaugurated for a single month. Secession itself and the CSA in it's entire existence (whatever you deem it was) was even shorter than the timeframe he was elected, only existing for 2 months. Negotiations for anything can take far longer than that, nevertheless with a group claiming they are an entire new Nation.

Can you objectively tell me that considering that fast timeline it was genuinely unreasonable for Lincoln to stall for more time to figure where things would end up and that it was indeed objectively genuinely reasonable for the CSA to fire on Fort Sumter in that context?



Like the CSA, which was 2 months old at the time, only position to accept our unilateral secession and give up any claims we ceded on property or else.



This is untrue, this has been disproven. The orders clearly show they were told only to resupply and do nothing more if not resisted, matching his statement sent to SC. Please stop spreading provably false information.



No way to know. If things had gone on longer maybe the CSA would've collapsed without the trigger for the upper south to join. Maybe if the standoff moved further and further eventually some sort of meeting would've happened. The fact is the CSA only existed for 2 months before directly attacking the US instead of pursuing other means longer.



This cuts both ways, if it wasn't a bit deal why start a war an attack it? Why not just say the CSA should've just let it be longer since it wasn't important?

Also you should talk with Gov Pickens he was exuberant about going to war over it.



Well we only see negotiation wasn't on the table yet. CSA actions prevent us from knowing what would have happened further. We should keep in mind that the CSA existed for 2 months and Lincoln was only technically President for a month at this time. The CSA's timetable was amazingly fast before resorting to an attack. Negotiations between established Nations take far longer than this, nevertheless the specifics of this situation.

I actually tend to think the opposite. I think Lincoln was fine with war but basically just wanted to stall. How could they say Lincoln said anything if he just didn't meet with them. Likewise his ships to send supplies but only attack if resisted is clearly a stall style tactic. Needed supplies to hold off longer but didn't want to order a direct attack.

Likewise I think the CSA was the one that was itching for a fight (hard to not get that out of Gov Pickens declaring "war is commenced") to prove they should be taken seriously. To secure the upper south. I think the biggest thread to the CSA was time. If time went on and the CSA didn't make any gains who would take them serious, all it takes is some of their existing support to second guess with more time and switch and the house of cards fall. Start a war that you know will lead to Lincoln sending troops South, well that is a good way to unify the South.

Mattl.,

Excellent post.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[John Hartwell]

In answer to the OP, negotiation might have removed the crisis from Sumter, but it would just have cropped up at some other point before very long. Ultimate result would have been the same.

 

[wausaubob]

Another pointless Sumter discussion.
How does that resolve,
1. Can the US abolish slavery in DC?
2. Can the US bar slavery in the territories?
3. Can the US regulate the interstate slave trade?
4. Does the threat of secession mean that national policy is decided in close door meetings as compared to public declarations of policy choices?
Could it have been negotiated? Sure. But why weren't the secessionist Congressmen and Senators in Washington, DC taking a vote on these policies? If they had the votes to over rule the guy who had just been elected they should have adopted the necessary constitutional amendment to solve the slavery problem.
Right behind Abraham Lincoln were about 1.8M voters who wanted something done to overcome the sectional power of the slave holders and get western development moving.
Government by election or government by the secret negotiations of the rich guys, which do you prefer?

 

[WJC]

If they would have shot no where or just shot blanks, I don't believe anything would have happened. The Union may have even thought that as comical. They had their chance and they knew what would happen if they didn't comply. And I'm not saying that the Confederate's should have shot. But I am saying that the Union should have left.

Thanks for your response.
It all boils down to this: to avoid deadly, destructive combat required negotiation. Negotiation required time- time to bring the parties to the table and time for both sides to decide what they would give up to avoid war.
Lincoln thought that given time to reflect on the gravity of the situation, southerners would reconsider. Davis recognized that such a 'cooling off period' would blunt the drive for independence: he feared the effect of more time. So Davis struck the first blow, one from which there was no turning back.
It was not unlike how Governor Henry Wise convinced Virginians that they had to enter the conflict against the United States because he had already taken the first steps by seizing Federal property.
When the first gun was fired, the artillerymen hoped it would deliver death and destruction. They knew this was war, not a fireworks display. And they knew the chance for negotiation was gone.

 

[WJC]

Throughout history, the demands of one side or the other have always seemed to be to great or too impossible, yet throughout history the two sides have still sat down and discussed, and negotiated. Sometimes the negotiations have prevented a war, sometimes they fail...............But to NEVER try is the greatest failure of all...............And for this failure by Lincoln, 7000,000+ Americans were killed.

You are entitled to your opinion and I respect your right to your opinion...........and I thank you for sharing it WJC. I also thank you and and appreciate you being civil and respectful in your replies.

Respectfully,
William

One Nation, two countries

View attachment 185700

Thanks for your response.
I think we can all agree that war ought to be the last option. Sadly, the 'leaders' all too often make anything else impossible.
"All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting."--- Eric Arthur Blair (aka George Orwell) (25 June 1903- 21 January 1950), British Author. Homage to Catalonia.

 

[WJC]

Seems everybody is pretty entrenched so to speak. I wonder what Honest Abe's next move was....? We see that negotiation clearly wasn't on the table for Lincoln. What if Ft Sumter was never fired upon..? Then what..?

It is my opinion that, Lincoln wanted war, & provoked it. He NEEDED to get the CSA to fire first, & just like his plan.... played it to maximum political benefit.

Kind of shocks me at how many folks don't put any blame on Lincoln for the war. Let alone significant blame.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, Lincoln badly underestimated the support for secession. He wrote a correspondent that "the people of the South have too much of good sense, and good temper, to attempt the ruin of the government...." <David M. Potter, The Impending Crisis: America Before the Civil War 1848-1860. (New York: Harper Collins, Inc., 1976), p.432.>

 

[WJC]

Then if there was war what a fix the South would have been in.

A well supplied Fort of the enemy right in the middle of the Confederacy.

Would it have really made that much difference to southern interests? True, at least for a while it might have prevented free use by the rebels of Charleston Harbor. But for how long? Regardless of how well provisioned the garrison was, it could not hold out indefinitely. Sooner or later, the fort would have fallen in rebel hands.

 

[58th Virginia]

And I say there was no such thing as "Confederate territory" and the South was never recognized as having such by any nation on Earth of significance.

(And you're not negotiating, your excusing yourself from the debate.)

I knew you would get in the last word, lol.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

Of course they were not. The point is that a commentator said that it was unthinkable that the federal government would turn over some of its property to a state. When it wanted to, it could and already had. It did not want to in 1861, for whatever reasons, but it was not unthinkable that it could transfer property to a state.

Illogical comparison. !847 - No threats to do so or not. 1860/1861 - Threats of war if not done so.

 

[ForeverFree]

I have never stated that one party was to blame, nor was one man to blame for the war. Many men on both sides were to blame.

I am disturbed by the continual denial that Lincoln had NO blame, that Lincoln did ALL he could to prevent a war. I have simply laid out Lincoln's and his party's failures and their responsibility for the onset of a war.

Everyone was dirty in the cause of this war..................

Respectfully,
William

One Nation, two countries

View attachment 185701

But you have stated that one party was to blame. This is the post just prior to your response to me:

Throughout history, the demands of one side or the other have always seemed to be to great or too impossible, yet throughout history the two sides have still sat down and discussed, and negotiated. Sometimes the negotiations have prevented a war, sometimes they fail...............But to NEVER try is the greatest failure of all...............And for this failure by Lincoln, 7000,000+ Americans were killed.

You are entitled to your opinion and I respect your right to your opinion...........and I thank you for sharing it WJC. I also thank you and and appreciate you being civil and respectful in your replies.

That looks to me like you're holding Lincoln responsible, and nobody else. And you said this in one or two other posts. But if you're saying that this does not actually reflect your views, well, OK, I guess...

- Alan

 

[ForeverFree]

You probably know Buchanan said he had no Constitutional right to stop secession. IIRC

On December 3, 1860, James Buchanan submitted his "Fourth Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union." He says the following:

Then, in regard to the property of the United States in South Carolina. This has been purchased for a fair equivalent, "by the consent of the legislature of the State," "for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals," etc., and over these the authority "to exercise exclusive legislation" has been expressly granted by the Constitution to Congress. It is not believed that any attempt will be made to expel the United States from this property by force; but if in this I should prove to be mistaken, the officer in command of the forts has received orders to act strictly on the defensive. In such a contingency the responsibility for consequences would rightfully rest upon the heads of the assailants.​

Old Buck says:
• Ft Sumter is the property of the United States. It is not the joint property of the US and SC.

• The commanding officer at the fort was instructed to act "strictly on the defensive." And in fact, the men there only acted in defensive manner.

• If the fort is attacked, Buchanan says "the responsibility for consequences would rightfully rest upon the heads of the assailants." SC and the CSA attacked the fort, so the consequences - a civil war - are their responsibility, according to Buchanan.

- Alan