Could the Fort Sumter Crisis have been Settled by Negotiation?

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015

This thread will consider whether the crisis that faced the new Administration in March and April 1861 could have been solved by negotiation.
Please limit posts to that timeframe.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And just who do you think wouldn't discuss a remedy for peace? Lincoln and his minions!

The Confederate government sent commissioners to Washington to talk. It was Lincoln who wouldn't reciprocate and Seward who led them on (through an intermediary no less) promising one thing while doing another behind their back.
 
The Confederate government sent commissioners to Washington to talk. It was Lincoln who wouldn't reciprocate and Seward who led them on (through an intermediary no less) promising one thing while doing another behind their back.

In the eyes of the United States and the world there was no confederate government to send commissioners. Lincoln chose not to legitimize rebels by granting them an audience. He felt this was in the best interest of the country. Well within his powers and responsibility as president and commander in chief.
 
In the eyes of the United States and the world there was no confederate government to send commissioners. Lincoln chose not to legitimize rebels by granting them an audience. He felt this was in the best interest of the country. Well within his powers and responsibility as president and commander in chief.

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.
 
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.

Yes, but he still did not recognize the CSA as a legitimate gov't or entity at that time. That meeting was more in line with Lincoln asking, "So...are you ready to give up yet, but now on my terms? And no compromise"
 
Yes, but he still did not recognize the CSA as a legitimate gov't or entity at that time. That meeting was more in line with Lincoln asking, "So...are you ready to give up yet, but now on my terms? And no compromise"

I don't see a reason why he couldn't have found some way to meet with them while still making it clear that he did not accept the legitimacy of their claims in 1861. There was no harm in talking. Think of Sherman and Breckenridge at the surrender talks in 1865, where Sherman found an excuse to meet with Breckenridge (and Johnston) despite clearly stating he didn't recognize the legitimacy of the Confederate government.
 
Perhaps he might of if the Confederates hadnt resorted to the use of force to solve a diplomatic problem, and I dont consider a fort mere hours from a state capitol and on top of key waterways as being on the frontier..

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.

As for forts, key waterways, distances to state capitals, perhaps had Lincoln gotten the independence issue out of the way with a Treaty of Paris type recognition a couple of forts wouldn't have been the flashpoints they became without it.
 
Think of Sherman and Breckenridge at the surrender talks in 1865, where Sherman found an excuse to meet with Breckenridge (and Johnston) despite clearly stating he didn't recognize the legitimacy of the Confederate government.

But, the key difference as I see it and recall is that this meeting was between army commanders discussing surrender terms. And Breckenridge was in his capacity as a confederate general not as an official of the CSA gov't, albeit that he was also present to utilize his wiley skills as a lawyer. Not to mention that IIRC they tried to get Sherman drunk. But hey, all's fair...right?
 
But, the key difference as I see it and recall is that this meeting was between army commanders discussing surrender terms. And Breckenridge was in his capacity as a confederate general not as an official of the CSA gov't, albeit that he was also present to utilize his wiley skills as a lawyer. Not to mention that IIRC they tried to get Sherman drunk. But hey, all's fair...right?

I just think that if US leadership, civilian and military, could find an excuse to talk to the Confederates to end a war, they could have found a way to talk to them to prevent one. Surely that's what diplomacy is for.
 
I just think that if US leadership, civilian and military, could find an excuse to talk to the Confederates to end a war, they could have found a way to talk to them to prevent one. Surely that's what diplomacy is for.
So if I don't negotiate with my mugger its my fault if he shoots me? I guess I just wanted to choose violence instead of negotiation.
 
I just think that if US leadership, civilian and military, could find an excuse to talk to the Confederates to end a war, they could have found a way to talk to them to prevent one. Surely that's what diplomacy is for.

I understand your take on this Anderson, and I am no expert on the rules of diplomatic recognition in the 1860's, but my understanding is that if any "official representative" of the self-styled Confederate states would have been officially received it would have resulted in de facto recognition as a gov't. (I know that you are aware of this and I am placing it for the benefit of any newbies.)

As far as Seward goes, he was exceeding his authority and "writing checks that he couldn't cash" in his off the record discussions with the commissioners from the CSA. But, he was also keeping Lincoln in the dark as well. Its my belief that if Lincoln had been in a stronger position in those early days he would have fired him but required all the support he could muster then.
 
So if I don't negotiate with my mugger its my fault if he shoots me? I guess I just wanted to choose violence instead of negotiation.

The southern states had a joint claim with the northern states on the forts and arsenals, and last I checked, both sides at the forts were armed, so I don't agree with the "mugging" analogy. It was more of a property rights dispute.
 
In the eyes of the United States and the world there was no confederate government to send commissioners. Lincoln chose not to legitimize rebels by granting them an audience. He felt this was in the best interest of the country. Well within his powers and responsibility as president and commander in chief.
I agree with you. But don't be hanging around all the time saying nothing was being done about peace when the Confederacy attempted to do just that!
 
I just think that if US leadership, civilian and military, could find an excuse to talk to the Confederates to end a war, they could have found a way to talk to them to prevent one. Surely that's what diplomacy is for.
Agreed.

Seems like a no brainer. Unless of course, prevention of war isn't what the Lincoln administration desired.
 
The southern states had a joint claim with the northern states on the forts and arsenals, and last I checked, both sides at the forts were armed, so I don't agree with the "mugging" analogy. It was more of a property rights dispute.
They needed a "civil standby". Although, this falls under the tab of "preventing war", & would've required meeting with the Government that didn't exist..... :nah disagree:
 
Back
Top