Could the Fort Sumter Crisis have been Settled by Negotiation?

Thanks for your response.
That was not the point of my post, which was about his unfounded (as it turned out) optimism. Since you bring it up, he did indeed:
I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself. In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices. The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised, according to circumstances actually existing and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections.​
<Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861. https://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html >
Thanks for you support!
 
LOL. Eighty-five hungry guys on an island. I think you're making the case that Southerners are easily frightened.

I would word it more succinctly as to say Southerners were upset that there were eighty-five hungry blue-bellies on an island in their harbor who might attempt to soon come ashore and become a homeless problem in the streets of Charleston. You know Yankees being what they are, stealing anything they could get their hands on, more of a nuisance than a real threat. :smug:
 
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.


Certainly the crisis solely of the occupation of Ft. Sumter was amenable to negotiation by the military commanders on site(with the agreement by their political leaders of course). But, it would do little or nothing to solve the crisis over secession, and the crisis of the occupation of Sumter would move directly to the occupation of Ft. Pickens.


On the matter of negotiations, I believe history indicates that of the two men, Lincoln was more willing to discuss the problem of secession and more willing to offer concessions in the name of maintaining peace, than was Davis.

In his Inaugural Address Lincoln offered concession in exercising his authority as President, and he was willing to withdraw from Ft. Sumter, if Va. would cancel and disband its Secession Convention. In all that time, what was Davis willing to do, at all?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WJC
I would word it more succinctly as to say Southerners were upset that there were eighty-five hungry blue-bellies on an island in their harbor who might attempt to soon come ashore and become a homeless problem in the streets of Charleston. You know Yankees being what they are, stealing anything they could get their hands on, more of a nuisance than a real threat. :smug:
Well shoot. I thought we were famous for our hospitality.
 
From what I have read, the general population in Charleston was quite friendly with the garrison before the move from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter. The soldiers had purchased fresh fish and produce from local merchants until Governor Pickens stopped those interactions. An inventory of supplies in January showed at most a four-month supply of pork and flour, a little vinegar, half a small barrel of salt, no soap, no candles.
Pickens sent a supply of fresh food to Anderson on January 20, but Anderson returned it, not wanting to be indebted to the State authorities. Later, Robert Gourdin, a wealthy Charlestonian friend of Anderson, provided some fresh beef and vegetables.
By mid-March, as things continued gloomy to men eating pork and hardtack, Pickens, believing an evacuation was imminent, allowed delivery of a small shipment of delicacies sent by a wealthy New Yorker.
<David Detzer, Allegiance: Fort Sumter, Charleston, and the beginning of the Civil War. (New York: Harcourt, Inc., 2001), pp. 180-181.>
 
I'm pretty sure the president had the four upper south and four states on his mind when the inevitable war came, but I feel his most immediate impetus to take action was the intense pressure put on his government by citizens of the seven-state Confederacy to do something now about the hostile troops on Confederate soil.
To give Davis his due, his concern and a factor in his impatience was less about other states and more about what South Carolinians might do on their own in Charleston Harbor.
 
To give Davis his due, his concern and a factor in his impatience was less about other states and more about what South Carolinians might do on their own in Charleston Harbor.
In total agreement. Picturing the South Carolinans on their rooftops, having a picnic, watching the bombardment. Amazing...
 
I would word it more succinctly as to say Southerners were upset that there were eighty-five hungry blue-bellies on an island in their harbor who might attempt to soon come ashore and become a homeless problem in the streets of Charleston. You know Yankees being what they are, stealing anything they could get their hands on, more of a nuisance than a real threat. :smug:
All the dispossessed had to do was ask the Charlestonians food, after all they were fed by them prior to the crisis.
 
President Lincoln did not need to unify the northern states. His party had swept the election in those states. He had won in New York, Illinois as well as California and Oregon.
Had initial organizations in the border states, including Virginia.
His principal opponent in the paid labor states was a free soil Democrat, advocating a populist program based on the demographic advantage of paid labor.
While the onset of armed hostilities did lead Stephen Douglas to make loyalist statements, the northern Democrats were some of the most virulent union men, based on a sense of personal betrayal.
Non factual statements about any problems faced by the Republicans are misleading. They had gone from a new minority party to a winning party in four short years and their anti-slavery position was consistent with the foreign policy of the world and maritime power.
IMO, winning a political election did not necessarily equate to winning the hearts and minds for the impending war, especially between countryman. Lincoln needed a catalyst to garner this support.
 
One of Lincoln' spies was old Illinois friend Stephen S. Hurlbut and a South Carolina native.
As @jgoodguy has pointed out, Mr. Current did not call Mr. Hurlbert "one of Lincoln's spies". Instead, Current simply calls him "an old
Illinois friend" who had been "born and educated in Charleston" and "still had friends and relatives there". As such, his opinion of the situation 'on the ground' was highly anticipated and invaluable to Lincoln.
The mission was not some 'cloak and dagger' episode. After all, Hurlbert would be openly staying with family, meeting neighbors and old friends. His task was simply to confirm or refute Lincoln's belief that once passions subsided a peaceful resolution could be achieved.
If anything, it shows Lincoln was still of a mind to settle the crisis peacefully.
Hurlbert was accompanied on the trip by Ward Lamon, who separately visited Fort Sumter and Governor Pickens. According to Current, Lamon "was acting more like Seward's agent than Lincoln's." Lamon led both Major Anderson and Governor Pickens to believe that Fort Sumter would soon be abandoned.
Hurlbert's March 27, 1861 report is worthy of its own thread. Among other things, he dashed Lincoln's hopes that secessionists would reconsider their action. He found "no attachment to the Union" among South Carolinians and "Unionism appears to be almost as dead elsewhere in the South".
He further reported that "I have no doubt that a ship known to contain only provisions for Sumter would be stopped and refused admittance. Even the moderate men who desire not to open fire, [who] believe in the safer policy of time and starvation" would approve of firing on any provisioning ship.
Adding to Lincoln's concerns, Hurlbert reported that his interviews convinced him that abandonment of Fort Sumter would lead to a demand for the remaining U. S. installations in the South.
<Richard N. Current, Lincoln and the First Shot. (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), pp. 72-74.>
Lincoln's best hopes for a peaceful solution were dashed; all that remained was the slim possibility that local authorities might relent and allow reprovisioning of Fort Sumter, buying more time for some as yet undetermined peaceful solution.
 
Adding to Lincoln's concerns, Hurlbert reported that his interviews convinced him that abandonment of Fort Sumter would lead to a demand for the remaining U. S. installations in the South.
I'll have to look into this for a new thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WJC
As @jgoodguy has pointed out, Mr. Current did not call Mr. Hurlbert "one of Lincoln's spies". Instead, Current simply calls him "an old
Illinois friend" who had been "born and educated in Charleston" and "still had friends and relatives there". As such, his opinion of the situation 'on the ground' was highly anticipated and invaluable to Lincoln.
The mission was not some 'cloak and dagger' episode. After all, Hurlbert would be openly staying with family, meeting neighbors and old friends. His task was simply to confirm or refute Lincoln's belief that once passions subsided a peaceful resolution could be achieved.
If anything, it shows Lincoln was still of a mind to settle the crisis peacefully.
Hurlbert was accompanied on the trip by Ward Lamon, who separately visited Fort Sumter and Governor Pickens. According to Current, Lamon "was acting more like Seward's agent than Lincoln's." Lamon led both Major Anderson and Governor Pickens to believe that Fort Sumter would soon be abandoned.
Hurlbert's March 27, 1861 report is worthy of its own thread. Among other things, he dashed Lincoln's hopes that secessionists would reconsider their action. He found "no attachment to the Union" among South Carolinians and "Unionism appears to be almost as dead elsewhere in the South".
He further reported that "I have no doubt that a ship known to contain only provisions for Sumter would be stopped and refused admittance. Even the moderate men who desire not to open fire, [who] believe in the safer policy of time and starvation" would approve of firing on any provisioning ship.
Adding to Lincoln's concerns, Hurlbert reported that his interviews convinced him that abandonment of Fort Sumter would lead to a demand for the remaining U. S. installations in the South.
<Richard N. Current, Lincoln and the First Shot. (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), pp. 72-74.>
Lincoln's best hopes for a peaceful solution were dashed; all that remained was the slim possibility that local authorities might relent and allow reprovisioning of Fort Sumter, buying more time for some as yet undetermined peaceful solution.

Please, I didn't say Dr. Current called Hurlbut a spy, I said Hurlbut was a spy. He did meet with a lot of people, there was no indication he ever left the Charleston area while in the South yet he had information from five of the seven states so one can reasonably deduce there were other operatives helping. Perhaps spy was too strong a description but, again, it was my description. It wasn't my intent to type word for word from the bottom of page 172 to the top of page 174, what I did type word for word is in quotation marks. The highlight portion above is the point I was trying to convey.
 
Please, I didn't say Dr. Current called Hurlbut a spy, I said Hurlbut was a spy. He did meet with a lot of people, there was no indication he ever left the Charleston area while in the South yet he had information from five of the seven states so one can reasonably deduce there were other operatives helping. Perhaps spy was too strong a description but, again, it was my description. It wasn't my intent to type word for word from the bottom of page 172 to the top of page 174, what I did type word for word is in quotation marks. The highlight portion above is the point I was trying to convey.
Spy--a person who secretly collects and reports information on the activities, movements, and plans of an enemy or competitor.
 
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.
Of course negotiations were out of the question. No one has cited under what statutory or case law that a U.S. President can legally allow any portion of the United States to secede from the United States.
Either President Lincoln condones the actions of an illegal rebellion or he does not.
President Lincoln decided to follow his constitutional responsibility to defend the United States from all enemies foreign or domestic.
President Lincoln merely followed the oath of office .
Leftyhunter
 
Of course negotiations were out of the question. No one has cited under what statutory or case law that a U.S. President can legally allow any portion of the United States to secede from the United States.
Either President Lincoln condones the actions of an illegal rebellion or he does not.
President Lincoln decided to follow his constitutional responsibility to defend the United States from all enemies foreign or domestic.
President Lincoln merely followed the oath of office .
Leftyhunter
If Lincoln signs a treaty of secession and The Senate approves it, then it is the law of the land.
 
Lincoln can execute the duties of his office as he sees fit unless it is unconstitutional. His oath is what he deems it to be.
 
Back
Top