Dissing History

[WJC]

Exactly. He could have done nothing, but his oath required that he defend the nation and the constitution "against all enemies foreign and domestic." As President, he had no right/authority to do otherwise.

Of course, now we're likely to hear some blather about the secessionists being the "real" defenders of the constitution ... somehow to be accomplished by tearing apart the "perpetual Union" it created.

For Lincoln to have "done nothing" would have been tantamount to complete and abject surrender to the threat of war. It would have been both cowardly and treasonous.

Exactly!
On the other hand, Buchanan is forever criticized for doing nothing. Yet he did do something very important: he refused to give up Fort Sumter. He responded to South Carolina's demands, saying through his Secretary of War, Joseph Holt

whatever may be the claim of South Carolina to this fort, he has no constitutional power to cede or surrender it. The property of the United States has been acquired by force of public law, and can only be disposed of under the same solemn sanction. The President, as the head of the Executive branch of the Government only, can no more sell and transfer Fort Sumter to South Carolina, than he can sell and convey the Capitol of the United States to Maryland or to any other State or individual seeking to possess it. His Excellency, the Governor, is too familiar with the Constitution of the United States, and with the limitation upon the powers of the Chief Magistrate of the Government it has established, not to appreciate, at once, the soundness of this legal proposition.​

<http://www.nytimes.com/1861/02/09/n...e-secretary-war-letter-jw.html?pagewanted=all>
The stalemate continued until the rebels 'blinked' and, losing patience, threw away every chance of a peaceful settlement, opting instead for open rebellion, putting the new guy in town', Lincoln, in a position where he had to respond to force with force.

 

[Tin cup]

Abe Lincoln says different.

Again, I care about who split the Country apart, and started that war, and why they said they did it. It sure wasn't Lincoln!

Kevin Dally

 

[major bill]

Settled by force of arms years ago and the slaves freed.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

You mean he chose to defend the country he lead when it was attacked? He would have been derelict in his duty had he not.

James Buchanan spent four months doing essentially nothing in response to secession, seizure of federal property, and the firing on the Star of the West. Lincoln could probably have managed to do almost nothing as well, if he felt so inclined.

 

[WJC]

James Buchanan spent four months doing essentially nothing in response to secession, seizure of federal property, and the firing on the Star of the West. Lincoln could probably have managed to do almost nothing as well, if he felt so inclined.

By Lincoln's inauguration, March 4, 1861, the situation had clearly deteriorated so that all focus was on the siege of Fort Sumter. Often forgotten is that the rebel 'government' authorized enlistment of 100,000 twelve month volunteers on March 6, 1861, just two days after Lincoln took office: this was not a peace jesture!
All that remained was the foolish and unnecessary act of bombarding Fort Sumter, after Major Anderson had told the rebels that unless he was resupplied, he would be without provisions by April 15 and would then evacuate the Fort.
Had Anderson evacuated under those conditions the public outcry would not have been so great; perhaps a way could yet have been found to resolve the issues peacefully.
Once that bombardment took place, Lincoln had no choice but to militarily put down the open rebellion.

 

[peteanddelmar]

The internet... 20 years ago, I was limited to the few books in my school library (which were written in the 50s for the most part), the "coffee table" type books my non-history buff family members bought me as a kid (you know, the kind of colorful and flashy books with pictures and art and little of no substance), and crappy movies like Gettysburg.
I also used the old (God love them) hill billies I reenacted with. As a kid, I was quick to take up their opinions about things.
Growing up in Louisiana, I was not exposed to many opposing views.

To be honest, you people on this site opened my eyes quite a bit. My modern political leanings made me begin to question my deep-set notions about the war and secession, but you people drove me to dig deeper. I thank you for it. @unionblue @brass napoleon @cash , among others. I was challenged, and I saw some errors.

I'm still a Southerner, but I see Early and the like in a different light now. Those men were products of their time and place. I will not judge them according to modern moral standards. It's not right to do so. Even the saintly Lincoln would be considered a racist or bigot today.

There are lots of knowledgeable people here. But, you are still not looked upon favorably if you point out Stonewall Jackson *might* have been less racist than Lincoln. Or, despite his immoral point of view on slavery, that Lee *might* have been more advanced about the future of the black race than not only most of his peers, but possibly maybe a million or two northerners.
The disgusting idea of a government formed to preserve slavery colors everyones thinking to the point that they can not see some truths.

 

[peteanddelmar]

Good discussion. But ignoring that the President of the United States stated in his 2nd inaugural address that slavery was somehow the cause of the Civil War is an act of denial.
The northern states probably accepted the message better than the secessionist states.
Lincoln clearly stated the conduct of the entire United States, in tolerating slavery and profiting from it, was the cause of the war. I state that when the slave trade was re-opened, and slaves were smuggled in through Florida, Louisiana and Texas, and the states of Kentucky and Tennessee were added as slave states, the outcome of a intense political conflict over slavery was invited.
Lincoln was certainly responsible for the Civil War, but so was the entire nation.
Jubal Early and Jefferson Davis were allowed to exercise their 1st amendment rights to write justifications for the war. But that does not excuse people who refused to think for themselves.
Why do you need historians to tell you what to think?
There they are, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. They were enacted by people through political actions and took a legal stance of the issues underlying the Civil War. Read them and come to your own conclusion as to the cause of the Civil War.
But if you are just rhetorically suggesting that someone other than the Lost Cause advocates should have somehow stopped the Lost Cause narrative, then it is just another game to deny responsibility for a false historical narrative.

I thought he was honestly asking why the seceding States declarations we're not mentioned nor taught, even in casual freshmen college courses, very often, till.lately.

 

[uaskme]

They didn't pay taxes! There was no such thing at the time. The government operated from the collections of the tariff and the sale of federal lands.

They paid Tariffs. So you don't think a Tariff is a Tax? I'm going to guess you havnt had any Accounting courses. LOL

 

[Rebforever]

Do you suppose that's why he refused to "let the South go"? Maybe it had something to do with honoring his oath of office, something many rebels were reluctant to do....
Lincoln swore to "preserve, protect and defend" our Constitution. Once shots were fired, it was his responsibilty as Commander in Chief to put down the rebellion.

He said he was going to protect the Union in his 1st Inaugural address which he said BEFORE the shooting started.

 

[Rebforever]

Exactly. He could have done nothing, but his oath required that he defend the nation and the constitution "against all enemies foreign and domestic." As President, he had no right/authority to do otherwise.

Of course, now we're likely to hear some blather about the secessionists being the "real" defenders of the constitution ... somehow to be accomplished by tearing apart the "perpetual Union" it created.

For Lincoln to have "done nothing" would have been tantamount to complete and abject surrender to the threat of force. It would have been both cowardly and treasonous.

What law would Lincoln have broken if he had helped plan a peace pact before any shooting started?

 

[Rebforever]

Exactly!
On the other hand, Buchanan is forever criticized for doing nothing. Yet he did do something very important: he refused to give up Fort Sumter. He responded to South Carolina's demands, saying through his Secretary of War, Joseph Holt

whatever may be the claim of South Carolina to this fort, he has no constitutional power to cede or surrender it. The property of the United States has been acquired by force of public law, and can only be disposed of under the same solemn sanction. The President, as the head of the Executive branch of the Government only, can no more sell and transfer Fort Sumter to South Carolina, than he can sell and convey the Capitol of the United States to Maryland or to any other State or individual seeking to possess it. His Excellency, the Governor, is too familiar with the Constitution of the United States, and with the limitation upon the powers of the Chief Magistrate of the Government it has established, not to appreciate, at once, the soundness of this legal proposition.​

<http://www.nytimes.com/1861/02/09/n...e-secretary-war-letter-jw.html?pagewanted=all>
The stalemate continued until the rebels 'blinked' and, losing patience, threw away every chance of a peaceful settlement, opting instead for open rebellion, putting the new guy in town', Lincoln, in a position where he had to respond to force with force.

A peace was attempted but it was not going to work because Lincoln had said in his inaugural address he was going to save the Union.

 

[Rebforever]

There are lots of knowledgeable people here. But, you are still not looked upon favorably if you point out Stonewall Jackson *might* have been less racist than Lincoln. Or, despite his immoral point of view on slavery, that Lee *might* have been more advanced about the future of the black race than not only most of his peers, but possibly maybe a million or two northerners.
The disgusting idea of a government formed to preserve slavery colors everyones thinking to the point that they can not see some truths.

What truths are you talking about? It took American slavery 276 years to be abolished?

 

[Rebforever]

Again, I care about who split the Country apart, and started that war, and why they said they did it. It sure wasn't Lincoln!

Kevin Dally

Lincoln had already warned there was going to be war over secession.

"
I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, 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 Ishall 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."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp

 

[unionblue]

They paid Tariffs. So you don't think a Tariff is a Tax? I'm going to guess you havnt had any Accounting courses. LOL

You think EVERYONE paid tariffs? ***edit by Lnwlf: insulting***

 

[uaskme]

You think EVERYONE paid tariffs? ***edit by Lnwlf: insulting***

Prove it to us

 

[CSA Today]

He said he was going to protect the Union in his 1st Inaugural address which he said BEFORE the shooting started.

Lincoln had every intention of going to war to prevent Confederate independence. It didn't matter who shot first if the Confederates hadn't his army would have.

 

[unionblue]

Prove it to us

Sure.

What would you like in the way of proof? What would convince you that the tariff in place in 1860 was only charged on those folks who imported goods from overseas, that the people doing the importing, were the ones who paid such a tariff.

Now, here's the tricky part. If you don't import anything from overseas, say like one of the almost four million slaves, or if you are a farmer in Ohio or Georgia, who did not import stuff from England, France Spain, etc., you don't pay a tariff.

Now, we have numerous threads here on this forum dealing with the tariff and how it was collected. There are numerous sites on the internet that explain in detail how the 19th century tariff works.

Which would you like me to use to prove to you this obvious, simple truth?

In this way, whatever you decide, I won't be wasting my time or yours when I dig out these obvious sources.

Your call,
Unionblue

 

[unionblue]

Lincoln had every intention of going to war to prevent Confederate independence. It didn't matter who shot first if the Confederates hadn't his army would have.

Translation: I can read Lincoln's mind and I'm going to shot first no matter what the man does or says, because I can.

 

[CSA Today]

Translation: I can read Lincoln's mind and I'm going to shot first no matter what the man does or says, because I can.

No matter what the leader of a hostile country says or does? Where he does it should have a lot bearing on whether to shoot or not.

 

[kicksavedave]

James Buchanan spent four months doing essentially nothing in response to secession, seizure of federal property, and the firing on the Star of the West. Lincoln could probably have managed to do almost nothing as well, if he felt so inclined.

What sort of an argument is this? Buchanan was derelict in his duty, so Lincoln could have been derelict also?

Its not really clear what Buchanan would have done had the South fired on Ft Sumpter during his term, but suggesting that either one of them was supposed to let the South simply destroy Federal Govt military bases, is kinda silly.

Lincoln -could- have done nothing and let the South go. That doesn't mean he started the war, or that he was leading the "aggression" against the South. Whenever I hear this term "war of northern aggression", I want to correct people and remind them it was really the "war where the north ran out of tolerance for being attacked".