Hold the Forts and Collect the Revenue: Lincoln's Views in December 1860

Poetic. Confederacy lasted 4 Years instead of 4 months. Lincoln knew if he had taken Scott’s and Seward’s advice, his Presidency was Toast. Lower South WAS Independent. Lincoln didn’t care if he lost the Whole Fleet. The more Blood the better, for recruitment that is.

Not poetic, sad.

Sad that Davis could not see beyond four months. By your own words, Lincoln could do what Davis could not even imagine, that by permitting unilateral secession, he would be president of a crippled nation and oversee the death of an idea.

As for the Lower South, it had an illusion of being independent, one that did involve more blood, more destruction, more pain and suffering that led to that illusion being shattered.

The more blood the better?

Hardly.
 
Whether secession was legal or not, the states had seceded, and more were likely to secede. The President's duty was to protect the capital of the US and prevent as many states from seceding as possible. His tools were politics, intimidation and force. If there were going to be two competing belligerents, the President's duty was to gather as much power to the US as possible. But the President could not act alone. Many decisions were contingent on the support of the northern Democrats, and the governors.



True enough, mu point was that the claim by Unionists that unilater secession, was unconstitutional carried with it the implict understanding that if held to as a principle of the federal union, by its overnment, then any means necessary, Constitutional or otherwise, to restore the Union.

It was fortunate that Lincol[s early estimate that the Constitution provided all the powers and authority to protect itself and its overnment proved to be corect, i.e., it did not prove necessary to resort to powers and authority not proviied in the Constitution. The Union under Lincoln, could and would leave no wapon untried necessary in its defense.
 
Lincoln didn’t care if he lost the Whole Fleet. The more Blood the better, for recruitment that is.

Democrat Congressman Alexander Long asserted on the floor of the House in April 1864 that when Lincoln heard the Confederates had opened fire on Sumter, his words were "I knew they would do it!"

Congressional Globe, 38th Congresss, 1st session, 1499
7eaxcur-jpg.jpg


 
Democrat Congressman Alexander Long asserted on the floor of the House in April 1864 that when Lincoln heard the Confederates had opened fire on Sumter, his words were "I knew they would do it!"

Congressional Globe, 38th Congresss, 1st session, 1499
View attachment 360348


Lincoln was a Political Person. He served in the IL militia during the Blackhawk War. What, for a Month? Scott explained the repercussions of trying to hold Sumpter. There were 16k plus Federal Troops. 3k plus had resigned. So he has 13k plus available. Scott advises Lincoln it will take 75k Troops to hold Sumpter. So, how does he get authorization and the ability to Recruit? Scott and Seward advised Lincoln to negotiate. Seward had adopted the conservative view. Advised Lincoln to form a moderate party including upper South Unionist and to isolate the extremist in the North and South. Lincoln knew he would lose the Northern, Abolitionist type, who wanted Blood. Not Blood for the Negro, but Blood for the Yankee! So in effect, he gave them what they wanted, Blood. Negotiating was a losing proposition to Lincoln and the Republicans. We have had discussions on the Hartford Convention Thread about what Jefferson and Madison did during similar Crisis with the Federalist. They Negotiated. Union was Valuable during this time Period. Not so in 1860. What was Valuable to Lincoln was Northern Nationalism. Further evidence was what happened during Reconstruction and Beyond. And so goes, the Myth of Lincoln!
 
Last edited:
Lincoln was a Political Person. He served in the IL militia during the Blackhawk War. What, for a Month? Scott explained the repercussions of trying to hold Sumpter. There were 16k plus Federal Troops. 3k plus had resigned. So he has 13k plus available. Scott advises Lincoln it will take 75k Troops to hold Sumpter. So, how does he get authorization and the ability to Recruit? Scott and Seward advised Lincoln to negotiate. Seward had adopted the conservative view. Advised Lincoln to form a moderate party including upper South Unionist and to isolate the extremist in the North and South. Lincoln knew he would lose the Northern, Abolitionist type, who wanted Blood. Not Blood for the Negro, but Blood for the Yankee! So in effect, he gave them what they wanted, Blood. Negotiating was a losing proposition to Lincoln and the Republicans. We have had discussions on the Hartford Convention Thread about what Lincoln and Madison did during similar Crisis with the Federalist. They Negotiated. Union was Valuable during this time Period. Not so in 1860. What was Valuable to Lincoln was Northern Nationalism. Further evidence was what happened during Reconstruction and Beyond. And so goes, the Myth of Lincoln!
Lincoln laid out what he would do: Perform his constitutional duties but refrain from violence. Congress or a convention would be the place for negotiation, but the secessionists preferred to start shooting.
 
Long before he was inaugurated as President, Abraham Lincoln had expressed his views on the secession movement in the Southern states and his belief on what should happen if various forts were to come under the control of the secessionists. Judging by Lincoln's own private correspondence, he had made up his mind to use force if necessary, even if the Buchanan administration allowed the transfer into Southern hands. All letters or quotes from letters can be found in the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 4. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln4/

From Lincoln's own words, there was no room for compromise, and no interest in talking with the secessionists, and he certainly had military force on his mind.


Private & Confidential. Hon. Thurlow Weed Springfield, Ills- Dec. 17-1860​
My dear Sir Yours of the 11th. was received two days ago. Should the convocation of Governors, of which you speak, seem desirous to know my views on the present aspect of things, tell them you judge from my speeches that I will be inflexible on the territorial question; that I probably think either the Missouri line extended, or Douglas' and Eli Thayer's Pop. Sov. would lose us every thing we gained by the election; that filibustering for all South of us, and making slave states of it, would follow in spite of us, under either plan.​
Also, that I probably think all opposition, real and apparant, to the fugitive slave [clause] of the constitution ought to be withdrawn.​
I believe you can pretend to find but little, if any thing, in my speeches, about secession; but my opinion is that no state can, in any way lawfully, get out of the Union, without the consent of the others; and that it is the duty of the President, and other government functionaries to run the machine as it is. Yours very truly A. LINCOLN---​

Confidential​
Hon. F. P. Blair, Ser. Springfield, Ills.​
My dear Sir Dec. 21. 1860​
Yours giving an account of an interview with Gen. Scott, is received, and for which I thank you. According to my present view, if the forts shall be given up before the inaugeration, the General must retake them afterwards. Yours truly A. LINCOLN​
Confidential​
Hon. A. G. Curtin Springfield, Ills.​
My dear Sir Dec. 21. 1860​
Yours of the 14th. was only received last night. I am much obliged by your kindness in asking my views in advance of preparing your inaugeral. I think of nothing proper for me to suggest except a word about this secession and disunion movement. On that subject, I think you would do well to express, without passion, threat, or appearance of boasting, but nevertheless, with firmness, the purpose of yourself, and your state to maintain the Union at all hazzards. Also, if you can, procure the Legislature to pass resolutions to that effect.​
Confidential​
Hon. E. B. Washburne Springfield, Ills.​
My dear Sir: Dec. 21. 1860​
Last night I received your letter giving an account of your interview with Gen. Scott, and for which I thank you. Please present my respects to the General, and tell him, confidentially, I shall be obliged to him to be as well prepared as he can to either hold, or retake, the forts, as the case may require, at, and after the inaugeration. Yours as ever A. LINCOLN​
Confidential Major David Hunter, Springfield, Ills., Dec. 22, 1860.​
My dear Sir: I am much obliged by the receipt of yours of the 18th. The most we can do now is to watch events, and be as well prepared as possible for any turn things may take. If the forts fall, my judgment is that they are to be retaken. When I shall determine definitely my time of starting of Washington, I will notify you. Yours truly, A. LINCOLN.​
Hon. Lyman Trumbull Springfield, Ills. Dec. 24, 1860​
My dear Sir I expect to be able to offer Mr. Blair a place in the cabinet; but I can not, as yet, be committed on the matter, to any extent whatever.​
Despaches have come here two days in succession, that the Forts in South Carolina, will be surrendered by the order, or consent at least, of the President.​
I can scarcely believe this; but if it prove true, I will, if our friends at Washington concur, announce publicly at once that they are to be retaken after the inaugeration. This will give the Union men a rallying cry, and preparation will proceed somewhat on their side, as well as on the other. Yours as ever A. LINCOLN​
Private​
Col. J. W. Webb. Springfield, Ills.​
My dear Sir: Dec. 29. 1860​
Yours kindly seeking my view as to the proper mode of dealing with secession, was received several days ago, but, for want of time I could not answer it till now. I think we should hold the forts, or retake them, as the case may be, and collect the revenue. We shall have to forego the use of the federal courts, and they that of the mails, for a while. We can not fight them in to holding courts, or receiving the mails.
This is an outline of my view; and perhaps suggests sufficiently, the whole of it. Yours very truly A. LINCOLN​
During the secession crisis, it is significant to note that "collection of the revenue" was a derivative expression of "enforcement of the laws." These were no mere subtleties.
There were, it appeared two distinct ways in which military force could be applied: first, was by coercing the Southern states; second, by merely enforcing Federal laws. Upon a correct choice between these two supposed alternatives would hinge the constitutional right of resorting to force. An incredible amount of mental anguish went into the clarification of that subtle point.​
. . . Coercion of the states was a phase forbidden in the best circles of the [Northern] disciples of force. Enforcement of the [revenue] laws, a phrase that had the reassuring aura of respectability and legality, was widely used instead.*​


* Kenneth Stampp, And the War Came, (Baton Rouge: LSU Press, 1970), 38
 
During the secession crisis, it is significant to note that "collection of the revenue" was a derivative expression of "enforcement of the laws." These were no mere subtleties.
There were, it appeared two distinct ways in which military force could be applied: first, was by coercing the Southern states; second, by merely enforcing Federal laws. Upon a correct choice between these two supposed alternatives would hinge the constitutional right of resorting to force. An incredible amount of mental anguish went into the clarification of that subtle point.​
. . . Coercion of the states was a phase forbidden in the best circles of the [Northern] disciples of force. Enforcement of the [revenue] laws, a phrase that had the reassuring aura of respectability and legality, was widely used instead.*​


* Kenneth Stampp, And the War Came, (Baton Rouge: LSU Press, 1970), 38
Speaking of Stampp, here is an excerpt (Pg.55) that is very relevant to the OP:

What, then, he asked, was the duty of the chief executive when​
confronted by such a movement? According to his oath it was to​
execute the laws, "and from this obligation he cannot be absolved​
by any human power." He would be compelled to collect the
revenues and hold Federal property. He had instructed officers in​
the southern forts to remain "strictly on the defensive." If they​
were attacked, "the responsibility for consequences would right-​
fully rest upon the heads of the assailants." He himself, as Presi-​
dent, lacked authority to alter the relationship between the na-​
tional government and the disaffected states. That was a matter for​
Congress alone to decide.​

This must be Lincoln, correct? No. It's Buchanan. With the same words, and the same understanding of his constitutional duties. Imagine that.
 
During the secession crisis, it is significant to note that "collection of the revenue" was a derivative expression of "enforcement of the laws." These were no mere subtleties.
There were, it appeared two distinct ways in which military force could be applied: first, was by coercing the Southern states; second, by merely enforcing Federal laws. Upon a correct choice between these two supposed alternatives would hinge the constitutional right of resorting to force. An incredible amount of mental anguish went into the clarification of that subtle point.​
. . . Coercion of the states was a phase forbidden in the best circles of the [Northern] disciples of force. Enforcement of the [revenue] laws, a phrase that had the reassuring aura of respectability and legality, was widely used instead.*​


* Kenneth Stampp, And the War Came, (Baton Rouge: LSU Press, 1970), 38

"By merely enforcing Federal laws."

Strange that the word "merely" is used in conjunction with the serious matter of enforcing Federal laws. Is it used in a manner that gives the impression that enforcing Federal laws was simply looked to as a matter of fact proposition? Something that needed to be done? Expected to pass, considered as "normal?"

So what was so wrong in enforcing the collection of the tariff in accordance with Federal law? By doing such, the Federal government in no way excuses or negates the reason for Southern secession, slavery.

We seem to be straining, ever straining, for nats and ignoring the elephant brought into the room by the Southern secessionists themselves.
 
Lincoln was a Political Person. He served in the IL militia during the Blackhawk War. What, for a Month? Scott explained the repercussions of trying to hold Sumpter. There were 16k plus Federal Troops. 3k plus had resigned. So he has 13k plus available. Scott advises Lincoln it will take 75k Troops to hold Sumpter. So, how does he get authorization and the ability to Recruit? Scott and Seward advised Lincoln to negotiate. Seward had adopted the conservative view. Advised Lincoln to form a moderate party including upper South Unionist and to isolate the extremist in the North and South. Lincoln knew he would lose the Northern, Abolitionist type, who wanted Blood. Not Blood for the Negro, but Blood for the Yankee! So in effect, he gave them what they wanted, Blood. Negotiating was a losing proposition to Lincoln and the Republicans. We have had discussions on the Hartford Convention Thread about what Jefferson and Madison did during similar Crisis with the Federalist. They Negotiated. Union was Valuable during this time Period. Not so in 1860. What was Valuable to Lincoln was Northern Nationalism. Further evidence was what happened during Reconstruction and Beyond. And so goes, the Myth of Lincoln!

Lincoln, evil, backwoods, one-term congressman, from the git-go.

Blood was on his mind and don't forget his evil henchmen's plans to raise tariff revenue at the end of the war they planned to win from the beginning.

Now if we could only find the conspiracy notes of the Hartford Convention and Mr. Peabody's Wayback Machine...
 
Lincoln, evil, backwoods, one-term congressman, from the git-go.

Blood was on his mind and don't forget his evil henchmen's plans to raise tariff revenue at the end of the war they planned to win from the beginning.

Now if we could only find the conspiracy notes of the Hartford Convention and Mr. Peabody's Wayback Machine...

Bet Mr Peabody is one of your favorite Historians? Makes sense now!
 
Here's more Stampp (Pg.60-61), about the war-monger Buchanan:

But the President never allowed the secessionists to have the​
slightest doubt as to what his reaction would have been had they​
demanded the surrender of any of the forts in Charleston Harbor.​
On December 17, Governor Francis W. Pickens of South Carolina​
suddenly asked permission to place a small force of state troops in​
Fort Sumter. Pickens said that if this request were refused he​
would be unable to answer for the consequences. Buchanan​
promptly drafted a sharp response in which he denied that he had​
power to surrender Federal property. He concluded; “If South
Carolina should attack any of these forts, she will then become the
assailant in a war against the United States. It will not then become​
a question of coercing a State to remain in the Union, to which I​
am utterly opposed, as my message proves, but it will be a question​
of voluntarily precipitating a conflict of arms on her part, without​
even consulting the only authorities [Congress] which have​
power to act upon the subject.”​

So how is this any different from Lincoln?
 
During the secession crisis, it is significant to note that "collection of the revenue" was a derivative expression of "enforcement of the laws." These were no mere subtleties.
There were, it appeared two distinct ways in which military force could be applied: first, was by coercing the Southern states; second, by merely enforcing Federal laws. Upon a correct choice between these two supposed alternatives would hinge the constitutional right of resorting to force. An incredible amount of mental anguish went into the clarification of that subtle point.​
. . . Coercion of the states was a phase forbidden in the best circles of the [Northern] disciples of force. Enforcement of the [revenue] laws, a phrase that had the reassuring aura of respectability and legality, was widely used instead.*​


* Kenneth Stampp, And the War Came, (Baton Rouge: LSU Press, 1970), 38

"By merely enforcing Federal laws."

The quote is erroneous as documented by the original post reproduced above.

Continue on your own but please don’t misquote me again.
 
Last edited:
During the secession crisis, it is significant to note that "collection of the revenue" was a derivative expression of "enforcement of the laws." These were no mere subtleties.
There were, it appeared two distinct ways in which military force could be applied: first, was by coercing the Southern states; second, by merely enforcing Federal laws. Upon a correct choice between these two supposed alternatives would hinge the constitutional right of resorting to force. An incredible amount of mental anguish went into the clarification of that subtle point.​
. . . Coercion of the states was a phase forbidden in the best circles of the [Northern] disciples of force. Enforcement of the [revenue] laws, a phrase that had the reassuring aura of respectability and legality, was widely used instead.*​


* Kenneth Stampp, And the War Came, (Baton Rouge: LSU Press, 1970), 38

The quote is erroneous as documented by the original post reproduced above.

Continue on your own but please don’t misquote me again.

@Philip Leigh ,

I note the phrase, "by merely enforcing Federal laws" I quoted is from your previous post#287.

I have emboldened and underlined it so you can see where I took it from your post. How is this a misquote of you of what you posted?

Please explain.

Continuing on.

Unionblue
 
@Philip Leigh ,

I note the phrase, "by merely enforcing Federal laws" I quoted is from your previous post#287.

I have emboldened and underlined it so you can see where I took it from your post. How is this a misquote of you of what you posted?

Please explain.

Continuing on.

Unionblue
In other words, you did not quote me.

You quoted historian Kenneth Stampp, out of context, without attribution, and without using ellipses as required.

Yes, you are continuing on.
 
Mr. Peabody makes as much sense as Lincoln being the devil in disguise.

Mr. Peabody, at least, is far more able to make a point on this thread thus far than any other theory I have read.

Sense enough?

Lincoln had several months to formulate a response. He had more than 1 option.

Mr Peabody tells you this is a conspiracy. Maybe Mr Peabody has deceived you? Maybe the whole Northern Narrative is a bigger Myth than the Lost Cause. Maybe those who believe it are Just Silly. Yep, I’m afraid it is True. One of History’s Mysteries.
 
In other words, you did not quote me.

You quoted historian Kenneth Stampp, out of context, without attribution, and without using ellipses as required.

Yes, you are continuing on.

Then you are complaining about nothing, as I merely quoted the source you provided. I'm sure anyone reading your post and mine could see I never referred to you as giving the quote, merely that you were providing it, since you listed your source.
 
Then you are complaining about nothing, as I merely quoted the source you provided.

You quoted a source without attribution, out of context, and without using ellipses as required. When taken out of context Stampp's point is nothing like you suggested. Your disregard for proper citation creates misleading interpretations.

I'm sure anyone reading your post and mine could see I never referred to you as giving the quote, merely that you were providing it, since you listed your source.

That is your opinion. You can't know how others will interpret it.
 
Lincoln had several months to formulate a response. He had more than 1 option.

So did the the seceding South, but Lincoln is held as the evil one. Very curious to me and others.

Mr Peabody tells you this is a conspiracy. Maybe Mr Peabody has deceived you? Maybe the whole Northern Narrative is a bigger Myth than the Lost Cause. Maybe those who believe it are Just Silly. Yep, I’m afraid it is True. One of History’s Mysteries.

Mr. Peabody has the imaginary ability to travel in time and see historical events. He's great because there seems to be a desire to hijack his Wayback Machine and rewrite what has really happened. I believe in the reality of actual historical fact as recorded in history. This is where the idea of a mythical Northern Narrative, bigger than the Lost Cause myth, tends to fade into the clutter of that myth.

Silly or not, we're both stuck with facts of history and trying to blame Lincoln for everything, from faking the attack on Ft. Sumter to planning (after he was dead) to hike tariffs after the Civil War, comes across as a bad science fiction story.

But it would make a great Alternate History story.

You see, the problem some have here is that me, or others who seem to agree with me, don't have to be convinced that the South was fighting for anything but slavery. Nobody has to do that.

The problem is that someone needs to go back to the early 19th century and talk Southern slaveholders out of seceding over slavery and bringing on a civil war. Someone needs to tell them that it is better to give up slavery rather than hold the Declaration of Independence or the Constitutional Convention hostage over keeping slavery. Or that they need to stop trying to gag the Congress with a "gag order" so that slavery won't be bothered. Or maybe someone should warn them that if they continue to agitate, complain and grouse about slavery to the point they give speeches in support of it, Declarations of Secession to keep it, and actually bring violence to the discussion of secession, there's going to be problems.

Trouble is, no one in this time can erase what they said and did in that time. Nobody here can go back and change a thing about what they said and what they did. We're stuck with it and the consequences of their past actions.

No, your trouble is not with us of this time and place. It's the inability to talk to those men in that time and place.

Until our next post,
Unionblue
 
Last edited:
Back
Top