Sumter Provocation

I suspect it was some of both. The Northern hotheads were talking trash, and the Southern hotheads were publicizing it, exaggerating it, and milking it for all it was worth.
But I do believe there was something in the Southern character that was quick to take offense and be ready to cross swords. Slavery is morally corrosive, of that I have no doubt. And I agree with you that the hotheads on both sides were the ones who are responsible for turning a heated argument into a shooting war.
 
Something that sort of shocked me in my assigned reading for college level ACW classes I took was how violent the rhetoric of many abolishonists (sp?) was. Lincoln did not fit that mold, but many did. I think this is what Jackson was hearing.

Not only was their rhetoric violent, some of them encouraged, executed, and supported violence. Look at Gerrit Smith, Frederick Douglas, and John Brown to name some of the the most famous examples. Ultimately, John Brown is the one who took the fall, but he was supported by the radicals. These men had no government authority whatsoever to take up arms against slavery and try to spread fear throughout the South. They used moral righteousness as their excuse. However, in all their self righteousness, they failed to realize that stealing (freeing legally owned slaves without the owners approval or compensation) is also immoral. Here's some quotes from Gerrit Smith:

[FONT=&quot]"For many years I have feared, and published my fears, that slavery must go out in blood…… So debauched are the white people by slavery, that there is not virtue enough left in them to put it down"[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Gerrit Smith
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Gerrit Smith, A Biography, by Octavious Brooks Frothingham, pg. 240[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"If I were asked to point out – I will say it in his presence – to point out the man in all this world I think most truly a Christian, I would point out John Brown. I was once doubtful in my own mind as to Captain Brown's course. I now approve of it heartily, having given my mind to it more of late."

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Gerrit Smith[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Gerrit Smith, A Biography, by Octavious Brooks Frothingham[/FONT]
I'm not sure extremism exists in a worse form then this. I do not place Lincoln nor Davis in the same regards as these types of men.
 
But I do believe there was something in the Southern character that was quick to take offense and be ready to cross swords. Slavery is morally corrosive, of that I have no doubt. And I agree with you that the hotheads on both sides were the ones who are responsible for turning a heated argument into a shooting war.

Im telling you its the heat that drove them nutty and so short tempered...
 
Not only was their rhetoric violent, some of them encouraged, executed, and supported violence. Look at Gerrit Smith, Frederick Douglas, and John Brown to name some of the the most famous examples. Ultimately, John Brown is the one who took the fall, but he was supported by the radicals. These men had no government authority whatsoever to take up arms against slavery and try to spread fear throughout the South. They used moral righteousness as their excuse. However, in all their self righteousness, they failed to realize that stealing (freeing legally owned slaves without the owners approval or compensation) is also immoral. Here's some quotes from Gerrit Smith:

I'm not sure extremism exists in a worse form then this. I do not place Lincoln nor Davis in the same regards as these types of men.

If I recall correctly Douglas seemed to distance himself away from Brown when he learned all the details of what Brown was planning..Im not sure I would put him in the same category as Brown, but then again if I was a ex-slave I might see that it would take bloodshed to end slavery..Hey wait it did...
 
But I do believe there was and be ready to cross swords. Slavery is morally corrosive, of that I have no doubt. And I agree with you that the hotheads on both sides were the ones who are responsible for turning a heated argument into a shooting war.

I believe you certainly right here Terry. There is "something in the Southern character that was quick to take offense" and though I agree that slavery is "morally corrosive" that had little to do with that particular flaw in the Southern Character. Southerners would have been *****ly and ready fight anyway, even had there never been a negro slave on the North American continent.

I agree too that the hotheads on both sides helped create the conditions needed for a shooting war to start. And while I am on that point let me say that comparing wealthy and/or prominent and influential people like Thomas W. Higginson, Samuel G. Howe, Theodore Parker, Franklin B. Sanborne, Gerrit Smith and George L. Stearns who morally and materially supported illegal and violent abolition to the "weather underground" in the 60's is simply farfetched.

This being said though even these hotheads did not cause the war (just contributed to the conditions necessary)

No, Lincoln very deliberately provoked the war.
 
I believe you certainly right here Terry. There is "something in the Southern character that was quick to take offense" and though I agree that slavery is "morally corrosive" that had little to do with that particular flaw in the Southern Character. Southerners would have been *****ly and ready fight anyway, even had there never been a negro slave on the North American continent.

To agree with your above opinion we are going to have to ignore a lot of history and written documents, especially those declarations of secession, all concerning themselves with slavery.

I agree too that the hotheads on both sides helped create the conditions needed for a shooting war to start.

And while I am on that point let me say that comparing wealthy and/or prominent and influential people like Thomas W. Higginson, Samuel G. Howe, Theodore Parker, Franklin B. Sanborne, Gerrit Smith and George L. Stearns who morally and materially supported illegal and violent abolition to the "weather underground" in the 60's is simply farfetched.

Farfetched to the point of historical reality. From the Revolution on, abolishionists had preached against slavery in the United States, only to see the movement die in the South and to become regarded as a lunatic fringe in the North with no political or social clout to advance an abolishionist agenda. It was only AFTER emancipation is there any attempt to curry favor with that element, to get on the 'right side' of history.

This being said though even these hotheads did not cause the war (just contributed to the conditions necessary)

No, Lincoln very deliberately provoked the war.

No, Lincoln did not "very deliberately" provoke the war.

Unionblue
 
No, Lincoln did not "very deliberately" provoke the war.

Unionblue


Just yesterday, I asked Prof James "Bud" Robertson about the persistent "south was right" internet crowd who claim that the crafty Lincoln provoked the southern forces to fire on Sumter. Robertson's reply was to burst out laughing and said "See, what did I say earlier about the internet?". He had said that the internet was unreliable and must be checked carefully.
 
I believe you certainly right here Terry. There is "something in the Southern character that was quick to take offense" and though I agree that slavery is "morally corrosive" that had little to do with that particular flaw in the Southern Character. Southerners would have been *****ly and ready fight anyway, even had there never been a negro slave on the North American continent.

I agree too that the hotheads on both sides helped create the conditions needed for a shooting war to start. And while I am on that point let me say that comparing wealthy and/or prominent and influential people like Thomas W. Higginson, Samuel G. Howe, Theodore Parker, Franklin B. Sanborne, Gerrit Smith and George L. Stearns who morally and materially supported illegal and violent abolition to the "weather underground" in the 60's is simply farfetched.

This being said though even these hotheads did not cause the war (just contributed to the conditions necessary)

No, Lincoln very deliberately provoked the war.

Yupp he tricked the Confederate forces into starving the garrisson and forcing their Commander-in-Chief into attempting to send them food..
 
Lincoln ordered Fort Sumter to be resupplied.

Davis ordered Fort Sumter to be attacked.

Yep, resupplied with 4 warships, 4 troop transports/landing craft, 39 heavy guns and over 1200 military personel 500 of whom were intended as landing troops. Just a mission of mercy to a starving garrison I reckon.

This was not of course a serious attempt to either reinforce or resupply Sumter (abe saw to it that no attempt would be made, with his last minute secret orders). but it was plenty enough to start a war as abe knew full well it would.
 
Lincoln informed Pickens of the attempt. He gave the Confederates the choice:

a. start a war---and be seen as starting the war.

b. maintain the status quo--which is a limited victory for the federal government, since South Carolina would seem to accept federal authority.

Heads Lincoln wins, tails, Davis loses.

Of course the choices looked a little different to Davis. Seven states are part of the Confederacy, but others are on the fence, including the biggest, Virginia. He orders the fort attacked.

a. Lincoln doesn't respond: not likely

b. Lincoln orders out the militia(as he does). Now the fence sitters in the border states have a choice: there's going to be shooting: who are they going to shoot; Yankees or Southerners? Davis thinks they'll choose his side, and he's partly right.
 
Yep, resupplied with 4 warships, 4 troop transports/landing craft, 39 heavy guns and over 1200 military personel 500 of whom were intended as landing troops. Just a mission of mercy to a starving garrison I reckon.

This was not of course a serious attempt to either reinforce or resupply Sumter (abe saw to it that no attempt would be made, with his last minute secret orders). but it was plenty enough to start a war as abe knew full well it would.

And what kind of ships should a President send on this mission to a fort beseiged by hostile forces who have already fired on two ships carrying the American flag? I guess the 6000 men and numerious batteries surrounding the fort shouldn't come into consideration...And lets not forget the numerious armed Confederate ships in the harbor...

You seem to overlook the Confederate actions at Ft. Pickens showing their hostile intent at this very same time why is that?
 
Of course, there are two erroneous assumptions, one by Lincoln, and one by Davis.

a. Firing on the United States flag, and United States soldiers may have rallied more states to the Confederacy, but it absolutely enraged the North. Lincoln later said(to paraphrase) Davis would make war, but Lincoln would accept war. Davis underestimated Union resolve.

b. Lincoln overestimated Unionist sentiment in the Southern states. It existed, certainly, but not enough decisively.
 
Yep, resupplied with 4 warships, 4 troop transports/landing craft, 39 heavy guns and over 1200 military personel 500 of whom were intended as landing troops. Just a mission of mercy to a starving garrison I reckon.

This was not of course a serious attempt to either reinforce or resupply Sumter (abe saw to it that no attempt would be made, with his last minute secret orders). but it was plenty enough to start a war as abe knew full well it would.


You keep making this claim that Lincoln sabataged the Fox expedition how about something to back up your claims.. As it seems that the very people involved in this were blaming someone else...


Four days later, Seward and his son Frederick called on the navy secretary late at
night with a telegram from Meigs and Porter asking for clarification of orders regarding
the Powhatan, since confusion reigned at the Brooklyn navy yard. Seward demanded that
Welles retract his order assigning that warship to Fox.
Puzzled, Welles insisted that they consult the president immediately, even though the hour was late. En route to the White House, Seward "remarked that, old as he was, he had learned a lesson from this affair,and that was, he had better attend to his own business and confine his labors to his own Department." (In fact, the meddlesome Seward continued to poach on the domains of his cabinet colleagues, much to their annoyance.)
Around midnight they arrived at the Executive Mansion, where Lincoln was still up. Surprised by the telegram from Meigs and Porter, the president suggested that he may have misunderstood which vessel would serve as flagship for the Sumter squadron, confusing the Pocahontas with the Powhatan.(Fox's squadron consisted of the Pawnee, the Pocahontas, the Powhatan, and the Harriet Lane.) The secretary quickly retrieved documents from his office indicating that Lincoln
had authorized the assignment of the Powhatan to Fox. To set things aright, Lincoln told
Seward "that the Powhatan must be restored to Mercer – that on no account must the
Sumter expedition fail."
Seward said he "thought it was now too late to correct the mistake" and that "he considered the other project the most important, and asked whether that would not be injured if the Powhatan was now withdrawn." Lincoln "would not discuss the subject, but was peremptory – said there was not the pressing necessity in the other case . . . . As regarded Sumter, however, not a day was to be lost – that the orders of the Secretary of the Navy must be carried out." When Seward opined that it might be too late to send a telegram to New York, Lincoln "was imperative that it should be done."
Reluctantly Seward obeyed, sending Porter a telegram (which amazingly did not
arrive until 3 p.m. the next day) ordering him to do as the president had instructed.
Seward signed the message with his own name, not the president's. The frigate, which had already set sail, was overtaken and the message delivered to Porter, who refused to obey it because it bore the signature of the secretary of state, and he was operating on orders signed by the president.The headstrong Meigs approved Porter's action Whether Seward deliberately sabotaged the change in plans by signing his own name rather than the president's is not known for certain, but it seems likely.He was probably trying to thwart the Sumter expedition, which he opposed fiercely. Calling Seward "that timid traitor" who "paralizes every movement from abject fear," Fox accused him of "treachery" by "interfering with the other dep[artment]s as the last hope of preventing the reinforcing of Sumpter."Gideon Welles always believed that "to save himself," Seward "detached the Powhatan from the expedition and sent her to Pensacola."
​




 

Learn About Us
►About CivilWarTalk
►Contact the Webmaster
►Meet the Staff
►Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
►Register
►Browse Forums
►View Today's Discussions
►Search the Forum
Get Help
►FAQ
►Student Guide
►Forum Rules & Etiquette
►Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top