The Sunken Fact: Lincoln Instigated the War

WoW... false equivalency... if you read through early part of the thread you will see that Lincoln was not going to resupply Ft. Sumter but sent messages to Charleston about a small fleet going to resupply the fort. He cons them into firing first... so who started the war the conman Lincoln or triggerman Jeff Davis...???
Wait, so the Confederates cut off supplies forcing the federal government to send supplies or abandon it,they then tell the Confederates they are sending only supplies unless they are resisted yet somehow Lincoln cons the Confederates into firing?
 
Why of all the Federal forts along the coast of the South was Sumter the one that was chosen as the one that was selected as the fort to send a military ship loaded with military supplies?Was it the fact that this was a final act of a challenge to South Carolina to finally either accept that federal dominion or to do that which it had threaten to do in such similar situations.The only major difference this this time was that the sister states would this time follow Big sister out,this Lincoln could not believe would happen based on past events.Why if he did do the same to other federal forts or property why is it that Sumter is the one place that history places it as the shot that began the war? Answer can be that its not the fort its the location of the fort,in the harbor of Charleston,SC,which makes Sumter infamous.
There were only two federal forts of any consequence and garrisons left in the deep South, Ft. Pickens and Sumter, and both were being resupplied
 
Wait, so the Confederates cut off supplies forcing the federal government to send supplies or abandon it,they then tell the Confederates they are sending only supplies unless they are resisted yet somehow Lincoln cons the Confederates into firing?

i'd call that a rather elaborate plan, indeed
khelle.gif
and apparently, it worked brilliantly
 
There were only two federal forts of any consequence and garrisons left in the deep South, Ft. Pickens and Sumter, and both were being resupplied
This does not answer the question of why Sumter? The answer is the importance of its location,the harbor of Charleston,the birth place of seccession,the nest of the radical anti federalist.Other states had the same anti federalist ,Brown and Stephens in Ga,,Yancy in Al.a and Va,Gov.Other states had their leaders who had planed for this day.It was South Carolina that
 
The more appropriate question is the one before that. What tangible proof was there that this wasn't true, since this was thew way it had been for decades. There must be a legitimate process for separation for separation to be considered legal. You can't just say you're divorced to your spouse and for it to be true. It was a legal union and you need to confirm the break not confirm the union (since the union pre-existed).





I agree, that the question applies to the confederacy just as much as the Union. Confederate leaders claimed that secession had occurred and was completely successful. That the seceded states were completely free and independence states, complete and perfect in every detail...was there tangible evidence that this claim was true?
 
I agree, that the question applies to the confederacy just as much as the Union. Confederate leaders claimed that secession had occurred and was completely successful. That the seceded states were completely free and independence states, complete and perfect in every detail...was there tangible evidence that this claim was true?

Simple.

All one has to do is go to the nearest Confederate States of America Embassy/Counsel's office and inquire for such evidence.
 
This is a question I have always wanted to ask but feared being called a "Lost Causer" other otherwise attacked. I'm really just trying to understand, not make a point. If South Carolina considered themselves separate from the United States then why would they tolerate a foreign military force occupying a fort in the middle of their harbor?

That's to laugh. Who's fort was it, then?

I want Cuba. It's mine.
 
americancivilwar.com/authors/Joseph_Ryan/Articles/Lincoln-Instigated-War/The-Buried-Fact-Record.html
Respectfully,

William





In fact though, the very fact of history is replete with the evidence that all the planning, preparation acts of War, was entirely on the confederate side.

There are no 'sunken facts' concerning the war and who started it. The cause for war rests entirely with those who claimed secession a complete success. There could be no war with the united States, without secession, i.e., the implementation of secession was 'The Act of War' because it first required attacks on all aspects of Constitutional Authority, in those states claiming secession, and, only after that, the acts of war by the United States in its own defense and, that is exactly the course of historical evidence.
 
Since this page is pretty much all-Lincoln/Union view, all of you are trying pretty hard to convince yourselves and your little club is what i see. If you knew you were right you wouldn't have to try so hard. Onward with your Kum Ba Ya moment gentlemen. :thumbsup:
 
Since this page is pretty much all-Lincoln/Union view, all of you are trying pretty hard to convince yourselves and your little club is what i see. If you knew you were right you wouldn't have to try so hard. Onward with your Kum Ba Ya moment gentlemen. :thumbsup:

Greywolf,

As the man said, "Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it."

I understand who was right and who was wrong, again, as Frederick Douglass said, "There was a right side and a wrong side" and we should never forget who was which.

Maybe we "try pretty hard" because there are those who want to forget and shove that "right" into the darkness of myth and lost memory. As for those who seem inclined to do such, I remember someone else's words on those attempts.

"But he has no right to mislead others, who have less access to history, and less leisure to study it..."

Do you know how many people who are NOT members of this forum who visit this site in the course of a day? Quite a few. Maybe a few of us "try pretty hard" so these visitors don't come away with the wrong information or historical fact. The old adage, "silence gives consent" is true and failing to answer such bogus charges in history means I would give consent to their being presented.

History is just too important to let such misinformation slide by without challenge.

So, if I "try pretty hard" it's not for a "all-Lincoln/Union view," or even a "Kum By Yah moment" with members who share my own views on history.

Ultimately it is because, "History is not history, unless it is the truth."

Until our next "try hard" moment,

Unionblue
 
History is just too important to let such misinformation slide by without challenge.

Wow... You have been with this thread since I and others showed over and over Lincoln and Staton plan the con on the Confederates to fire first or at worse Staton was going to be the fall guy... All the evidence is in those first 100 post... I and others showed the late night meeting between Staton, Linlcon and Porter... And his orders he used to go to Ft. Pickens... Leaving Fox's efforts hig and dry...


If you knew you were right you wouldn't have to try so hard. Onward with your Kum Ba Ya moment gentlemen. :thumbsup:

No, this is the problem with threads that get big all the evidence is in the first 100 post but no one goes backs and reads the evidence just throw options...
 
Wow... You have been with this thread since I and others showed over and over Lincoln and Staton plan the con on the Confederates to fire first or at worse Staton was going to be the fall guy... All the evidence is in those first 100 post... I and others showed the late night meeting between Staton, Linlcon and Porter... And his orders he used to go to Ft. Pickens... Leaving Fox's efforts hig and dry...

It's your theory/opinion based on a source you like. I understand.


Since this page is pretty much all-Lincoln/Union view, all of you are trying pretty hard to convince yourselves and your little club is what i see. If you knew you were right you wouldn't have to try so hard. Onward with your Kum Ba Ya moment gentlemen. :thumbsup:


5fish replies: No, this is the problem with threads that get big all the evidence is in the first 100 post but no one goes backs and reads the evidence just throw options...

No, the problem is you and others don't get a free pass and are challenged and given evidence in return that refutes you, your source, and your opinion.

Welcome to the FORUM.
 
No he actually gave it quite a bit of yhought, but abandoning Sumter hinged on holding onto Pickens, and when word was received that the naval commander wouldn't land the reinforcements needed in Florida

The story is off... Porter goes down there and delivers reinforcements... after making a faint to Charleston...

until they made him take a stand

Until lincoln and Seward came up with a plan to con the confederacy to fire first...

Wait, so the Confederates cut off supplies forcing the federal government to send supplies or abandon it

Ft. Sumter was doomed... even if they supplied it in a few months later they be back trying to resupply...

Until our next "try hard" moment,

I do not try I DO!

You forgot this link.... the first Historian that told of Lincoln's plans to start a war...

I put it in wrong but read this article from a noted historian kind of follows the theme of this thread... its long... pages and more detail in ways...

http://www.bonniebluepublishing.com/Lincoln and Fort Sumter.htm


You forgot this late night get together... I say it was Seward, not Staton...

On April 1, Porter and Seward went over the plans to reinforce Pickens, plans which were to be carried out secretly. Porter suggested that Lincoln, not the secretary of the navy, issue a direct order to ready the Powhatan. At a conference with Porter, Meigs, and Seward, Lincoln approved these plans, though he felt uneasy about bypassing normal channels and having his secretary of state in effect act as secretary of the navy. “But what will Uncle Gideon say?” he asked. “I will make it all right with Mr. Welles,” Seward replied. “This looks to me very much like the case of two fellows I once knew: one was a gambler, the other a preacher,” said the president. “They met in a stage, and the gambler induced the preacher to play poker, and the latter won all the gambler’s money.

Here is the link: https://www.knox.edu/documents/pdfs/LincolnStudies/Burlingame, Vol 2, Chap 22.pdf


Welcome to the FORUM.

You and I know this forum well...

Start in column 3 and read through it to refresh your memories...
 
Eric Foner words...

Hear that silence... lets post-Eric Foner words...

"Whether Lincoln craftily maneuvered the south into firing the first shot or simply took a calculated risk of war, creating a situation that placed the onus of striking the first blow on Jefferson Davis rather than himself, the results galvanized public sentiment in the north. "

He seems to think Lincoln created the situation... by his actions that caused the first shots of the war... He is implying Lincoln started the war...

I declare victory.... on the topic... Ryan, Johnstone, and Ramdells are vindicated...


and...

Here is Eric Foner: The beginning of the second paragraph the first sentence shows he wonders if Lincoln craftily maneuvered the south into war...

https://books.google.com/books?id=4...n coerced the south into firing first&f=false
 
Finally, there is hardly an objective difference between the Confederates "starting" the war by firing artillery shells at the fort, as Lincoln's war fleet was reasonably supposed to be approaching Charleston Harbor, and we "starting" war when we fire missiles at one of North Korea's missiles coming toward us over the Pacific. If we say North Korea "started" the war, because it fired its missile first, then we must logically say the Union started the war because it sent a war fleet to invade South Carolina.
The post is very wordy but I think this paragraph exposes the weakness of the argument pretty well. Who would seriously equate an expedition to resupply a legally occupied fort, with the modern day firing of a ballistic missile? Seriously, was the "fleet" sent to resupply Sumpter even remotely capable of "invading South Carolina?"
 
The post is very wordy but I think this paragraph exposes the weakness of the argument pretty well. Who would seriously equate an expedition to resupply a legally occupied fort, with the modern day firing of a ballistic missile? Seriously, was the "fleet" sent to resupply Sumpter even remotely capable of "invading South Carolina?"

especially as the confederate artillery kinda equals that icbm
 
"Whether Lincoln craftily maneuvered the south into firing the first shot or simply took a calculated risk of war, creating a situation that placed the onus of striking the first blow on Jefferson Davis rather than himself, the results galvanized public sentiment in the north. "
He seems to think Lincoln
created the situation... by his actions that caused the first shots of the war... He is implying Lincoln started the war...


In actual Historical Fact, the first shot was fired, before any serious attempt to resupply Ft.. Sumter was made. If Davis wanted to prove the perfidy of Lincoln and the Union, all he had to do was see if the troops of the 'fleet' reinforced the garrison or not, in either case, Sumter would still be surrounded by superior forces. Unless, of course, Davis himself, had ulterior motives for a war, no matter who fired the first shot.
 
In actual Historical Fact, the first shot was fired, before any serious attempt to resupply Ft.. Sumter was made. If Davis wanted to prove the perfidy of Lincoln and the Union, all he had to do was see if the troops of the 'fleet' reinforced the garrison or not, in either case, Sumter would still be surrounded by superior forces. Unless, of course, Davis himself, had ulterior motives for a war, no matter who fired the first shot.

A little dirty truth about the war: Lincoln and Davis both needed to have shots fired to unified their supporters... There was a greater risk for Lincoln if his fired the first shots of the war... Davis could see the euphoria of secession was wearing off and he needed to unified support for the Confederacy... Notice: After the first shots fired supporter unified behind their leaders Davis got the upper south and Lincoln got his army...
 
Back
Top