http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
If I understand the term correctly, a lot of that goes on. Some people assume that everything that the secessionists or the Confederates did in the run-up to war was legitimate and put the blame on Lincoln. The questions they set up -- what they ask about and what they don't ask about, what they consider debateable and what they consider beyond debate -- determines they answers they get.
Rather than asking why the federal government or Lincoln behaved as they did and assuming that the secessionists or Confederates did nothing wrong or questionable or couldn't help acting as they did, I'd turn it around. It was possible that the federal government would take military action against secession. It was likely that if fired upon, the US would fire back and take the conflict to the next level. Given that -- knowing that -- why did the secessionist or Confederate leaders (who certainly did have various options available to them) behave as they did?
I’ve been thinking about this comment.
I think what the neo-Confeds see here is essentially what modern liberals see when they look at any conflict or disagreement between their good guys (minorities, women, Muslims, gays, 3rd world countries, radicals, revolutionaries, etc.) and their bad guys (white people, Americans, American conservatives, counter-revolutionaries, etc.).
In this worldview the bad guys are always responsible for anything at all negative that happens, since any apparently negative actions by the good guys are entirely a reaction to provocation by the bad guys.
IMO this infantilizes their good guys, since they lose all moral responsibility and become merely objects that react when subjected to a stimulus. Only the bad guys have true volition.
In actual fact, IMO, both sides have moral responsibility for their own actions, and the actual course of events is a complicated mixture of free decisions and reactions to the other side by both parties. But that’s too complex for those who insist on believing in 100% innocent good guys and 100% guilty bad guys.
Looking back at Sumter, where the neos firmly believe Lincoln “forced” Davis into firing the first shot.
Anderson had already informed his opponents that he would be forced to surrender for lack of provisions in just a few days (three if I remember correctly). Which means a peaceful resolution is at hand if the CSA was just willing to wait a little.
The ships coming to provision and possibly reinforce the Fort could have been driven off by gunfire without it necessarily starting a war, as had earlier attempts. For some reason, shooting at a ship didn’t carry the same connotations at the time as firing on a fort.
To my mind this means that Davis gambled that the outbreak of war, with the CSA firing the first shot, would cause the Upper South and Border states to climb down off the fence on his side.
Which to a considerable extent happened. It is very clear from contemporary accounts that Virginians and other Upper South peoples made their choice to secede as soon as they heard of the fighting at Sumter. Massive spontaneous demonstrations ensued.
This was followed several days later by Lincoln’s call for troops, which was then used as a convenient justification for secession by these states. But it’s pretty clear they made their decision before he sent out the call.
IOW, I think it’s clear the CSA made a conscious decision to precipitate war as a way of forcing the remaining slave states into a decision.
I am also always amused by those who seem to think that if the Union had just peacefully accepted the secession of the Deep South states that would have been the end of all conflict.
The crucial issue in the election of 1860 was southern outrage at the notion that they might be barred from taking slaves into the territories. They broke up the Democratic Party over the issue and thereby ensured Lincoln’s election.
Yet we are supposed to assume that once they seceded they would just drop the issue and calmly accept slavery being limited to the seven states of the CSA.
I think it’s perfectly obvious that from Day One the CSA intended to expand by whatever means necessary. They immediately sent envoys to the remaining slave state to try to induce them to secede and join the CSA. Actions which by one country against another are generally considered acts of war.
They also immediately began plans to expand by military force into the accessible territories, including Indian Territory, New Mexico and Arizona.
To my mind it is perfectly obvious that calm Union acceptance of secession would have merely ensure CSA becoming more aggressive until somebody drew a line in the sand to stop them. Including if necessary military invasion of the remaining slave states. After all, they could always find some purportedly legitimate group within any of those states to “invite” invasion.