Death of Jefferson Davis Remembered - The Christmas of 1889 Was a Sad Time in the South

1. Your claim in reply 250 that the North was mobilizing troops prior to Sumter. Competent historians recognize that the North did not begin to mobilize until April 15, 1861 when Lincoln issued his first call for 75,000 militia. Prior to that the federal army had actually been shrinking in the face of Southern desertions. So please show what evidence you have that indicates these historians are wrong and you are right.

Here's an article from one of the old newspapers I mentioned above, Titus. This is from The Daily Picayune of New Orleans in the April 11, 1861 issue:

Military Preparations at the North

The New York Herald, of the 6th inst., gives accounts of what is going on in this way, in anticipation of a coercive policy on the part of the Washington administration. It says that on the 5th inst., Gov. Curtin, of Pennsylvania, besides being closeted with Lincoln for an hour, had an interview with Secretary Cameron and Gen. Scott, and at 11 o'clock that same night had a private interview with one of Gen. Scott's confidential officers. There is no doubt, it adds, that Pennsylvania will be put upon a war footing immediately.

Massachusetts is said to have six thousand six hundred and seventy men, all equipped and ready to march at twelve hours notice. Among them, says the Herald, are two flying artillery batteries, almost as expert in drill as the best regulars, and several dragoon and cavalry corps, not surpassed in efficiency by any in the volunteer militia in the United States. The infantry troops are well drilled.

New York State, according to the same authority, is pledged to furnish ten thousand men at forty-eight hours notice, and other States in proportion.

How could these troops be ready to move on short notice if they were not already mobilized? Here's confirmation from a modern source [Link]:

In Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio, alert Republican governors secretly mobilized and reequipped volunteer militia companies; when Lincoln called for help they marched the next day.

This is still a month after the south called for an army of 100,000 to be raised on March 6, which Titus claims was only done after the north began to mobilize.

This is still a month after the south called for an army of 100,000 to be raised on March 6, which Titus claims was only done after the north began to mobilize.

From the text of the March 6 Confederate Act authorizing future callup of volunteer forces to repel invasion, maintain independence, etc. when Davis thought they were needed.

The Congress of the Confederate States of America do enact, That in order to provide speedily forces to repel invasion, maintain the rightful possession of the Confederate States of America in every portion of territory belonging to each State, and to secure the public tranquility and independence against threatened assault, the President be, and he is hereby authorized to employ the militia, military and naval forces of the Confederate States of America, and to ask for and accept the services of any number of volunteers, not exceeding one hundred thousand, who may offer their services, either as cavalry, mounted riflemen, artillery or infantry, in such proportion of these several arms as he may deem expedient, to serve for twelve months after they shall be mustered into service, unless sooner discharged.

This act was spurred on by the realization in Montgomery that Lincoln's inaugural speech indicated there would be war. The Confederate government would have been remiss not to be prepared for that very likely possibility.

Latest from Montgomery

War considered Inevitable -- The Standing Army -- The War Strength

Montgomery, March 5 -- Since the receipt of the Inaugural address of Mr. Lincoln, it is universally conceded here that war between the Confederate States and the United States is inevitable. Mr. Benjamin said last night, that in his opinion, there would be a clash of Arms within thirty days.

Mr. Conrad concurred in this view of the aspect of affairs. The standing army of the Confederate States will be fixed at ten thousand men. Congress is now engaged in organizing the army. Of course, in case of hostilities, the number of men put in the field will be greater. It is calculated that the States now composing the Confederacy can place 80,000 on a movable war footing. [Source: Gazette and Sentinel, Plaquemine, Louisiana, March 9, 1861]

Lincoln did not choose a path that would lead to peace.

How could these troops be ready to move on short notice if they were not already mobilized?

If they were ready to move on short notice why did it take weeks to actually mobilize them? According to your article Massachusetts had 6600 men ready to go. Among them "...several dragoon and cavalry corps, not surpassed in efficiency by any in the volunteer militia in the United States." Yet according to this site which gives the history of all the Union, and many of the rebel, units that were raised during the rebellion the first Massachussetts cavalry regiment wasn't mustered in until December of 1861. Guess they weren't all that efficient after all, huh? Massachussetts had a handful of regiments which mustered in after Lincoln's call for milita, but only one regiment which was supposed to be ready and offered to the government before Sumter was fired on. So where was this mobilization, rustbucket? Where were all these regiments? Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, none of the states show regiments being raised before Sumter. But the New Orleans Picayune said they were, so it must be show.

I got to hand it to you, rustbucket. Your sources are still up to your usual standards.

Lincoln did not choose a path that would lead to peace.

There was no interest in peace on the part of Jefferson Davis.

If they were ready to move on short notice why did it take weeks to actually mobilize them? According to your article Massachusetts had 6600 men ready to go.

Mobilization was going on for longer than I realized, even before Lincoln met with the governors of several states about their militias in early April 1861. From the Richmond Daily Dispatch (VA) of February 11, 1861:

The Massachusetts Military.

Boston, February 7.

--Military orders promulgated to-day by the Commander-in-Chief are prefaced as follows:
"The present condition of national affairs renders it possible that the services of the volunteer military of Massachusetts may be required at no distant day, and at short notice, by the President of the United States for the defence of the Federal capital, and it is the desire of his Excellency, the Governor, and Commander-in-Chief, that the troops be in readiness for any legal requisition that may be made upon them."

The orders apply more directly to the First Division, and require rigid scrutiny of company rolls, frequent company drills, and a thorough preparation for active service.

The Sixth Massachusetts Regiment was the first to march in response to Lincoln's call for 75,000 troops. They left Lowell, Mass. on the morning of April 16, completely equipped and organized. It had a full band and regimental staff. [Source: Baltimore and the Nineteenth of April 1861, by George William Brown]

Also from the NY Herald via the Richmond Daily Dispatch:

Gov. Andrews to-day telegraphed to the President. The quota of troops required of Massachusetts is ready; how will you have them to proceed?"--N. Y. Herald of 16th [of April, one day after Lincoln's proclamation]

Pennsylvanians were apparently the first to reach Washington. [Source]

Three days after the distressed president’s call, some 475 Pennsylvanians, comprising the ranks of five volunteer militia companies, arrived in the nation’s capital.

I got to hand it to you, rustbucket. Your sources are still up to your usual standards.

Thanks for the compliment. I provided you with two sources on Lincoln's meetings with governors concerning their militias. I know your usual style of requiring thirteen first hand signed affidavits offering facts against your claims. I found two more.

April 6, 1861

Governors of Indiana, Ohio, Maine, and Pennsylvania confer with President about military status of militia. Baltimore Sun, 9 April 1861 [Source: The Lincoln Log]

And ...

... we have reliable information to the effect that a number of Black Republican Governors have been in recent secret conclave with the President of the United States, the evident intent of which was a conspiracy against the rights and liberties of the South, of which we form a part, as proven by the recommendation of a war bill by the Governor of Pennsylvania, who was one of them, and the immediate passage of the same by the Legislature of that State ... [Source: The Richmond Daily Dispatch, April 17, 1861]

Yet according to this site which gives the history of all the Union, and many of the rebel, units that were raised during the rebellion the first Massachussetts cavalry regiment wasn't mustered in until December of 1861.

I forgot to thank you for the link. You have to be careful about such web sites. I've spent some months myself trying to correct erroneous data about the Confederate unit of one of my ancestors on an otherwise excellent web site.

You have to be careful about such web sites.

I suggest that the same is true about the newspaper articles you post. Southern newspapers a thousand miles away from the Northern state that they're writing about would be expected to have a bias, and newspapers of that period on both sides were blessed with creative reporters.

Thanks for the compliment. I provided you with two sources on Lincoln's meetings with governors concerning their militias. I know your usual style of requiring thirteen first hand signed affidavits offering facts against your claims.

But can you turn it around and apply the same standards to your own side? Can you provide information on when Southern regiments mustered? Were they as quick as the Northern ones you pointed out? Wouldn't that be an indication of mobilization before Sumter?

All states had militia regiments, as you should know rustbucket. They were organized and somewhat trained, but the governor could issue the order and boom, X number of regiments would appear. But if that qualifies as mobilization then the fact is that the North was mobilizing decades before teh rebellion because that's when state militias were formed. And I guess that would mean that the South was mobilizing decades before as well.

The confederate congress passed legislation authorizing the mustering of 100,000 men the day Lincoln was inaugurated. It can be honestly said that Southern mobilization began on that day, over a month before the South initiated the war. Lincoln issued his call for 75,000 troops after the war began. Quibble about militia regiments, alleged meetings, and muster dates all you want the fact is that the South was preparing for war before the war began. They authorized an army 6 or 7 times the size of the U.S. army of the time. Their intentions were not peaceful.

“It can be honestly said that Southern mobilization began on that day, over a month before the South initiated the war.”

Interesting. How can it “honestly” be said when the statement itself is a lie. The South did not initiate the war, so your time reference is meaningless. But you know that.

Every time someone post something on the War Between the States here on FR, sparks start to fly among friends.

So this is a good time to post this quote from the movie Night at the Museum.

Larry: [speaking to Civil War diorama figures]

“Civil war dudes... You guys are brothers for God’s sake... You gotta stop fighting... North wins... Slavery is bad... Sorry... Don’t want to burst your bubble but South you guys get Allmen Brothers and Nascar. So just chill!”

Interesting. How can it “honestly” be said when the statement itself is a lie. The South did not initiate the war, so your time reference is meaningless. But you know that.

The South did indeed intitiate the war when if fired on Sumter. But then you knew that, too.

The confederate congress passed legislation authorizing the mustering of 100,000 men the day Lincoln was inaugurated.

Can't help misstating something can you? Congenital, I guess. Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4. The Confederate Congress authorized Davis to ask for and accept up to 100,000 men on March 6, after realizing that Lincoln intended war (see my post 403 above). As I remember, it wasn't until sometime later that he could accept forces without the approval of the governor of the state involved.

Lincoln authorized Winfield Scott to muster companies of the District of Columbia militia before Sumter. I found this out in the newspapers and it is confirmed by John G. Nicolay in The Outbreak of Rebellion, New York: Scribner's, 1881 and 1885. The 1885 edition is available on the web:

As soon as President Lincoln decided to send provisions to Sumter, he had, in anticipation of coming dangers, ordered General Scott to take additional measures for the security of the capital, and to that end authorized him to muster into the service of the United States about fifteen companies of District militia. When Sumter fell and the proclamation was issued, as a still further precaution the first few regiments were ordered directly to Washington.

I suppose Lincoln's authorization was for defense and thus "permissible." Defense is also what the Confederate authorization was for:

The Congress of the Confederate States of America do enact, That in order to provide speedily forces to repel invasion, maintain the rightful possession of the Confederate States of America in every portion of territory belonging to each State, and to secure the public tranquility and independence against threatened assault ...

But can you turn it around and apply the same standards to your own side? Can you provide information on when Southern regiments mustered? Were they as quick as the Northern ones you pointed out?

When you've been proven wrong, you start handing out homework assignments on something else. Same old non-seq.

I don't know much about Confederate state units. Some local units began organizing back in November 1860 after Lincoln was elected. Kind of like the Wide Awakes up North, I think. They could see what was coming. Buchanan sending armed troops into Charleston Harbor in January probably spurred the formation of militia groups as well. Newspaper accounts in February mention a bill in South Carolina to raise 10,000 volunteers.

As far as Davis and the Confederate Congress calling up or authorizing troops, I know this:

- Congress authorized funds for the use of 3,000 troops in Charleston on March 11, with allowances for another 2,000 troops.

- Congress authorized funding for the regular Confederate army on March 11. The regular Confederate Army was smaller than the US regular army, and the Confederate regular army never actually exceeded something like 2,000 or 2,500 men, though they were authorized for more. The provisional Confederate army was where the bulk of the troops went.

- From the Richmond Daily Dispatch of March 22, 1861:

The Savannah Republican, of the 18th, contains the following news:

It is stated on the street that Governor Brown received on Saturday, from President Davis, a requisition for two thousand troops. It is surmised that they are intended for Savannah and Pensacola.

- Davis issued a call for 6,000 troops for the Pensacola area shortly before April 4, 1861

- SC Governor Pickens on April 13 said there were nearly 7,000 Confederate or state troops in Charleston.

I suggest that the same is true about the newspaper articles you post. Southern newspapers a thousand miles away from the Northern state that they're writing about would be expected to have a bias, and newspapers of that period on both sides were blessed with creative reporters.

Baltimore, New York City, and Richmond are a thousand miles away from where all this was occurring? I gather that you flunked geography. The New Orleans paper was quoting the New York Herald.

Can't help misstating something can you? Congenital, I guess. Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4. The Confederate Congress authorized Davis to ask for and accept up to 100,000 men on March 6, after realizing that Lincoln intended war (see my post 403 above).

Well I admit that I was off by two days, but saying Lincoln intended war? Talk about misstating.

I suppose Lincoln's authorization was for defense and thus "permissible."

But you keep telling us that Lincoln wasn't interested in defense, he was interested in war. Calling up the D.C. militia, even assuming that they were organized, is hardly preparing for war. Especially in the fact of a 100,000 man army.

Defense is also what the Confederate authorization was for...

And for that they needed an army 7 times larger than their neighbor's?

When you've been proven wrong, you start handing out homework assignments on something else. Same old non-seq.

No, just curious.

Some local units began organizing back in November 1860 after Lincoln was elected. Kind of like the Wide Awakes up North, I think. They could see what was coming. Buchanan sending armed troops into Charleston Harbor in January probably spurred the formation of militia groups as well. Newspaper accounts in February mention a bill in South Carolina to raise 10,000 volunteers.

So that would mean that the South was mobilizing for war long before Sumter, wouldn't it? And long before Lincoln?

Well I admit that I was off by two days, but saying Lincoln intended war? Talk about misstating.

Talk about naive. Collecting tariff on imports to another country was not a threat of war? Threatening to post his army in forts all throughout that other country was not a threat of war?

Perhaps the old newspapers said it best concerning what Lincoln's inaugural speech meant:

In other words, though you do not recognize me as President, I shall not molest you if you will pay taxes for the support of my government. We must have your money, that we cannot bring ourselves to decline, and if you do not let us have it peacefully, why, we shall be compelled to take it from you by force; in which case you, not we, will be the aggressors. This means coercion and civil war and nothing else. [The New York Day Book]

Apart from the unimportant complications of mere side issues, there was, properly speaking, but one question for Mr. Lincoln to decide, and that was the question of peace or war. He has chosen the bitter alternative … [The Memphis Daily Appeal]

Lincoln has resolved to force his doctrines upon the point of the bayonet. … It must be civil war within thirty days ... [The Chicago Times]

His way of keeping the Union together seems to be in cannonading and bombarding the discontented part of it, recapturing forts and blockading the southern ports. This is but the inauguration of civil war, and if the President carries out his policy, the 4th of March is the inauguration of civil war ... [The New York Express]

… ill judged and unfortunate, and calculated to lead to hostile results … [The Lynchburg Virginian]

Basically the papers above were correct in their assessment that Lincoln's speech meant war. Lincoln would have had to have been pretty stupid to not realize what effect his inaugural would have on the country. He was not stupid. Short of repealing the Morrill tariff which he had earlier been for or instituting an income tax, war was perhaps the only way he could keep the North from going bankrupt.

Calling up the D.C. militia, even assuming that they were organized, is hardly preparing for war. Especially in the fact of a 100,000 man army.

Nowhere near a 100,000-man defense force had been called up by Davis before Sumter. I found callups of perhaps 13,000 forces by Davis and a possible 10,000 by South Carolina. There could well have been more that I didn't find. On April 15 upon reading Lincoln's proclamation calling for 75,000 troops the South called up 32,000 of those 100,000:

The Cabinet read Lincoln's proclamation amid bursts of laughter.

The Secretary of War authorizes the statement that 32,000 more troops will be called out to- day, to meet Lincoln's men. [Richmond Daily Dispatch]

What were they laughing about? Probably the statement in Lincoln's proclamation that said:

... the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of, or interference with, property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country

Talk about naive. Collecting tariff on imports to another country was not a threat of war? Threatening to post his army in forts all throughout that other country was not a threat of war?

Read the speech. Lincoln promised to retain posession of property belonging to the United States. He did not threaten to reposess that which had already been stolen by the Southern states, though he was well within his authority to do so. At that point Lincoln was intersted in maintaining the status quo, as it turns out in the forelorn hope that secession could be reversed or that the South had peaceful intent to begin with. But you would have us believe that anything less than complete surrender to each and every Southern demand was an act of aggression and an indication that Lincoln wanted war. But you don't see those demands and the Southern mobilization as a threat in and of itself. Not at all surprising.

Basically the papers above were correct in their assessment that Lincoln's speech meant war. Lincoln would have had to have been pretty stupid to not realize what effect his inaugural would have on the country. He was not stupid. Short of repealing the Morrill tariff which he had earlier been for or instituting an income tax, war was perhaps the only way he could keep the North from going bankrupt

OK, so you claim Lincoln went to war to collect the tariff, but the only way to prevent war would have been to eliminate the tariff? You're not making much sense.

Nowhere near a 100,000-man defense force had been called up by Davis before Sumter. I found callups of perhaps 13,000 forces by Davis and a possible 10,000 by South Carolina. There could well have been more that I didn't find. On April 15 upon reading Lincoln's proclamation calling for 75,000 troops the South called up 32,000 of those 100,000...

Your double standard is enough to leave one shaking one's head. Southern militia had been active for months prior to Sumter. State forces had seized forts in Louisiana and South Carolina and Georgia and Florida and Texas. State forces took positions along the Mississippi. You call the existence of militia in the North 'mobilization' well what were the Southern states doing with their militia? Not a single soldier was called up in the North prior to Sumter, yet you claim mobilization was underway. There were 32,000 troops called up in the South, more than twice the number of soldiers in the U.S. army, and you say that they were needed for defense. In spite of the fact that not a single hostile action had been taken. There were God knows how many thousands more state troops occupying federal facilities, but you say that the South wasn't mobilizing.

Your indication of the South's peaceful intent seems to be that a month after authorizing the 100,000 men that only 32,000 had actually reported. Well look at that website I gave you the link to yesterday. Assuming 1000 men per regiment, if you look at the number of Union regiments which had reported within a month of Lincoln's call up it looks like fewer than 32 regiments had reported for duty. So Lincoln's build up appears even slower than Davis' was. But Lincoln is still the aggressor.

What were they laughing about?

Ah but who had the last laugh?

Read the speech. Lincoln promised to retain posession of property belonging to the United States. He did not threaten to reposess that which had already been stolen by the Southern states, though he was well within his authority to do so.

Here's part of the speech:

In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided in me, will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion—no using of force against, or among the people anywhere.

The quote from the New York Day Book newspaper summed up my interpretation of that part of Lincoln's speech pretty well.

In other words, though you do not recognize me as President, I shall not molest you if you will pay taxes for the support of my government. We must have your money, that we cannot bring ourselves to decline, and if you do not let us have it peacefully, why, we shall be compelled to take it from you by force; in which case you, not we, will be the aggressors. This means coercion and civil war and nothing else. [The New York Day Book]

Lincoln's speech sounds like a demand that he wants to sleep with your wife, and if you acquiesce to this, there won't be any trouble. Where is General McCaliffe when you need him?

At that point Lincoln was intersted in maintaining the status quo, as it turns out in the forelorn hope that secession could be reversed or that the South had peaceful intent to begin with.

Lincoln was smart enough to know what he was doing would lead to war. His administration told the South that Sumter would be evacuated, then prepared to resupply the fort in secret. If Winfield Scott, the head of the Union army, can be believed, the objective of the expedition was to reinforce Sumter. So, what was the South to do? Let Lincoln resupply the fort and find out he sent troops in too? After the perfidy over the evacuation of the fort, who could trust Lincoln?

But you would have us believe that anything less than complete surrender to each and every Southern demand was an act of aggression and an indication that Lincoln wanted war.

Trying to stick words in my mouth? What demands? Leave us alone and let us go in peace? And keep your troops out of our territorial waters and lands? You have no legitimate constitutional claim on the South? Leave our imports alone?

Your double standard is enough to leave one shaking one's head. Southern militia had been active for months prior to Sumter. State forces had seized forts in Louisiana and South Carolina and Georgia and Florida and Texas. State forces took positions along the Mississippi. You call the existence of militia in the North 'mobilization' well what were the Southern states doing with their militia?

No double standard. Both sides were mobilizing. According to Buchanan, Anderson's forces seized Sumter (at bayonet point actually) against Buchanan's orders and policy. SC responded by occupying the other forts in the harbor. Buchanan sent armed troops to Charleston in the Star of the West. Mississippi responds by putting a battery on a bluff above the Mississippi River in order to defend their secession then sends them home when the threat doesn't materialize. Other states take over forts and armories within their boundaries. Same basic reason. Massachusetts gets militia units ready to go to Washington in case Washington needs defending.

Lincoln's inaugural speech basically threatens the South. The South responds by authorizing Davis to ask for and accept up to 100,000 troops basically for defense purposes. Lincoln calls up the DC militia into the regular army and secretly meets or corresponds with some Northern governors about the status of their militia. Here is what one of the governors said:

Message of the Governor of Pennsylvania.
Harrisburg, Pa., April 9.

--The Governor sent a message to the Legislature, to-day, relative to the existing National difficulties.

--He recommends the organization of the militia, and other measures proper for the present crisis. He also states he has received a letter from the President, stating that he has information of a design to attack Washington.

Not a single soldier was called up in the North prior to Sumter, yet you claim mobilization was underway.

Several Northern states were getting their forces ready and Winfield Scott mustered 15 companies of the Washington militia. Before Sumter.

From the Richmond Daily Dispatch on April 6:

We suppose no man of ordinary brains and sagacity is surprised at the exciting intelligence from New York. Lincoln has been silently concentrating military resources for a month, and the Southern ports are to be blockaded, and the storm of war burst upon our Southern plains. We have never doubted that such would be the result, and have raised the voice of warning again and again. Is this Coercion, or is it not?

And:

Military preparations in Massachusetts.

An official report to the Massachusetts Legislature shows that the Quartermaster General of that State has contracted for 4,000 military overcoats, 4,000 knapsacks, 1,000 pair of blankets, 200,000 ball cartridges, and 300,000 percussion caps, for the use of the military of that State. [The Richmond Daily Dispatch, March 27, 1861]

Mobilization was underway.

There were 32,000 troops called up in the South, more than twice the number of soldiers in the U.S. army, and you say that they were needed for defense.

That callup was in response to Lincoln's April 15 callup of 75,000 troops. You need work on your reading comprehension skills.

There were God knows how many thousands more state troops occupying federal facilities, but you say that the South wasn't mobilizing.

Where have I said the South wasn't mobilizing? Sometimes you are not worth responding to. They had to mobilize to be prepared to defend themselves.

Your indication of the South's peaceful intent seems to be that a month after authorizing the 100,000 men that only 32,000 had actually reported. [rb: Wrong. Work on that comprehension.] Well look at that website I gave you the link to yesterday. Assuming 1000 men per regiment, if you look at the number of Union regiments which had reported within a month of Lincoln's call up it looks like fewer than 32 regiments had reported for duty. So Lincoln's build up appears even slower than Davis' was.

Looks like 54,000 Union state troops were ready by the Union as of April 28. [Source]

Also:

Alexandria, May 1, -- ... The Government of the United States will call 25,000 more troops into the field, which with the 75,000 already collected, and the regular army and navy, will make a total of 183,000 men at the disposal of Lincoln. [Daily Picayune, May 2, 1861]

Here's part of the speech...

Well, he was right. There was no bloodshed or violence until it was forced on the national authority. But please continue with the paragraph: "Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices." And then he continued, "The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised, according to circumstances actually existing and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections." In short, Lincoln was saying that all government functions - revenue, jucidial, postal, etc. - would continue, but in such a way to leave open the possibility of a peaceful resolution. But a peaceful solution was not in the Southern agenda, was it?

The quote from the New York Day Book newspaper summed up my interpretation of that part of Lincoln's speech pretty well.

Well of course it sums up your interpretation. The New York Evening Day Book was a Democrat newspaper.

Lincoln's speech sounds like a demand that he wants to sleep with your wife, and if you acquiesce to this, there won't be any trouble.

To someone with your bias I suppose it would. To others it sounds like a man who is trying to peacefully keep teh country together in the face of rebellion.

Lincoln was smart enough to know what he was doing would lead to war.

Really? The only way to avoid war was to surrender completely to Southern demands. So turn it around, Davis should have been smart enough to know that his intransigence would lead to war. Shouldn't he bear the blame?

So, what was the South to do? Let Lincoln resupply the fort and find out he sent troops in too? After the perfidy over the evacuation of the fort, who could trust Lincoln?

OK let's play along with your game. Let's assume, for the sake of arguement, that Lincoln was lying through his teeth and intended all along to reinforce Sumter. Let's also go way out on the limb and assume peaceful Southern intent and they let him do it. Now what? What has the South lost? Is Charleston in peril? No. It wasn't before and it wouldn't be afterwards. Two hundred additional men wouldn't change that. Would the confederacy be crippled? No. Charleston wasn't the busiest port, it wasn't even the second busiest. What would the confederacy gain? Moral superiority. Lincoln unmasked as a liar who couldn't be trusted. Jefferson Davis, who acted on good faith to prevent war, was the victim of an outrageous act of aggression on the part of the North. Lincoln loses no matter what. But the South knew that if given the chance, Lincoln would have done exactly what he said; land supplies only. The status quo would have remained, and the chance for war would have been lost. The South wasn't about to stand for that.

Trying to stick words in my mouth? What demands? Leave us alone and let us go in peace? And keep your troops out of our territorial waters and lands? You have no legitimate constitutional claim on the South? Leave our imports alone.

What demands? Give us your property. Turn over every piece of federal property, now, without compensation. Recognize the legitimacy of our unconstitutional acts. Those demands.

According to Buchanan, Anderson's forces seized Sumter (at bayonet point actually) against Buchanan's orders and policy.

How does one seize one's own property. And you will note that Buchanan refused to condemn Anderson's actions and believed that he acted under threat of violence against his command.

SC responded by occupying the other forts in the harbor. Buchanan sent armed troops to Charleston in the Star of the West.

And in doing so South Carolina violated the informal agreement made with Buchanan not to seize federal property. They were in the wrong. Having violated the agreement, they couldn't expect Buchanan to follow it.

Mississippi responds by putting a battery on a bluff above the Mississippi River in order to defend their secession then sends them home when the threat doesn't materialize. Other states take over forts and armories within their boundaries.

All acts of aggression, and none of which generated an armed response by the federal government. So not only was the South mobilizing, they were trying to start the war.

Lincoln's inaugural speech basically threatens the South.

Bullsh*t. It left the question of war in the hands of the South. And we know what they chose.

Several Northern states were getting their forces ready and Winfield Scott mustered 15 companies of the Washington militia. Before Sumter.

Several Northern states were getting their forces ready...

And while Union states may, or may not, have been getting their militia ready, in all the Southern states the militia was waging war against the U.S. So you have precaution in the North and aggression in the South.

From the Richmond Daily Dispatch on April 6...

A Southern newspaper. Whoop-dee-do.

Again, that's bullsh*t and you know it. The mobilization was started over a month before Lincoln issues his call.

Sometimes you are not worth responding to. They had to mobilize to be prepared to defend themselves.

And yet here you are, with the same old, same old. The South was mobilizing for war. There had been no actions taken on the part of the North for them to have to defend themselves against.

Looks like 54,000 Union state troops were ready by the Union as of April 28.

A little vague, don't you think? And if you look at the regimental histories at that Link I provided earlier, a number of the units mentioned in the newspaper weren't even organized. and Winfield Scott mustered 15 companies of the Washington militia. Before Sumter.

Well, you said that Lincoln authorized Scott to muster the D.C. militia. Did he?

In short, Lincoln was saying that all government functions - revenue, jucidial, postal, etc. - would continue, but in such a way to leave open the possibility of a peaceful resolution. But a peaceful solution was not in the Southern agenda, was it? ... To others it sounds like a man who is trying to peacefully keep teh country together in the face of rebellion.

Jefferson Davis:

For the few days which I remain, I am willing to labor in order that catastrophe shall be as little as possible destructive to public peace and prosperity. If you desire at this last moment to avert civil war, so be it; it is better so. If you will but allow us to separate from you peaceably, since we cannot live peaceably together, to leave with the rights that we had before we were united, since we cannot enjoy them in the Union, then there are many relations which may still subsist between us, drawn from the associations of our struggles from the revolutionary era to the present day, which may be beneficial to you as well as to us.

You don't get it, do you? We didn't want to stay in a Union with the Northern states, and we believed, correctly IMO, that we had the right under the Tenth Amendment to peacefully leave.

Really? The only way to avoid war was to surrender completely to Southern demands. So turn it around, Davis should have been smart enough to know that his intransigence would lead to war. Shouldn't he bear the blame?

In other words, the South was stuck in a hopeless marriage with a shrew from hell who nullified the Constitution and insisted there was a clause written in invisible ink on the back of the Constitution saying we couldn't leave except under her terms. Were the New York, Virgina, and Rhode Island Constitution ratifiers wrong about being able to resume their governance? I trust their words more than I trust your assertions.

Let's assume, for the sake of arguement, that Lincoln was lying through his teeth and intended all along to reinforce Sumter. Let's also go way out on the limb and assume peaceful Southern intent and they let him do it. Now what? What has the South lost? Is Charleston in peril? No. It wasn't before and it wouldn't be afterwards.

I've always argued on these threads that the Southern leaders made a mistake in firing on Sumter. We doubtless agree that it was a mistake. I don't agree that Charleston was not in peril. Try telling the people killed in the 18-month long bombardment of Charleston civilians (how humane of the North) from the swamp near Sumter that they weren't in peril. Remember my long list of them that I've posted before? [Link]

What demands? Give us your property. Turn over every piece of federal property, now, without compensation. Recognize the legitimacy of our unconstitutional acts. Those demands.

You keep ignoring the offers to negotiate about the property and the national debt. No, you're going to keep the South no matter what -- no matter that they don't want to stay in the Union anymore.

How does one seize one's own property.

Apparently at bayonet point after sneaking past the patrol boat pretending to be laborers and hijacking a schooner. They knew they weren't supposed to be there.

And in doing so ~~South Carolina~~ Anderson violated the informal agreement made with Buchanan not to ~~seize federal property~~ move to Fort Sumter or change the status quo. ~~They were~~ Anderson was in the wrong. Having violated the agreement, they couldn't expect ~~Buchanan~~ South Carolina to follow it.

There. Fixed it for you.

A little vague, don't you think? And if you look at the regimental histories at that Link I provided earlier, a number of the units mentioned in the newspaper weren't even organized.

Well, it was the New York Times writing in April 1861 who said the Union troops were there in Washington or on the way or ready to move. Not that I trust the Times particularly, but as I said above, I've had my share of problems trying to correct someone's modern day regimental history of a WBTS unit that is full of errors.

Well, you said that Lincoln authorized Scott to muster the D.C. militia. Did he?

Maury Klein, page 403 of the paperback version of Days of Defiance:

On the 10th [April] the District militia was ordered out.