I believe that was Robert Toombs. Or at least Toombs made such claims afterwards. I'm not sure that he thought it was a "trap" consciously set by Lincoln to make a war. He thought Davis's firing on the fort would be a bad idea (if his account afterwards was correct). Davis should have listened.
Taking a stand to avoid reproach is a manifestation of Ego.
Every president takes an oath "to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution." If the president feels that secession is unconstitutional and the ruination of the country, then he or she is honor bound to at least take a stand against it. If you are president and you feel that the nation is in danger, you can't just do nothing.
Assuming that Lincoln's stand was all about his "Ego" or power is "begging the question," that is to say, you set up the problem by excluding any constitutional grounds for his position and actions -- you make it purely personal -- and having excluded all legal and constitutional reasons for his stand, you "conclude" what you've already assumed, namely that there were no valid reasons for his behaving as he did.
You can do that to any political position. You can say that the police chief pursues criminals only because of their threat to his authority. Or that Jefferson Davis suppressed dissent because it threatened his ego or that he supported secession because he thought it would preserve his power as a slaveowner. Once you recognize that you can do this to any politician or public official, it gets tired really fast.
One of the few women posters on this thread said that the Civil War was about testosterone. Both sides wanted to prove their manhood and wouldn't back down. Nowadays, "ego" and "testosterone" tend to be pejorative terms, designed to cut down the people their applied to. If we consider the words in a more neutral light as having to do with self, self-image, the defenses of the self against the world, honor, reputation, recognition, feelings of adequacy or inferiority, there may be something in it.
Respect was important to the North. If Southerners in Congress had said that they wanted to work out a settlement in Washington to dissolve their ties to the union, there might not have been a war. Not being involved in decisions affecting the fate of the country may have been a blow to Northern pride. Once the fort and the flag were assaulted -- this in an age where symbols mattered much more than today -- Unionists weren't going to take the insult lightly.
Of course, pride and honor were also important to Southerners -- so much so that they assumed that Northerners had no honor -- but in this case it was self-assertion or self-definition or autonomy that mattered. Secessionists weren't going to accept independence from anybody. They had to take it, seize it, for themselves. It was as though that act of freeing oneself by oneself was more important than the end result. Some would say this reflected the absolute master mentality of some of the secessionist firebrands.
But this is not to dismiss how much that Lincoln wanted a war. Lincoln NEEDED a war. To let the South leave peacefully would leave him as the jilted bridegroom of history.
That is hindsight. At the time, Lincoln thought Southern support for the union was stronger than it actually was. Lincoln had Southern friends from his days in Congress. His wife came from a slave owning family. He was born in a slave state. It would have been natural for him to think that a little firmness on his part would eventually make cooler heads prevail. The available evidence doesn't contradict that. It was most likely wrong, but Lincoln didn't have the benefit of hindsight.
This idea of Lincoln as the "jilted bridegroom" of history reflects the kind of thinking I referred to above. Mandela could meet with de Klerk or Jinnah and Nehru with Mountbatten or Collins and DeValera with the British authorities, but the secessionists couldn't work out a peaceful settlement without trying to humilitate the other side?*
In any case: Davis didn't want or need a war? He didn't need a war to shore up his own power base. He didn't want war to snag the Upper South for his Confederacy? He didn't start a war to slam the door on the past and make a country out of the seceded states?
Lincoln was a canny fighter, and It is a reasonable assertion that his dander was up over Southern states seceding.
Cleverer maybe than you or me or Davis. Lincoln was making legitimate moves to maintain some authority and some pretense of continuity. It was up to Davis and South Carolina to decide how they wanted to respond to those moves. They didn't have to make a war out of it. They could have responded in kind with less inflammatory measures.
You could say that Lincoln was playing "brinksmanship," the Cold War game of assertive but not aggressive or irreversible moves. Davis was apparently too bullheaded and narrowminded to recognize this, but does that make the war Lincoln's fault?
Pompous posturing. As I mentioned, not unlike the belligerent princes of Europe. The Confederates were foolish to have attacked Sumter. If they had merely sat on their hands, in a decade it would probably have been abandoned voluntarily.
After the unnecessary insult, you go on to make my point for me. The idea that Lincoln forced or fooled or tricked Davis into war is closely related to the idea that Davis had no other alternatives, that he couldn't have responded differently, that no other action on Davis's part would have had better results. If Davis had freedom of action, if there were other alternatives available to him that might have had better results, then the idea of Davis being "forced" or "fooled" into war starts to look a lot shakier.
There are a lot of degrees involved here. To say that Lincoln wanted war and tricked or fooled or forced the Confederates, who didn't want war, into one is certainly going too far. Davis pretty clearly was willing to risk war and didn't need to be tricked or forced into one. To say that Lincoln accepted that war might come and wanted to put the South in the wrong and make them the guilty party might be more like the truth. But I don't know that he really thought ahead that far. To my way of thinking he was just making moves that didn't involve surrender or complete collapse before secessionist demands.
Look at it this way. Somebody says, I don't recognize your country, but I'm not going to start a war. I'm not going to fire the first shot. If you want a war, you'll have to start it. All clearly laid out in simple English like that. You fire the first shot and then say you were tricked into it. Something isn't quite right in that charge.
____________________
* Alright, I guess that the end of apartheid or independence for Ireland or the creation of an independent India and Pakistan did involve much violence before the eventual reconciliation, but why would you want to start such a cycle of violence when peaceful means of resolving the crisis were available?
I don't think anyone regarded it as a trap. Had they done so, they might have prudently avoided it.
Every president takes an oath "to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution." If the president feels that secession is unconstitutional and the ruination of the country, then he or she is honor bound to at least take a stand against it. If you are president and you feel that the nation is in danger, you can't just do nothing.
What is the constitution but a document that gets whatever authority it possesses from the will of the People? When you have a group of people who no longer wish to associate with you, why would you point to a document as a rationalization to force them to associate with you anyway?
Lincoln ignored the constitution when it suited him.
Assuming that Lincoln's stand was all about his "Ego" or power is "begging the question," that is to say, you set up the problem by excluding any constitutional grounds for his position and actions
See previous comment.
and having excluded all legal and constitutional reasons for his stand, you "conclude" what you've already assumed, namely that there were no valid reasons for his behaving as he did.
By "Valid" I assume you mean based on principles and not on Emotional umbrage? Once again, I am at a loss to understand how a country founded on the principle that People can "dissolve the political bonds" can claim a principle superior to that one.
From my perspective, it's axiomatic that the Invasion was the retaliatory response to the attack on Ft. Sumter. Had there been no attack, there would have been no invasion. What "Principle" can be deciphered from this? Had the invasion force been in the planning stage when Lincoln Assumed office, you could discern from this that he was acting on the principle that he believed secession was illegal, and that it was his duty to oppose it, but he did no such thing. Indeed, it would have been politically unpalatable for him to start forming an invasion force at this time. Not even the Northern States would have tolerated it. Instead, he waited till he had an incident around which to rally political support, and then he launched an invasion.
Once you recognize that you can do this to any politician or public official, it gets tired really fast.
That Lincoln acted out of Emotion and not Principle is a pretty good theory which has quite a lot of evidence to support it. That he NEEDED some sort of confrontation to get any further with his goals, is also supported by the available evidence. Without the Attack on Ft. Sumter, what has he got to work with? No support in the North for a confrontation, Defacto Southern Government taking over Sovereign responsibilities in those states. Time will only solidify these circumstances. A War is the only thing which could rescue his situation.
One of the few women posters on this thread said that the Civil War was about testosterone. Both sides wanted to prove their manhood and wouldn't back down.
I think that's a pretty fair assessment. I agree. It was a pissing contest which got way out of control.
If we consider the words in a more neutral light as having to do with self, self-image, the defenses of the self against the world, honor, reputation, recognition, feelings of adequacy or inferiority, there may be something in it.
Testosterone sums it up quickly, even if it's not precisely accurate. The South fired on Ft. Sumter because it offended their sense of pride, honor, or what have you.
The North sent an invasion force to teach them a lesson for doing it. Revenge is salve to a wounded pride.
Then it got so bloody neither side could back out without losing face. Then the losses became so great, they dared not, for fear of having shed so much blood for nothing. At that point it HAD to be for some larger cause.
For the South it was "Freedom" and "Defending your Homeland." For the North it was "Preserving the Union, and Freeing the Slaves." (Neither of which had any emotional significance prior to the war.)
Respect was important to the North. If Southerners in Congress had said that they wanted to work out a settlement in Washington to dissolve their ties to the union, there might not have been a war. Not being involved in decisions affecting the fate of the country may have been a blow to Northern pride.
I agree. This is a point that a lot of your allies in this discussion don't seem to grasp. At this time in History, there was no big outcry from the North about secession. Most people didn't regard it as Anti-Constitutional, or illegal. They were perfectly willing to let those Southern states go and have their own government. Like you said, it would probably have gone a lot smoother if they had worked out an agreement in Congress, but the Southern Hot heads wanted to make a big show of walking out, and so they did. It's that PRIDE stuff again.
Once the fort and the flag were assaulted -- this in an age where symbols mattered much more than today -- Unionists weren't going to take the insult lightly.
Exactly. It was all about Insults and hurt feelings on both sides. (at first.) Then it became Revenge(North) and Survival(South) respectively.
Some would say this reflected the absolute master mentality of some of the secessionist firebrands.
That, and that Aristocratic Mind set was dominant among the monied interests in the South. This may be a side effect of having large quantities of servants/slaves to do your bidding. Human nature being what it is, there is probably something in the Psyche that gives people airs when they command large groups of their fellow humans. We are facing a similar problem with Government Bureaucrats today.
But this is not to dismiss how much that Lincoln wanted a war. Lincoln NEEDED a war. To let the South leave peacefully would leave him as the jilted bridegroom of history.
That is hindsight.
Lincoln had foresight. He could see it. He was a brilliant man.
It would have been natural for him to think that a little firmness on his part would eventually make cooler heads prevail.
I don't see time as being on his side. The longer a distinct Southern Government existed in Peace with the North, the more solidified did everyone's acceptance of this status quo become.
the secessionists couldn't work out a peaceful settlement without trying to humiliate the other side?
Apparently. About this they were fools. Looking at the Stats between the two regions, it was extremely foolish for the South to provoke the North. Once again, I can only attribute their spectacular bad decision to be the product of too long a period spent ordering people about, and the sense of ingrained superiority which must have been produced by such experience.
What really pisses me off is that they have poisoned the well for a modern attempt at secession. We will all fall together now, not just the states that deserve it.
In any case: Davis didn't want or need a war? He didn't need a war to shore up his own power base. He didn't want war to snag the Upper South for his Confederacy? He didn't start a war to slam the door on the past and make a country out of the seceded states?
I've heard that theory, and there may be something to it. If so, then Davis and his people were too clever by half.
Cleverer maybe than you or me or Davis. Lincoln was making legitimate moves to maintain some authority and some pretense of continuity.
Yes, by maintaining the Garrison at Ft. Sumter (and that other one further South) he was quietly maintaining his position that he didn't recognize the South's Secession. That was probably what was infuriating them. They craved recognition of their legitimacy.
It was up to Davis and South Carolina to decide how they wanted to respond to those moves. They didn't have to make a war out of it. They could have responded in kind with less inflammatory measures.
As i've said numerous times, had they just sat on their hands, they would have eventually gotten everything they wanted. The longer the Confederates ran their states while keeping the peace with the Union, the more people would have come to accept it as the new normal.
You could say that Lincoln was playing "brinksmanship," the Cold War game of assertive but not aggressive or irreversible moves. Davis was apparently too bullheaded and narrowminded to recognize this, but does that make the war Lincoln's fault?
The argument my friend presented to me was that Lincoln knew full well what he was doing, and how the South would respond to it. Lincoln was the "Napoleon" of political maneuvering, and he was counting on that bullheadedness of the Southern Gentry to give him what he needed; An excuse to send an army to put a stop to their nonsense. Indeed, a lot of people in power simply thought this "Southern Government" was just a bunch of posturing and nonsense that would cease immediately when a real threat showed up to confront them.
In this, they were sadly underestimated.
If Davis had freedom of action, if there were other alternatives available to him that might have had better results, then the idea of Davis being "forced" or "fooled" into war starts to look a lot shakier.
I'm not following you here. The Two key pieces of evidence my friend told me about are this. Lincoln dismissed a plan to resupply the fort Covertly by sea, and instead insisted on sending a letter notifying the Confederate government that a wagon supply train would be sent to supply the fort on a certain date.
Another letter was sent to Commander Anderson (From Sec War Stanton) informing him that he would likely soon be attacked, and that he was to take all necessary steps to preserve life, and then surrender his Fort if his position was untenable.
It is that letter informing the Commander that he would soon be attacked that makes it appear as if Lincoln knew full well what was to be the likely result of his Supply letter, and according to my friend (His name is Richard) was EXACTLY what Lincoln wanted.
The two letters taken together cast an ominous shadow on this bit of history. Were you aware of this letter sent to Major Anderson?
To say that Lincoln accepted that war might come and wanted to put the South in the wrong and make them the guilty party might be more like the truth.
That is pretty close to my position. Lincoln recognized that the Southern Government was full of hot headed belligerents, and played them like a fiddle into doing what he wanted/needed to happen anyway.
Yes, the Southerners were stupid to attack the Fort, but had Lincoln sent that supply train and had they done nothing to stop it, they would have been laughed at. Some people would rather die. Seriously.
Once again, the war was started over Pride.