Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lincoln’s Great Gamble
NY Times ^ | September 21, 2012 | RICHARD STRINER

Posted on 09/24/2012 11:57:08 AM PDT by iowamark

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-215 next last
To: Delhi Rebels
Aren't you forgetting that whole 'attack on Fort Sumter' thing?

I have a good friend whom i've known for 33 years. We went to High school together. He happens to be black, and he has always had an extreme interest in History, especially regarding Slavery and the Civil war.

One day he told me that he had learned a very interesting thing that day. Lincoln was a genius because he single handedly engineered the Civil War in a manner such as Patton bragged he would do to the Russians.

Lincoln was aware that the Federal troops at Fort Sumter were being blockaded by the Confederates. South Carolina wanted Federal troops removed from Charleston Harbor because they regarded the property as theirs, and the Federals as an illegal occupying force which was not respecting their sovereignty. Lincoln's officers had come to him with a plan to provide supplies to the fort from the sea, without having to confront the confederate troops blocking land access.

According to my friend, Lincoln was having none of this. He sent a letter to the Confederate leadership informing them that on a certain date, he was sending a supply train to re-supply the fort. My friend said that Lincoln knew that this would be regarded as a provocative act by the confederates, and would likely induce them to attack the contingent at Fort Sumter. My friend said that at this same time, Lincoln dispatched a letter to the commander of Fort Sumter informing him that he would soon be attacked by the Confederates, and that he was to take all steps to reduce loss of life, hold the Fort for one day, and then surrender it, which is exactly what happened.

The Confederates did attack the Fort with cannon fire, yet no one was killed as a result of it. (Were they really aiming to kill anyone, or just making noise?) The only Union casualties were the result of a surrender ceremony in which Union forces were firing a cannon that oddly enough blew up and killed three of them. (If I remember correctly.)

Lincoln knew that the newspapers of the Northern states would be behind him only if the South could be induced to attack first. Had Lincoln initiated the aggression, he would have been roundly denounced by the states he needed to wage a conflict. By maneuvering the confederates into initiating the hostilities, he got them to look like the bad guys for the Entire Northern press. (A group still causing us problems today.)

Lincoln thought the Confederates were just playing at government, and thought that a quick force sent down to chastise them would put an end to the succession nonsense. Lincoln underestimated their determination to be independent, and unknowingly triggered a conflict which exceeded anything that anyone at the time would have thought plausible. Everyone thought it would be a quick and easy little jaunt, but it escalated into the most horrific calamity in American History.

If it is true that Lincoln intentionally induced the attack on Fort Sumter, than he was just too clever by half.

21 posted on 09/24/2012 1:03:27 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

I shall not be surprised if this thread ends up getting locked and/or deleted.


22 posted on 09/24/2012 1:04:26 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar
What you say comes down to the last line of my post: Victors write the history books. It could be argued that if Lee had not fought the third day at Gettysburg, the South would have had time to finish implementing the changes they were working on. 300,000 Black soldiers, trained and fighting for the promise of land and equality would have changed things. Once the war began, whether Slavery was the prime mover or not, Slavery was finished. With the historical result, we moved considerably toward Federalism.

The sort of Federalism that Lincoln gave us is the disease from which we are currently dying. I am sensitive as to how it got into our National blood stream. It certainly does not resemble the Federalism which our Founders had bequeathed us.

Lincoln, Roosevelt, Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Obama, all followed pretty much the same philosophy but to an ever expanding extent.

23 posted on 09/24/2012 1:11:17 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BubbaBasher

That’s exactly how the union felt, considering that Sumter was their property.


24 posted on 09/24/2012 1:11:57 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
That’s exactly how the union felt, considering that Sumter was their property.

Just as much as Fort Ticonderoga was British Property.

25 posted on 09/24/2012 1:15:27 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

You forgot Roberts on that list. I think we are in agreement.


26 posted on 09/24/2012 1:16:54 PM PDT by Ingtar (Everyone complains about the weather, but only Liberals try to legislate it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

Don’t know how the klan is involved, but thanks, will check it out.


27 posted on 09/24/2012 1:21:24 PM PDT by petro45acp (The question isn't "are you better off?" it should be "is it really the government's job?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BubbaBasher
If Lincoln had withdrawn from Sumter and not launched headlong into a war there wouldn't have been 660,000 deaths

You could just as easily say that if Davis had not fired on Sumter then all those deaths could have been avoided. What threat was Sumter to the South, even had Lincoln been able to resupply the fort? Did it threaten the safety of the Confederacy? No, Charleston was one port and besides, the troops in the port had done nothing to interfere with shipping into and out of Charleston. Did the troops there take any hostile action aganst Confederate forces? No, they stood their post and didn't fire at anything. So why the attack? The only purpose for firing on Sumter was to provoke a conflict. One has to ask why Davis chose to do so if he didn't want a war with the North.

28 posted on 09/24/2012 1:27:27 PM PDT by Delhi Rebels (There was a row in Silver Street - the regiments was out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Nice post. Well stated.


29 posted on 09/24/2012 1:31:28 PM PDT by AuntB (Illegal immigration is simply more "share the wealth" socialism and a CRIME not a race!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

It would be more apt to make that comparison to purported ownership by the confeds.


30 posted on 09/24/2012 1:36:44 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“We haven’t ended slavery, we’ve just changed masters and added more slaves.”

Really? Really??? You’re going to compare anything we have now to the 1800’s practice of slavery? You are truly delusional.


31 posted on 09/24/2012 1:44:19 PM PDT by bigdaddy45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Delhi Rebels
You could just as easily say that if Davis had not fired on Sumter then all those deaths could have been avoided. What threat was Sumter to the South, even had Lincoln been able to resupply the fort? Did it threaten the safety of the Confederacy? No, Charleston was one port and besides, the troops in the port had done nothing to interfere with shipping into and out of Charleston. Did the troops there take any hostile action aganst Confederate forces? No, they stood their post and didn't fire at anything. So why the attack? The only purpose for firing on Sumter was to provoke a conflict. One has to ask why Davis chose to do so if he didn't want a war with the North.

It was just a matter of pride. It had nothing to do with any actual difficulties with the troops being there. But might I ask you how would the Founders have regarded a continuous occupation by the British of Fort Ticonderoga?

I will also point out that Federal Troops had shortly before abandoned Fort Moultrie in South Carolina. Were it so easy to abandon one Fort, why not another?

32 posted on 09/24/2012 1:50:00 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
It would be more apt to make that comparison to purported ownership by the confeds.

The British did not pursue the fight. Had they wanted, they could have kept Fort Ticonderoga, and we would not have been able to dislodge them no matter how much we tried.

33 posted on 09/24/2012 1:53:45 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: bigdaddy45
Really? Really??? You’re going to compare anything we have now to the 1800’s practice of slavery? You are truly delusional.

It is true that our chains sit lightly upon us, but do you not feel them growing heavier with each passing year?

34 posted on 09/24/2012 1:56:58 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: AuntB
Nice post. Well stated.

Thank you. I have learned that in History, all is not always as it seems.

35 posted on 09/24/2012 1:58:02 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

So a fortification, built by the French and Canadians was seized by conquest by the British. At least once it was captured from the Brits by Americans. Its ownership was calculated by possession, not title.

How again is this even remotely analogous to the seizure of Sumter by the rebels?


36 posted on 09/24/2012 2:09:12 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

What we have no is bad, no doubt about it. But any comparison to REAL slavery is ridiculous.


37 posted on 09/24/2012 2:13:19 PM PDT by bigdaddy45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
It was just a matter of pride. It had nothing to do with any actual difficulties with the troops being there. But might I ask you how would the Founders have regarded a continuous occupation by the British of Fort Ticonderoga?

The Founding Fathers did not choose to start their war with the British by attacking Fort Sumter. But had they done so, I think they would have recognized that doing so was certainly an act of war and that the Britihs would have no choice but to respond in kind.

I will also point out that Federal Troops had shortly before abandoned Fort Moultrie in South Carolina. Were it so easy to abandon one Fort, why not another?

They also gave up Castle Pinkney and the Charelston Armory and for the same reason; none of those three were defensible. Sumter was.

38 posted on 09/24/2012 2:21:57 PM PDT by Delhi Rebels (There was a row in Silver Street - the regiments was out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
So a fortification, built by the French and Canadians was seized by conquest by the British. At least once it was captured from the Brits by Americans. Its ownership was calculated by possession, not title.

Don't blow smoke. Is it, or is it not American property?

How again is this even remotely analogous to the seizure of Sumter by the rebels?

I'm thinking that if I have to explain it further, you aren't knowledgeable enough to understand it anyway. But just for kicks and grins, you do know that the United States was formerly Colonies of Great Britain, right? Well, we issued a Deceleration of Independence from them, and count the founding of our Country from that Date; July 4, 1776. Should we have let them keep an American fortress?

39 posted on 09/24/2012 2:29:12 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: bigdaddy45
What we have no is bad, no doubt about it. But any comparison to REAL slavery is ridiculous.

My point is... that is coming as well. Of course we will be more of the Soviet style of slavery.

40 posted on 09/24/2012 2:31:55 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-215 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson