Replies

You, sir, are obviously totally confused, having drunk deeply of the Lost Causer Kool-Aid. You seriously need to read some real history, and learn a few actual facts.

Been reading everything you've posted so far. Perhaps you will eventually get to something relevant?

Such a claim is, well, idiotic and demonstrates the abysmal failure of our education system.

Modern college. What can you do?

The truth of the matter is that Lincoln did the best he could with the options presented him, given his long term goal of preserving the Union. To say that Lincoln somehow "tricked" Jefferson Davis into assaulting Fort Sumter is to first, assume Davis was a total numbskull, and second that Lincoln had serious choices to do otherwise.

My friend's claim was that Lincoln was given the option to quietly resupply the fort but chose not to do so. He deliberately sent a message to the Governor informing him that he WOULD resupply the fort and my friend believes that Lincoln knew this would prompt an attack on the Fort because a message had shortly before been sent to Major Anderson stating that he had permission to surrender if necessary.

He said his history professor had told him that it was a very clever and deliberate tactic for Lincoln to get the war he needed to reverse secession. That Lincoln had the "touch" for clever politics is indisputable. According to my friend and his conversation with the professor, Lincoln needed the support of the Northern Newspapers and populace, and as long as there was no conflict, he wasn't going to get it. Most of the North was perfectly content to let the South leave, and it is only BECAUSE of the attack on Ft. Sumter that they were roused to oppose it.

The person who most benefited from the attack was Abraham Lincoln, who would have gone down in History as the man who lost the South.

Had Ft. Sumter not happened, we would have very likely ended up with two separate countries. Peace was Lincoln's enemy and he had the most to gain by shattering it.

My friend believes that Lincoln knew his announcement would provoke the hot heads in South Carolina to give him the tool he needed to win, and they did. I don't know. It's hard to say what a man "knew" but it's probably safe to say that if any man of the time knew how to outsmart a group of people, Lincoln would have been that man.

The argument is circumstantial with no concrete proof, but it certainly is a plausible theory.

And Confederates also sent military aid to pro-Confederate forces in Union states, making them existential threats to the United States itself.

If you are referring to the "Union" state of Maryland, then I will have to point out that it was only a "Union" state because of the actions taken by Lincoln in Jailing dissenters and Pro-Southern sympathizers. From a pragmatic perspective, Lincoln could not let the Capital be surrounded by hostile forces, though he broke a lot of rules in putting his pragmatism into force.

Sorry, sir, but if you hadn't been drinking so much Lost Causer Kool-Aid, you would easily see that all the blame -- 100% of it -- for the death and destruction belongs on the heads of those who first provoked, then started, then formally declared war on the United States while sending military aid to Confederates in Union States, and finally they continued fighting to death, long after their war had become a hopelessly Lost Cause.

This notion that anything is 100% one sided is not an attribute of a serious thinker, but it is completely consistent with the behavior of a cheerleader.

I think the founders had it correct, and that people (even bad people) have a right to self determination. I think this is a fundamental right which is right up there with the right to keep and bear arms in level of importance.

You, on the other hand, seem to believe that the existing government cannot be dissolved without permission from the existing government. You have taken on the mantel of slavery of a different sort. The forced compulsion to remain under the control of people whom you don't want controlling you.

You would think that you might have gotten enough of that stuff coming from Modern Washington to induce you to stop defending old Washington.

My friend's claim was that Lincoln was given the option to quietly resupply the fort but chose not to do so. He deliberately sent a message to the Governor informing him that he WOULD resupply the fort and my friend believes that Lincoln knew this would prompt an attack on the Fort because a message had shortly before been sent to Major Anderson stating that he had permission to surrender if necessary.

So your friend thinks that trying to sneak supplies into Sumter under the cover of darkness, I assume, and under the noses of the rebel batteries would not be seen as a aggressive act but informing the governor ahead of time that a supply effort was going to be made in broad daylight and that only food and supplies would be landed was? Is he serious about that?

He said his history professor had told him that it was a very clever and deliberate tactic for Lincoln to get the war he needed to reverse secession.

So Lincoln set a trap for the rebels and they fell right into it. Wasn't very bright of them, was it?

My friend believes that Lincoln knew his announcement would provoke the hot heads in South Carolina to give him the tool he needed to win, and they did. I don't know.

I submit to your friend that the hot heads in South Carolina needed no provocation to begin a war. Only an excuse.

DiogenesLamp: "My friend's claim was that Lincoln was given the option to quietly resupply the fort but chose not to do so.
He deliberately sent a message to the Governor informing him that he WOULD resupply the fort and my friend believes that Lincoln knew this would prompt an attack on the Fort because a message had shortly before been sent to Major Anderson stating that he had permission to surrender if necessary."

Obviously, neither you nor your friend know more than the proverbial "tip of the iceberg" of all that was really going on at the time.
I can recommend some books on this exact subject:

William Cooper, "We Have the War Upon Us, the Onset of Civil War, November 1860 to April 1861"

Russell McClintock "Lincoln and the Decision for War, The Northern Response to Secession"

Bruce Catton, "The Coming Fury"

DiogenesLamp: "He said his history professor had told him that it was a very clever and deliberate tactic for Lincoln to get the war he needed to reverse secession.
That Lincoln had the "touch" for clever politics is indisputable.
According to my friend and his conversation with the professor, Lincoln needed the support of the Northern Newspapers and populace, and as long as there was no conflict, he wasn't going to get it.
Most of the North was perfectly content to let the South leave, and it is only BECAUSE of the attack on Ft. Sumter that they were roused to oppose it."

Total nonsense, betraying this alleged "professor's" Lost Causer ignorant biases.
As any of the books above will show, both Buchanan and Lincoln were not trying to start war, but rather hoping to avoid it, while preserving the Union.
Indeed, the event which actually triggered Jefferson Davis' assault on Fort Sumter -- Lincoln's resupply mission -- had already been tried unsuccessfully by President Buchanan, back in January 1861.
So Lincoln did not do anything different than Buchanan, including informing South Carolina's governor.
The difference between Buchanan's mission in January, and Lincoln's in April was: instead of January's few cannon-rounds fired, and some minor ship damage from South Carolina militia, in April Davis brought down on Lincoln's ships the entire might of the Confederate Army under General Beauregard, to demand and enforce the fort's surrender.

DiogenesLamp: "The person who most benefited from the attack was Abraham Lincoln, who would have gone down in History as the man who lost the South."

More rubbish, since Lincoln had nothing to do with "losing the South", that all happened under outgoing President Buchanan.
Lincoln's challenge was to preserve and restore what he could, peacefully if possible, and that is exactly what he was hoping for, in April 1861.

DiogenesLamp: "Had Ft. Sumter not happened, we would have very likely ended up with two separate countries.
Peace was Lincoln's enemy and he had the most to gain by shattering it."

Not even close.
Yes, it's theoretically possible, though impossible to imagine, that Jefferson Davis might have decided to avoid war at Fort Sumter in April 1861, but it could not have been for long, because the entire rump-Confederacy was calling for Sumter's surrender, and Davis must sooner or later accomplish that.
But suppose Lincoln had surrendered the Fort, could that have prevented war?

No, because remember, the original rump-Confederacy was not viable by itself -- it needed at least the Upper South, and also Border States if possible.
And the only way to force Virginians & others to change their votes from Union to secession was for Davis to provoke a war, so that's what he must, must do, eventually, regardless of what happened at Fort Sumter.

Further, remember, all slave-holders of the time considered as their "prime directive": to preserve slavery, it must constantly expand into new land.
And therefore Confederates laid claim, and soon invaded, such Union territories as Oklahoma and New Mexico.
Those invasions were themselves acts of war against the United States, which no president -- Lincoln or anybody else, could accept without military response.
So, regardless of how Sumter was resolved, Davis must eventually provoke war, and the sooner the better.

DiogenesLamp: "My friend believes that Lincoln knew his announcement would provoke the hot heads in South Carolina to give him the tool he needed to win, and they did.
I don't know.
It's hard to say what a man "knew" but it's probably safe to say that if any man of the time knew how to outsmart a group of people, Lincoln would have been that man."

Sorry, sir, but Lincoln didn't "outsmart" anybody!
Davis believed his assault on Fort Sumter was a brilliant political move, for reasons I've now spelled out, at length, and it was brilliant.
That it would result in long term destruction of the Confederacy and slavery, nobody could foresee in April 1861, and indeed, except for Lincoln himself, that destruction would certainly not have happened.

DiogenesLamp: "If you are referring to the "Union" state of Maryland, then I will have to point out that it was only a "Union" state because of the actions taken by Lincoln in Jailing dissenters and Pro-Southern sympathizers.
From a pragmatic perspective, Lincoln could not let the Capital be surrounded by hostile forces, though he broke a lot of rules in putting his pragmatism into force."

On the issue of whether Maryland was legitimately Union or Confederate, let's remember some facts:

Even after Fort Sumter, the Maryland Legislature voted 53–13 against secession.
Like other Border States (i.e., Kentucky & Missouri) Maryland supplied more troops to the Union than the Confederacy, by a factor of more than two to one.
The arrest of pro-Confederate legislators -- about a third of all Maryland legislators, on September 17, 1861 -- is often cited as "proof" than Maryland would have joined the Confederacy, but remember first: it was only a third, well under half, and one third overall pretty much represents the number of pro-Confederate Marylanders.
Second, and more important, remember that on May 6, 1861 the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States, which made every active pro-Confederate inside the Union, by Constitutional definition, guilty of treason:
So Lincoln had those men arrested because they were criminals, period.

DiogenesLamp: "This notion that anything is 100% one sided is not an attribute of a serious thinker, but it is completely consistent with the behavior of a cheerleader."

No sir, not at all, and I could cite an endless list of examples, which if you disagreed would show serious weakness in your own thinking.
So suppose we start at the top of the list: how responsible was President Roosevelt for Hitler's invasions of other European counties?
Answer: zero percent, Hitler was 100% responsible, and along with his Nazi party 100% responsible for the resulting destruction of Germany.

Seriously, this is not difficult, and I could list many other examples, which if you intend to disagree would expose you as a poser who really should not be arguing seriously on Free Republic, sir.
So this is not about "cheerleading", it's about the facts, and nothing but.
If you start a war, you're responsible, period.

DiogenesLamp: "I think the founders had it correct, and that people (even bad people) have a right to self determination.
I think this is a fundamental right which is right up there with the right to keep and bear arms in level of importance."

Sir, you're paying no attention, you just keep blabbering nonsense.
Listen up: your alleged "right of self determination" does not give a "husband" the right to declare war on his "wife" when he gets tired of her, and in this analogy, your beloved Confederates were the "husband".

That is your fundamental problem, and why your case is always wrong, fit only for the sentiments of Lost Causers.

DiogenesLamp: "You, on the other hand, seem to believe that the existing government cannot be dissolved without permission from the existing government.
You have taken on the mantel of slavery of a different sort.
The forced compulsion to remain under the control of people whom you don't want controlling you."

But that's not just my opinion, it was also our Founders' original intent, as expressed most clearly by James Madison.
So, if you disrespect and mock our Founders' original intent, that makes you something other than Conservative, and puts you into the same categories as today's Liberal-Progressive-Democrat-Socialists.
They all want a "living Constitution" they can interpret to their hearts' desires, and it seems, so do you, sir.

Our Founders' recognized two legitimate reasons for dis-union:

"Mutual consent", implying a majority in Congress.
"by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect", the word "justly" implying a Supreme Court ruling.

So our Founders well understood that any other method of secession would most likely lead to another war, such as they fought against the British, from 1775 through 1781.

Those are the facts, which you may not like, but nevertheless, remain the facts.