Replies

As for conspiracy theories of Lincoln trying to foment war, how hard is it to start a war with belligerents who desperately want it. I guess if someone starts screaming in my face about wanting a fight, and I raise my fists, is it my fault if the fight starts?

The Washington Post is considered to be a fairly prominent newspaper with a respected reputation albeit quite Liberal. Here is an article I found previously regarding the Ft. Sumter incident. Here is an excerpt.

In March, 1861, a group of Southern commissioners went to Washington to negotiate a peaceful settlement of all questions arising from secession, to pay for federal property and to arrange for the removal of the garrison in Charleston Harbor. Lincoln refused to meet with them. He employed Secretary of State William Seward to obfuscate the situation by maintaining that cooler heads would prevail, Fort Sumter would be abandoned and that he was working towards a peaceful reconstruction of the Union. Seward continued the deception until April 7, 1861.

The article makes for interesting reading and it does flesh out a bit the history of how it started. (Presuming the facts outlined within are correct.)

Are you saying Lincoln should have abandoned Federal property to keep the Peace?

Perhaps not all is according to what you have been led to believe? Read the article if you will.

The American Civil War was fought during the Age of Imperialism (especially in Europe). As such it was important to establish a “casus belli” to justify attacking another nation. Lincoln was very cagey to do just that at Ft. Sumter. That attack also all but eliminated possible European intervention on the South’s behalf on the very first day of the war.

As I stated in another post, just because Lincoln did not want to recognize the secession, did not mean he wanted to start a war. Possibly in their minds there were other ways to heal the rift or make some kind of reconciliation.

And April 7, 1861 was when the SOUTH cut off the supply route to Ft Sumter. Less than a month after the “negotiations” started. Kind of difficult to honestly negotiate with someone when you are taking military action to starve out their troops.

And newspapers back then were even worse about slanting news to fit their own preconceptions. The dates tell the story. The South was trying to strong arm the North into giving up the fort because they thought they had the military to back it up. The “myth” of the unbeatable southern soldier.

wbarmy on Fort Sumter: "Are you saying Lincoln should have abandoned Federal property to keep the Peace?"

DiogenesLamp: "Perhaps not all is according to what you have been led to believe?
Read the article if you will."

I've read several books on this subject, and here is the important fact: Lincoln was willing to give up Fort Sumter, but he wanted something of value in return, and that was a pledge by Virginia not to secede -- a fort for a state was a good trade in Lincoln's mind.

Of course, Virginians would not pledge to remain in the Union, because, according to their Ratification of the US Constitution statement, they needed actual civil war to justify their own declaration of secession.
A Confederate assault on Fort Sumter would supply Virginians with the excuse they needed, so they were in no-way willing to promise loyalty to the Union in exchange for Lincoln's release of Fort Sumter.