Posted on 08/11/2015 1:11:21 PM PDT by iowamark
A legend in your own mind as well.
Jefferson Davis, who, like [Alexander] Stephens, wrote his account after the Civil War, took a similar position to Stephens. Fort Sumter was rightfully South Carolina's property after secession, and the Confederate government had shown great “forbearance” in trying to reach an equitable settlement with the federal government. But the Lincoln administration destroyed these efforts by sending “a hostile fleet” to Sumter. “The attempt to represent us as the aggressors,” Davis argued, “is as unfounded as the complaint made by the wolf against the lamb in the familiar fable. He who makes the assault is not necessarily he that strikes the first blow or fires the first gun.”
From Davis's point of view, to permit the strengthening of Sumter, even if done in a peaceable manner, was unacceptable. (Selected comments form Civil War Word Press discussion by Al Mackey). It meant the continued presence of a hostile threat to Charleston.
Further, although the ostensible purpose of the expedition was to resupply, not reinforce the fort, the Confederacy had no guarantee that Lincoln would abide by his word. And even if he restricted his actions to resupply in this case, what was to prevent him from attempting to reinforce the fort in the future? Thus, the attack on Sumter was a measure of “defense.” To have acquiesced in the fort's relief, even at the risk of firing the first shot, “would have been as unwise as it would be to hesitate to strike down the arm of the assailant, who levels a deadly weapon at one’s breast, until he has actually fired.”
In the twentieth century, this critical view of Lincoln's actions gained a wide audience through the writings of Charles W. Ramsdell and others. According to Ramsdell, the situation at Sumter presented Lincoln with a series of dilemmas. If he took action to maintain the fort, he would lose the border South and a large segment of northern opinion which wanted to conciliate the South. If he abandoned the fort, he jeopardized the Union by legitimizing the Confederacy. Lincoln also hazarded losing the support of a substantial portion of his own Republican Party, and risked appearing a weak and ineffective leader. (from an article on the Tulane University web site.)
Lincoln could escape these predicaments, however, if he could induce southerners to attack Sumter, “to assume the aggressive and thus put themselves in the wrong in the eyes of the North and of the world.” By sending a relief expedition, ostensibly to provide bread to a hungry garrison, Lincoln turned the tables on the Confederates, forcing them to choose whether to permit the fort to be strengthened, or to act as the aggressor. By this “astute strategy,” Lincoln maneuvered the South into firing the first shot.
Jefferson Davis was correct to esteem Lincoln a liar: the ships that appeared off the Charleston bar carried hundreds of troops with supplies sufficient to sustain them for a year.
Lincoln's personal secretary agreed with Ramsdell, writing in The Outbreak of Rebellion (there was no rebellion):
"As a matter of fact, President Lincoln had not at that date decided the Sumter question; he was following his own sagacious logic in arriving at a conclusion, which was at least partially reached on the 29th of March, when, as we have seen, he made the order to prepare the relief expedition. By this time [Associate Supreme Court Justice] Campbell [of South Carolina], in extreme impatience to further rebellion, was importuning Seward for explanation; and Seward, finding his former prediction at fault, thought it best not to venture a new one. "Upon consultation, therefore, the President authorized him to carry to Campbell the first and only assurance the Administration ever made with regard to Sumter — namely — that he would not change the military status at Charleston without giving notice. [This was palpably untrue, as reinforcements were embarked with the “relief” expedition, and no notice of their presence was given to the Carolinians. —]
"This, be it observed, occurred on the 1st of April, about which time the policy of Seward favoring delay and conciliation finally and formally [as soon as Congress left town! — ] gave way before the President's stronger self-assertion and his carefully matured purpose to force rebellion to put itself flagrantly and fatally in the wrong by attacking Fort Sumter.[Emphasis added.]
"Lincoln started the war. The crime of assault does not involve the striking of a blow; that's battery. Lincoln assaulted the South by advancing a (foreign, hostile) fleet under color of deceitful assurances, in order to induce the South to attempt to remove Sumter from the board in self-defense."
Because he is a man with a comprehension level so far above our's he compares it to talking to a herd of goats. See reply #238.
Lincoln did not engineer the War.
Funny, I started noticing the problems in the present, and tracked them back to their source. It turned out to be the Civil War.
Seriously, I never paid attention to the Civil war until the mid 1990s. I simply never thought of it.
What was bothering me back in those days (apart from that disgusting maggot Bill Clinton being in office because of the Media tampering with the electorate) was Abortion, Homosexuality, Welfare, Judicial Activism, especially as regards religion, Excessive Taxation, Excessive Regulation, and indulgence of Criminal Behavior, and a refusal to protect America's interests abroad.
I used to subscribe to a large array of conservative publications including "National Review", "American Spectator", the Limbaugh Letter, etc.
I started learning how things were connected. For example, the ban on prayer in public schools started more or less with Roosevelt Appointees in 1948, and then went through the Madalyn Murray O'Hair, case in 1963, and continued on to the present day.
I found out from David Barton's book "the Myth of Separation" how much of what the courts were telling us was utter crap, and completely at odds with history. In 1787, many states had official state religions, so there never was any of this "separation" crap at that time.
To make a long story short, the Courts asserted that the Federal prohibition against a recognition of religion must also apply to the states Because of the 14th amendment!
I thought to myself, "surely the 14th amendment was never intended to be used to throw God out of the public places of America."
I contemplated the exact same chain of events for the Supreme Court's "Roe" decision in 1973. Again, the 14th amendment created a "penumbra" of a "right to privacy" which somehow can be legally twisted into a right to commit abortion.
Again I said to myself "Surely the 14th amendment was never intended to be used to allow women to murder their unborn children."
Do you see where I am going with this?
If you look at much that is going on now that is absolutely wrong, and if you trace it's pedigree back to it's origin, you find much of our troubles are originating in the 14th amendment. This Homosexual marriage/gay wedding cake bullsh*t is another one of those legal doctrines that traces directly back to the 14th amendment. All legal issues of "discrimination" trace back to the 14th amendment.
So does "Anchor Babies".
The Civil war turned normal Federalism on it's head. That was the point at which everything changed, and not just for the Southern States. The subsequent consequences of the Civil war brought insanity to the Northern states as well. We are now "Legally" Insane from sea to shinning sea.
The evidence appears to say otherwise.
There has yet to be a time when the likes of you bests someone like BroJoeK (as a matter of common decency I have pinged him). I’ll admit that the depth of my knowledge of history pales compared to his but it is easily strong enough to go up against yours.
That you don’t have anyone except DegenerateLamp to sit there on his haunches and mindless nod like a bobblehead doll says much and tells the story. That you object to me pointing it out tells me (as one lost causer once put it) “the hit dog howls”.
I ain’t going anywhere son.
Federalism?
In the decision that you are upset about (Charlie Craig v. Masterpiece Cake Shop), the Colorado Court of Appeals relied upon Colorado's anti-discrimation statute (Section 24-34-601) that prohibits discrimination based upon "sexual orientation." There are some stated (including Colorado) that have passed laws providing special protecting homosexuals.
Now, how is Lincoln or the Civil War responsible for a state court decision enforcing a state statute passed by a state legislature? I have been assuming that you were a big fan of a state's right to pass and enforce its own laws.
I disagree with the court's decision because I think it reads the state statute too broadly. But, the Civil War has nothing to do with it. If anything, the Confederate states wanted to give states greater power to create their own laws.
I just think this is an example of how an obsession with the 1860's can cripple the ability to clearly look at a present day problem. The Civil War is over; forget about it. Lincoln didn't cause the Colorado legislature to pass this statute. He didn't cause these judges to interpret this state statute as it did. Lincoln and the Civil War have nothing to do with this case.
BTW, what does it do to your "timeline" if I were to tell you that Buel and Anderson met on Dec. 6 and decided between them how to handle Sumter?
I will ask you again, why did Abe have to arrive in Washington DC wearing a disguise?
You give the man too much credit. That War was a long time coming.
I guess this is a reference to the USA's invasion of the USA.
The only part that I don't understand about all of this is the motive. What is the point of taking up the cause of the Confederacy, a cause that is crippled by the stain of slavery? We can't change the outcome of the Civil War and, even if we could, the vast majority of people in this country (and in every section of this country) have no desire to change the outcome. The people of this country are anti-slavery and are grateful to Lincoln and the Union for ending it (whether or not ending slavery was the original intention).
For the life of me, I cannot figure out why some people have such a difficult time at least accepting the parts of our history that they might not like. I am not happy that slavery was legal in our country for an extensive period of time in our history, but I accept it. Nobody is happy with every part of our history.
I can't help but think that there are some people who look to the outcome of the Civil War as a source of personal excuses for an inability to succeed in the USA. Are there people who believe that their lives are screwed up because the Union was preserved? Are there people who believe that they would experience more success in a Confederate States of America? If so, I would suggest that they look around the world and see if they can find a better place to live. I feel very lucky to have been born in the USA. I have had opportunities here that I would not have had in any other country in the world. We are so lucky.
If a person cannot succeed here in the USA, where would you expect them to succeed? Everyone who participated in the Civil War is now dead. None of those people play a role in our successes and failures today. I think it's time for all of us to take personal responsibility for what we are today.
When you have something of substance to discuss, let me know.
Could not agree with you more.
Right back atcha pea
http://americancivilwar.com/authors/Joseph_Ryan/Articles/Buchanan-Fort-Sumter-1860/James-Buchanan-Fort-Sumter.html
Thanks for your kind words, sorry I’ve missed all the fun so far.
Possibly this weekend will get into it... ;-)
Thanks for the link. That adds many details to the sequence of events I was already aware of. Bookmarked.
Yes, it's really pretty straightforward.
Lincoln has been "accused" of preserving the Union and protecting the territorial of the United States. And, nowadays, our recent presidents have been criticized for failure to protect our borders. I want a president who protects the USA. I think that is why Lincoln is so popular now and why our recent presidents are so unpopular.
Some people don't seem to understand that a declaration of "secession" includes the improper attempt to unilaterally cancel the citizenship of U.S. citizens and the attempt to deprive those U.S. citizens of their rights under the United States Constitution. I want a president who stands up for such citizens and who won't tolerate any efforts to separate U.S. citizens from their national government, their national identity and their fellow Americans. Since Lincoln, we know that there is no excuse or justification for that kind of behavior.
I wish that more of our presidents today could learn what should be a simple lesson from Lincoln: the USA is worth protecting at any cost.
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.