Posted on 08/11/2015 1:11:21 PM PDT by iowamark
What caused the Civil War? That seems like the sort of simple, straightforward question that any elementary school child should be able to answer. Yet many Americans—including, mostly, my fellow Southerners—claim that that the cause was economic or state’s rights or just about anything other than slavery.
But slavery was indisputably the primary cause, explains Colonel Ty Seidule, Professor of History at the United States Military Academy at West Point.
The abolition of slavery was the single greatest act of liberty-promotion in the history of America. Because of that fact, it’s natural for people who love freedom, love tradition, and love the South to want to believe that the continued enslavement of our neighbors could not have possibly been the motivation for succession. But we should love truth even more than liberty and heritage, which is why we should not only acknowledge the truth about the cause of the war but be thankful that the Confederacy lost and that freedom won.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.acton.org ...
Here's what we know for certain:
So Lincoln was committed to peace, so long as the Confederacy did not start war.
But Davis was committed to start a war whenever he believed his "integrity and jurisdiction" were being assailed.
That's why there's no doubt, none, that Jefferson Davis is responsible for starting Civil War at Fort Sumter.
You should rethink your beginning assumptions about my response to you.
“The government will not assail you.” He promised, “You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors.”
On April 6, Lincoln took action without notifying anyone or seeking Constitutionally mandated Congressional approval. He had ordered a naval expedition to ostensibly resupply Fort Sumter. It was a poorly kept secret, and when rumors reached Montgomery, the Confederate president sent Justice Campbell back to Secretary of State Seward to demand an explanation.
Seward continued to deny that a confrontation was underway. “Faith as to Sumter fully kept,” he assured the Confederates in writing. “Wait and see.”
In reality, this became a federal act of war against the South! The expedition consisted of the armed side wheel steamer HARRIET LANE, the second class screw sloops PAWNEE and POCAHONTAS, the large paddle- wheel sloop POWHATAN, the transport BALTIC with 200 soldiers and provisions, and three tugs, the FREEBORN, UNCLE BEN, and YANKEE. The ships were to sail individually to preserve the secrecy of the expedition. The tugs had most of their machinery below the waterline and any above was protected by hay or cotton bales. Upon arriving at Charleston Harbor, they were supposed to pass about 1300 yards from the land batteries and being on a cross course and moving in the darkness at 14 knots they would hardly be hit if the Confederate batteries were ordered to protect the harbor from invasion.
If hit, however, there were sufficient launches to save the personnel that Lincoln told Governor Pickens would not be present.
What else did he do to incite and bring war? He did, on the fifteenth day of April 1861, issue his proclamation calling upon the several States for seventy-five thousand men to suppress such insurrectionary combinations, and to cause the laws to be faithfully executed.
Next he did, on the nineteenth day of April 1861, issue a proclamation setting on foot a blockade of the ports within the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas.
Next on the twenty-seventh day of April, he issued a proclamation establishing a blockade of the ports within the States of Virginia and North Carolina.
That was an act of war.
He did, by an order of the twenty-seventh day of April, addressed to the commanding general of the army of the United States, authorize that officer to suspend the writ of habeas corpus at any point on or in the vicinity of any military line between the city of Philadelphia and the city of Washington.
He did, on the third day of May, issue a proclamation calling into the service of the United States forty-two thousand and thirty-four volunteers, increasing the regular army by the addition of twenty-two thousand seven hundred and fourteen men, and the navy by an addition of eighteen thousand seamen.
He did, on the tenth day of May last, issue a proclamation authorizing the commander of the forces of the United States on the coast of Florida to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, if necessary.
All of these actions were designed by Lincoln to assail and bring conflict...directly in contradiction to his speeches and testimony to Congress.
He is speaking of the forts which are only needed to force tariff collection."
Well, now, grammatically, it doesn't say that at all. On first reading, that appears to mean two different things ...
“The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government."
AND
“The power confided to me will be used ... to collect the duties and imposts."
If it is assumed that he was referring to only that he would use the power to "hold, occupy" and possess" the property and places belonging to the government that (or which) collected the duties and imposts, he would probably have said it in that manner.
As stated it is clearly a compound use of the two powers that he believed had been confided to him.
Your version of those events is apocryphal & mythological.
Here's what really happened:
President Lincoln pressed the delegation for their recommendations.
Dr. Fuller told the President he should 'let the country know that you are disposed to recognize the independence of the Southern States.
I say nothing of Secession; recognize the fact that they have formed a government of their own, that they will never be united again with the North, and peace will instantly take the place of anxiety and suspense, and war may be averted.'19
Alexander K. McClure wrote: 'President Lincoln replied, laughingly: "If I grant this concession, you will be back tomorrow asking that no troops be marched ‘around’ it.”
The President was right.
That afternoon, and again on Sunday and Monday, committees sought him, protesting that Maryland soil should not be ‘polluted’ by the feet of soldiers marching against the South.
The President had but one reply:
As reported by the Baltimore Sun: 'Dr. Fuller expressed very earnestly the hope that no more troops would be ordered over the soil of his State.
He remarked that Maryland had shed her blood freely in the War of Independence, that she was the first to move the adoption of the constitution, and had only yielded her clinging attachment to the Union when the blood of her citizens had been shed by strangers on their way to a conflict with her sisters of the South.'21
President Lincoln did not back down on his need for troops and the need for them to transit through Baltimore.
'I’ll tell you a story,' President Lincoln said. 'You have heard of the Irishman who, when a fellow was cutting his throat with a dull razor, complained that he haggled it.
Now if I can’t have troops direct through Maryland, and must have them all the way round by water, or marched across out-of-the way territory, I shall be haggled.'22
The President told the Baltimore delegation:
Source 19 = David Rankin Barbee, Lincoln, Chase, and the Rev. Dr. Richard Fuller, (Letter from Richard Fuller to Salmon P. Chase, April 23, 1861, Maryland Historical Magazine, June 1951, p. 109.
Source 20 = Alexander K. McClure, Lincoln’s Own Yarns and Stories, p. 87.
Source 21 & 22 = David Rankin Barbee, “Lincoln, Chase, and the Rev. Dr. Richard Fuller,” Maryland Historical Magazine , June 1951, p. 109 (Baltimore Sun, April 23, 1861).
Source 23 = 23.CWAL, Volume IV, p. 342. (Reply to Baltimore Committee, April 22, 1861).
This is why the story alleging Lincoln's response expressed concerns over Federal revenues is not accepted as genuine by historians.
Well, with regards to the "critical mass", yes, there is probably a critical mass necessary to SUCCESSFULLY assert independence. However, to the critical mass of colonists living in the 13 Colonies at the time of the Revolution, it seems to me that you would have to add the population of France. Without the French on our side, assisting us both here in the Colonies and elsewhere in the world, independence would probably have been a much dicier prospect.
Which also fits right in with the Confederate belief that, to successful achieve independence, alliances with (or at least support from) either Britain or France or both were a necessity for achieving that goal. Since neither did, I would postulate that your "critical mass" was not achieved in the case of the 1861-1865 War.
Besides which, there are numerous other things that would affect such a "critical mass": for example, the Federal States were a lot closer .. and had a land-link .. to the battlefields against the Confederacy. The 13 Colonies enjoyed the great distance of the Atlantic between them and the British and, when France entered the war, put their ally and a British enemy right on the English doorstep.
Another would be that the Federal States were able to replace their losses and increase their population and industry during the war because of immigrants coming from overseas. So the "critical mass" was in constant flux and running not to the advantage of the Confederacy.
I don't want to write a thesis on the potential critical mass adjustments that existed between the two wars, but I'm sure that you can come up with others.
After the Union being assaulted-invaded:
I'm delighted to see we agree on this, FRiend.
Both Democrat President Buchanan and Republican President Lincoln expressed their views that secession "at pleasure" was not constitutional or lawful.
But neither president took military steps to end secession or the Confederacy until after the Confederacy first provoked, then started and formally declared war on the United States, sending military aid to pro-Confederates in Union Missouri.
So, their "right to secede" is one thing, their "right" to start & declare war on the United States is something else entirely, FRiend.
Your argument is like saying that a rapist and a rape victim are morally equivalent..."
Except that, as in most things, your views are delusions & myth -- it's not what really happened.
In fact, in early 1861, it was the Confederacy which was assaulting, "raping" and attempting to murder the United States of America, to the point of starting and formally declaring war against it.
Once war was declared against the United States, then Lincoln did what was necessary to win it, unconditionally, and to abolish the root cause of it: slavery.
That's the real truth of it, and Lost Causer myths are just nonsense.
Nor did you see it on this thread. So, where?
All of Lincoln's troops were under orders not to fight unless attacked.
And that is exactly what Lincoln telegraphed to South Carolina's governor.
Lincoln's mission to resupply Fort Sumter was just that -- resupply -- unless attacked, at which point it was to become to reinforce Sumter.
As such, it was no more an "act of war" than, for examples: any resupply/reinforce mission to British forts on US territory after 1781, or today's resupply & reinforcement missions to disputed Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
So, if the Communist Cubans someday chose to call our resupply of Guantanamo an "act of war" and launch a military assault against us, they will have started the resulting war.
Just as Jefferson Davis did in April 1861, at Fort Sumter.
LOL!
Davis and his very reckless followers bear almost all of the responsibility for the outbreak of the war. Their actions were absolutely inexcusable. Without seriously and carefully thinking through the situation, they led the South into a war that could not be won.
There is a section in Clavell’s novel SHOGUN when Toranauga’s (I think I spelled that correctly) supporters urge him to declare war on the Regent and the Council. Toranauga dismisses the suggestion. To himself, he laments the rashness of his supporters. He notes that for him to take such a reckless step puts not only his own life at risk but also the lives and property of all who support him. He has, he tells himself, no right to take such an action.
I only wish Davis and the rest had such wisdom.
My only (apparent) disagreement is the contention that slavery was the cause of the war. Slavery was an issue, a serious one to be sure, but in 1861, only the Abolitionists (and Lincoln wasn't one) demanded an end to slavery. Lets not forget that William Lloyd Garrison was so dismayed at the prospect of abolition that in the late 1850’s (1858-59, I think) he actually burned a copy of the US Constitution.
Also, Garrison quarreled bitterly with Joseph Jay (the son of John Jay) when told by Joseph Jay - who was a major Constitutional scholar in his own right - that slavery was embedded in the Constitution and could not be abolished except by amendment.
No rational reason existed for the South to secede. The South had everything to lose and nothing to gain - except a phantom independence that would have been difficult to maintain.
It looks like y’all may be talking past one another.
Most pro-unionists claim that the cause of the Civil War was slavery because the rebels themselves said that it was - in their rhetoric, in their declarations, and in their actions. It wasn’t that anyone (abolitionists or otherwise) was ordering the south to give up their slaves - in this very thread we’ve seen plenty of evidence that this wasn’t taking place - but that the fire-eaters of the south had seized upon the pretext of Lincoln’s election to execute their plan to disband the United States.
Of course they say other things, but those are all rationalizations meant to excuse their behavior or salve their consciences.
Ultimately I agree with you - no rational reason existed for the South to secede.
It passed in the House but got bottled up in the senate.
Then you need to learn to read more carefully.
You can find it by looking at the pings included in my post and the response I received. That's as easy as I'll make it for you.
That was my view. Lincoln wasn't going to attack Sumter after promising publically that he wouldn't attack.
But as we're considering all contingencies in an atmosphere of uncertainty (and talking about hypothetical situations that we can't make conclusions about with any certainty) I wanted to leave open the possibility that a lot of different things -- just about anything -- could have happened six months or a year or several years down the hypothetical road. One incident follows another and before you know it, you could have had a war.
If the need to "Preserve the Union" is the higher principle involved, then how could we have broken from the British Union?
Yes, ignore the salient point, because you want to obsess on a specific word. Thank you for your concern commander Pouncetrifle.
Would that you should spend so much time on the meat of the point.
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.