On this date in 1864 President Lincoln receives a Christmas gift.

Oh, and I found this among my bookmarks (too many!) which will save you some trouble.

https://www.nytimes.com/1865/09/11/archives/correspondence-capt-fox-to-lieutgen-scott.html

The instructions were to peacefully reprovision the fort. If the ships were opposed and forces on the ground did not allow peaceful passage of the supply ships there was an authorization to use force.

There was an instruction to use force. It wasn't a suggestion.

"Should the authorities at Charleston, however, refuse to permit or attempt to prevent the vessel or vessels having supplies on board from entering the harbor, or from peaceably proceeding to Fort Sumter, you will protect the transports or boats of the expedition in the object of their mission-disposing of your force in such manner as to open the way for their ingress and afford, so far as practicable, security to the men and boats, and repelling by force, if necessary, all obstructions towards provisioning the fort and re-enforcing it; for in case of resistance to the peaceable primary object of the expedition a re-enforcement of the garrison will also be attempted. "

The Statement from Simon Cameron was more direct.

" WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, April 4, 1861.
Captain G. V. FOX, Washington, D. C.:
SIR: It having been decided to succor Fort Sumter you have been selected for this important duty. Accordingly you will take charge of the transports in New York having the troops and supplies on board to the entrance of Charleston Harbor, and endeavor, in the first instance, to deliver the subsistence. If you are opposed in this you are directed to report the fact to the senior naval officer of the harbor, who will be instructed by the Secretary of the Navy to use his entire force to open a passage, when you will, if possible, effect an entrance and place both troops and supplies in Fort Sumter.
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
SIMON CAMERON,
Secretary of War.
For that mater, David Porter said in his memoirs that if those ships had tried to do something, they would have all been sunk.

I thought you didn't want to debate me? You specifically asked me not to ping you in my replies? I must have hit a progressive nerve.

****************

>>x wrote: "I usually don't respond to Kalamata's nonsense, because I don't want to get pelted with his garbage,"

Everything you post is nonsense, as are your preferred history "scholars," who are a bunch of rabid, big-government Leftists; except for Jaffa -- he is a dead, rabid, big-government Leftist.

****************

>>x wrote: "this certainly invites a reponse:"
>>Kalamata wrote: "Did you never wonder why the Far-left political hacks disguised as historians, such as Eric Foner, Allen Guelzo, and the late Harry Jaffa, have swooned over Lincoln? >>x wrote: "Jaffa wrote for Barry Goldwater and contributed to conservative periodicals. He certainly wasn't everybody's idea of a conservative. He tread on a lot of toes in arguments. But he was not "far left" or a "political hack."

Jaffa is a progressive liberal hack who, like Lincoln, promotes a "living constitution" over the plain words of the legal document. Using Lincolnese, he injects the Declaration into jurisprudence, which can mean anything, to any judge, at any time. He wrote crazy stuff like this:

"[I]t was necessary, [Lincoln] said, to vindicate the Union against the "ingenious sophism" that "any State of the Union may, consistently with the national Constitution, and therefore lawfully, and peacefully, withdraw from the Union, without the consent of the Union or of any other State." Lincoln held that the alleged constitutional right of secession, as distinct from the natural right of revolution, was a prescription for anarchy. Third, it was necessary, as Lincoln put it in the epigraph of this chapter, to vindicate the principle of free elections. It was necessary to use bullets to establish the right, not of bullets, but of ballots to decide who should rule. It will, I believe, prove to be true that in Lincoln's mind the idea of a popular government that unites liberty and order, the idea of the Union, and the idea of rule by free elections are one and the same."
[Harry V. Jaffa, "A New Birth of Freedom: Abraham Lincoln and the Coming of the Civil War." 2000, p.2]

In a free republic, a Constitution sets the rules and determines "natural rights:" not the elected representatives (who are always corruptible;) nor the judiciary (who are even moreso;) and especially not an executive (who can become a dictator at the drop of a hat, like Lincoln did.) Only a tyrant or a fool would think otherwise.

****************

>>x wrote: "That's even more true of Guelzo, who has also contributed to leading conservative publications and is even something of an Evangelical. Conservatism can't be pure Lysander Spooner or Thomas Jefferson and certainly not pure Jefferson Davis. It needs realists as well as dreamers, and the more one cares about something, the more apt one is to be realistic about it, rather than engage in fantasies. That's why people like Hamilton, Clay and Lincoln, shouldn't simply be condemned - and certainly not in hysterical terms - for not conforming to libertarian fantasies."

I am a conservative republican, not a libertarian, and Hamilton was the original crony-capitalist of our nation. The ink was barely dry on the Constitution before he schemed ways to usurp it -- to usurp power from the states and the people, mostly with the intent to transfer money from the pockets of the common man into the pockets of the politically-connected.

Henry Clay, according to Guelzo, originally ran on an anti-Hamiltonian (anti-bank, anti-corporation) ticket:

"Some of these new "War Hawks" were more Jeffersonian than Jefferson. Henry Clay, born in 1777 and elected to Congress in 1810 as an enemy of banks, corporations, and Federalist privilege, helped sink Alexander Hamilton's old Bank of the United States when it came up for rechartering before Congress in 1811. A national bank, announced Clay, "is a splendid association of favored individuals, taken from the mass of society, and invested with exemptions and surrounded by immunities and privileges." But his greatest fixation was on the conspiratorial threat of Great Britain, the mother of monarchy, aristocracy, and of course, international banking. "We have complete proof that [Britain] will do everything to destroy us — our resolution and spirit are our only dependence." The fact that Britain was now distracted by its life-or-death struggle with France, leaving British Canada vulnerable and undefended, seemed to Clay to offer the United States the chance of a lifetime to bring the British to heel. Invade Canada, the "War Hawks" chanted, and either hold it hostage to good British behavior on the high seas or add it to America's republican empire."
[Allen C. Guelzo, "Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President." William B. Eerdmans, 1999, p.53]

But Clay's vision was soon corrupted into promoting the crony-capitalist, Hamiltonian "American System" (Lincoln's campaign platform, in a nutshell,) which included chartering a National Bank, high protective tariffs, and "internal improvements," the last of which is a euphemism for corporate welfare. Clay became a strong advocate for turning America into a crony-capitalist paradise; but it is difficult to blame him. The lure of money and power, "constitutionalized" by Hamilton and John Marshall, is too strong for most politicians to ignore.

The doctrine of Hamilton and his disciples -- especially Lincoln, and his hero, Henry Clay -- are the bane of American civilization. Yet, Guelzo seems to adore them, and their doctrine. Worse, he provides cover for them by watering down and even redefining political principles for them, so they can appear to be republicans. For example, he wrote:

"Alexander Hamilton, fully as much as Thomas Jefferson, believed wholeheartedly that the most natural form of government was a republic in which everyone would have the freedom to exercise their natural rights."
[Allen C. Guelzo, "Alexander Hamilton: His Ideal Republic." Great Courses Daily, Aug 24, 2017]
Alexander Hamilton: His Ideal Republic

That is pure fantasy. Hamilton was a statist: one who believed in a strong central government, rather than a representative republic of smaller States banded together under a legal compact.

****************

>>x wrote: "Eric Foner definitely is on the left and very prominent there. His views on the Civil War and Reconstruction, though, are very different from those on the left a century ago, like Charles Beard, who was far more sympathetic to slaveowners and the Confederacy. Beard and other progressives had no use for slavery but they saw the Southerners as fellow opponents of big business, industrialism and the Republican Party."

Foner is a card-carrying Marxist. The fact that he and others on the far-left have adopted the Jaffa-ized revision of Lincoln's political history, says more about Jaffa than it does about them.

Have you read this?

"What is different about Trump is how open he is about it all. Normally, the appeals to white racism are done through code words, like “law and order.” Trump campaigned saying all black people are living in hellholes and asking them, “What do you have to lose?” by voting for Trump. It’s become pretty clear what they have to lose: They can lose the right to vote. They can lose affirmative action. They can lose the notion the federal government sees racism as a serious problem in the United States."
[Jon Wiener, "Eric Foner: White Nationalists, Neo-Confederates, and Donald Trump." The Nation, August 16, 2017]
Eric Foner: White Nationalists, Neo-Confederates, and Donald Trump

Few are more rabid than Foner. According to him, it is racist to even mention the plight of the blacks in the inner-city Democrat plantations.

But who is the true racist? Foner, for certain; and of course, Lincoln. Donald Trump, on the other hand, doesn't have a racist bone in his body.

Mr. Kalamata

Very informative. Thanks

“to use his entire force to open a passage, when you will, if possible, effect an entrance and place both troops and supplies in Fort Sumter.’

This action was only authorized if the Charleston forces resisted the landing of provisions (only) to the fort.

SECRETARY WELLES INSTRUCTIONS TO CAPT. MERCER OF THE POWHATAN.
Capt. Samuel Mercer, commanding U.S. Steamer Powhatan, New-York:
SIR: The United States steamers Powhatan, Pocahontas, Pawnee, and Harriet Lane will compose a naval force under your command to be sent to the vicinity of Charleston, S.C., for the purpose of aiding in carrying out the objects of an expedition, of which the War Department has charge.
The primary object of the expedition is to provision Fort Sumter, for which purpose the War Department will furnish the necessary transports. Should the authorities of Charleston permit the fort to be supplied, no further particular service will be required of the force under your command, and, after being satisfied that supplies have been received at the fort, the Powhatan, Pocahontas and Harriet Lane will return to New York, and the Pawnee to Washington.
Should the authorities at Charleston, however, refuse to permit or attempt to prevent the vessel or vessels having supplies on board from entering the harbor or from peaceably proceeding to Fort Sumter, you will protect the transports or boats of the expedition in the object of this mission — disposing of your force in such a manner as to open the way for their ingress, and afford, so far as practicable, security to the men and boats, and repelling, by force if necessary, all obstructions to provisioning the fort and reinforcing it; for in case of resistance to the peaceable primary object of the expedition, a reinforcement of the garrison will also be attempted. These purposes will be under the supervision of the War Department, which has charge of the expedition. The expedition has been intrusted to Capt. G.V. FOX, with whom you will put yourself in communication, and cooperate with him to accomplish and carry into effect its object.
You will leave New-York with the Powhatan in time to be off Charleston bar, ten miles distant from and due east of the lighthouse, on the morning of the 11th inst., there to await the arrival of the transport or transports with troops and stores. The Pawnee and Pocahontas will be ordered to join you there at the time mentioned, and also the Harriet Lane, which latter vessel has been placed under the control of this Department for this service.
On the termination of the expedition, whether it be peaceable or otherwise, the several vessels under your command will return to the respective ports as above directed, unless some unforeseen circumstances shall prevent. I am, &c., &c.
(Signed,) GIDEON WELLES,
Secretary of the Navy.

As in Cameron’s orders to Fox, the naval vessels are authorized to use force only if the Charleston authorities
resist the landing of food to the Fort. If The Charleston authorities allow the provisioning of the fort, the ships are to return to their home ports. If they resist the provisioning attempt the ships are authorized to us force, as needed, to land food, munitions and reinforcements.

Nowhere in the written orders to Fox or the captains of the warships are they instructed to fire indiscriminately on Charleston or any installations surrounding the city.

Porter makes the comment “Powhatan could not have reached Charleston in time to be of any use”

I believe this statement is incorrect. Porter cleared New York harbor about 3 pm on April 6th. It is 630 nautical miles from New York to Charleston. Powhatan had 111 hours to cover 630 nautical miles to get in position by 6 am on the 11th. To make the voyage she would have to have steamed at a speed of about 6 knots. Powhatan’s top speed was 11 knots.
She could easily have been in place of the entrance to Charleston harbor to participate in that operation.

>>x wrote: "[Charles W. Adams, "When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession." Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, p.3] Check out Adams’s bibliography. Who is one of Adams's main sources? None other than Eric Foner's uncle, Philip Foner. Uncle Philip has been accused of being a plagiarist himself, and he was generally acknowledged to have been a Communist, losing a teaching position for that in the Forties - about the time he was writing Business and Slavery: The New York Merchants and the Irrepressible Conflict. What does Charles Adams say about that book? He calls it "remarkable" and says, "If money makes the world go around (private sector) and is the heart of war and the blood of governments (public sector), then the Foner book explains more about the Civil War than any other study."

Philip Foner was pre-revisionism, so he is far more likely to have relied on actual source material from that day, than ideology. This is Adam's quote from Philip Foner's book:

"Peaceful separation had died in the war of the tariffs, "wrote Professor Philip Foner in 1941, in his remarkable book The New York Merchants and the Irrepressible Conflict. There was only one path for the government to follow, wrote Foner: "Collect the revenue at the seceded states, impose duties on goods entering the ports of these cities, and in general enforce the laws and compel obedience to the government. This might bring war, but even that would hardly mean "a change for the worse."
"Lincoln got the message in many ways-from leading newspapers, as we shall see, but perhaps even more from public letters sent to the president from America's leading moneymen, demanding that the federal government act firmly to protect Northern commerce."
[Charles W. Adams, "When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession." Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, p.63]

Now, let's see the full context, directly from Philip Foner:

"The very same forces that caused some merchants to urge the establishment of a free city [Mayor Wood's secession plan] compelled the vast majority of business men to rally to the support of the government in its efforts to maintain the existence of the Union. These merchants recognized that the free city plan offered some solutions for the serious difficulties confronting them, but they also knew that the proposal created more problems than it solved. There were benefits in free trade, but an independent "Republic of New York" would probably soon find itself cut off from the trade of the West by "prohibitory tolls and duties." Free trade would provide profits for importers, but no commission merchants affiliated with domestic manufactures could possibly share in these profits. And even importers had to eat. "Velvets are good in their way," one reviewer observed, "but could not satisfy hunger; silk and shawls are excellent things for ladies, but would be rather tough if boiled and put on the table." Finally, it would have been the height of folly if the merchants had supported a movement which would only have aided in spreading secessionism throughout the entire nation, especially since they feared that the West might secede from the Union and join the Southern confederacy."
"Peaceful separation had died in the war of the tariffs. The free city remedy for the troubles facing the merchants was worse than the disease. There remained only one path to follow. Let the President call out the militia and volunteers, collect the revenue at the seceded states, impose duties on goods entering the ports of these states, and in general enforce the laws and compel obedience to the government. This might bring war, but even that would hardly mean "a change for the worse." It had not been easy for most merchants to reach this decision. They believed in a firm policy toward the secessionists and, as has been seen, had not hesitated to inform President Buchanan of this fact. They had rejoiced, moreover, when the President had abandoned his vacillating attitude and had taken steps to uphold the dignity of the government. Again, on March 5, 1861, when John A. Dix retired from his post as Secretary of the Treasury, more than one hundred leading merchants, Democrats and Republicans alike, signed a public letter praising him for having displayed "decision and firmness" in managing the national treasury "at a period when distrust and disorder seriously menaced the public welfare." Among those who endorsed this sentiment were: William B. Astor, Peletiah Perit, ..., & etc...."
"William H. Aspinwall, one of the merchants who signed the letter, had already taken steps to aid the government in enforcing the laws. Late in February, he had joined hands with John Murray Forbes, the Boston capitalist, in a venture to reinforce Fort Sumter. At the last moment, the navy had refused to permit the undertaking, but the incident revealed how far Aspinwall had traveled since the days of the Pine Street meeting."
"Most merchants, however, had moved much more slowly. Although they supported a firm policy on the part of the government, they were reluctant to endorse the use of force to preserve the Union, fearing that this would make civil war a certainty. Many even denied that the government had the power to "coerce" a state to remain in the Union. Either the Union should be preserved peacefully, they argued, or the Southern states should be permitted to depart in peace. Coercion was "out of the question." It would only lead to civil war—a war, as one merchant put it, "for some vagabond negroes, for a patch of territory the whole not worth as much as the vicissitudes of a single day of war."
"By the last week in March, the vast majority of New York business men saw clearly that it was no longer an issue involving "vagabond negroes" or a "patch of territory." The war of the tariffs had cleared away the clouds of confusion, and in so doing, it brought home to each business man the real issue in the crisis. Lincoln had put his finger on the issue when he said in his inaugural address that "physically speaking," the North and South could not separate, and that no "impassable wall" could be erected between the sections. No merchant could sit by idly and watch the South destroy a business system which had been built up over so many years. It was no longer an issue, for him, of slavery, states' rights, nullification or secession. "It is now a question of national existence and commercial prosperity," wrote August Belmont, who had hitherto championed the cause of peaceful separation, "and the choice cannot be doubtful." Or, as Henry J. Raymond put it:"

"There is no class of men in this country who have so large a stake in sustaining the Government, whose prosperity depends so completely upon its being upheld against all enemies, and who have so much to lose by its overthrow as the merchants of this city."

"Though there were no mass meetings and no memorials to indicate it, there was much evidence by the end of March to prove that the merchants had finally grasped the significance of Raymond's remarks, and were prepared to support a decisive policy toward the South, regardless of the consequences."
[Philip Sheldon Foner, "Business & slavery: the New York merchants & the irrepressible conflict." Russell & Russell, 1968, p.297-299]

So, it appears Foner is guilty of committing an act of history. That could get him banned from Twitter, these days. LOL!

Why is it that merchants always come across as the bad guys?

"And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived." -- Rev 18:23 KJV

****************

x wrote: "Let us pause and reflect: the theory that Kalamata and Diogenes have been expounding for months, even years, rests largely on a book by a Marxist historian. Those ideas didn't start with Foner; they go back to Charles Beard and others. And Marxist or progressive or Lost Causer origins don't necessarily mean the theory is wrong, but it ought to make us think at least a little before dismissing other views and adopting economic determinism and the idea that the bad bankers were behind it all."

Have you ever read anything so dishonest in your life? Our complaint is not who is writing the history, but how it is being manipulated for political purposes. You chose the manipulators – I have chosen the straight-shooters.

****************

x wrote: "Have you ever heard of the American Society for Promoting National Unity? It was a group founded early in 1861 to preserve the union through compromise with the South on slavery. Its members included former presidents, former vice presidential candidates, politicians, a mob of ministers, New York and Massachusetts businessmen, and names from the cream of New York society. In March and in April of 1861 - right up until Sumter - they were still calling for compromise to save the Union. Too late I know. But a good indication that peace was more on the minds of New York's elites than war."

Let's read more about them:

"Lincoln made it clear [in the 1st inaugural] that the government could not and would not recognize secession; that it proposed to maintain its authority come what might, and that he intended "to hold, occupy, and possess the property belonging to the government."
"The vast majority of the merchants read the inaugural address with sinking hearts. After investigating the reactions of leading business men, the Tribune said:"

"They see in his expressed determination to enforce the laws and public property the element of collision with the Southern Confederacy. They fear that any morning may bring startling advices of action at the South which may precipitate the two sections into civil war."

"Thus ended the long struggle of the merchants to achieve a peaceful solution to the secession crisis. Some business men still believed that compromise could be accomplished if only the politicians and agitators could be ousted from power and the issue left to the people to decide. Indeed, an organization was formed, early in March, in a desperate effort to achieve this goal. It assumed the name, "The American Society for Promoting National Unity." Among the organizers were: Samuel F. B. Morse, Thomas Tileston, William B. Astor, James Harper, James Brown, Henry Grinnell, Gerard Hallock, James Boorman, August Belmont, Erastus Corning, Robert B. Minturn, Bronson C. Greene, Royal Phelps, Stewart Brown, Watts Sherman, Hiram Ketchum, Charles A. Davis, Peter Cooper, Daniel Develin, Isaac Bell, Edward I. Pierrepont, and William F. Havemeyer."
"The organization (according to its Declaration of Principles) dedicated itself to the task of reconstructing the American Union which had been destroyed by reformers and politicians—"the one incompetent to reconstruct what the other destroys." It would seek to accomplish this aim by means of educating the people to abandon the "false" doctrines which had gained headway in both sections—in the South the theory of secession and in the North "the dreams of abolitionism, of woman's rights, of free love, of spiritualism, of socialism, of agrarianism, and of all similar visionary schemes," which had engendered "a feeling of hostility between the North and the South... which threatens a final dissolution of the Federal Union." The merchants also invited all lovers of "our common country" who put the Union above "any existing party," to "unite with us in endeavors to disseminate sound and wholesome teachings, to conciliate differences and restore peace and harmony." Finally, they appealed:"

"Why should we contend? Why paralyze business, turn thousands of the industrious and worthy poor out of employment, sunder the last ties of affection, that can bind these States together, destroy our once prosperous and happy nation, and perhaps send multitudes to premature graves—and all for what?"

"Nothing, of course, came of the plan. The time for compromise had passed."
[Philip Sheldon Foner, "Business & slavery: the New York merchants & the irrepressible conflict." Russell & Russell, 1968]

****************

x wrote: "Now that you know about American Society for Promoting National Unity, it's not hard to find the membership list on their prospectus - a broad cross-section of the wealthy and prominent who sought peace and unity through concessions to the South. Can anyone come up with the names of those who were supposedly beating the war drums in 1861? Not people who just expressed concern about revenue, or people who wanted a show of firmness, but people who actually wanted war. In the North, I mean. We all know about the wild war talk in the South."

It certainly appears from the first paragraph in the above quote, that Lincoln was the one beating the war drums. This is another one:

"We love the Union, because at home and abroad, collectively and individually, it gives us character as a nation and as citizens of the Great Republic; because it gives us nationality as a People, renders us now the equal of the greatest European Power, and in another half century, will make us the greatest, richest, and most powerful people on the face of the earth. We love the Union, because already in commerce, wealth and resources of every kind, we are the equal of the greatest; and because, while it secures us peace, happiness and prosperity at home, like the Roman of old we have only to exclaim" I am an American Citizen" to insure us respect and security abroad. And so loving this great and glorious Union, we are ready if need be, to shed our blood in its preservation, and in transmitting it in all its greatness, to our latest posterity." [New York Courier and Enquirer, December 1, 1860, in Kenneth M. Stampp, "The Causes of the Civil War." 1986, pp.55-56]

I have yet to verify the following quote, but it sounds like the NY Times:

"The New York Times wrote in March 1861 that the North should "destroy its commerce, and bring utter ruin on the Confederate states," and this was before the bombardment at Fort Sumter." [Ibid. Adams, p.54]

This is supposedly more context:

"At once shut up every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States... a state of war would almost be preferable to the passive action the government has been following." -- New York Times 22 and 23 March 1861

Nasty! Speaking of nasty, this is the Philadelphia Press pushing for a blockade – an act of war:

"One of the most important benefits which the Federal Government has conferred upon the nation is unrestricted trade between many prosperous States with divers productions and industrial pursuits. But now, since the Montgomery [Confederate] Congress has passed a new tariff, and duties are exacted upon Northern goods sent to ports in the Cotton States, the traffic between the two sections will be materially decreased.... Another, and a more serious difficulty arises out of our foreign commerce, and the different rates of duty established by the two tariffs which will soon be in force..."
"The General Government,... to prevent the serious diminution of its revenues, will be compelled to blockade the Southern ports... and prevent the importation of foreign goods into them, or to put another expensive guard upon the frontiers to prevent smuggling into the Union States. Even if the independence of the seceding Commonwealths should be recognized, and two distinct nations thus established, we should still experience all the vexations, and be subjected to all the expenses and annoyances which the people of Europe have long suffered, on account of their numerous Governments, and many inland lines of custom-houses. Thus, trade of all kinds, which has already been seriously crippled would be permanently embarrassed..."
"It is easy for men to deride and underestimate the value of the Union, but its destruction would speedily be followed by fearful proofs of its importance to the whole American people."
[Philadelphia Press, March 18, 1861, in Stampp, Kenneth M., "The Causes of the Civil War." 1986, p.69]

All of that occurred prior to Lincoln provoking the South into firing the first shot. In the meantime, Lincoln was still thinking only of his precious revenue:

"Yours giving an account of an interview with Gen. Scott, is received, and for which I thank you. According to my present view, if the forts shall be given up before the inaugeration, the General must retake them afterwards. Yours truly." [Letter to Hon. F. P. Blair, Ser. Springfield, Ills., Dec 21, 1860, in Roy P. Basler, "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln Vol 4." Rutgers University Press, 1953, p.157]
"Last night I received your letter giving an account of your interview with Gen. Scott, and for which I thank you. Please present my respects to the General, and tell him, confidentially, I shall be obliged to him to be as well prepared as he can to either hold, or retake, the forts, as the case may require, at, and after the inaugeration. Yours as ever" [Letter to Hon. E. B. Washbume Springfield, Ills., Dec 21, 1860, p.159]
"My dear Sir: I am much obliged by the receipt of yours of the 18th. The most we can do now is to watch events, and be as well prepared as possible for any turn things may take. If the forts fall, my judgment is that they are to be retaken. When I shall determine definitely my time of starting to Washington, I will notify you. Yours truly" [Letter to Major David Hunter, Springfield, Ills., Dec 22, 1860, p.159]
"Yours kindly seeking my view as to the proper mode of dealing with secession, was received several days ago, but, for want of time I could not answer it till now. I think we should hold the forts, or retake them, as the case may be, and collect the revenue. We shall have to forego the use of the federal courts, and they that of the mails, for a while. We can not fight them in to holding courts, or receiving the mails. This is an outline of my view; and perhaps suggests sufficiently, the whole of it. [Letter of A. Lincoln to Col. J. W. Webb. Springfield, Ills., Dec. 29, 1860, pp.164-165]

To Lincoln, the action of "preserving the union," was synonymous with "keeping the Crony Gravy Train running."

Mr. Kalamata

Anderson wasn't assigned to that fort. He took it over in the middle of the night. He started the aggression. If he wanted a peaceful relationship, he should have not taken over the fort, which was a belligerent aggressive act.

It is hardly an aggressive act to move from one property one owns to another in time of crisis if the second is more defensible. No one would fault our government if it had a more defensible building in Tehran or Benghazi that it could move State Department personnel to when our embassy or consulate was in danger.

Anderson even blames Lincoln, but not overtly or directly.

You were just blaming Anderson yourself. One thing I've learned from military history is how many generals and admirals have grievances, grudges and major peeves with others in the chain of command. Anderson was a Unionist and also essentially a Southerner. His world had fallen apart. It's not surprising that he would be bitter and try to blame someone.

The Confederates were well and truly hoodwinked.

Because their spies told them something that wasn't true? Letting spies believe things that aren't true is sort of what governments are expected to do, isn't it?

In time of crisis, though, things change quickly, what's planned doesn't work and people don't agree on the course of action, so one doesn't have to believe in conspiratorial plots to explain mixed signals and conflicting messages.

If I got a message saying we won't shoot if you let us peacefully reprovision the fort, I would let you peacefully reposition the fort. If I knew that you had some contingency plan to use force if peaceful means didn't work, that might make more inclined to let you peacefully reprovision the fort. I would actually expect you to have some contingency plan and wouldn't take it as something untoward or underhanded.

It is pretty apparent that had the Confederates ignored the hostile force in their midst and just went about trading with Europe while ignoring the Union, they would have likely made their secession a fait accompli.

Who's naive now? War would probably have broken out in short order - over the territories, over the border states, over the District of Columbia, over border raiders, or Southern unionists, or secessionist violence. The mood at the time was militant, not peacefully commercial.

Nobody in the North wanted a war, and nobody in the South wanted one either.

Naive again. What about Edmund Ruffin and Louis Wigfall, secessionist propagandists and politicians who gleefully joined in the firing on Sumter? There was talk of Revolution in Charleston and 1860, and when people talk of Revolution, violence and war usually follow.

However, I did just find out that William Yancey, another very vocal and passionate secessionists, proposed that all military bases be returned to the Union if they would let the South go. That's an indication that things weren't as simple and overdetermined and one-track as you and Davis thought they were. There were other options.

>>Kalamata wrote: "The Confederacy was a foreign nation when Lincoln invaded, and could not possibly have committed insurrection or rebellion."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "To my knowledge no US legal body has ever recognized Confederate secession as legitimate. Your argument is rejected."

It appears Joey is in bed with judicial activists. The only way a Supreme Court judge could not recognize the right of secession by a state would be to make spurious claims about the Constitution, as is the case with all judicial activism. A strict construction shows no power over secession authorized to the federal government, and no prohibition to the states. Therefore, that power belongs exclusively to the several states.

This is not rocket science, but it is not ideology or imagination, either. The written Constitution is the Supreme Law, not the opinions of 5 politically-appointed lawyers, as the progressives promote.

****************

>>Kalamata wrote: "As usual, Joey is glossing over Lincoln's tyranny."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Just like today's Democrats Mr. Olive knows he can't re-assassinate Republican President Lincoln, he can't even impeach Lincoln, all Democrats like Dan-bo can do is muddy up a Republican President with laughable accusations, but why?"

Spoken like a true progressive. You ask why we wish to give Lincoln his proper hanging? To restore our nation to the free republic state that existed prior to Lincoln. In those days, prior to Lincoln, a strong and honorable President could tell a meddlesome tyrant like John Marshall to pound sand.

****************

>>BroJoeK wrote: "Well, if we take today's Democrats as following the same template, then the answer is obvious -- today we have the most successful Republican president (since who? Reagan? Coolidge? TR? Grant?) and Republican success reduces Democrats to irrelevancy."

And, we are still saddled with over $200 trillion in debt because of progressives, like you, and the legacy of an uncontrollable government inherited from Lincoln.

****************

>>BroJoeK wrote: "Republican success exposes Democrat uselessness and risks for them mass desertions of core constituencies -- white women, black men, Hispanics, blue collar workers, etc. So, if you are a Democrat leader faced with existential threats from Republican successes, how do you hold onto your base?"

It is not the ballots that counts, but who counts the ballots. Ask your bud, Soros. He will explain how it works.

****************

>>BroJoeK wrote: "Obviously, you dirty up Republicans as much as you possibly can, with accusations however exaggerated, however ridiculous & false, it doesn't matter, just keep the accusations flowing."

Lincoln and the revisionist, progressive historians -- those who pretend Lincoln was a republican -- have dirtied up the republican name.

However, there is hope. We have a tremendous advocate in the White House against crony capitalism; plus the natural Jeffersonian Republican spirit is rising up more and more in the populace. In modern times, States have already threatened and actually nullified a couple of unconstitutional laws. It would have been much nicer if the nullifications were for gun laws, rather than medical marijuana, but it is a good start.

****************

>>BroJoeK wrote: "So today we see yet another generation of young Democrats being taught that their Republican president is... well... the devil -- a tyrant, a dictator, a Nazi, a racist, sexist, homophobe, whatever dirt they can throw to distract attention from a genuine Republican doing what all Republicans promise to do but only seldom accomplish."

Those teachers would be the Lincolnites, who control almost every aspect of our children's history education. Did you happen to catch the article by Foner on President Trump? Here it is again:

Eric Foner: White Nationalists, Neo-Confederates, and Donald Trump

****************

>>BroJoeK wrote: "As a child, young Dan-bo was abused by Democrats who filled his little mind with lies, nonsense & hatreds just as they do today with yet another innocent young generation."

Child.

****************

>>Kalamata wrote: "In April of 1861, Lincoln found a previously unknown presidential power to suspend habeas corpus, which he then used to arrest and imprison anyone who opposed his political theory and ambitions, with particular animosity toward those who expressed support for the original construction of the U. S. Constitution."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "That's total nonsense."

My statement is an absolute fact! But you are welcome to prove me wrong. None of your useless opinions, please. Facts, only.

****************

>>BroJoeK wrote: "The truth is, the US Constitution authorizes the Federal government to suspend habeas corpus "in cases of rebellion or insurrection" and there was no law or court ruling before Lincoln that such authority was restricted to Congress, even in emergencies."

That is 100% baloney! The U.S. Constitution authorizes ONLY the Congress to suspend habeas corpus. The same authorization was part of the Constitutional debates in the Federal Convention. The president (executive) was not mentioned:

"The privileges and benefit of the writ of habeas corpus shall be enjoyed in this government in the most expeditious and ample manner: and shall not be suspended by the Legislature except upon the most urgent and pressing occasions, and for a limited time not exceeding ? months." [Max Farrand, "The Records Of The Federal Convention Of 1787 Vol 02." 1911, p.334]

Joey's posts are always deceptive.

****************

>>BroJoeK wrote: "The truth is, those arrested were all pro-Confederates who had declared war against the United States Constitution, hoping to replace it with their own Confederate constitution."

The truth is, Lincoln usurped power from the Congress, who were the elected (House) and chosen (Senate) representatives of the states and the people, which is tyranny.

****************

>>Kalamata wrote: " Lincoln's politics had now become the Constitution of the United States, which included a new-found presidential power to charge with treason those who opposed his politics. The Lincoln Constitution of United States, debated and ratified by Abraham Lincoln the instant he was inaugurated, had become the Supreme Law of the Land in 1861.

For the record, Lincoln's usurpations -- his tyrannical acts -- read like a Hitler horror show. He arrested thousands, shut down numerous newspapers, interfered in elections and state legislative acts, and even arrested and deported an Ohio congressman. Nice guy.

****************

>>Kalamata wrote: "Fact: Lincoln formally declared war against the South on April 19, 1861 (less than a week after the Fort Sumter surrender) when he ordered the blockade of Southern ports. Fact: By blockading Southern ports, Lincoln was either admitting the Confederacy was a foreign power, or admitting to his own treason. Take your pick."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "And yet more cockamamie nonsense."

When Joey spouts off like that, you can be assured that he couldn't find anything in Wikipedia to contradict me, and he is too lazy to study history. Personally, I enjoy history, and I found this about the blockade:

"By a proclamation of April 19 Mr. Lincoln clamped a blockade on the ports of the seceded states, a measure hitherto regarded as contrary to both the Constitution and the law of nations except when the government was embroiled in a declared, foreign war. On April 20 he ordered a total of nineteen vessels to be added immediately to the Navy "for purposes of public defense," and a few days later the blockade was extended to the ports of Virginia and North Carolina." [Clinton Rossiter, "Constitutional Dictatorship: Crisis Government in the Modern Democracies." Princeton University Press, 1948, p.226]

No matter. With a few strokes of a pen, Lincoln rewrote the Constitution and the Laws of Nations in his own image.

By the way, you can count on Joey to pretend he knows more about Civil War history and political science than Professor Rossiter.

****************

>>BroJoeK wrote: "In fact, General Winfield Scott's "Anaconda Plan" had been prepared many years earlier as a standard response to potential rebellion."

Do you have a reference for the Anaconda Plan?

Speaking of General Scott, according to Edwin Stanton, Scott seemed to favor withdrawing the troops from Fort Sumter. Obviously, that advice, and the advice of others, was ignored by Lincoln, and a million died:

"I am perfectly satisfied that Major Anderson will be withdrawn. Scott agrees with Anderson as to the force required to relieve Sumter, and evidently favors withdrawal of the troops. The same thing will no doubt be done in respect to Fort Pickens. The Montgomery Commissioners have not yet applied for an audience. Various conjectures are made in respect to whether they will be received. I am also convinced by the general tone prevailing here that there is not the least design to attempt any coercive measure. A continuation of your policy to avoid collision will be the course of the present administration." [From Edwin M. Stanton to James Buchanan, Washington, Sunday, 10 March, 1861, in John Bassett Moore, "The Works of James Buchanan Vol 11." J. B. Lippencott & Co., 1910, pp.163-164]

Your dogmatic proclamations are getting annoying, Joey. How about some references?

Mr. Kalamata

Once again you remind me why discussion with you is pointless. I shudder to think at what you must have been like in your youth.

I thought you didn't want to debate me? You specifically asked me not to ping you in my replies?

That was before you wrote something so breathtakingly ignorant that I felt like I had to respond.

Philip Foner was pre-revisionism, so he is far more likely to have relied on actual source material from that day, than ideology.

Revisionism was in its heyday in Philip Foner's youth. Revisionism was the attempt to deny the role of slavery in provoking the Civil War.

"By the last week in March, the vast majority of New York business men saw clearly that it was no longer an issue involving "vagabond negroes" or a "patch of territory." The war of the tariffs had cleared away the clouds of confusion, and in so doing, it brought home to each business man the real issue in the crisis. Lincoln had put his finger on the issue when he said in his inaugural address that "physically speaking," the North and South could not separate, and that no "impassable wall" could be erected between the sections. No merchant could sit by idly and watch the South destroy a business system which had been built up over so many years. It was no longer an issue, for him, of slavery, states' rights, nullification or secession. "It is now a question of national existence and commercial prosperity," wrote August Belmont, who had hitherto championed the cause of peaceful separation, "and the choice cannot be doubtful." Or, as Henry J. Raymond put it:"

"There is no class of men in this country who have so large a stake in sustaining the Government, whose prosperity depends so completely upon its being upheld against all enemies, and who have so much to lose by its overthrow as the merchants of this city."

"Though there were no mass meetings and no memorials to indicate it, there was much evidence by the end of March to prove that the merchants had finally grasped the significance of Raymond's remarks, and were prepared to support a decisive policy toward the South, regardless of the consequences."

You have quoted someone who was not only a Communist and a plagiarist but also a liar. August Belmont wrote those words in a letter at the end of May 1861, after war had already begun, and Foner uses his words to describe the mood of March 1861 before the war had begun. That is exactly what historians are not supposed to do. Raymond's quote came earlier, but as I understand it, he was not writing in support of coercion, but in opposition to those who were sending arms to the South. And Raymond was speaking to the merchant class, not for them. His editorials counseled firmness, but he wasn't calling for war.

"The New York Times wrote in March 1861 that the North should "destroy its commerce, and bring utter ruin on the Confederate states," and this was before the bombardment at Fort Sumter."

I haven't been able to find that quotation, but I believe from previous discussions that it was a hypothetical - something that could be done - not a definite recommendation of what should or must be done.

Our complaint is not who is writing the history, but how it is being manipulated for political purposes. You chose the manipulators – I have chosen the straight-shooters.

I said that the fact that these ideas came from a Marxist or from progressives or from Lost Cause revisionists didn't in itself mean that they were wrong, but the fact that a Communist and plagiarist worked out these theories might make you think twice about adopting them. But when a lying Communist plagiarist tells you what you want to hear, that's fine with you.

He wrote crazy stuff like this

Jaffa's comment makes sense. Yours is irrelevant gibberish. You don't engage the points he's making.

The doctrine of Hamilton and his disciples -- especially Lincoln, and his hero, Henry Clay -- are the bane of American civilization.

We have survived and prospered because we got beyond a simple plantation economy. Whatever it is that you are promoting, it has little to do with actual American civilization.

Hamilton was a statist: one who believed in a strong central government, rather than a representative republic of smaller States banded together under a legal compact.

Hamilton wanted a government that was strong enough to defend itself against foreign interference. He did not oppose representative republican government or the union of states under a federal government. Hamilton and Jefferson traded insults and portrayed each other in crude, exaggerated terms. There's no reason why we have to accept such oversimplifications today.

Your wrong about nobody wanted war in the north. Here is the resolution passed by true New York legislature pledging any money or men the federal government might need to put down the rebellion. This was before the firing on Fort Sumter.

ANTI-SECESSION RESOLUTIONS OF THE NEW YORK LEGISLATURE
Passed by the New York State Assembly, 11 January 1861

Whereas, The insurgent State of South Carolina, after seizing the Post-offices, Custom-House, moneys and fortifications of the Federal Government, has, by firing into a vessel ordered by the Government to convey troops and provisions to Fort Sumter, virtually declared war; and

Whereas, The forts and property of the United States Government in Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana have been unlawfully seized, with hostile intentions; and

Whereas, Their Senators in Congress avow and maintain their treasonable acts; therefore,

Resolved, (if the Senate concur,) That the Legislature of New York is profoundly impressed with the value of the Union, and determined to preserve it unimpaired; that it greets with joy the recent firm, dignified and patriotic Special Message of the President of the United States, and that we tender to him through the Chief Magistrate of our own State, whatever aid in men and money may be required to enable him to enforce the laws and uphold the authority of the Federal Government; and that, in the defence of the Union, which has conferred prosperity and happiness upon the American people, renewing the pledge given and redeemed by our fathers, we are ready to devote our fortunes, our lives, and our sacred honor.

Resolved, (if the Senate concur,) That the Union-loving citizens and representatives of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee, who labor with devoted courage and patriotism to withhold their States from the vortex of secession, are entitled to the gratitude and admiration of the whole people.

Resolved, (if the Senate concur,) That the Government be respectfully requested to forward, forthwith, copies of the foregoing resolutions to the President of the Nation, and the Governors of all the States of the Union.

Here is the cover letter for the constitution when it was delivered to congress. It clearly show that the constitutional founding fathers wanted a consolidated union, and thought of themselves, and the rest of the inhabitants of this country, as Americans.

Letter of the President of the Federal Convention, Dated September 17, 1787, to the President of Congress, Transmitting the Constitution.

In Convention, September 17, 1787.

Sir,

We have now the honor to submit to the consideration of the United States in Congress assembled, that Constitution which has appeared to us the most adviseable.

The friends of our country have long seen and desired, that the power of making war, peace, and treaties, that of levying money and regulating commerce, and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities should be fully and effectually vested in the general government of the Union: But the impropriety of delegating such extensive trust to one body of men is evident-Hence results the necessity of a different organization.

It is obviously impracticable in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all: Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest.The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be reserved; and on the present occasion this difficulty was encreased by a difference among the several states as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests.

In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds, led each state in the Convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude, than might have been otherwise expected; and thus the Constitution, which we now present, is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensible.

That it will meet the full and entire approbation of every state is not perhaps to be expected; but each will doubtless consider, that had her interest been alone consulted, the consequences might have been particularly disagreeable or injurious to others; that it is liable to as few exceptions as could reasonably have been expected, we hope and believe; that it may promote the lasting welfare of that country so dear to us all, and secure her freedom and happiness, is our most ardent wish.

With great respect, We have the honor to be,Sir,Your Excellency's most obedient and humble servants,

GEORGE WASHINGTON, President.

By unanimous Order of the Convention.

His Excellency the PRESIDENT of CONGRESS.

This action was only authorized if the Charleston forces resisted the landing of provisions (only) to the fort.

And what was the probability that they would be resisted?

Porter makes the comment “Powhatan could not have reached Charleston in time to be of any use”

...

She could easily have been in place of the entrance to Charleston harbor to participate in that operation.

If you read further into his accounts of the situation, he said they intended to rely on the small boats carried by the Powhatan, and that this wouldn't have worked anyways because none of the Powhatan's boats were usable. They were all in a terrible state of disrepair and would sink if put into the water.

He is justifying what he did. He is rationalizing, or perhaps seeking to divert attention from what he was ordered to do. Again, he never released a copy of Lincoln's secret orders to him.

quoting BJK: "To my knowledge no US legal body has ever recognized Confederate secession as legitimate."

DiogenesLamp: "But they recognized Abortion on demand as being a right, and so overturned all the laws in all the states which made it illegal..."

Right, there's no doubt that the old Democrat party of nullification, secession, civil war & segregation is now the party of Big Government "free stuff", abortion, open borders, anti-religion and a long list of other insanities.

The difference is that after the long-delayed demise of Democrat Chief Justice Crazy Roger Taney, nobody took Democrat nonsense seriously, while today, a good many still do.

You are dodging the point. The point is that Court rulings are not proof of anything because often times the Courts are ran by kooks.

A court that makes abortion legal under a 14th amendment pretense is not qualified to "rule" on anything.

Ask that question to Jefferson Davis, he is the one to make that decision.

Where does Porter he discuss receiving secret orders from Lincoln. Other than the three orders he drafted for Lincoln’s signature.

Finishing up with Kalamata's lengthy post #645:
I should note here again, having examined Kalamata's opinions at length, my "theory of the crime" on them is that as a young boy Kalamata was abused, politically, by Democrats, just as today millions of children are being abused by Democrats -- taught to believe lies about their Republican president, that he is pretty much every bad name you can think of.

And the Dan-child was taught not just what to lie about, but also how to lie.
For example, consider our Founders' debates over "internal improvements" -- out of power Jefferson opposed Federalist plans on grounds of "strict construction" and then President Jefferson's own plans were opposed by Federalists on those same grounds.
Most people would shrug & say: "that's politics for you", but Kalamata uses this debate to label one particular Jeffersonian Democrat (later Whig) a "tyrant" among other things, for proposing, in effect, to make America great by putting Americans first.

As President Trump often says, Democrats are vicious and horrible.
I think it's because they were abused as children politically.

Anyway...

Kalamata on the 1861 arrest of Maryland legislators: "Now we are getting somewhere.
Obviously those legislators, who had sworn an oath to the U.S. Constitution, were not aware it had been superseded by the new Lincoln Constitution, written by the devil himself.
Did Joey mention that U.S. Congressman Henry May was also arrested?
How about the mayor of Baltimore?
How about newspaper editors and publishers?"

The truth is that after Confederates formally declared war on the United States, May 6, 1861, any Union citizens who "adhered" to Confederates, "giving them aid and comfort", were guilty of treason and properly arrested for it.

Kalamata: "Joey's numbers are always deceptive."

My numbers are always as accurate as I can make them.
By "deceptive" Dan-bo only means he doesn't like what they imply.

Kalamata: "Maryland supported the right of the secessionists; and if Maryland had been allowed to exercise their natural and Constitutional right to secede, rather than being oppressed by Lincoln's thuggery, those numbers would have been reversed, and moreso, providing Joey's numbers are accurate in the first place, which is always in doubt."

Here are the numbers for Maryland Confederate soldiers:

It has been estimated that

About 4,000 Marylanders served in Confederate units.

Here are the numbers for Maryland Union troops:

Roughly 38,000 Maryland whites plus another 9,000 African Americans served the Union military.

So the old Maryland ratio of two-to-one Union vs. Confederate soldiers is more accurately reported as about 10 to one.
Compare this to Bull Snipe's post #1,483 where he shows the number of Union regiments (~34) versus Confederate (~4) could also justify a 10 to one ratio, given that Union regiments were typically bigger than Confederates.

Kalamata: "Like all devout progressives, Joey treats the Constitution like a McDonald's Menu, when he is not using it for toilet paper."

Like all Democrat propagandists, our Dan-child hyperbolizes his feeeeeeeeeeelings until there's no connection between his words and actual reality.
Politically abused children become abusive adults.

Kalamata quoting Madison: "The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect."

Kalamata: "Madison states that usurpations or abuses of power JUSTLY have the same effect as the consent of the other parties."

Right, I have posted that quote innumerable times on these threads, always with the note that neither mutual consent nor abuses & usurpations existed in 1860.
Neither Madison nor any other Founder ever said that Federal tariff rates were matters that could justify unilateral secession.

Kalamata: "Therefore, when Lincoln usurped powers from the states, he effectively gave consent to secession by those whose powers were being usurped."

Lincoln held no public office when seven states unilaterally declared secession & Confederacy, at pleasure.
After Fort Sumter, four more states used Lincoln's actions as their excuse to declare secession, Confederacy and war against the United States.
Every other state, including slave-states remained in the Union and helped defeat the military forces attempting to destroy the United States.

Kalamata: "So much for crazy-Lincoln's "Union of the whole people" deception."

In his post #1,512 OIFVeteran quotes a 1787 letter from George Washington to the president of congress explaining that his new Constitution did indeed seek to consolidate the states into a nation.
So obviously, there is a range of interpretations of our Founders' Original Intent possible.

Kalamata: "A quarter-century of one-sided protective tariffs that transferred vast amounts of wealth from the South to the North, which was then used for corrupt, crony-capitalist infrastructure projects – IN THE NORTH – could not be considered by any sane person as a light and transient cause!
So, what was the remedy?"

As a typical Democrat, our Dan-child hyperbolizes minor differences in tariff rates into some grandiose justification for secession.
Of course tariffs were a "light and transient cause" and the proof of that is most Southerners were happy with the tariff rates of 1857, and even of the higher rates of 1846.
The rest of that nonsense about "transferring vast wealth from South to North" is sheer political fantasy.

Kalamata: "Like I said, it was not only the right of the states to secede, but their DUTY!
It is not rocket science, Joey, but a concept difficult to grasp by those wired to be bullies."

Says our own Dan-bo, who was trained from childhood to mock & bully the truth with ludicrous Democrat propaganda.

Here's the real truth: in 1856 Southern Fire Eaters threatened secession if "Black Republican" John C. Fremont were elected president -- not because of tariffs or any other alleged nonsensical reason, but because of the threat Republicans represented to slavery.
In 1856 Fremont lost, Democrat Buchanan won.
In 1860 Fire Eaters again threatened secession if "Black Republican" Lincoln was elected, not because of tariffs or anything else, but because of the threat Republican Lincoln represented to slavery.

The day after Lincoln's election in November 1860, Fire Eaters began organizing secession, Confederacy, rebellion and war against the United States -- mainly because, they said, of Republicans' threat to slavery.

Ask that question to Jefferson Davis, he is the one to make that decision.

Pinning the blame for it on someone is not answering the question as to probability of resistance.

The probability of resistance was hovering around 100% and everyone involved in the affair knew fully well that resistance would be forthcoming, so the orders simply default to using force.

Lincoln knew there would be resistance. Gustav Fox knew there would be resistance. Anderson knew there would be resistance. There wasn't a single man on either side who believed there wouldn't be any resistance.