Replies

"As I've said, you take the wildest leaps of speculation about Lincoln's motives and exclude any examination of Davis's".

I don't recall taking a wild leap of speculation.

I did provide some facts and some quotes. Do you deny that Lincoln, Fox, and underlings ordered Union troop ships to Charleston? Do you deny that they were armed and prepared for action?

Do you deny that this was not authorized by the Constitution?

Do you deny that the US Treasury was essentially broke when he took office?

Do you deny that Lincoln said, "what will become of my tariffs" on several occasions?

Do you deny that Davis sent peace commissioners?

Your original contention was that Davis was the one risking war: "Whether or not Lincoln wanted war, Davis clearly was willing to risk war to get what he wanted"

Now tell me, who was risking war? And once you have that answer, the next is ... how would he conceal his risk from the public?

In fact, just go ahead and say that Davis was taking the risks. And that the peace commissioner effort was a fake.
What else was he doing to cover himself?

Here is what I said: "I have watched your postings for a long time. You usually begin with a benign statement, then twist it using a number of fallacious constructs"

And lo and behold, here is what you said: "Earlier opinions based on the ability to hold on to Pickens no longer had any substance, and the tide turned in the direction of resupplying Sumter, which was certainly a less forceful or risky option than reinforcement or an armed expedition against Charleston."

And the tide turned in the direction of re-supplying Sumter. That is a prime example of your twisting the truth. From day one, Lincoln asked his cabinet how to hold onto the Fort. All stated that it would require troops and would start war. Fully documented. You would have the casual reader to believe that a resupply of Sumter was "less forceful or risky than an armed expedition."

x, that is precisely what it was, one and same. Your description states that there was a difference. You are limitless in your audacity.

And now you want to go into a lengthly examination of Baldwin's testimony. His testimony was not refuted in sworn testimony.

But let's give thanks to 4CJ for giving you the extra proof that knocks your contention to the floor.

You are being too devious by half.

Do you deny that Lincoln said, "what will become of my tariffs" on several occasions?

I do deny that he ever used those words. For what he might or might not have said about the matter, see my next post.

Davis sent Peace Commissioners to Washington to express his demands. His government also sent Secession Commissioners to other states to foment rebellion. He did the first in hopes that things would play out peacefully, but the second shows that he was also out for what he could get. He was using different means to cope with changing circumstances and it would have been foolish not to.

According to David Donald, on March 9, 1861, Lincoln put the idea of relieving the force on Fort Sumter. That was rejected, mostly because the US didn't have the troops to do so, and the conclusion seemed to be that the Fort should be evacuated. But that wasn't a hard and fast decision. Nor was the possibility of war the main reason for the choice. The US simply didn't have the resources at that time.

What I don't think you see is how things change from day to day and week to week in a crisis, and how leaders try to reconcile different goals -- maintaining peace, for example, with making a firm stand, and preventing a collapse of morale. You apparently want to see some dark plan, where I see changing circumstances, uncertainty, and the desire to avoid being lost in the shifting tides of events. I don't know how old you are, or if you've ever had to live in uncertain or dangerous times (I haven't either, so it's not a slam), but if you ever do, you might have more of an idea of how things play out in times of national crisis.