Posted on 09/24/2012 11:57:08 AM PDT by iowamark
Countless school children have been taught that Abraham Lincoln was the Great Emancipator. Others have been taught — and many have concluded — that the Emancipation Proclamation, which Abraham Lincoln announced on Sept. 22, 1862, has been overemphasized, that it was inefficacious, a sham, that Lincoln’s motivations were somehow unworthy, that slavery was ended by other ways and means, and that slavery was on the way out in any case.
The truth is that Lincoln’s proclamation was an exercise in risk, a huge gamble by a leader who sought to be — and who became — America’s great liberator.
Since before his election in 1860, Lincoln and his fellow Republicans had vowed to keep slavery from spreading. The leaders of the slave states refused to go along. When Lincoln was elected and his party took control of Congress, the leaders of most of the slave states turned to secession rather than allow the existing bloc of slave states to be outnumbered.
The Union, divided from the Confederacy, was also divided itself. Many Democrats who fought to stop secession blamed Republicans for pushing the slave states over the brink; some were open supporters of slavery. And if the Democrats were to capture control of Congress in the mid-term elections of November 1862, there was no telling what the consequences might be for the Republicans’ anti-slavery policies.
The Emancipation Proclamation wasn’t always part of the plan. Republicans, Lincoln included, tried push their anti-slavery program by measured degrees, since they feared a white supremacist backlash. That was what made Lincoln’s decision to issue an emancipation edict, and to do it before the mid-term congressional elections of 1862, so extraordinarily risky...
After Lee’s invasion of Maryland was stopped in the battle of Antietam on Sept. 17, Lincoln made up his mind to go ahead...
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Early on, Lincoln had unilaterally decided to arrange hostile events at the forts. He had communicated this intention to the military several months before his inauguration.
After taking office, he introduced to his cabinet the idea of armed reinforcement of Ft. Sumter, and asked for suggestions. All were opposed to a greater or lesser degree except his Postmaster General, who brought in a retired naval lieutenant familiar with Ft. Sumter to help Lincoln formulate a way to provoke hostilities.
His cabinet was against the action, but Lincoln persisted and finally got tepid approval from some of the cabinet members.
Lincoln wanted the naval expedition to be a secret. He had no funds to pay for the outfitting or rental of civilian ships for part of the action, so he sent Seward to take money ($10,000) from the State Department safe to give to the civilian naval officer to pay New York outfitters and ship owners.
Early in April, Lincoln ordered the fleet to sail South, some with the names of the ships painted black.
In your description, you used the term “supply train”. There was no such proposal or act.
Also, you mentioned a letter to Anderson asking him to hold out for one day. That is also not true. There is no such item in either the Confederate or Union historical papers or accounts.
The bottom line is that Lincoln, without Congressional authority, arranged and initiated a secret military invasion of Charleston harbor, designed to evoke a military response. In the process of attacking the area, without permission, and causing a blockade of an open port, he started a war that proved to be the worst event in this country's history.
Perhaps your friend, because of his cultural values, saw this as genius, but only in the sense of a political leader that falsely believed in his supreme right to carry out efforts of one section of the country to invade, destroy, and kill the other.
The point remains, would we have insisted the British Leave an occupied American Fort? If you don't think the Founders would have tolerated it, why should you think anyone else should tolerate it?
They also gave up Castle Pinkney and the Charelston Armory and for the same reason; none of those three were defensible. Sumter was.
Apparently it wasn't. They surrendered it, if you will remember. But the point remains, why should you need to defend a Fort that is not in your own country?
But it was our property and was in our own country.
I would like to think that if the Founding Fathers chose to initiate a war with Britain over Ticonderoga they would have done it for a reason more substantial than 'just a matter of pride.' Several hundred thousand dead seems like a high price to pay for something as petty as that.
Apparently it wasn't. They surrendered it, if you will remember. But the point remains, why should you need to defend a Fort that is not in your own country?
From the viewpoint of Anderson and his men, the fort was in their own country.
most folks see with that which they are looking...
Semper Watching!
*****
I think your friend is mistaken. Lincoln did send a letter to the governor of South Carolina informing him that he was sending supplies by ship but he didn't specify a date.
My friend said that at this same time, Lincoln dispatched a letter to the commander of Fort Sumter informing him that he would soon be attacked by the Confederates, and that he was to take all steps to reduce loss of life, hold the Fort for one day, and then surrender it, which is exactly what happened.
On April 4th Lincoln sent a letter to Major Anderson telling him that the resupply effort was underway and that he hoped Anderson could hold out till the 11th or 12th. Lincoln also stated:
"It is not, however, the intention of the President to subject your command to any danger or hardship beyond what, in your judgment, would be usual in military life; and he has entire confidence that you will act as becomes a patriot and a soldier under all circumstances.
Whenever, if at all, in your judgment, to save yourself and command, a capitulation becomes a necessity, you are authorized to make it."
Lincoln at no time specified how long he wanted Anderson to hold out should an attack by the Confederates occur.
The Confederates did attack the Fort with cannon fire, yet no one was killed as a result of it. (Were they really aiming to kill anyone, or just making noise?)
Pictures taken of Sumter following the Confederate attack show quite a bit of damage. I have no doubt that the intent of the attack was to cause casualties, and it is only good fortune that nobody was killed during the bombardment.
Guantanamo, the Panama Canal Zone, Pearl Harbor, Wake Island, West Berlin? Gibraltar, Singapore, Hong Kong, the Falklands?
And of course, for the men in the fort and millions more back home, Charleston was still a part of our country.
But beyond that, you're defending stupidity and viciousness.
Someone who ever truly thought of himself as an American, as a citizen of the United States, wouldn't be such a bastard towards what was or his own country.
Someone who still had pleasant memories of what it meant to be an American wouldn't back what was or had been one's own country into a corner.
I'm not talking about you here or anybody else alive today. When I say "somebody," I'm referring to the rebel leaders of the 1860s.
But of course, those were crazy times and they brought out the craziness, and the sheer cussedness in people. To have acted thoughtfully and with restraint would have been difficult for those in power. But to make that kind of savage stupidity the norm would be a mistake.
And then you lost about of a quarter of your white population when the Western counties with few if any slaves told the tidewater Virginia slavocrats to go to hell.
Almost heaven, West Virginia. They were never part of the slave empire and those Hillbillys never much cared for the phony aristrocrats like Bobby Lee in the first place. ;~))
I cannot speak to the rest of your comment because you mention things of which I have no knowledge, but I am pretty certain that I have the supply train letter correct. It has been a very long time since I have looked at this issue, but at the time I was doing research I found corroboration for Lincoln having sent a letter to the Confederates informing them of an overground supply train to the Fort.
As for the letter to the Fort, I have not been able to corroborate that, but that doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen. I recall my friend being very insistent on that point, so I doubt I remembered it wrongly. Apparently he saw evidence for it that I have yet to discover.
In any case, it is my understanding that the Nation accepted Southern Secession as a fait accompli, and made no bones over it. It was only Lincoln, who faced the humiliation of being the President who presided over the division of the Nation that was loath to accept what was then the status quo.
Ah, I think i've found them.
Abraham Lincoln to General Anderson:April 4, 1861
SIR: Your letter of the 1st instant occasions some anxiety to the president. On the information of Captain Fox, he had supposed you could hold out till the 15th instant without any great inconvenience and had prepared an expedition to relieve you before that period.Hoping still that you will be able to sustain yourself till the 11th or 12th instant, the expedition will go forward, and, finding your flag flying, will attempt to provision you, and in case the effort is resisted, will endeavor also to reinforce you.
You will therefore hold out, if possible, till the arrival of the expedition.
It is not, however, the intention of the President to subject your command to any danger or hardship beyond what, in your judgment, would be usual in military life; and he has entire confidence that you will act as becomes a patriot and a soldier under all circumstances.
Whenever, if at all, in your judgment, to save yourself and command, a capitulation becomes a necessity, you are authorized to make it.
And:
Abraham Lincoln to Robert Chew: April 6, 1861
SIR: You will proceed directly to Charleston, South Carolina, and if, on your arrival there, the flag of the United States shall be flying over Fort Sumter and the fort shall not have been attacked, you will procure an interview with Governor Pickens, and read to him as follows: "I am directed by the President of the United States to notify you to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only; and that, if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the fort."After you shall have read this to Governor Pickens, deliver to him the copy of it herein enclosed, and retain this letter yourself.
But if, on your arrival at Charleston, you shall ascertain that Fort Sumter shall have been already evacuated, or surrendered by the United States force, or shall have been attacked by an opposing force, you will seek no interview with Governor Pickens, but return here forthwith.
Pretty much what my friend said, but with a few details not quite right.
Just what the British thought as well.
A work that can only deserve praise from people totally ignorant of history or who like the Marxist left seek to distort history just to serve their cause.
Thomas DeLIErenzo is not a figure to recommend. He's a piece of crap who cashes in on the gullible. He took out of context quotes to a level even Gore Vidal could not imagine.
You need to study history more. In the beginning, no one thought it would ever grow so large. Both sides thought they would do a little ass slapping, and that would be that. Each one underestimated the resolve of the other. The Confederates had already taken over many other forts, yet none of these were regarded as a Casus belli. Lincoln himself was of a divided mind as to whether he should relinquish the two remaining forts, and went so far as to poll his cabinet regarding what he should do.
It was a real possibility that Lincoln could have simply turned over the keys and walked away from this conflict. I don't know that History would have turned out better had he done so, but I'm pretty sure it would have saved over 600,000 lives.
From the viewpoint of Anderson and his men, the fort was in their own country.
When we broke from the British we sent them a Declaration of Independence. At that point, what was formerly the property of the crown, became the property of the United States. Do you want to claim that it remained British Property?
How so? Capitalism had its greatest expansion in the 40 years after Lincolns presidency. More people were lifted from poverty without an iota of government assistance than at any time in history.
It was not until the progressive era under Teddy Roosevelt and then under Woodrow Wilson that we saw the expansion of Federal power emerging followed by the growth of the federal dependent class.
How was Lincoln responsible for any of that?
You are correct, I didn't see that either, but of course I was relying on an anecdote told me by a friend who was outlining events in terms of Lincoln's cleverness at getting the Confederates to shoot first.
Pictures taken of Sumter following the Confederate attack show quite a bit of damage. I have no doubt that the intent of the attack was to cause casualties, and it is only good fortune that nobody was killed during the bombardment.
I doubt they would have bothered taking pictures of the parts of the fort that was undamaged. As to the gunners intentionally aiming to avoid killing anyone, that was just speculation on my part due to the circumstance that no one was actually killed during the shelling of the Fort. From what I've just read, it was something like 3,000 shells fired at Fort Sumter. At the link listed above, is letters from General Beauregard to Major Anderson informing him that he didn't really want to blow anyone to pieces.
Second letter from Beauregard to Anderson, April 11.
Major: In consequence of the verbal observation made by you to my aides, Messrs. Chesnut and Lee, in relation to the condition of your supplies, and that you would in a few days be starved out if our guns did not batter you to pieces, or words to that effect, and desiring no useless effusion of blood, I communicated both the verbal observations and your written answer to my communications to my Government.
I may be mistaken, but I don't think the Confederates really wanted to kill anybody.
So their miscalculation lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands. But their underlying reason for the attack, according to your earlier post, was 'just a matter of pride'. Six dead or six hundred thousand dead, it's still a petty reason for going to war.
It was a real possibility that Lincoln could have simply turned over the keys and walked away from this conflict. I don't know that History would have turned out better had he done so, but I'm pretty sure it would have saved over 600,000 lives.
He could have. But all those lives could also have been spared if Davis didn't choose to bombard the fort. It is just as valid to blame him for the war, perhaps more so.
When we broke from the British we sent them a Declaration of Independence. At that point, what was formerly the property of the crown, became the property of the United States. Do you want to claim that it remained British Property?
Actually we broke well over a year before the Declaration of Independence. And the Founding Fathers recognized that they would have to fight for what they wanted. They didn't expect the British just to turn over property that didn't belong to them. Why did Davis?
“Aren’t you forgetting that whole ‘attack on Fort Sumter’ thing?”
You mean that thing that killed zero people. That thing which in itself in no way justified calling for 70,000 troops nor blockading Southern ports.
You know, there’s a reason people justify the war via slavery or by inventing a plot to invade the North. Because “they shot up our fort” just leads to questioning whether it wad worth it.
Plus, it’s a lie. Not to say that it wasn’t an act of war, but the war we got was not a war you fight to get back at someone tor shelling a tory. It was a war of conquest, not a war of wrist slapping.
None of these forts you mention represents a comparable analogy. Name a fort occupied by Americans in Canada or Mexico. That would be a lot closer to the same circumstance.
And of course, for the men in the fort and millions more back home, Charleston was still a part of our country.
Just as the Colonies were still part of Britain.
But beyond that, you're defending stupidity and viciousness.
So are you, you just don't realize it. What's more, it's the stupidity and viciousness which YOU are defending that is causing us problems today. Don't think the precedent which Lincoln set has not come back to bite us.
Suspension of Habeas Corpus? Arresting the legislature of Maryland? Forced Impressment of Immigrants into the army? Suppression of protesters with military force in New York and Chicago? The Establishment of the Federal Uber alles philosophy of Government? Lincoln was even going to let them keep slavery if they would simply quit fighting! How's that for a principled stance?
Lincoln was a very closer flirtation with a dictatorship. Many people simply do not recognize how close we came, and how his actions set the stage for future abuses.
Someone who still had pleasant memories of what it meant to be an American wouldn't back what was or had been one's own country into a corner.
I'm not talking about you here or anybody else alive today. When I say "somebody," I'm referring to the rebel leaders of the 1860s.
Or the Founders of 1776. I think they answered with this.
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Somehow those Confederates got the notion that they were entitled to independence from a government in which they no longer believed. They must have been reading seditious literature from about four score years in the past.
But of course, those were crazy times and they brought out the craziness, and the sheer cussedness in people. To have acted thoughtfully and with restraint would have been difficult for those in power. But to make that kind of savage stupidity the norm would be a mistake.
The Civil war was a great Tragedy. We are not shed of it's consequences yet. A lot of people felt that the bloodshed was the just wages of slavery. Perhaps it could not have been eradicated in any other way, but it seems such a loss to have had it play out the way it did. The Federal legacy from it is now oppressing us today.
“I would attack someone who wouldn’t leave my property too”
Something that always irks me about “first shot” arguments is that they are taken to mean whoever is responsible deserves what they get. But not all casus belli are created equal. You are allowed to fight for recompense for stolen or damaged goods, and also to punish wrongdoing. But of course conquering and forcing submission under the Constitution forevermore is not just punishment for Ft. Sumter.
It wasn’t meant to be, anyway. The Civil War was fought on the pretext that the Confederacy was a conspiracy of treason against the just laws of the federal government, and that all participants and sympathizers were insurrectionists. Ft. Sumter was merely a symbol for the pretended that the North was in some kind of danger. Which is a lie. The blessed union was in danger, but not whatever would have been left of the union had the South gone in peace.
For as long as it suited their purposes and for as long as they could hold on to it. Are you claiming "might makes right"? because that is a POV that most Lost Causers view with disdain.
Your attempt to equate Ticonderoga with Sumter fails the sniff test. Sumters ownership was never in question right up until the rebels seized it. Although built within the boundary lines of the state of South Carolina it was ceded to the United States government in perpetuity. It was never legally the property of anyone except the USA.
Post Hoc ergo propter hoc. To go into a detailed explanation of how Lincoln set the stage for Subsequent Federal power grabs would be enjoyable, but it would take a lot of messages in and of itself. Not sure I want to get into it in this thread. I find it hard to understand why I would need to explain it.
It was not until the progressive era under Teddy Roosevelt and then under Woodrow Wilson that we saw the expansion of Federal power emerging followed by the growth of the federal dependent class.
How was Lincoln responsible for any of that?
He was the beginning of the Imperial Presidency, and of Federal Supremacy. He was the first to violate or ignore constitutional law to get what he wanted. He demonstrated that a President does not have to be constrained. He used Federal power as a club, and Others (Roosevelt, Wilson, etc) followed the path he blazed.
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.