I'm not so sure about that. Now, he didn't go out and sing the praises of all pro-compromise northerners like Seward, but his speeches seem to direct their expressions of frustration against those within the Sumner faction. If I remember correctly, one of his main speeches names the culprits by name and they are all from the extremist crowd.
You want to blame Republican "radicals" for the failure of compromise. I think one could blame secessionist radicals and fire-eaters with at least as much justice.
No, not really and for three reasons. First, the secessionist radicals were at very minimum willing to look at and propose compromises in name. The northern radicals would have none of it. Second, the secessionists were not there for the last part of the session when all the key compromises were being voted on, and obstructed by the northerners. Third, the secessionists, even in all their provocative and sometimes inflamatory speeches, as a whole did not approach the level of vitriolic personal incivility against their opponents that was practiced daily by the northern radicals.
Secondly, once it was clear that some states would announce their secession, the wind went out of such compromise plans. Congress had to do something -- hence the Corwin Amendment -- but compromise became a much less compelling idea.
That does not seem to be the case among those who forwarded the Corwin amendment and other compromises during the late days of the session. The compromiser's speeches indicate a seeming belief that by acting they would genuinely save the union. Others believed they would be able to take the wind out of the sails of secession and make it a minimal conflict of a few weeks at most. Seward for example expressed this second belief in February 1861.
Compromise could have helped keep the Border and Upper South states in the Union, but "could" is the operative word.
Actually that was one of the hopes. In the end though, Lincoln's use of the military and arrests went much further than any compromise to achieving this end.
Third, one can't neglect the role of Davis and Toombs in killing the Crittenden compromise.
Davis and Toombs acted in committee to delay them then left before the Crittenden proposals ever came before Congress as a whole. Their actions did not kill the compromise as its planks were pushed on the senate floor after both men departed. In all cases of the Crittenden plan, it was either voted down or obstructed by the Sumner faction.
The failure of compromise, though, does indicate that Northerners were adapting to the idea of division. Before Sumter there was some sentiment on behalf of just letting the rebel states fall away. Had it not been for Davis's foolish assault on Sumter perhaps the country would have been peacefully divided
I don't believe so as The Lincoln wanted a war and was willing to provoke it, be it at Sumter in early April or elsewhere. From December to April his letters and correspondences are filled with messages to his military commanders directing them to draw up plans and preparations to take back all the forts in the south. He was already planning for military action to retake the abandoned Fort Moultrie back in December. By the time Sumter came about, The Lincoln had dispatched a naval fleet of warships to fight its way into the fort if the confederates would not let them in the harbor. That he would have simply sat there had Sumter not been fired on is highly unlikely.
Those who condemn Lincoln for not being wholly committed to abolition or racial equality
I do not condemn him per se for those views other than their separated moral error - only those who portray him as something he was not.
though, ought to feel some respect for Sumner and Stevens for sticking to their guns and not compromising with slavery.
No, as in "sticking to their guns" on the issue of one sin, they perpetrated a countless number of other sins seen directly in the brutality of the type of warfare they delivered as direct accomplices. They were hate filled and bitter men on whose hands the blood of thousands is stained.
"Senator Wiggletail's" exchanges with Seward don't confirm your construction, unless accusing Seward of inspiring arsonism in Texas is acceptable conduct. Even the Texas Sons of Confederate Veterans agree that he was no voice for compromise.
[T]he secessionist radicals were at very minimum willing to look at and propose compromises in name.
I don't know whether that's the case. I'd have to do more research. But it does seem to me that it's easier for those committed to the survival and expansion of slavery to propose "compromises" that ensured the survival and guarantee the expansion of slavery, and easier for those committed to secession to propose such "compromises" if they they know that such compromises will be found too repellent to the other side to be accepted, than it was for those opposed to the expansion of slavery to accept such compromises.
[T]he secessionists, even in all their provocative and sometimes inflamatory speeches, as a whole did not approach the level of vitriolic personal incivility against their opponents that was practiced daily by the northern radicals.
Again, I'd have to look into this more closely, but it's not my impression. It does reflect the way Southerners spoke about Northerners, but the example of Wigfall accusing the moderate Seward's ideas of inspiring arsonists doesn't give me much confidence in your interpretation. Nor does John Reagan's talk about a "government of mongrels." I'd have to look into things more closely, but what I have seen doesn't confirm your view, at least as far as that session of Congress is concerned.
That does not seem to be the case among those who forwarded the Corwin amendment and other compromises during the late days of the session. The compromiser's speeches indicate a seeming belief that by acting they would genuinely save the union. Others believed they would be able to take the wind out of the sails of secession and make it a minimal conflict of a few weeks at most. Seward for example expressed this second belief in February 1861.
If that's so it does indicate a greater willingness to compromise than you attributed to Republicans in your previous post. Though even the Corwin amendment, which went very far in securing the survival of slavery where it existed, was not enough to win over secessionists. But still, once part of the country had decided against the union, it couldn't have helped compromise efforts.
Lincoln wanted a war and was willing to provoke it, be it at Sumter in early April or elsewhere. From December to April his letters and correspondences are filled with messages to his military commanders directing them to draw up plans and preparations to take back all the forts in the south. He was already planning for military action to retake the abandoned Fort Moultrie back in December.
I am sure that there are those who know more about the situation who would dispute your claims. There is no record of a plan to retake Fort Moultrie in the standard edition of Lincoln's collected works. Indeed, as of December 21 Fort Moultrie was still in Union hands and General Scott recommended reinforcements. The fort was not evacuated until December 27. Understand too, that Lincoln was not even in office until March. In the standard edition, there is also this footnote relating to an earlier crisis: "President Jackson had caused reinforcements to be sent to Fort Moultrie and Charleston Harbor, and had remarked that he was not making war on South Carolina, but that if South Carolina attacked, she would be warring on the United States."
Bear in mind that we have papers from the Kennedy administration which consider the possibility of a nuclear first strike. That was never Kennedy's intention, but it was a possibility that he had to explore.
I do not condemn him per se for those views other than their separated moral error - only those who portray him as something he was not.
Your meaning is unclear, but your "morality" looks Clintonian. Hypocrisy is the chief sin. And the way to avoid condemnation on that account is not to make moral claims. In this case, though, the "hypocrisy" wasn't Lincoln's, but that of his admirers. Those who don't subscribe to Clintonesque morality will take people's actions into account and not attack them for expressing moral aspirations.
They were hate filled and bitter men on whose hands the blood of thousands is stained.
An excellent characterization of the fire-eaters and radical secessionists.
What a crock of crap.
Two words:
Preston Brooks.
Walt