Posted on 06/13/2005 6:08:24 AM PDT by sheltonmac
Everywhere you turn it seems there is a concerted effort to erase part of America's past by stamping out Confederate symbols. Why? Because no one wants to take the time to truly understand history. The general consensus is that Abraham Lincoln saved the Union and ushered in a new era of freedom by defeating the evil, slave-owning South. Therefore, Confederate symbols have no place in an enlightened society. Most of this anti-Southern bigotry stems from an ignorance regarding the institution of slavery. Some people cannot grasp the fact that slavery was once a social reality in this country, and at the time of the War Between the States it was practiced in the North as well as the South. In fact, the slaveholding states of Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri remained in the Union during the war. It should also be pointed out that, in our history as an independent nation, slavery existed for 89 years under the U.S. flag (1776-1865) and for only four years under the Confederate flag (1861-1865). I have often wondered: If slavery is to be the standard by which all American historic symbols are judged, then why don't we hear more complaints about the unfurling of Old Glory? To begin to fully understand this volatile issue, it is important to keep a few things in mind. For example, Lincoln (a.k.a. the "Great Emancipator") was not an abolitionist. Anyone even remotely familiar with Lincoln's speeches and writings knows that freeing the slaves was never one of his primary objectives. In 1862, he said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery…" It wasn't until his war against the South seemed to be going badly for the North that slavery even became an issue for him. Contrary to popular belief, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was merely a public relations ploy. It was an attempt to turn an illegal, unconstitutional war into a humanitarian cause that would win over those who had originally been sympathetic to the South's right to secede. It was also meant to incite insurrection among the slaves as well as drive a wedge between the Confederacy and its European allies who did not want to be viewed as supporters of slavery. A note of interest is that the Proclamation specifically excluded all slaves in the North. Of course, to say that Lincoln had the power to end slavery with the stroke of a pen is to assign dictatorial powers to the presidency, allowing him to override Congress and the Supreme Court and usurp the Constitution--which he did anyway. Another thing to remember is that the Confederate states that had seceded were no longer bound by the laws of the United States. They were beyond Lincoln's jurisdiction because they were a sovereign nation. Even if they weren't--and most people today deny the South ever left the Union--their respective rights would still have been guaranteed under the Constitution (see the 10th Amendment), denying Lincoln any authority at all to single-handedly free the slaves. This is only reinforced by the fact that he did absolutely nothing to free those slaves that were already under U.S. control. Slavery had been around in the North for over two centuries, with the international slave trade, until it ended in the early 1800's, being controlled by New England. When abolition finally came to those states--mostly due to the growth of an industrial economy in a region where cooler climatic conditions limited the use of slaves in large-scale farming operations--Northern slaves were sold to plantation owners in the agrarian South. In essence, the North continued to benefit from the existence of slavery even after abolition--if not from free labor, then from the profits gained by selling that labor in areas where it was still legal. It should be noted that the abolitionist movement had little to do with taking a stand against racism. In fact, many abolitionists themselves looked upon those they were trying to free as inferior, uncivilized human beings. Yes, racism was rampant in the northern U.S. as many states had laws restricting the ability of blacks to vote, travel, marry or even own land. Joanne Pope Melish of Brown University, in her book Disowning Slavery: Gradual Emancipation and Race in New England, 1780-1860, points out that some militant groups even made a practice of "conducting terroristic, armed raids on urban black communities and the institutions that served them." This animosity exhibited toward blacks in the North may explain why the Underground Railroad, long before passage of the Fugitive Slave Act, ran all the way to Canada. Despite the wishes of a select few, slavery had already begun to disappear by the mid- to late-1800s. Even Southern leaders realized slavery wouldn't last. In language far more explicit than its U.S. counterpart, the Confederate Constitution included an outright ban on the international slave trade: "The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same." Clearly, there is no reason to believe that slavery wouldn't have died of natural causes in the South as it had in every other civilized part of the world. I'm sure we can all agree that there is no place for slavery in a nation founded on liberty and equality, but that doesn't mean that the South should be written off as an evil "slaveocracy." For one thing, the vast majority of slave owners were not cruel, a stark contrast to how slaves were treated in pagan cultures. In many cases, slaves were considered part of the family--so much so that they were entrusted with helping to raise their masters' children. This is neither an endorsement nor an excuse; it's just a statement of historical fact. Yes, one could argue that the act of one person owning the labor of another is cruel in and of itself, but the same could be said of indentured servitude and other similar arrangements so prominent in our nation's history--not to mention the ability of our modern government to claim ownership of over half of what its citizens earn. If we are to conclude that antebellum Southerners were nothing but evil, racist slave owners who needed to be crushed, then we must operate under the assumption that the Northerners fighting against them were all noble, loving peacemakers who just wanted everyone to live together in harmony. Neither characterization is true. Slavery, 140 years after its demise, continues to be a hot-button topic. Yes, it was a contributing factor in Lincoln's war, but only because the federal government sought to intervene on an issue that clearly fell under the jurisdiction of the various states. Trying to turn what Lincoln did into a moral crusade that justified the deaths of over 600,000 Americans is no better than defending the institution of slavery itself.
and South Carolina wasn't provoking anyone by surrounding 50 US troops with thousands of armed men?
And FDR didn't tweak anyone's nose by embargoing goods to Japan? But I digress.
Lincoln made his reasons clear. The garrison in Sumter was short of supplies. His choice was to either resupply them or allow them to be starved into submission. He had letters delivered to the governor of South Carolina that if the ships were not opposed then only supplies would be landed. The south had the chance to continue the status quo in the hopes that a peaceful solution could be found. They weren't interested.
As I remember, the local government stopped providing some supplies to the garrison the week before the firing on Fort Sumter once it became known that Lincoln was sending armed ships south.
Lincoln was smart enough to know his actions meant war. (If not, he shouldn't have been president.) From the New Orleans Daily Picayune of April 11, 1861 quoting from from the New York Herald of April 6:
A Western Congressman, who has satisfied himself as to the purposes of the administration, by interview with the President within the last twenty-four hours remarked that "blood would be spilled in less than ten days."
Long before that Anderson had been sending reports up North detailing his shortage of supplies. The first report from Anderson that Lincoln saw said that unless resupplied he would have no choice but to surrender. Lincoln was acting on information he received from the commander on the scene. He could hardly be expected to do otherwise.
Lincoln was smart enough to know his actions meant war.
As was Jefferson Davis. The difference is that Lincoln's resupply didn't have to result in war while armed attack on Sumter could hardly be expected to lead to anything else.
It is also rumored and generally credited, that the ordinary supplies to Major Anderson will soon be stopped if this is the course of the Government in Washington intend to pursue toward Major Anderson, it is not only full of vacilation, but of meanness and duplicity.
From that same April 7 Daily Appeal issue, quoting from the New Orleans Delta:
Great Activity in the United States War and Navy Department
Washington, April 3. -- Great activity is prevailing at the moment in both the Army and Navy Departments.
All the available vessels in port are ordered to prepare immediately for sea.
The steam frigate Minnesota and three other vessels, the whole under command of Commodore Stringhame ordered to the mouth of the Mississppi River.
The government is evidently preparing for war.
It is reported that the fleet under command of Commodore Stringham has been ordered to sea, with instructions to blockade the mouth of the Mississippi, and, also, that the government has resolved upon sending reinforcements to Fort Pickens.
And the next article in that issue (also reporting on an article in the New Orleans Delta):
Washington, April 4. -- The commissioners of the Confederate States, alarmed by the activity now being displayed in the army and navy departments, have made inquiries of the Government as to the meaning of the military and naval preparations. ... The Administration asserts that the vessels are sent on a tour of observation along the southern coast.
A little later, the Southern Commissioners in Washington accused the Lincoln Administration of gross perfidy over what the Administration had been saying would happen at Sumter (evacuation) and what they were actually planning to do.
Also, the newspapers were reporting that Lincoln had met with the governor of Pennsylvania and that state was to be put on war footing. New York and Massachusetts were said to have thousands of men ready to march on short notice. Illinois was begging to be called into the field. All this before Sumter was attacked. Lincoln was sending all sorts of "Hey guys, we're coming at you" messages.
What was it Alexander Hamilton said during the ratification of the Constitution? Oh, yeah:
It has been well observed, that to coerce the States is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single State. This being the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war? Suppose Massachusetts or any large State should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them, would not they have influence to procure assistance, especially from those States which are in the same situation as themselves? What picture does this present to our view? A complying State at war with a non-complying State; Congress marching the troops of one State into the bosom of another; this State collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against its federal head. Here is a nation at war with itself! Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a Government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself -- a Government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a Government.
The newspaper reports of the time are like watching disaster unfold in slow motion.
Now some speculation on my part. Why did Lincoln send down an inadequate force to Charleston? Scott had told him it was impossible without a large force. Without telling Fox, commander of the Sumter operation, Lincoln diverted one of the main warships to Pensacola that Fox had been counting on having at Charleston. Did Lincoln wanted the operation to fail and US forces to be attacked?
I believe the big buildup in Confederate and state troops around the harbor occurred when it became known that an armed force was coming south. From The Memphis Daily Appeal of April 7, 1861, quoting special dispatches to the New Orleans Delta:
GREAT EXCITEMENT IN CHARLESTON, S.C.
Washington, April 3. -- A special messenger from the officer commanding on Morris Island, arrived at Charleston to-day, bringing intelligence of a suspected attempt to reinforce Fort Sumter, or at least to throw a supply of provisions into the place. ...
From another article in that same issue of the Daily Appeal:
Special Dispatch to the Constitutionalist
Charleston, April 4. -- There is an unusual military preparation going on here. The soldiers and officers have been ordered to their posts. I presume that something unusual is going to happen ere long.
So far the whole post has been speculation. But since we're speculating then my belief is that Lincoln kept the resupply effort as small as he did in order not to make the effort appear threatening. He wanted to land food and supplies only. Sending a large fleet to do that would be provocative.
Only if you have girly-boy tendencies like Ken Burns...:) HUMOR
In Feb., major Anderson wrote to Washington, estimating that it would take 20,000 troops to defeat the Confederates surrounding Sumter.
You're partly right. Theodore Talbot and Robert Chew carried a message to Governor Pickens detailing the intention of the government to land food and supplies at Sumter. If that effort was unopposed then no troops or munitions would be landed and the status quo would be unchanged. It was a statement of intent. Permission was not denied because no permission was asked.
Lincoln sent armed warships on a mission where permission to enter SC waters had been denied. This wasn't provocative? Why did Lincoln send them? A token show of force for his Northern audience?
The provocation came earlier with intent of the Davis regime to force the garrison at Sumter to surrender by starving them out. They were the ones forcing the issue and demanding a change to the situation, not Lincoln.
That is not what the newspaper said -- not that I trust everything in newspapers (particularly today's), but the old newspapers, more often than not, have led me to find historical information before. In this case, the newspaper report contained elements of truth. It was made clear to Talbot that any vessel approaching the fort after being warned off would be shot at. So much for being able to deliver supplies to the fort.
Here is a letter of US Captain Foster of Talbot's meeting with the governor from the Official Records (excerpting and paragraphs and bolding are mine):
Fort Sumter, April 5, 1861
General JOS. G. TOTTEN,
Chief Engineer U. S. A., Washington, D. C.:
GENERAL: I wrote yesterday by Captain Talbot, who left here at 12 m., as bearer of dispatches from Major Anderson to the Government. Lieutenant Snyder accompanied him to the city as bearer of a communication to the governor and General Beauregard, relating to the firing upon the schooner Rhoda H. Shannon, and to the presence of the revenue cutter so near the walls of this fort.
The result of this mission, so far as I understand it, is this:
First, Captain Talbot, after some consultation, was permitted by the authorities to proceed to Washington.In returning from the city Lieutenant Snyder called for the mail at Fort Johnson, where he also took on board a small supply of beef and cabbages, which had come from the city the day before, too late for our boat.
Second, it was stated that no Engineer employee or enlisted man would be permitted to leave the fort until the command was withdrawn, in consequence of a dispatch from Commissioner Crawford, at Washington, to the effect that "I am authorized to say that this Government will not undertake to supply Fort Sumter without notice to you [Governor Pickens]. My opinion is that the President has not the courage to execute the order agreed on in Cabinet for the evacuation of the fort, but that he intends to shift the responsibility upon Major Anderson by suffering him to be starved out"; and that no more supplies for the fort could come from the city.
Third, that more stringent orders would be given to regulate the firing from the batteries and to restrict random firing, not, however, changing in the least the order to fire on any vessel attempting to force her way in after being warned off.
Fourth, disclaiming any knowledge of the revenue cutter so near the walls, and expressing a determination to investigate the subject.
...
J. G. FOSTER,
Captain, Engineers
Note the supplies of beef and cabbages coming from the city to the fort.
Interestingly, Lt. Talbot's opinion above about Lincoln not having courage and leaving Anderson to take the responsibility appeared in the newspaper article too, though attributed to a private communication from one of the Southern Commissioners in Washington. Here is what the article quoting the private communication said (The Memphis Daily Appeal of April 7, 1861, reporting on an article in the Charleston Daily Courier of April 4):
" ... the President had not the courage to execute the order which has been decided upon in the Cabinet to remove the garrison. The President has now determined to throw the responsibility of evacuation upon Major Anderson, and make him the scape-goat to satisfy the disappointment of the Black Republicans of the North.
This is almost word for word what Talbot said. Man what a disinformation campaign Lincoln was running! Either that or the newspaper did not want to attribute to Talbot something disparaging he said about his president at the private meeting between Talbot and the governor and so attributed it to a private correspondence from Washington.
Ooops. Now that I reread the Foster letter, I see that the quote came from the commissioner in Washington, not from Talbot.
You're mistaken. The message you posted is dated April 5. Talbot and Chew didn't meet with Governor Pickens and General Beauregard until April 8.
Your line of reasoning concerning "provoking" the Confederates at Sumter seems pretty close to some of the illogical BS we hear from the latter day Copperheads saying that turning down the AC at Gitmo is making the Islamonazis "really - really" mad at us.
So? Obviously, the April 5th letter didn't address an April 8th meeting. It recorded an earlier meeting between the governor and Talbot where it was made clear that any ship that ignored warnings and approached the fort would be shot at. This earlier meeting is also documented in the Official Records in an April 4th letter by the other US attendee, Lt. G. W. Snyder. From that letter:
In compliance with your directions, I went, under a flag of truce, to the city of Charleston, in company with Captain Talbot, and had an interview with Governor Pickens and General Beauregard.
I grew up on the Gulf Coast without air conditioning. Ah, those were the days.
I have posted on these threads before that I thought the Davis administration was snookered into firing on the fort. It would have been better if they had simply let Lincoln try to collect revenue on imports to the Confederacy.
They also made an error by stopping food supplies to the fort such as the beef and cabbages mentioned in the April 5th letter. I think this was done in response to the alarming army and navy activity in the North and suggested by the Southern Commissioner in Washington. The food supplies were cut off on April 7.
I believe what Lincoln did was indeed a provocation, an intentional one. The Confederates had said in effect, cross this line, and we'll knock your block off. Lincoln crossed the line.
From Lincoln to Fox on May 1, 1861 (posted long ago by nolu chan, Link):
You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter even if it should fail, and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.
While we're on the subject of the OR, remember this quote from your earlier post?
"In returning from the city Lieutenant Snyder called for the mail at Fort Johnson, where he also took on board a small supply of beef and cabbages, which had come from the city the day before, too late for our boat?"
Why didn't you continue with the next paragraph?
"My supplies of provisions that I laid in before the commencement of the investment were yesterday reduced to one half-barrel of cornmeal, one-seventh barrel of grits, and eleven codfish. Everything else that is necessary for the support of the Engineer force is drawn from the scanty stores of the command."
So the fort was short of food and supplies. And since Beauregard had been ordered to end the flow of food to the fort on April 2 then there is no doubt that the intent of the southern forces was to starve the fort into surrender, and that the fort was close to being at that point.
As President, the uncontested surrender of a high profile symbol as Sumter, as one of his first acts in office, would have made him a joke. The plight of the men at Sumter was being followed intently by the Northern press and people. Think Wake Island or Corregidor during WWII. For Lincoln to do nothing was simply not a viable option. Even Buchanan, who who did all in his power to avoid making tough decisions tried to relieve Sumter. It was something that the CiC simply had to do!
Davis understood that when he ordered that the crisis be brought to a head by cutting off supplies.
The question is, why did Davis do that? Why was he in such a hurry?
You argue that Lincoln intentionally "provoked" the Confederates into firing. But all it would have taken is for the Confederates to send a few supplies to the handful of men sitting out there to maintain the status quo and there was little that Lincoln could do about it. Sumter was not doing anything to block trade in and out of Charleston. It was no threat whatsoever. Davis could have just pretended it wasn't there and gone about his business, which is what Robert Toombs advised.
I will argue that Davis was guilty of "provocation" through a combination of desperation and ignorance of his opponent.
The seven Deep South slave states had rushed into secession in the months before Lincoln even took office. But the 8 other slave states of the Upper South and Border States had rejected secession, some by narrow margins and others by very large margins. Those 8 other states dwarfed the Deep South in terms of population and economic resources. His Confederacy had very little prospect of longterm success if they did not join it, and for each additional day that Lincoln served in office without threatening the "institutions" of the South as breathlessly predicted by the Fire-Eaters for the previous year, the odds of those states joining the Confederacy would have decreased to zero.
At the same time, over the months ahead as tempers cooled and Deep South began to realized that the costs born by the larger Union such as subsidized mail delivery, free trade with both Upper South and Northern states, diplomatic missions and treaties, protection on the high seas or on the frontiers, maintenance of courts, and all the other functions of national government would fall entirely on their limited tax base, a serious case of "buyers remorse" was a certainty.
I argue that Jeff Davis intentionally "provoked" the crisis" because he realized that his window of opportunity was limited and he needed a military response for Lincoln in order to move the Upper South, especially the wealthiest and most populus slave state, Virginia, away from the Union. That desperation, coupled with a profound "misunderestimation" of Lincoln and the Northern people, whom he calculated were too timid and weak willed to react, lead him to make a foolish and tragic decision --- the first a many such foolish decisions he would make of the next 4 years.
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.