Posted on 05/24/2007 6:03:30 AM PDT by Rebeleye
Actually I think I am. I went and looked back at Tuesday at what you called your 'main point': The South was looking for a fight, and Lincoln only too gladly gave them what they were looking for.
By 'only too gladly' I take you to mean Lincoln's actions were deliberate and their intent was to provoke a fight. And if I'm right in that then I can't seem to find where I have back tracked on my position which I began laying out in post 1051 where I said that I did not believe that Lincoln set out to start a war when he launched his resupply mission to Sumter. He may have feared the result but unlike you I did not believe that war was his purpose. In post 1060 I laid out what I believed were indications that he didn't set out for war. Your post 1064 contradicted me and claimed Lincoln knew without a doubt his actions would result in war and deliberately went ahead anyway. So that brings us up to today. Without recapping the sniping going back and forth between us, I still can't find where I retracted anything I said earlier and agree with you that Lincoln knew without a doubt his actions would lead to war. And you've not tried to show anything to support your claim that he knew without a doubt that supplying Sumter would. And now here we are.
I am sorry, you have come in the middle of the argument and now you are changing it to say something I did not imply.
N-S could answer my question, but he is afraid I am laying a trap to blame Lincoln for the war and I have stated up front I am not.
I think tariff issues had the same relation to the secession crisis as high gas prices have today with relations with Hugo Chavez.
Well hell, one word answer is what you want then that's what you'll get.
Your main point: "The South was looking for a fight, and Lincoln only too gladly gave them what they were looking for." So the question must be do I believe Lincoln sent the resupply to Sumter knowing it would start a war? In short, was that his intention? No. That's my one word answer you've been demanding. My reason: I've never seen any quote or any writing from Lincoln indicating he knew that or believed it to be true.
Now, why do you believe that Lincoln's intention was to start the war at Sumter and what do you base it on? Please feel free to use all the words you want, I'll waive the one word limit.
Certainly the seizure/occupation of forts in Confederate territory was no secret. The great majority of these passed under Confederate control with no clash of arms. At the same time, Confederates relinquished their interests in northern US forts which had been paid for in part with Southern monies, but by their locations should properly have remained under Northern rule.
Stealing federal property? Perhaps it was a form of popular eminent domain by the states involved, LOL. South Carolina offered to negotiate for the forts they took over. Texas was careful at the time to document what had been taken over by state forces.
Threatening unionists? Yes, that happened in places and was typically the action of individuals or groups of local people. Sort of like the mobs up North that had prevented people from recovering fugitive slaves and on occasion killed the people claiming the slaves?
It's the kind of boilerplate that politicians use to conceal what's really going on.
What secret conspiracy is it that you see? Tell us what you think was really going on.
Close, but not right.
I did say the South was looking for a fight and the Lincoln gladly gave it to him. And yes, I meant, that Lincoln understood the consequences of resupplying the fort. This without a doubt is your construct.
But you said.. that because Lincoln's words were peaceful that he wasn't looking for fight therefore he did not think resupplying would lead to a fight.
How politically naive of Lincoln... especially in the light of what he was just told by Lamon.
Here is the rest of my post 1064 states: "You can't argue history like that because now your argument doesn't take into account the South as a player in the conflict. The only agent in your construct is Lincoln. What he wants. No conflict can be understood under that type of constricting historiography. One side was not passive while the other was active. Both were there shaping the events."
When you factor in what the South was saying about the resupply of the fort... did Lincoln still believe he could resupply in peace...
I still can't find where I retracted anything I said earlier and agree with you that Lincoln knew without a doubt his actions would lead to war. And you've not tried to show anything to support your claim that he knew without a doubt that supplying Sumter would. And now here we are.
No, here we are: (from earlier today) Let me restate the debate we were having on Tuesday: I said that Lincoln knew full well that if he sailed into the harbor he would have a war.
You didn't believe he did because he told the South that he was going to reprovision the forts and why do that if you wanted war. Now Hurlbut's statement has been introduced. Hurlbut says, he told Lincoln that if you reprovision the forts, you have a war for that is what the South wants.
Let me repeat: this is the debate.
I am not arguing whether Lincoln was right or wrong in what he did. (I have an opinion on that but don't assume you know it... I just don't want it to get in the way of the true debate we are having) I am not arguing choices, etc.
In the light of both Lamon and Hurlbut's statements, and what he was told by commissioners, governors, etc., and what he read in both northern and southern newspapers... did he know that his actions would bring about a war?
If the answer is yes than my argument stands...The South was itching for a fight, and Lincoln gave it to them. If the answer is no than Lincoln was the stupidest man to ever occupy the White House for he could not properly discern the signs of the time.
And you've not tried to show anything to support your claim that he knew without a doubt that supplying Sumter would. And now here we are.
Actually, knowing you reputation, if the quote existed in the world that supported you... you would have already posted it.
I will go through the trouble...
So to sum it all up, you base this on nothing but your opinion. You have no quote from Lincoln indicating he believed his actions would indeed start a war. No quote indicating he wanted to start a war at Charleston or anywhere else. No quote indicating he wanted war at all. Just your opinion. Correct?
So, again, you are not going to answer my question. Now, the argument has shifted to my lack of sources. That is typical of you and not unexpected. Because you are predictable. LOL!
Lincoln knew resupplying the fort would start a fight just as much as any kid wanting to hold on to his lunch money in face of threats from a bully does. What’s your point?
My point is obvious...
Memorandum on Fort Sumter
March 18[?] 1861
Some considerations in favor of withdrawing the Troops from Fort Sumpter, by President Lincoln. Wells Papers
1st. The Fort cannot be permanently held without reinforcement. This point is too apparent too [sic] need proof
The cutting off supplies and consequent starvation, not to mention disease, would compel surrender in a few months at farthest, without firing a gun
2 The Fort cannot now be re-inforced without a large armament, involving of course a bloody conflict and great exasperation on both sides, and when re-inforced can only be held by sufficient number to garrison the post and to keep open communication with it by means of the harbor.
3. The Fort in the present condition of affairs is of inconsiderable military value, for: It is not necessary for the Federal Government to hold it in order to protect the City of Charleston from foreign invasion, nor: Is it available under existing circumstances for the purpose of collecting the revenue: and, It is difficult to see how the possession of the Fort by the Secessionists can be rendered a means of annoyance to the Federal Government. Every purpose for which the fort can now be made available would be better subserved by Ships of War, outside the harbor.
4 The abandonment of the Post would remove a source of irritation of the Southern people and deprive the secession movement of one of its most powerful stimulants.
5 It would indicate both an independent and a conservative position on part of the new administration, and would gratify and encourage those, who while friendly to the Union are yet reluctant to see extreme measures pursued.
6 It would tend to confound and embarrass those enemies of the Union both at the North and South who have relied on the cry of ``Coercion'' as a means of keeping up the excitement against the Republican Party.
7 If the garrison should, while in an enfeebled condition be successfully attacked, or from want of proper supplies should be cut off by disuse the administration would be held responsible for it and this fact would be used by their opponents with great effect.
8 The moral advantage to the Secessionists of a successful attack would be very great.
Objections
1st The danger of demoralizing the Republican Party by a measure which might seem to many to indicate timidity or in common parlance, ``want of pluck.'' That this may be the first impression is probable but if the measure is justified upon the double ground of the small importance of the post in a military point of view and the desire to conciliate wherever this can be safely done a second thought will discover the wisdom of the course, and increase rather than diminish the confidence of the party in its leaders.
2 The danger of the movement being construed by the Secessionists as a yielding from necessity, and in so far a victory on their part...
Here is what Lamon's mission discovered:
Lamon visited James L. Petigru, the famous Unionist, on Sunday and learned from him that there was no Unionist strength in the state and that "peaceable succession or war was inevitable", and on Monday morning obtained an interview with Governor Pickens. In replies to Lamon’s questions, Governor Pickens stated very positively that any attempt on the part of President Lincoln to reinforce Sumter would bring war and only his “unalterable resolve not to attempt any reinforcement” could prevent war. Lincoln and Fort Sumter by Charles Ramsdell
Lincoln’s two secretaries John G. Nicolay and John Hay, in their long but not impartial in the Sumter Affair come so close to divulging the essence of the stratagem that one cannot suspect that they knew of it. In once place they say, in reference to Lincoln’s solution of this problem of Sumter, “Abstractly it was enough that the government was in the right. But to make the issue sure he determined to put the rebellion in the wrong.” And again, “President Lincoln in determining the Sumter question had adopted a simple but effective policy. To use his own words, he determined to ‘send bread to Anderson’ if the rebels fired on that, they would not convince the world that he started the civil war.” And still later, “When he finally gave order for the fleet to sail, he was master of the situation…master if the rebels hesitated or repented, because they would therefore forfeit their prestige with the South, master if they persisted, for he would command a united North.”
Orville Browning, 20 year friend of Lincoln: "He himself conceived the idea, and proposed sending supplies, without an attempt to reinforce giving notice of the fact to Governor Pickens. The plan succeeded. They attacked Sumter -- it fell, and thus, did more service than it otherwise could. The Diaries of Orville H. Browning.
I did. My answer was 'no'. Look back to post 1301.
Now, the argument has shifted to my lack of sources. That is typical of you and not unexpected. Because you are predictable. LOL!
No, I'm not trying to shift the arguement, just wanting to make sure I'm following your position. You base you claim that Lincoln knew he was going to start a war at Charleston on nothing but your opinion. You have no quote from Lincoln indicating he believed his actions would indeed start a war. No quote indicating he wanted to start a war at Charleston or anywhere else. No quote indicating he wanted war at all. Correct? And this one you can answer with one word. Yes or no.
Shall rise again, is passe. Has risen again, is the updated version.
Do you know the difference between ‘re-inforce’ and ‘re-supply’?
I've listed a few sources. I'm sure by time you are done with deconstructing them, they will be worthless and not worth the trouble of putting them together.
Yes... I do... are we quibbling now? Are we about to about to debate the meaning of is...
Not unless you want to. The information you posted talked of the dangers of reinforcing the fort. Re-inforce means to strengthen or increase your positon, as in adding additional forces. Resupply means to restock, as in food and supplies. I think all can agree that had Lincoln announced his intention to reinforce the garrison then that would have been an escalation of the issue and could be seen as nothing but what it would have been, a provocative act. But Lincoln was faced with a garrison rapidly running out of food. He wanted nothing more than to maintain the status quo. Not to reinforce Sumter. Not to threaten the confederacy. Not to escalate the issue. But to keep the situation the way it was. Neither side gains, neither side loses. That's why he made his intention clear in his letter to Pickens, and also made it clear that he intended to land food and supplies only. No arms or ammunition. No reinforcements. And that is why there is no reason to believe that Lincoln knew his actions should automatically end in war. Regardless of your opinion.
But also relieves us of all those old, slow, whiny, complaining, annoying, left-turn-signal-leaving-on, doing-30-in-a-50-zone senior citizens. And YOU can listen to them carp and complain about how things were a whole lot better back in Cleveland.
Enjoy.
The point, apparently, is that Lincoln should have pulled down his pants and bent over. Anything short of that meant he wanted war.
Touche. ;-)
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.