Then why were troops embarked in the flotilla he dispatched to Sumter? And did he "maintain the status quo" by reinforcing Fort Pickens, thus stealing a march on the Anaconda Plan?
There you go again.
On March 29th a second and final cabinet discussion was held, in which there appeared a change of sentiment. Four of [Lincoln's] seven counsellors now voted for an attempt to relieve Anderson, and at the close of the meeting the President ordered the preparation of the expedition proposed by Captain [Gustavus] Fox. Three ships of war, with a transport and three swift steamtugs, a supply of open boats, provisions for six months, and two hundred recruits, were fitted out in New York with all possible secrecy, and sailed from that port, after unforeseen delays, on April 9th and 10th, under sealed orders to rendezvous before Charleston Harbor at daylight on the morning of the 11th......The mystery was finally solved on the evening of April 8th. A government messenger [this will have been Ward Lamon -- LG] arrived in Charleston, reported himself to Governor Pickens, and was immediately admitted by him to an interview at which General Beauregard was present. The messenger read to them an official communication, drafted by President Lincoln. It ran 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 provisions, arms, or ammunition will be made without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the fort."
The next morning after this notice was read to Governor Pickens and General Beauregard in Charleston, the main portion of the relieving expedition, under command of Captain G. V. Fox, sailed from New York Harbor. It consisted of the transport Baltic with the provisions and contingent reinforcements, the war-steamers Pawnee, Pocahontas, Harriet Lane, and the steam-tugs Uncle Ben, Yankee, and Freeborn. The fleet had orders to rendezvous ten miles east of Charleston Harbor on the morning of April 11th. The instructions to Captain Fox were short, but explicit: "You will take charge," wrote the Secretary of War, "of the transports in New York, having the troops and supplies on board, and endeavor in the first instance to deliver the subsistence. If you are opposed in this, you are directed to report the fact to the senior naval officer of the harbor, who will be instructed by the Secretary of the Navy to use his entire force to open a passage, when you will, if possible, effect an entrance, and place both troops and supplies in Fort Sumter."
[Emphasis added.]John G. Nicolay, The Outbreak of Rebellion, pp. 53-60 passim.
Troops, gentlemen. Lincoln sent troops, after telling Governor Pickens he wasn't doing any such thing.
Footnote: Wonder where the recruits came from? Were they Wide Awakes? One is tempted to think they might have been, given what Lincoln was doing in Missouri at the same time.
For I do like the subject very much and have so much to learn from Freepers such as you and 4CJ. I just can't waste days arguing anymore over what the meaning of is "is."
In response the Israelis went on war footing, gave Moshe Dayan the Defense Portfolio. Abba Eban was told in France that France would initiate a "arms" embargo against the Israelis. In Britain, Eban was dismissed. In the US, the Americans told Eban that if "Israel goes it alone, they will be alone."
Finally after almost three weeks, Israel struck first by destroying the Egyptian air force on the ground.
Who started the war? Well, technically the Israelis did. They pre-empted.
Recently, I had an argument with a person who argued that since Nasser did not really want war and was only being provoked by Jordan, that the Israelis were fully and totally to blame.
As if the conflict should only be defined by the anomosity between Jordan and Egypt. (Leaving Syria and the Soviets out of this tale on purpose) As if Israel should have just known twenty-two years after the Holocaust that what was going on along their borders was just an exercise of Arab one-upmanship.
Therefore, responsibility for the war rested soley on the Israeli and Nasser gets a free pass because what he wanted outweighs what he did.
This is the same argument being advanced by some in defense of Lincoln's decision to resupply Sumter.
That only works if Lincoln is the only actor that counts. He is not. The South's known and stated reaction (Petigru and Pickens just to name two) to his attempts to resupply Sumter should hold more the weight, since Lincoln sent Lamon to find out how South Carolina would react if he resupplied or reinforced the fort.
Now, the argument disintegrates. Where's my quote? If I can't provide the exact quote, then Lincoln is in the clear.
I don't need an exact quote. I have plenty of proof from those who knew Lincoln well. If NS is correct that no one can know what Lincoln was thinking and certainly not his friends, cabinet, and secretaries.... then how does NS know so emphatically Lincoln's motives. But that's another matter.
NS believes that Lincoln's secretaries were wrong, his friend was wrong, the memo is wrong, the cabinet deliberation had nothing to do with the ramifications of what would happen if Lincoln resupplied the fort, and the answers Lamon brings back for Petigru and Pickens had no bearing on Lincoln's thought processess. Then there were his own words about collecting tariffs, holding forts, etc.
No (according to NS), Lincoln sailed into the harbor hoping against hope that somehow cooler heads in the South would prevail and realize his good intentions just to give bread to a few hungry soldiers.
Can an objective historian draw an accurate picture of what Lincoln knew and did not know. Yes, just as a historian can firmly place the blame on Nasser for the Six Day War.
For the construct of Lincoln's innocence in resupplying the fort to work... Lincoln must become the only person in the entire country that did not realize what his actions would reap.
Now we can argue about whether he was justified in his actions, but there is no way any objective historian can reason he did not know his actions would be the spark to start the war.
As for me, this argument is finished. If NS wants to post his version of the events, he certainly can. But for those who have read the thread... hopefully both sides have been presented. You are more than able to make up your minds.
What do you want to discuss next?
To be landed in the event that the resupply effort was opposed, as Lincoln stated in his letter to Pickens.
[this will have been Ward Lamon -- LG
No. This will have been Robert Chew -- NS.
Troops, gentlemen. Lincoln sent troops, after telling Governor Pickens he wasn't doing any such thing.
Read the letter again. Supplies only, if not opposed. Troops and supplies if opposed.
Footnote: Wonder where the recruits came from?
First Artillery in New York probably.
One is tempted to think they might have been, given what Lincoln was doing in Missouri at the same time.
What Lincoln was doing? The people of Missouri had assembled in convention in February and voted agains secession. The rebellious forces in the state, aided and abetted by the Davis regime, were trying to overrule that convention and take the state out of the Union. If anything Lincoln was trying to maintain the wishes of the people of the state.