Posted on 07/06/2013 7:37:16 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
A Conversation with Thomas Fleming, historian and author of A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War.
Thomas Fleming is known for his provocative, politically incorrect, and very accessible histories that challenge many of the clichés of current American history books. Fleming is a revisionist in the best conservative sense of the word. His challenges to accepted wisdom are not with an agenda, but with a relentless hunger for the truth and a passion to present the past as it really was, along with capturing the attitudes and culture of the times.
In The New Dealers’ War Fleming exposed how the radical Left in FDR’s administration almost crippled the war effort with their utopian socialist experimentation, and how Harry Truman led reform efforts in the Senate that kept production in key materials from collapse.
In The Illusion of Victory, Fleming showed that while liberal academics may rate Woodrow Wilson highly, that he may have been the most spectacularly failed President in history. 100,000 American lives were sacrificed to favor one colonial monarchy over another, all so Wilson could have a seat at the peace table and negotiate The League of Nations. Instead, the result of WWI was Nazism and Communism killing millions for the rest of the century.....
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
Lincoln was not sworn in as President until March 4th 1861 so any meeting before that, even when he was President-elect would have had no official precedence. The attack on Fort Sumter began on April 12th so any meeting after that may well have been moot.
But what is more interesting is that there is no mention of Jefferson Davis meeting Lincoln in the two volume set The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government which was written by Jefferson Davis after the war (published in 1881). Since this set is basically a two volume autobiography, it would seem that this meeting would have gotten some mention in it.
As I said, it’s already been posted. Read further up. And sorry, Davis sent a commission and the commission met with Seward.
The Confederacy did make an offer to take up their end of things. It was rejected.
That certainly isn't as interesting as the prospect that Lincoln and Davis having met would have been.
Now looking through your posts, I don't see any link or source listed for this offer made. Can you repost it so I can take a look at it. I'd be interested in reading it.
Look up in the thread. It’s there. Heck, I didn’t even post the source. It was already posted so I see no need to post what’s already posted.
Davis was inaugerated and within a couple weeks, sent the commission to Lincoln to try to hammer out a deal. Lincoln said no.
What else is Davis supposed to do? You can fault the Confederates for failure, but you can’t fault them for trying to work out a peaceful solution. Again - Davis was not in charge in 1861, which is unfortunate. Had the offer been made then, there’s a chance it would have been accepted.
One other detail I'd like to ask you about. You stated that this commission, not Davis, was sent "Late in February 1862, just after his inaugeration[sic]."
I'm making the assumption that you mean after Davis' inauguration which was on Feburary 22nd. You do not mean to imply that they actually met with Seward in late February, right?
The source says late february from what I can parse together. After the Inaugeration. Given that it was the 22nd that he became president of the Confederacy, and that it would take time to assemble together a delegation and time to travel from Richmond to DC it seems like Jefferson Davis was very quick to make Lincoln the offer, and started on it as soon as he took office.
Again - you demand the source, just read up. It’s all there.
A year after starting the war? A little late, don't you think?
But if you actually meant February 1861 then no such offer was made, either to Buchanan or Lincoln.
Yes he did.
Did the letter introducing the commissioners say anything about an offer? Why would it? Then he wouldn’t have needed to send the commissioners.Just because it is not mentioned in an introductory letter, does not mean the commissioners were not sent to make the offer.
The letter to Lincoln outlined what the delegation was there for. Any offer to pay for stolen property or repudiated debt was not included, all claims to the contrary notwithstanding.
He/she is just making it up as he/she goes along.
I have demanded nothing of you. Remember that words have meaning. I asked you to repost the source which you said you would not do and I have excepted the fact that you will not do that. The fact that I have then expressed disappointment in that you will not save me the trouble of searching through all the responses does not constitute a demand in any way.
I did find the original post and I will admit I cringed when I saw that it was a Wikipedia article. I think my wife said it best when she said that Wikipedia is only good if the question only has one answer. Looking at the citation on the Wikipedia article itself I found that the statement on the commission is referenced to William J. Cooper's "Jefferson Davis, American". Now I have not read this book, but I have read some of the reviews on it and in general it is held in rather high regard.
Fortunately, the specific segment of the book listed in the citation is available for viewing through Google Books so I read it. There are some interesting details that come out from reading Cooper's account:
First, the commission sent by Davis never met Seward either. The best they were able to muster was to send messages to Seward through and intermediary. In this case the intermediary was Supreme Court Justice John A. Campbell of Alabama. At this point he had not yet resigned from the court.
Through this contact they were able to start a dialog with Seward, but it was all strictly unofficial. At one point Seward did promise that the Fort Sumter would be abandoned to the Confederacy, but did not have the authority to make that a reality. When they tried to press him on this he waffled.
While this was going on, things took on a life of their own. Despite Davis' efforts to reign aggressive ambitions of the South Carolinians, he could not prevent the eventual attack on Fort Sumter on April 12th. At this point, the commission still had not been able to obtain official contact with Seward much less Lincoln.
exit82, I pinged you to this since you made the original quote and thought you might find this interesting.
CougarGA7, thank you for the courtesy ping and your additional information on the Davis Commission meeting.
We are all learning a lot on this thread and I appreciate your additional research into the issue.
You realize that such sensitive issues would not be put in writing, but would normally be verbally extended at a proper meeting. Such was the way business was conducted then.
A similar situation could be seen in the early 1865 meeting of Lincoln and Confederate representatives at City Point.
Not a problem. I’m a 20th century military historian so it is a bit out of my field. However, I do look at the 19th century wars since they all have aspects that are pertinent to the evolution of warfare in the 1900s. I’m currently doing some research on the Taiping Rebellion which makes the American Civil War look like a skirmish.
Slavery was only economically viable as long as the US was lightly settled and land was cheap. This was why slave owners were so much for slavery being continuously extended to the western territories.
A free man would work harder on his own land than a slave would work on his master's land. He could thus out-bid a slave owner for land, and still make a profit. As land prices rose, slave owners would eventually be driven out of business.
Read more at The Jefferson Davis Funeral Train Story
Again - Davis was inaugerated February 22nd of 1862. The offer was made within a week.
Takes time for the invaded to organize a government from scratch.
On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.
“I have demanded nothing of you. Remember that words have meaning. I asked you to repost the source which you said you would not do and I have excepted the fact that you will not do that.”
Again, read up the thread. It was not my source to give and the source was already cited.
“he could not prevent the eventual attack on Fort Sumter on April 12th.”
You need to recheck your dates. Davis was not in power in 1861.
It triggered the recollection of something I had written (on another thread) regarding the "peace delegation":
(edited to protect the silly ;-)
(Silly person): What the Illinois Butcher™ calls " Insurgent agents" others rightfully called it a peace delegation. The key words here are seeking and negotiations. Regardless of you favorite choice of words the Top Hatted (or hated) "Goon" ignored those "agents". The bloody fool.
(Rockrr): So I won't accuse you of outright revisionism but what you state is not accurate. There were tons of southern instigators, insurgents, and agitators attempting to unravel the union in the days after Lincoln's election. I'm presuming that you are referring to the unofficial "peace delegation" of Rives, Somers, Doniphan, and Guthrie. Lincoln did meet with them and offered compromise to them. It was they who refused. If you refer to the delegation of Crawford, Forsyth and Roman that was a dishonest proposition of way too little, far too late. anyway, they weren't there to negotiate, bargain, or (especially) compromise - they were there to make demands.
I found an interesting and revealing comment from Martin Crawford to Robert Toombs March 6, 1861:
I have felt it my duty under instructions from your department, as well as from my best judgment to adopt and support Mr. Seward's policy, upon condition, however, that the present status is to be rigidly maintained. His reasons and my own, it is proper to say, are as wide apart as the poles: he is fully persuaded that peace will bring about a reconstruction of the Union, whilst I feel confident that it will build up and cement our confederacy and put us beyond the reach either of his arms or of his diplomacy. It is well that he should indulge in dreams which we know are not to be realized.In other words, he knows that he is bargaining in bad faith and doesn't care - as long as it gives the insurrectionists time to fortify their positions.
The bloody fools were the slavers who sought war - and got devastation for their trouble.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3026237/posts?page=241#241
Don’t forget the tariff, which had a profound effect on the relations between north and south.
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.