[You]: Maybe, maybe not. But if you expect a declaration of war every time the US fights, you must have been disappointed over the last 70 years or so. In this case, though, you weren't going to get a formal declaration of war, because that would have meant recognition of the Confederacy as an independent state.
Thanks for the comment about recognizing the Confederacy. I hadn’t thought about that.
By not calling Congress into session, Lincoln did various unconstitutional things over the course of the next two and a half months. Congress does not have the constitutional authority to excuse unconstitutional actions by the President, but the Republican Congress certainly wasn’t going to impeach Lincoln over his actions.
Nobody expected any kind of declaration of war, and if the Senate thought it could handle the situation, it wouldn't have adjourned.
Perhaps you forget that at that point with most senators from seceded states gone, the Senate was controlled by Republicans who could decide to whether to extend the session or not. At the time that the Senate ended the session and adjourned, the official line of the Administration was that Fort Sumter was to be evacuated (widely reported in the newspapers, I believe). Evacuation would have been a step toward peace. A cabinet majority in favor of not evacuating the fort and sending the Sumter expedition only happened on March 29 after the Senate had adjourned.
Declaration of war or not, people who were paying attention to Lincoln’s inaugural address (including Democrat newspapers north and south and Southern newspapers) said the actions proposed in Lincoln’s inaugural (keeping and possibly retaking forts and collecting import revenues) would lead to war. On the other hand, Republican newspaper editorials thought the speech wonderful and peaceful. Based on what did happen, it is easy to see which side was blowing smoke.
Texas Senator Wigfall was still in the Senate waiting for official notification that Texas had seceded. Here was his analysis (similar to Democrat and Southern newspaper editorials) of what Lincoln’s actions would bring [Source: Congressional Globe, March 7, 1861, page 1441]
I cannot believe that the Senator from Illinois [Douglas], by the speech which he made yesterday, intended to follow up the train of reasoning which the President of the United States has seen fit to adopt, of producing war, and yet throwing the responsibility upon the wrong party. The President of the United States says that if there is war he is not responsible for it; he is not going to shed blood; he is not going to assail anybody. Why, sir, if the President of the United States were to send a fleet to Liverpool and attempt there to enforce the laws of the United States, and to collect revenues, and that fleet were fired at, would anybody say that the British Government were responsible for the blood that might follow?
These States have withdrawn from your Union; they have formed a government of their own; they have interfered with nobody, they intend to interfere with nobody; and yet you attempt to enforce the laws of the United States beyond the limits of the United States; and because we are not willing to pay tribute, and acknowledge a foreign – and under these circumstances hostile – flag, it is said that we make war. You may amuse women and children with arguments of this sort, but men will otherwise understand them.
In response, Senator Douglas said he believed the inaugural meant peace. He continued, saying:
If I had arrived at the conclusion that it meant war, I would have denounced it in unmeasured and unrelenting terms. I am with the President, as far as he is for peace; I am against him the moment he departs from that policy.
Obviously, Senator Douglas did not know that on March 5 Lincoln issued a verbal order to reinforce Fort Pickens without telling the Confederates thereby breaking the truce there. The truce had been negotiated with President Buchanan, and both sides had been honoring the truce. When Lincoln’s order to reinforce Pickens (sent by Scott) finally reached the Union forces on ships offshore of Fort Pickens, the Navy commander there refused to offload the Union troops into Fort Pickens, saying in part that reinforcing the fort [and violating the truce] was, ”not only a declaration but an act of war.” Meigs, who had helped plan the Pickens reinforcement, said that it was the beginning of the war. The ship Meigs was traveling on to Pickens attempted to enter Pensacola Harbor flying English colors. More deceit by the Union.
To paraphrase and change what you said in your post, perhaps reinforcing Pickens was a situation in which “outright, planned deceit” was rewarded. The Southern forces did not attack after Pickens was reinforced because they had only a day’s worth of ammunition and shells and it would take longer than that to take the fort. That and the fact the the attack on Sumter happened at the same time. Actually, Union troops began offloading into Pickens a few hours before the attack on Sumter.
Well, Lincoln had said in his inaugural that he would hold the forts. It could be argued, I guess, that he was simply doing what he said he would do in the inaugural. But was he acting with honor to violate the truce there without telling the Confederates? I don’t think so. Would I trust such a man? No. Was he trying to start a war? Yes.
Senator Douglas continued responding to Senator Wigfall:
… The Senator from Texas says that, but for those two forts, Pickens and Sumter, situated as they are, there would be no danger of collision. I think so, too. I fear that these forts cannot long remain in the position they are, with safety to either party. Fort Sumter could have been reinforced a few weeks since. I am no military man; but I believe it is admitted by all military men that it cannot be reinforced now, even by the use of the whole American Navy, without at least an army of ten thousand men on land to cooperate. [rb note: Scott said 25,000 men and Anderson said 20,000]
A few days later (March 15), Douglas made the following comments on the Senate floor about needing to know whether the policy was peace or war and that the South was entitled to the forts in their states. He would seem to be asserting the right of Southern militia to take control of federal property within their state. Sometimes that property was seized and held in the name of the United Trust until the state settled the secession question (Georgia, Arkansas) and in some case receipts were issued itemizing what was taken (Texas, before the voters ratified secession). Here's Douglas again:
The people have a right to know whether the policy is peace or war. They have a right to know whether they are to send members here in favor of peace or in favor of war. Is dealing fairly with the people, to keep them in the dark on this question until the members of Congress are elected, and then to precipitate the country into war, without giving the people [Congress?] an opportunity to vote on it?
… We certainly cannot justify the holding of forts there, much less the recapturing of those that have been taken, unless we intend to reduce those States themselves into subjection. I take it for granted no man will deny the proposition that whoever permanently holds Charleston and South Carolina is entitled to possession of Fort Sumter. Whoever holds Pensacola and Florida is entitled to the possession of Fort Pickens. Whoever holds the States in whose limits those forts are placed is entitled to the forts themselves, unless there is something peculiar in the location of some particular fort that makes it important for us to hold it for the general defense of the whole country, its commerce and interests, instead of being useful only for the defense of a particular city or locality.
And, yes, I know that Douglas lost the election for president, but his comments illustrate some of the thinking, certainly northern Democrat thinking, during the period right after Lincoln’s inauguration.
Ha! Typo. United Trust = United States
Odd how you simultaneously claim that Lincoln stated his goals in his inaugural address, and at the same time you assert that he broke the truce by reinforcing Pickens without notification.
So did he say in his inaugural that he would, or didn’t he? Which lie am I supposed to believe?
The truce at Ft Pickens was violated first by members of the local militia that attempted to enter, but were driven off.
Which side, indeed? It's not like these were all disinterested predictions of what would happen. They were expressions of emotion and also attempts to persuade. So of course, if you believed the secessionists were right or if you wanted peace at any price, you'd argue that any resistance to secessionist demands would mean war.
You're still making the assumption that Lincoln was the only actor who had free will and responsibility. The seceded states and the Confederacy were ... what? Machines that would only act in one way if the federal government didn't give them exactly what they wanted? They could demand and take without consequences, but any resistance to them was a cause for war?
Texas Senator Wigfall was still in the Senate waiting for official notification that Texas had seceded. Here was his analysis (similar to Democrat and Southern newspaper editorials) of what Lincoln’s actions would bring [Source: Congressional Globe, March 7, 1861, page 1441] ...
Analysis? That's rhetoric from a lunatic in love with the sound of his own voice. Since you found the quote, leap forward a few pages to see Foster's response. That Wigfall claimed not to be a citizen but still spoke as a senator raised not a few eyebrows.
Foster also refers to the many aggressions committed against federal property by secessionist mobs and authorities. Under the circumstances, it was strange indeed for secessionists and their sympathizers to say that all this must be borne by Americans, but that any small steps taken to stand in their way were declarations of war or acts of war.
When Lincoln’s order to reinforce Pickens (sent by Scott) finally reached the Union forces on ships offshore of Fort Pickens, the Navy commander there refused to offload the Union troops into Fort Pickens, saying in part that reinforcing the fort [and violating the truce] was, ”not only a declaration but an act of war.” Meigs, who had helped plan the Pickens reinforcement, said that it was the beginning of the war. The ship Meigs was traveling on to Pickens attempted to enter Pensacola Harbor flying English colors. More deceit by the Union.
I don't have the time or inclination to go over all this stuff yet again. I'm not going to try to sort out just who knew what and when and who told what to whom. Other posters have done some research into the matter, so they may be able to respond better than I can.
I will note that Gideon Welles denied knowledge of any specific "truce" agreement beyond the general "do-nothing" policy of the Buchanan administration. It may have been unclear just who ordered what and what was "settled" or "agreed to" by whom.
We don't know whose idea the British flag was, but Meigs entered Pensacola harbor on April 17th some days after Sumter had been fired on. At that point war had already begun. Once you've started shooting, you can't expect your opponents to play by your rules.
Here's Douglas again ...
It's politics again. Anybody would be able to tell you that holding on to some government property was a way of holding onto the idea that the union was unbroken. And if we entered into negotiations, it was certainly a good idea not to let the other side take all your bargaining chips before even getting to the table.
And looking at how the British held on to Calais or Gibraltar or Singapore or Hong Kong or the Falklands, sheer bloody-mindedness can't be overlooked as a factor in political history either. Douglas himself recognized that the US might well want to hold on to Key West or the Dry Tortugas, far away from the rest of the country, so I get the feeling he wasn't entirely honest here.
No. Douglas was talking that way because he wanted to influence the outcome, not because he'd considered all the alternatives and decided that only one explanation was possible.