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.
Which side, indeed?
Are you serious?
One side said it meant war, the other said it meant peace, and the outcome was the greatest war in American history -- and you try to pettifog his blazingly obvious argument?
I'm surprised at you. You don't usually try to have us on like that -- that was more Non-Sequitur's gig.
On March 5, 1861, Winfield Scott told Lincoln that the truce at Pickens had been established by Buchanan and "seceders. See: Link. Here are the March 5 words written by Scott to Buchanan on a letter written by Holt:
Next, after considering many plans of relief, the President, two Secretaries, Capt. Ward2 & myself settled upon the employment, under the captain (who was eager for the expedition--) of the four, or more, small steamers, belonging to the Coast Survey.-- Three, or four weeks ago I have no doubt the captain would have succeeded; but he was kept back by some thing like a truce established between the President & a number of principal seceders -- here, in So Carolina, Florida &c -- which truce or informal understanding included Ft. Pickens. [Hence a company, intended for the latter is still in the sloop of war, the Brooklyn, lying off the fort, at sea, with orders not to land till an attack shall be made by the Secessionists.]
The fact that a truce existed had been published in a number of papers, but the papers I have found that mention it (the New York Times, The Brooklyn Eagle, the National Republican [Washington], the Evening Star [Washington], and others) did not mention that Buchanan and two of his cabinet secretaries had been involved in setting up the truce. So, Welles probably was aware of the truce, just not all the details. (Holt certainly was aware; he and Toucey were the two cabinet secretaries who had received the Southern communications and communicated the terms of the truce to Union forces waiting offshore in Pensacola Bay.)
Lincoln bypassed Welles concerning Lincoln's Pickens expedition. He kept Welles out of the loop. Great management style.
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.
I mentioned Wigfall's situation in my post 99 to you. Wigfall was indeed one of a kind. His analysis was pretty much how the South saw things.
I'm not going to try to sort out just who knew what and when and who told what to whom.
Nice to know what kind of poster I'm dealing with.
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.
Exactly what negotiations did Lincoln have with the Confederates over Fort Pickens or Fort Sumter? Confederates offered to negotiate. Oh, yeah, Lincoln can't "recognize" the Confederacy or even see their commissioners on the other side of the street. As I remember, Lincoln didn't "negotiate" with Governor Pickens or the Florida governor either, but he could have. Lincoln didn't even worry about the shape of the negotiation table, let alone negotiate.
Lincoln did offer to send troops to Sam Houston in Texas, but Houston threw Lincoln's letter that made that offer into the fireplace. Lincoln did try to stop Virginia's secession by meeting with a Virginia unionist, but by then his fleet was already on the way to Sumter.