From his actions, I don't believe Lincoln wanted to resolve anything except on his terms. Compromise did not appear to be one of his characteristics, nor would the South compromise on their understanding of the Constitution. Both sides didn't appear willing to budge from their basic positions, meaning the war was almost inevitable unless they tried to negotiate or stayed with the status quo. Lincoln would not negotiate or even talk with the Confederate commissioners informally and/or secretly, which I think he could have done without officially recognizing them. It takes two to negotiate. Wasn't peace worth talking with the other side who sent their people up to talk with you? Peace apparently wasn't in Lincoln's interest.
The South, for its part, is not without blame. They should have not pushed so hard to get the forts evacuated now, and they should have made every effort to make sure that Sumter was well supplied with food. And, yes, I know that Governor Pickens had early on offered to supply Fort Sumter with food, and Anderson turned him down and even sent back items he didn't order. Whose fault is it that Anderson ran out of food?
Lincoln saw an opportunity to initiate the war with it appearing to be Davis's fault. So Nicolay and Hay indicated in their history of Lincoln, their boss that they saw almost every day. Lincoln took that opportunity instead of negotiating or waiting patiently after sending messages to Governor Pickens that Sumter would be evacuated. He chose to do what his advisors had told him would lead to war, not peace. I have posted that it would have been a better decision for the South not to attack Sumter but to let Lincoln try to stop foreign ships heading to Charleston to collect import duties, a possible act of war or piracy, or as Wigfall termed it, collecting tribute.
Oh, wait ... I forgot that you don't have the time or inclination to look up things like what Nicolay and Hay said and prefer instead to say that professional historians have already dealt with things I post. That's a dodge. You apparently prefer to leave research to us little people or historians. You, my "elite" respondent, can't be bothered. Then why are you wasting our time and yours on a history thread and disparaging sourced information posted to the thread?
I am a retired Ph.D., and I am by nature and training a researcher. Surely you are not casting aspersions on me because I am old and enjoying myself just because you don’t have time to fully participate in a history thread. Over the last ten years or so I have gathered a large collection of old newspaper articles and history books on the war and its issues. I post things to these threads from them and from information I find on the web like Holt's and Scott's March 5, 1861 letter to Lincoln. That was something I had never seen before the other night, and it only took a few minutes to find what Scott was telling Lincoln about the truce right after the inauguration.
I'll keep posting stuff when it pleases me, even though you might not be willing or able to respond. Cheers!
I am a retired Ph.D., and I am by nature and training a researcher.
You tell me that you are a Ph.D. and you tell me to get off a history thread, and I'm the elitist? You guys have to get over the idea of thinking that everyone who disagrees with you is some kind of elitist. Relying on established authority may be faulted as weak or sheep-like, but it's not modest "little people" who think that they are going to overturn established opinion.
I have been participating in these Civil War discussions for years. Time was, I'd put in a lot of research and go running after any book that would prove a point. I don't have time for that now. I'm not really in the mood. Still, I think I have made a contribution here and continue to do so, though in a more modest way.
I don't think it's out of line to say that I'm not going to bother running down everything you make reference to, and to invite others who may be interested to look into your claims. There are people out there (maybe) for whom this is fresh and new. They'd do a better job of tracking down sources and forming a time line than I'd do even if I wanted to. The alternative would be to simply ignore what you say. Would that be better?
If I've slighted your own contributions, that has a lot to do with my own attitude and situation right now. The way you have of treating every discussion as though it were a one-on-one debate, an excuse for barraging others with all manner of arguments, whenever somebody might just want to make a small point is another reason.
Also, I don't really think anything is going to be resolved by these discussions. I'm not saying historical research is useless or a waste, but the beginning of the American Civil War is (like the beginning of WWI) one of the most researched, most debated topics ever, and trying to force a conclusion one way or the other just isn't going to work.
Finding dozens of Southern editorials on secession that say that Lincoln's inaugural meant war doesn't really prove anything, any more than finding, say German editorials from 1914 making claims about French or Russian actions (or French or Russian editorials about German actions), because they say exactly what one would expect people in a war fever, intent on conflict, would say.
Finally, I'm at a loss as to what the upshot of all this is. To prove that the current government is illegitimate? To restrict the federal government to the powers it had in 1850? To break up the country? To vindicate the Confederacy, a government that certainly wasn't any better than its adversary? To make Lincoln the great villain of American history? To feel better about being Southern than you already do? I'm not saying it's all a waste or I wouldn't participate, but there are definitely reasons why this becomes trying and wearying at times.