The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

Likewise I’m sure.

Actually, I’ve probably been too harsh with you. For that I apologize.

I have a hugh and series newsflash for you. Nobody in the South gives a good flapjack what a bunch of commie Yankees think about the Civil War much less anything else.

We are now the free states and you idiots are the slave states. Embrace your suck. :-)

Gerogia Girl 2: "Nobody in the South gives a good flapjack what a bunch of commie Yankees think about the Civil War much less anything else."

You should care about the truth, because truth matters.
If you love lost-causer lies, that diminishes you, makes you less of a person, and more of a mind-numbed robot.
As somebody once said, it's only the truth which can set you free, FRiend.

So far as I can tell, everybody posting here is a conservative-in-good-standing, no reason to think otherwise.
Of course, I do sometimes wonder if some of our Lost-Causers aren't really agents of Vladimir Putin, hoping by analogy to justify his takeover in Ukraine... ;-)

Sherman Logan: "A pretty good summation."

Thanks, coming from you that means a lot!

Sherman Logan: "I’d suggest, however, that from election to Sumter, Lincoln and Davis were engaged in a contest by war of nerves for allegiance of the Upper South and Border States."

Of course, but who was the aggressor here?
The Upper South and Border States all refused to secede absent some really good reason.
Without them, the Confederacy had no real long term prospects, and yet Upper & Border states remained loyal to Union -- especially the low-slave-owning areas of Western Maryland, Virginia & North Carolina, plus Eastern Tennessee & Kentucky, Northern Arkansas & Missouri.
All of those states had large areas which first opposed secession, then remained loyal throughout the war.

So Davis' task was how to flip those people: the key to them being Virginia, and the key to Virginia being it's Constitution ratification statement saying it would "resume" its powers for serious material causes, such as "injury" or "oppression".
Davis had to act to create those causes, and he did: at Fort Sumter.

Sherman Logan: "As you say, Davis expected to win.
He believed the South’s propaganda that northerners couldn’t/wouldn’t fight."

It's important to remember that in 1860, Lincoln and the more "radical Republicans" were a totally new political phenomenon.
What Southern politicians like Jefferson Davis were accustomed to was two or three generations of "Dough-faced Northern" pols -- Democrats & Whigs alike, who would bend over backwards to kiss the Slave-Power's... ahem.
The notion that behind those "Dough-faces" were others -- men with backbones of steel -- was not part of secessionists' calculations.

And they weren't so terribly wrong, when you consider such Northern generals as McClellan and (come to find out) Mead.
Such generals would have been totally satisfied with a negotiated settlement which let the Confederacy "go in peace".
Had only a few key events gone differently, the history of the world since would be quite changed.

Sherman Logan: "He expected to win, as most European military and political leaders expected.
That they didn’t was quite largely due to the enormously improved logistics made possible by the railroad net."

Yes, but it was far more than that, since both Grant and Sherman demonstrated how their large armies could, on occasion, "live off the land".
All told, the North had every advantage save one: an initial burning passion for victory.
That took years, and Lincoln's leadership, to develop.

achilles2000: "a mono-causal view of the War Between The States is untenable.
There were various factors on both sides that led to the War, including, but by no means limited to, slavery."

Yes, but all this nonsense which you claim "caused" Civil War is just that: nonsense.
The truth of this matter is that I've spelled out above exactly what "caused" the war: Jefferson Davis' Confederacy provoked, started (at Fort Sumter), formally declared war (May 6, 1861) and sent military aid to Confederates operating in Union states -- period.
That's why there was war -- and no other reason.

Now, if you step back & ask: "why did Davis do it?", I've also spelled out that answer: nothing short of declared war would cause the loyal Upper South to secede, or allow Confederates to invade Union Border States.

Now, if you step back again & ask: "But why did the Slave-Power declare secession in the first place?", again, the answer is short & simple -- to protect slavery against Lincoln's newly elected "Black Republicans".

achilles2000: "That hardly makes me “pro-Confederate”, whatever that’s supposed to mean."

Oh?! Can you explain in what sense you are not "pro-Confederate"?

achilles2000: "The Union was a voluntary association that didn’t contain any provision prohibiting any state from leaving the Union."

True, but our Founding Fathers' original intent considered their compact to be "perpetual" (like a good marriage) absent some material cause, such as in Virginia's words, "injury" or "oppression".
They were consistent in insisting (or implying) that "disunion" could not be "at pleasure".
Indeed, they provided many constitutional remedies for "rebellion", "insurrection", "invasion", "domestic violence" and "treason".

achilles2000: "The South seceded in a peaceful orderly way.
Northerners were generally disposed to let them go, as pointed out previously."

Of course, at first, especially under "Dough-faced" Democrat President Buchanan, who insisted rightly that secessionists had no lawful grounds, but also, wrongly, that the United States could do nothing to stop them.

The problem was that secessionists did not want to "go in peace", they wanted war, and so they immediately set about provoking war -- by illegally seizing dozens of Federal properties (forts, armories, ships, mints, etc.), threatening Union officials, firing on federal ships -- then started war (at Fort Sumter), then formally declared war, on May 6, 1861, then sending military aid for Confederates within Union states.

achilles2000: "Lincoln began obsessing about the tariff issue.
The South, after all, was paying more than 50% of all federal taxes."

Pure fantasy & rubbish.
First of all, only New Orleans (#6) approached anywhere near the size of the top ten Union port cities.
The Confederacy's number-two port, Charleston SC, was #22 on the list of top US cities in 1860.
Richmond, VA was number 25.

In fact, in March 1861, the Deep South's 2.5 million whites represented fewer that 10% of the Union's total population, and even though they were generally quite prosperous, could not possibly have accounted for more that 15% of tariffs paid to the Federal Government.
So Deep South tariffs were not critical to the Union, but of course they were part of Lincoln's duties as President.

achilles2000: "South Carolina was willing to wait out Major Anderson at the Fort."

False. For five months before April 1861, first the South Carolina Governor Pickens, and then Confederate President Davis demanded Fort Sumter's surrender.
Indeed, in early March 1861, before Lincoln's inauguration, Davis ordered military preparations to assault & take the fort, along with a 100,000 man Confederate Army -- at a time when the entire US Army was less than 16,000 mostly scattered in small forts out west.
So Davis intended to start a war.
Why? Because in no other way would Upper South states like Virginia secede and join the Confederacy.

achilles2000: "Nevertheless, while Lincoln publicly promised not to reprovision and reinforce the Fort, he sent a supply ship and flotilla of warships to Sumter, apparently to do exactly that."

False again.
In fact Lincoln notified directly South Carolina Governor Pickens of his intentions to peacefully resupply only Federal troops at Fort Sumter.
Davis responded by immediately ordering a military assault to seize the fort, by force, a clear unprovoked act of war.

achilles2000: "If a foreign power sent a battle fleet to enter Long Beach Harbor, it would be considered an act of war."

False again.
First of all, the British had maintained several forts on US territory, some for over thirty years -- from 1783 to 1814 -- resupplying them as necessary, without it ever becoming a casus belli.
The issues were eventually settled peacefully in a series of treaties.

Second, your alleged "battle fleet" was nothing of the sort -- they were simply resupply ships, totally incapable of forcing entry into Charleston Harbor, much less resupplying Fort Sumter against any serious opposition.

Third, as mentioned before: there was nothing secret about the mission, since Governor Pickens was notified directly by Lincoln, in advance.

achilles2000: "Now, I know that none of this is popular with the Lincoln worshippers on FR (you may or may not be one, but others will read this post), but historians generally recognize that Lincoln deliberately brought about the hostilities at Fort Sumter."

First, we hold Lincoln in the same high regard we hold other great presidents, i.e., Washington & Jefferson.
None of these men were "perfect" or deserving of "worship", but all do earn sincere respect.

Second, at this stage (April 1861), Lincoln is not the active force here -- Jefferson Davis was.
Davis threatened Federal troops in a Federal fort -- that alone is a provocation for war.
Davis then ordered military assault and seizure of Fort Sumter -- that was an act of war.

Lincoln's efforts to resupply his troops was no more an act of war than British resupply missions to their forts on US territory, for over 30 years(!).

Lincoln did not start the war, Davis did.

achilles2000: "Even popular historians such as Shelby Foote and Bruce Catton have written about it. "

I've read them. Foote & Catton both ignore this particular period in history, jumping forward directly into the hostilities.
Several other authors do discuss this at length and in detail.

achilles2000: "The Providence Daily Post, for example, wrote on April 13, 1861: 'For three weeks the Administration newspapers have been assuring us that Fort Sumter would be abandoned...[but] Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor.' "

Democrat newspapers, of course, all put the worst possible spin on any action by Lincoln -- just as Democrats today do to Republicans.
But the fact remains that Lincoln's peaceful resupply mission was not an act of war, while Davis' military assault on Fort Sumter was an unprovoked act of war -- equivalent to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

achilles2000: "Lincoln’s personal secretaries, Nicolay and Hay, admitted after the War that Lincoln had sought to provoke the firing at Sumter: 'Abstractly it was enough that the government was in the right. But to make the matter sure, [Lincoln] determined that in addition the rebellion should be put in the ‘wrong’' "

Sure, but the fact still remains that Lincoln only gave Davis the excuse Davis wanted to do what was necessary for the Confederacy to flip more Union states: start a war, so Virginia could claim "oppression" and "injury".
The war-starter here is Davis, Lincoln merely exposed Davis true intentions.

achilles2000: "In early April of 1861 Col. John Baldwin ( a representative to Virginia secession convention) met with Lincoln to assure him..."

This version of the story is not confirmed and likely apocryphal.
The more trustworthy version says that Lincoln twice offered secessionists a "deal", where he would turn over Fort Sumter to South Carolina, in exchange for a promise from Virginia to continue support for the Union, and not secede.
Lincoln said words to the effect: "a fort for a state is a good trade."
But Virginians refuse the deal.
So Lincoln realized they were merely waiting for a appropriate excuse to declare secession, regardless of what Lincoln did about Fort Sumter.

Once again: at this point, secessionists were the actors, forcing events, to which Lincoln merely responded in the best way he could.

achilles2000: "Sumter, by the way, provided Lincoln with a means of enforcing the tariff on the Port of Charleston, which is what he ultimately wanted."

Total fantasy.
No efforts were made before, during or after the Battle of Fort Sumter to collect a single penny of tariffs for the Federal Government.
So why would you concoct such ludicrous nonsense?

achilles2000: " Lincoln wanted a war because he saw it as the only way to preserve the system of taxes and subsidies that sustained the financially powerful elements of his base."

More ridiculous fantasy.
The truth is that the Deep South secession states, with less that 10% of the nation's white population, were not very important to overall Federal revenues.
So that was certainly NOT Lincoln's motivation.

Lincoln's first motivation was to preserve the Constitution as he and our Founders originally intended it.
His second motivation, after May 6, 1861 was to defeat the military power which had formally declared war and invaded the United States of America.

achilles2000: "The Fire-Eaters were only one faction - one that I’ve mentioned before.
One can quote them all day long on the issue of slavery, but they didn’t represent even close to a majority, ever."

In fact, Fire-Eaters represented the heart & soul of slave-power aristocracy, loudly demanding what other slave-owners believed necessary: independence from an increasingly hostile Federal Union.
In fact, Fire-Eaters were politically powerful enough to split up the 1860 Democrat convention in Charleston, SC, thus guaranteeing Republican victory in November.
In fact, Fire-Eaters pushed tirelessly for declarations of secession and a new Confederacy.

Yes, after March 1861, Fire-Eaters somewhat faded away, as more "establishment" politicians like Jefferson Davis took over.
But Fire-Eaters had played an absolutely essential role in forcing events which led to Civil War.

achilles2000: "Robert Toombs’ advice on Sumter should have been taken.
If they had left it alone, Lincoln would have been in a quandary, and war might well have been avoided.
At the least, it might helped keep the border states in the Union."

Yes, with 20-20 hindsight, it appears the Confederacy's eagerness for war was 100% insane, and so we naturally ponder: why did they do it?
One answer is: because the rewards were just too great.
In one simple action (assaulting Fort Sumter), Davis literally doubled the size and population of the Confederacy -- from 2.5 million whites to over 5 million, including now Upper South Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas.
Now, instead of a hopeless 10% of the US white population, the Confederacy held nearly 20% and could lay claims on Border States that would add hugely to its industry, and bring the Confederate population up to nearly 1/2 of the Union's.

And those were odds which people like Davis and Lincoln considered highly favorable to Confederate victory.

By the way, you seem to be confused about the difference between "Upper South" (Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas) and "Border States" (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware).
After Fort Sumter, the Upper South flipped from Union to Confederate, even though huge areas of those states remained Union loyalists (i.e., Western Virginia, Eastern Tennessee).
The Border States never did declare secession, even though many of their soldiers served the Confederacy, and Kentucky & Missouri were claimed as Confederate states.
In reality, neither had more than a small percentage of slave-owners, and were therefore overwhelmingly loyal to the Union.

“As somebody once said, it’s only the truth which can set you free, FRiend”

Obsessive delusion disorder must be a beach to live with. :-)

Well gotta run. I see our next door neighbor has hoisted the stars and bars. Mr. GG2 is hanging ours on the deck for the big Memorial Day cookout.

Its great to be in Dixie. Packing heat with a 30 round mag. :-)

Apology cheerfully accepted. You show more than a passing interest in the topic and, like I said, the focus should be on sharpening our arguments in favor of our respective positions rather than urging our opponents to “embrace the suck” ;’)

Georgia Girl 2: "Obsessive delusion disorder must be a beach to live with. :-)"

So, I take it you have nothing to offer here besides insults?
Nice to meet you too. ;-)

both Grant and Sherman demonstrated how their large armies could, on occasion, "live off the land".

True enough.

However, it must be noted that in both cases the "living off the land" period was brief, and the armies were moving. A large army would "eat out" the territory for 10/20 miles in all direction in just a day or two. If it didn't keep moving, it would start to starve quite quickly.

This was a truly ancient limitation on campaign strategy, going back literally thousands of years. Armies could be adequately supplied using oceans or river transportation, if the logistic services were well organized. But without them, they ran into trouble very quickly indeed.

Of all pre-railroad armies, only the Romans and perhaps the Chinese seemed to be able to keep large armies supplied consistently overland. And I don't think we're clear on how they did it, though it was obviously a major reason the Romans built their famous roads.

In the Vicksburg Campaign, Grant rampaged around Mississippi, living off the land, but as quickly as he could he re-established his railroad and river supply routes. He absolutely, positively could not have besieged Vicksburg by living off the land.

After taking Atlanta, Sherman eventually cut loose and headed for Savannah, but he was heading for the coast where supplies would be available. He also kept moving. If he'd had to besiege August, for example, for more than a couple of days, he'd quickly have been in trouble.

One Union army did get cut off in Chattanooga after Chickamauga, and darn near starved before Grant reopened an adequate supply line.

I agree with you about the aggressor in the prewar period being the CSA. It is entirely obvious that Davis needed to change the equation in order to move the CSA forward. Lincoln only needed to maintain the status quo, and it is probable the untenable long-term position of the CSA would have become obvious and the CSA would have eventually probably collapsed, extorting constitutional protections for slavery to return to the Union.

To prevent that, Davis had to gamble on war bringing all the slave states into the CSA. He gambled and won half.

BTW, I think Meade doesn't get enough credit. He actually managed to outright defeat Lee in open battle, when the Army of Northern VA was at the height of its power. Nobody had done that before, and even Grant did not succeed in doing so, though very largely because Lee would not come out and fight him.

I do think Grant would have not allowed Lee to escape across the Potomac after Gettysburg without a fight, but the outcome of that fight might not have necessarily been a victory for the Union. The Army of the Potomac was pretty darn beat up, too.

Meade's low profile then and since has very largely been because he really, really pissed off the press corps, who made a pact never to mention him except dismissively. There's no particular reason we should honor their pact.

“nothing to offer here besides insults?”

It only seems fair as I had to wait through your insults to the confederacy ad nauseum. Oh wait its only an insult if you are on the receiving end. I get it.

Read my insulting post where I state that nobody below the Mason Dixon line cares what you think about the Civil War.

You seem to be the only one still upset over it. All of us rebels are flying the stars and bars and drinking long neck Buds and reveling in the fact that you live in the slave states now. Sucks to be you. LOL!!!!!

“Actually, I’ve probably been too harsh with you. For that I apologize”

Don’t get sucked into feeding these hateful trolls. They are parasites that infect every thread on FR that is about anything to do with the Civil War or the Confederacy.

Happy Memorial Day from Georgia. :-)

Don’t get sucked into feeding these hateful trolls. They are parasites that infect every thread on FR that is about anything to do with the Civil War or the Confederacy.

That's pretty rich, since you seem compelled to keep coming back here just to tell us how little you care.

First, one respect in which I am not “pro-confederate” is that, even though any state had the right to secede and has that right today, I think secession was not a wise course of action. If “pro-Confederate” is supposed to mean, pro-slavery, don’t be stupid. No one that I know of on this forum is pro-slavery. In any event, the Confederate states would have been slave states inside the Union, with the only difference being that Lincoln was willing to make the slaves’ shackles stronger.

I am also not “pro-union”. Lincoln assumed dictatorial powers and destroyed the Federal Republic, putting us on the course to a consolidated, lawless federal government. That was a violation of his oath of office. Secession is not “treason”, “rebellion”, or “insurrection”. Davis was never tried for treason, and that was in part because it was far from clear that he could be convicted even in the atmosphere of Northern Triumphalism that existed following the end of the War. See, e.g., Adams, When In the Course of Human Events”, pp. 177-192.

Second, most of the rest of your post consists of distortions, evasions, and inaccuracies. To take just a few examples, you have entirely invented an “original intent” argument that isn’t based on a single word in the Constitution. While it was hoped that no state would leave the Union for insubstantial reasons, the right to leave wasn’t in doubt in the Founding Generation and beyond. As I have mentioned before, even New England Federalists asserted the right of their states to secede during the War of 1812 and seriously considered it.

On the tax issue, historians disagree with you, but what would they know? Moreover, because of the tariffs Southerners were forced to buy overpriced Northern manufactured products, which was another source antagonism before the War. The historical record is clear on that. Even Charles Dickens, who followed events closely because of his travels in the US, wrote: “The Northern onslaught on slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states.” I DON’T agree that it was just economic control any more than I agree that it was just slavery, but the economic issues were a major factor. Nevertheless, there is no real dispute over the role that economic issues played. So, you can play by yourself on that one.

Your treatment of Sumter shows you are a poseur. You write “I’ve read them. Foote & Catton both ignore this particular period in history, jumping forward directly into the hostilities.” Here you are exposed. Catton didn’t write about the period? I guess he didn’t write “The Coming Fury, then...oh, but he did, and he discusses the point I mention on p. 297. Foote discusses the point in “The Civil War”, pp. 47-48.

If that isn’t bad enough, you also write: “Second, your alleged “battle fleet” was nothing of the sort — they were simply resupply ships...”

The ships sent by Lincoln were the steam sloop-of-war USS Pawnee, steam sloop-of-war USS Powhatan, transporting motorized launches and about 300 sailors, armed screw steamer USS Pocahontas, Revenue Cutter USRC Harriet Lane, steamer Baltic transporting about 200 troops, composed of companies C and D of the 2nd U.S. Artillery, and three hired tug boats with added protection against small arms fire to tow barges with supplies AND SOLDIERS to Sumter.

You don’t pass the basic test of knowing even popular sources and basic facts, and yet you expect the people you copy on these posts to take your “analysis” seriously?

You make no mention of the Confederate Peace Commission that tried to see Lincoln about resolving issues about federal installations. You also write as if the federal government was the principal rather than an agent. That is the (erroneous) assumption today, but it isn’t the design of the Constitution. To the extent that each state had an interest in every federal installation, there were property division issues to workout. Bear in mind that the Southern states had as much of an interest in federal facilities in the North as the North had in facilities in the South.

As for “waiting Anderson out”, the reference was to waiting for the fort to be abandoned. They knew that Winfield Scott and others were urging that. In the event, however, taking Lincoln’s bait was an enormous error. Time was on the Deep South’s side, and the longer nothing happened the more secure secession would have become, which is why Lincoln did what he did.

The papers writing contemporaneously about what was pretty well known concerning what Lincoln had done at Sumter (there were others I could easily have quoted) are dismissed by you for no reason that goes to the merits, and when I point out that Hay and Nicolay said the same thing more diplomatically you say “sure”, but it doesn’t matter. Then you go on to flog your “Jefferson Davis had a secret plan to start a war” theory.

I grant that theory is novel. In fact, it is so novel that even though I have gone through many thousands of pages of history and documents on this subject, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen it. Perhaps I’ve forgotten it, but I don’t think so. So, here’s what I propose: write a scholarly monograph titled “Jefferson Davis’s Secret Plan to Start a War” and get it published in a major peer-reviewed historical publication. It should be easy because the liberals who control the major historical have so much invested in demonizing the South that they would publish almost anything that would give them new opportunities for slander. I’ll read the monograph, and if you have a credible case I’ll reconsider. I’m not terribly concerned about having to reconsider, however, because your theory appears to be nothing more than a rationalization for Lincolnolatry and the leviathan state that Lincoln birthed.

Moreover, Davis was entirely tempermentally unsuited to the kind of political machinations you suggest. He was also completely unsuited to be President because of his poor health, his rigidity, his poor judgment regarding men serving in his administration, his micromanaging of administrative details, and for other reasons. Unlike your theory, my position isn’t original. It is an evidence-based historical consensus. I don’t claim credit for it.

Given what we have all been fed for years, and I am a “Northerner” by birth and education (I even studied under a Jaffaite), it is difficult to look at Lincoln honestly. He was certainly an interesting figure, and it would have been far better for both the North and the South if he had not been assassinated and had been able to finish his term. Nevertheless, the Lincoln image departs far more from reality than even the myths of “Camelot” and the “New Deal”.

Well, I occasionally lose my temper with people who claim great historical knowledge, but really are just repeating comfortable prejudices formed by texts in k-12 and beyond and the media. When they are challenged, you end up with cut and paste writing taken from some website or other, invented facts, and utterly baseless assertions. I also become testy with “Hannity conservatives”, who claim to want Constitutional government and to save SS, Medicare, Medicaid, government schools, and every other form of income transfer program that benefits them. Then there are the circular firing squads on FR for political candidates, the inability to view the present as anything different from the Cold War, and a host of other things that indicate to me a failure to understand the present. Oh, well....

I will guarantee you this - our cultural, political, and economic situation isn’t going to end well. Within the lifetimes of probably most on FR we are going to see something like the Greek crisis here, and there will be no one to bail us out. It isn’t because it is “inevitable”, but because we won’t change, learn, or act aggressively to avoid it. FR is actually a source of despair.

I hope you are enjoying the Memorial Day weekend!

And you had to come back to whine to me about it. :-)

Sherman Logan: "BTW, I think Meade doesn't get enough credit.
He actually managed to outright defeat Lee in open battle, when the Army of Northern VA was at the height of its power.
Nobody had done that before, and even Grant did not succeed in doing so, though very largely because Lee would not come out and fight him."

Recently finished reading Allen Guelzo's 2013 book "Gettysburg".
Guelzo doesn't like Mead, says he was a McClellanite who had no intention of defeating the Confederacy, would have been totally happy with a negotiated settlement -- live & let live kind of guy.

According to Guelzo's account, the Union won that battle not because of Mead, but despite him -- despite Mead's eagerness to retreat and reluctance to press his advantages.
And victory cost the Union some of its best officers, men who sacrificed their own lives to prevent Mead from throwing the battle away.

Personally, I think Guelzo has the right ideas here, and recommend him to you.

Haven't read Guelzo, but the basic idea is one that has been current for 150 years.

His performance at Gettysburg being inadequate is, I believe, a remarkably unfair judgment, given that he took command only three days before the battle started and of an army that was strung out all over the place and on the march. He reached the battlefield and took effective command only on its second day. That he nevertheless managed to put together sufficient cohesion to beat Lee, who had an efficient army assembled, is to my mind a remarkable accomplishment.

That many officers in the Army of the Potomac had the attitudes you describe is well known. While it seems Meade felt this way in the beginning of the war, a very great many, probably the majority, of Union soldiers and officers felt the same at the time. Grant, towards the end of the war, publicly praised him as the equal of Sherman, remarkably high praise.

Here's an alternate view from Guelzo's.

http://npsgnmp.wordpress.com/2014/02/27/is-george-gordon-meades-prestige-as-the-victor-of-gettysburg-at-stake/

achilles2000: "First, one respect in which I am not “pro-confederate” is that, even though any state had the right to secede and has that right today, I think secession was not a wise course of action.
If “pro-Confederate” is supposed to mean, pro-slavery, don’t be stupid. "

So, you partially concede two obvious points out of dozens of major bones of contention, and from that pretend to be something other than "pro-confederate"?
Rubbish, you are as pro-confederate as they come these days.

Indeed, based on your logic, I could claim to be "pro-Confederate" since I do concede some obvious points to them, including the courage, gallantry & skill of their armed forces.

FRiend, the word "pro-Confederate" means exactly what it sounds like: you support the Confederates on virtually every issue which is remotely defensible.
And you do it in a way which is less than 100% honest, inventing (or repeating as true) cockamamie nonsense whenever it suits your purposes.
Some of that I've pointed out to you above, and yet you still go through great pains to deny the truth.

achilles2000: "Lincoln was willing to make the slaves’ shackles stronger."

Typical of pro-Confederate nonsense -- you blame Lincoln for being willing to accept the Slave-Power's demands to preserve the Union.
You ignore the fact that the Slave-Power itself refused to negotiate reunion until their war was all-but-lost, and even then demanded preservation of slavery as pre-condition for reunion.

So, like all pro-Confederates, your hatred of Lincoln makes it impossible for you to see the truth about him.

achilles2000: "Lincoln assumed dictatorial powers and destroyed the Federal Republic, putting us on the course to a consolidated, lawless federal government.
That was a violation of his oath of office. "

Rubbish, Lincoln did nothing of the sort, and what he did do was well within limits of Constitutional responses to rebellion, insurrection, etc.

achilles2000: "Secession is not “treason”, “rebellion”, or “insurrection”. Davis was never tried for treason, and that was in part because it was far from clear that he could be convicted..."

Like all pro-Confederates, you ignore or twist the Constitution's definition of "treason", and pretend that the Confederacy did not provoke, start & formally declare war on the United States.
You refuse to acknowledge that Confederate sympathizers in Union states did provide "aid and comfort" to enemies.

The fact that no treason was prosecuted is part of the basic deal to end the war: Unconditional Surrender from the Confederacy, no treason trials by the Union.

achilles2000: "Second, most of the rest of your post consists of distortions, evasions, and inaccuracies."

No, just the facts.

achilles2000: "you have entirely invented an “original intent” argument that isn’t based on a single word in the Constitution.
While it was hoped that no state would leave the Union for insubstantial reasons, the right to leave wasn’t in doubt in the Founding Generation and beyond. "

No, I follow James Madison on this question.
He spelled out exactly what the Founders intended on the subject of "disunion".
They did consider disunion "by mutual consent" entirely legitimate, and also as a result of serious, material "usurpations", "injury" or "oppression". But they did not allow secession "at pleasure", and if you read their words carefully, you will see that in no case do any of them say or imply secession "at pleasure" is legitimate.

And yet, that is exactly what happened after the elections of November 1860 -- the Deep South declared its secession "at pleasure".

achilles2000: "even New England Federalists asserted the right of their states to secede during the War of 1812 and seriously considered it."

Sure, and President Madison responded exactly as the Founders intended -- he moved substantial military forces from the border with Canada into positions close to New England, to be readily available in the event secessionists proved serious about their threats.
Turns out they weren't, so Madison did not have to put down their armed rebellion.

President Lincoln was not so fortunate.

achilles2000: "On the tax issue, historians disagree with you, but what would they know?"

Sorry, but real historians agree with me -- tariffs had nothing to do with secession.
Only pro-Confederate propagandists agree with you.

achilles2000: "because of the tariffs Southerners were forced to buy overpriced Northern manufactured products, which was another source antagonism before the War."

The truth here is that no pro-Confederate acknowledges the real history.
In fact, tariffs were at historically LOW levels in 1860, less than half of their highest levels of the 1830s, those high levels imposed by Southerners like John C. Calhoun.

And the Democrat party, dominated by the Southern slave-power had controlled both Congress & Presidency nearly all of that time -- which means that tariffs were exactly what the slave-power wanted them to be.

Finally, NONE of the early seceding states mentioned tariffs as a reason.
What they did mention -- over and over again, was their fear of the threat to slavery from Lincoln's Republicans.

achilles2000: "the economic issues were a major factor.
Nevertheless, there is no real dispute over the role that economic issues played."

The secessionists' single greatest economic issue can be described in one word: slavery.

achilles2000: "Your treatment of Sumter shows you are a poseur.
You write “I’ve read them.
Foote & Catton both ignore this particular period in history, jumping forward directly into the hostilities.”
Here you are exposed. Catton didn’t write about the period?
I guess he didn’t write “The Coming Fury..."

Imho, neither Catton nor Foote covered the period from November 1860 to, say, May 1861 in anything like serious detail.
Fortunately, there are several other recent authors who do fill in those blanks, and I will look them up & post for you.

achilles2000: "The ships sent by Lincoln were the steam sloop-of-war USS Pawnee, steam sloop-of-war USS Powhatan, transporting motorized launches and about 300 sailors, armed screw steamer USS Pocahontas, Revenue Cutter USRC Harriet Lane, steamer Baltic transporting about 200 troops, composed of companies C and D of the 2nd U.S. Artillery, and three hired tug boats with added protection against small arms fire to tow barges with supplies AND SOLDIERS to Sumter."

Sure, but everyone from Lincoln & Davis to General Scott understood that those ships could not break through hostile shore batteries, if the Confederacy did not wish them to reach Fort Sumter.
They had no capability -- zero -- to fight a serious battle, they were only sent to resupply Sumter.
That's why Lincoln notified Governor Pickens in advance of their arrival & purpose.

So I'll repeat: Lincoln's mission to resupply Federal troops in Fort Sumter was in no way an act of war, but the Confederacy's military assault on those troops was absolutely an act of war, equivalent to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

achilles2000: "You don’t pass the basic test of knowing even popular sources and basic facts, and yet you expect the people you copy on these posts to take your “analysis” seriously?"

Sorry FRiend, but it's you who have failed every test, and nobody here who is not themselves a committed pro-Confederate takes you seriously.

achilles2000: "You make no mention of the Confederate Peace Commission that tried to see Lincoln about resolving issues about federal installations."

Lincoln properly insisted that any secession negotiations go through Congress.

achilles2000: "To the extent that each state had an interest in every federal installation, there were property division issues to workout."

To workout with Congress, which is the ultimate authority on such matters.

achilles2000: "In the event, however, taking Lincoln’s bait was an enormous error.
Time was on the Deep South’s side, and the longer nothing happened the more secure secession would have become, which is why Lincoln did what he did."

Indeed, there are several things the Confederacy could have done to "go in peace" and resolve its issues without bloodshed.
But that's not what they wanted.
Instead, they wanted a Second Revolution, with Davis to be the new George Washington, defeating the Yankees, just as Washington defeated the Brits.
And I have already explained in detail why what they wanted, they also considered absolutely necessary.

achilles2000: "when I point out that Hay and Nicolay said the same thing more diplomatically you say “sure”, but it doesn’t matter.
Then you go on to flog your “Jefferson Davis had a secret plan to start a war” theory."

No, there was nothing secret about it, everybody knew -- the Confederacy under Davis first provoked (threatened, seized property) war, then started (assaulted Fort Sumter) it, then formally declared war on the United States (May 6, 1861).
Only a dedicated, determined pro-Confederate could fail to see the obvious here, and that is just what your quote from Hay & Nicolay says, in so many words.

achilles2000: "I grant that theory is novel. In fact, it is so novel that even though I have gone through many thousands of pages of history and documents on this subject, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen it. "

That's your theory, not mine.
Mine are simply the facts of history: Davis started the Civil War, for reasons which are all too obvious.

achilles2000: "Davis was entirely tempermentally unsuited to the kind of political machinations you suggest.
He was also completely unsuited to be President because of his poor health, his rigidity, his poor judgment regarding men serving in his administration, his micromanaging of administrative details, and for other reasons."

Of course, you are far from the first pro-Confederate to blame Jefferson Davis for their defeat.
That was the generally accepted wisdom from post-war years.
Davis was quite unpopular.
Today, many pro-Confederates look more kindly on Davis, and blame whatever shortcomings he had on... well, naturally, "Ape" Lincoln!

achilles2000: "Given what we have all been fed for years, and I am a “Northerner” by birth and education (I even studied under a Jaffaite), it is difficult to look at Lincoln honestly. "

But you have been drinking gallons of pro-Confederate propaganda Kool-Aid, and it's warped your outlook.
The truth is that Lincoln deserves great respect as one of our best Presidents, and I would be happy to debate if he was number 5 or 3 or two.
But I utterly reject the pro-Confederate claim that he was the worst of all.