Posted on 05/16/2015 5:12:04 AM PDT by OttawaFreeper
The North rejoiced: The rebellion had been put down and the Union saved. But Northerners also breathed a sigh of relief. Many had feared that the Confederacy would not accept defeat, but instead would continue the struggle by means of guerrilla warfare. Indeed, Lee’s chief of artillery, E. Porter Alexander, had suggested this option before Lee’s surrender. The Confederate president, Jefferson Davis, also wished to continue the war in this manner. But Lee rejected the guerrilla option in favor of unifying the country. And General Joseph Johnston defied Davis’s orders to continue hostilities, instead surrendering his force to William Tecumseh Sherman at Durham Station in North Carolina in order to “save the people [and] spare the blood of the army.” But in reality, the war was not over. It would continue for nearly another decade and a half in the form of Reconstruction.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Possibly. A problem with the manipulation thesis is that just about anything that Lincoln actually did could be interpreted as a provocation designed to goad the Confederacy into firing first. It doesn't leave him with any options and it doesn't allow them any options short of starting a war.
Confederates were going to see reinforcing or simply resupplying a fort as an act of war. They were going to see just holding on to a fort in the seven rebel states as an act of war. That didn't leave Lincoln very many options short of just giving in to all their demands. And if you accept that way of thinking, aren't you really admitting that the Confederate regime definitely had war very much on its mind and in its intentions?
For a variety of reasons, the federals were going to try to hold onto one of their forts in the seceded states. First of all, as long as the held some ground in those states they could assert that secession wasn't a reality. That may not be logical to everybody, but it's how people think when they are grasping for straws in a crisis.
Secondly, holding ground would be doing something. It would make the it look like the government wasn't passive in the face of what was happening. Third, given the assumption Lincoln and many Northerners made about unionist strength in the South, there was a possibility that a firm stand could actually stop the tide of secessionist sentiment -- not much of a chance probably, but they didn't know that.
Fourth, the Confederates wanted something like seven more slave states to join them. If the federals gave up all territory and installations in the seven Deep South States that had already seceded, the conflict would move to the seven Upper South and Border States that hadn't. Logically, it would be better to be arguing about Fort Sumter, than about Fort McHenry.
And Lincoln pretty much said what he was thinking in his inaugural address. He told the rebels that he would try to hold on to the forts, and he told them that he wouldn't fire first. So where was the trickery?
Of course it was true that the government wasn't sure which fort they were going to hold on to -- Moultrie, Sumter, Pickens, Jefferson. It wasn't clear which forts could hold out against a rebel blockade. So there was certainly an opportunity for mixed signals there -- for saying that the government would hold on to one fort rather than the other and changing its mind later as the situation changed.
And then Davis and his government weren't wholly free actors. They probably did feel as though they also had to stand firm or be seen as weak. Davis may well have felt that his back was being pushed to the wall or that he was caught between Lincoln and the South Carolinians who'd act on their own if he dawdled.
Still, Davis stood to gain a lot if war started. He could shore up his own position and his governments with the public. He would benefit from a wave of pro-secession sentiment in the other slave states if it came to a shooting war between the Union and the Confederacy.
I think it's probably time to move away from the idea of manipulation or trickery to ask what options each side had and what options they left the other side as responses. Lincoln was wise not to do anything irreversible, not to jump off or push anybody off the cliff. Davis, not so much. He ought to have spent his later years, figuring out what he could have done differently, rather than assuming that everything that he did was right.
I don’t think it is at all accurate to say that “most of the people in the remaining Union were okay with it.’
Most people in the Union were opposed to secession, but were very divided about how to respond. Almost nobody wanted war, but the question of exactly what should be done was hotly debated.
For obvious reasons, Democratic party newspapers and such were the most likely to oppose “coercion” as a forceful response was called.
Meanwhile, Davis and the CSA was faced with the possibility that seceded states might begin to drift back towards unionism.
However, the major issue dominating the scene between the founding the CSA and Sumter was the unseceded slave states. Everything Lincoln and Davis did was essentially a giant-stakes poker game to see who would win those states.
In the event, they wound up splitting the pot. Which meant that we’d have a long, bloody war rather than a short one.
The Ragamuffin War in Brazil from 1835-1845 ended with the secessionists being quite generously treated- the debts of the revolutionary government paid, military forces incorporated into the victorious military, full amnesty and even a voice in government. The English Civil War, if considered to be over with the Restoration in 1660, included a general amnesty with only 19 executions of those who executed Charles I as an exception. The Romans, after the Social War ended, conceded citizenship to the defeated in order to better unite their realm. While the latter two are debateable in their results, the first one is decidedly superior to Reconstruction.
Black citizens - I think that's to whom you are referring - in 1964 had several models from which to choose. The George Washington Carver model was considered largely obsolete but had the advantage of teaching hard work, tight families, non-violence and Christianity.
Other competing models included the Malcolm X model; the Martin Luther King model; and the Democrat Party approved Lyndon Johnson model.
The later two models were very similar in 1964 but soon separated as Dr. King embraced the North Vietnamese cause and the expectation of guaranteed annual incomes for everyone.
I don't know which model I would have chosen for myself. It would have largely depended on what my parents had taught, or not taught, and what my peers were saying. I like to think I would have voted for Barry Goldwater. His belief system included many values of the Carver model.
Would you have told the founders in 1776 that they should be patient and concentrate on educating and improving themselves and that at some point down the road the king would grant them a voice in government?
You limited your question to “Confederate brethren.” I think that's because you have been taught to think of race and the idea of racial supremacy as a “Southern problem” rather than a nearly universal problem. You have the wrong end of the telescope to your eye.
“Would you have told the founders in 1776 that they should be patient and concentrate on educating and improving themselves and that at some point down the road the king would grant them a voice in government?”
By some accounts 15-20 percent of the colonists remained loyal to the crown with perhaps an additional 35 percent neutral. Depending on where I lived, occupation, and education level I might very well have sided with the crown.
I like to think I would have opposed the British.
Not much of a response, but then I didn’t expect much anyway.
Meh.
I’m noticing a pattern. You don’t write anything worthy of comment.
The South discovered that Slavery was a really, really bad idea.
Let's see how quick on the uptake you are.
Bill Clinton. "Don't ask, don't tell."
I favor Black people having a voice. However, we ought not use the power of government in an attempt to force people to like them. I *HATE* discrimination against black people, but I hate even more the idea that government can make laws to force people to associate, who do not wish to do so.
These laws have now been turned to the task of forcing people to associate with homosexuals, abortion providers, feminists, and all sorts of other grievance groups. I take issue with all such laws. It's not the government's job to make people like each other.
It is a simple principle that the Freedom of Association also permits a freedom of disassociation. Making people associate against their will is just the Government trying to impose morality on people.
I may believe in the result without believing in the means used to achieve it.
Maybe black citizens should have invoked self-evident truths, declared themselves to be a different country, and started shooting. Because that would have been a better way to resolve the problem than a federal voting rights act.
Straw man. Not worthy of response.
And yet here you are......responding with similar worthless commentary.
That they were deliberately provocative and belligerent seems pretty evident.
And Lincoln pretty much said what he was thinking in his inaugural address. He told the rebels that he would try to hold on to the forts, and he told them that he wouldn't fire first. So where was the trickery?
I've been over this with others, but not with you. I first became aware of this argument a couple of decades ago when I went over to my best friend's house to lift weights with him. He is Black, and was a History major, and he had a very strong interest in the Civil War and Racism in general. He was laughing and smiling that day, and I asked him what was up.
He told me that he had just learned from his History professor how Lincoln had cleverly manipulated the Confederates into attacking fort Sumter. I asked him how was that? He explained that during the dispute over the forts, the Military staff had come up with a plan to quietly resupply the fort from the Sea. He said Lincoln took one look at their plans and said he was having none of it. He then sent a letter to Commander Anderson to prepare for an attack, take all precautions to insure life, then surrender the fort. He then sent a letter to the confederates telling them that he was going to resupply the fort by land, in a very public and humiliating fashion.
My friend said that Lincoln knew this would provoke the hotheads currently running things into a confrontation. Lincoln *NEEDED* them to fire first because the Union didn't have the political will necessary to confront them short of some sort of provocation. He cited the fact that Lincoln had told the commander to prepare for an attack, take precautions to preserve life, and then surrender the fort as evidence that Lincoln knew exactly what he was doing, and counted on his ability to read people to produce the result he NEEDED to take action.
I had never heard of this before, and rather than being pleased by it, my first thought was regarding the 600,000 people who lost their lives in that conflict, not to mention the other devastation and unfortunate consequences that resulted from it. You see, i've been haunted by this war ever since I read "Red Badge of Courage." I used to have nightmares about being forced to serve on one side or the other in this horrible slaughter fest, and my first thought when someone brought up the civil war was "What a horrible tragedy."
So when my friend told me Lincoln cleverly and deliberately started it, I saw this as no wonderful thing, but instead I saw it as the initiation of the horror. I had always believed the official account, and had never had reason to doubt it till then. That he learned it from his History Professor lent credibility to the claim.
I thought to myself, "If what he is telling me is true, Lincoln is no hero, he's some sort of monster, and I've been lied to all these years. "
Needless to say, I have been dubious of what I have been told about the Civil war ever since. This incident opened my eyes to looking at the Civil war more critically, and not merely accepting the narrative that I have been told. I began to see more and more how modern abuses are a consequence of what occurred during that period, (Fedzilla) and now my cynicism detector has become overloaded by this era in history.
And then Davis and his government weren't wholly free actors. They probably did feel as though they also had to stand firm or be seen as weak. Davis may well have felt that his back was being pushed to the wall or that he was caught between Lincoln and the South Carolinians who'd act on their own if he dawdled.
Still, Davis stood to gain a lot if war started. He could shore up his own position and his governments with the public. He would benefit from a wave of pro-secession sentiment in the other slave states if it came to a shooting war between the Union and the Confederacy.
As I mentioned, what occurred was likely the result of numerous factors all converging at the same point and place in history. I don't completely buy the "Lincoln cleverly manipulated them" theory, despite my respect for my friend and his extensive reading and research of the period. I know it gives him comfort to believe that, but it has the opposite effect on me. It chills me, and I find contemplating the idea painful.
It's like finding out someone for whom you had the deepest respect is a fraud. It's like finding out over half a million people died for nothing, or rather, no good thing.
At this point, I see no conclusive evidence for this theory one way or the other, but I still keep it in the back of my mind, because it seems plausible when I contemplate the events of that time, and Lincoln's sheer genius at outsmarting people.
He was like a Napoleon at reading and moving public sentiment. Perhaps Lincoln completely understood Davis' situation, and used that knowledge to his advantage. Obviously between the two, I would certainly give Lincoln the advantage.
However, the major issue dominating the scene between the founding the CSA and Sumter was the unseceded slave states. Everything Lincoln and Davis did was essentially a giant-stakes poker game to see who would win those states.
In the event, they wound up splitting the pot. Which meant that we’d have a long, bloody war rather than a short one.
"x" advanced arguments along that line to, and I do not discount these arguments. I think there is a great deal of credibility to them. Yes, I think both sides were playing to the "audience" of the Undecided States, as well as to their own respective constituencies. How much of this resulted in their taking the actions they did is difficult to know.
What we are faced with here in understanding the causes and consequences of the civil war is a macroscopic version of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It is just difficult to know exactly what is true, and when, and how much of an impact it had on creating the convergence of events which occurred.
But as I mentioned in my previous comment, if I am to contemplate who had the better chance of working out all the permutations of the societal factors occurring at that time, and then taking the appropriate action such so as to achieve their desired goal, I would have to give the edge to Lincoln. He was a genius, and had a long history of persuading/manipulating people to get what he wanted.
I recall reading of one of his earlier elections in which it became known to him that his opposition was going to ply potential voters with money and drink, and how Lincoln sent his staff to intercept them, and flip them to his side.
His wit is astounding, and his ability to think on his feet was nothing short of miraculous. He trounced Douglas in the debates by creating for him a paradox.
Had intended to elaborate more, but I have to go. I just got a call. People need my help with something.
Later folks.
Just for fun, substitute the words "American colonists" for "black people" in this passage.
However, we ought not use the power of government in an attempt to force people to like them.
What we're talking about, though, in the context of the Voting Rights Act, is the fact that the power of state government was being used to deny a class of people a voice in their government. Under the principles of the Declaration of Independence that you like to cite, how should blacks have responded to this?
It is a simple principle that the Freedom of Association also permits a freedom of disassociation. Making people associate against their will is just the Government trying to impose morality on people.
So a law allowing black people to vote is "imposing morality"? Really?
A secret plan is only secret until somebody finds out about it. If the rebels came upon a ship bringing supplies to Sumter, what makes you think they wouldn't have attacked the ship -- or the fort? And they wouldn't know what the ship was doing -- whether it was bringing food and medical supplies or guns and troops. All the more reason to attack.
He then sent a letter to the confederates telling them that he was going to resupply the fort by land, in a very public and humiliating fashion.
How by land? The fort was in the middle of the harbor. And how could you secretly resupply it by sea? Wouldn't a ship large enough to make the trip to Charleston from up North be a pretty big thing to hide?
My friend said that Lincoln knew this would provoke the hotheads currently running things into a confrontation. Lincoln *NEEDED* them to fire first because the Union didn't have the political will necessary to confront them short of some sort of provocation.
You said earlier that time was on the side of the Confederates (or words to that effect), that if Lincoln did nothing the Confederacy would be a reality. Lincoln, from many indications, thought time was on his side, that if the stand-off continued Southerners would come to their senses. He may have been wrong. He probably was wrong. But if his understanding of the situation was that time was on his side, he didn't *NEED* the other side to fire first.
I had always believed the official account, and had never had reason to doubt it till then. That he learned it from his History Professor lent credibility to the claim. I thought to myself, "If what he is telling me is true, Lincoln is no hero, he's some sort of monster, and I've been lied to all these years. "
Color me skeptical. A lot of people will tell you they believed Lincoln was wonderful until they read some revisionist book that "opened their eyes." A lot of those people just aren't telling the truth. They liked those revisionist books because they confirmed what they'd heard years before.
Well of course. It's addressed to you, isn't it?
I will admit that you seem to save your particularly witless commentary for me. But the difference between those and what you post to others is only fractionally less insipid.
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.