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.
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.