Replies

And thank you for another great post.
Could you offer a tutorial to, ahem, FLT-bird on how to use html formatting?
Nobody on our side can get through to him... ;-)*****

And you could use a tutorial on doing something other than making “me too” posts.

Does everyone here appreciate that the Constitutional issues in March, 1861, were:

Was secession as practiced then constitutionally legitimate?

Of the six living former or future president, including Buchanan & Lincoln, none supported secession originally, but Virginia Whig John Tyler and Connecticut Democrat Franklin Pierce flipped, after secession was declared.*****

Adams sure seemed to considering he was censured for proposing that for the mid Atlantic states.....and before you ask I have already provided that quote above. Go back and read.

Tyler & Pierce said “yes”, the others — Van Buren, Fillmore, Buchanan & Lincoln — said “no”.****

Lincoln thought secession a great idea in 1848.....

The problem with this quote is: that’s not at all what Lincoln said.
Lincoln made no direct threat of force, indeed promised no war except if Confederates started it.
Of course anti-Republicans chose to see Lincoln’s Inaugural in the worst light, but they could have chosen otherwise.****

No. Lincoln said “you’re gonna hand over your money to us in taxes....if you don’t I’ll use violence to take it from you”. That was the real declaration of war.

Lincoln’s intentions: “...to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion — no using of force...”

Lincoln’s promise: “The government will not assail you.
You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors.”*****

Which was plainly a lie. He was saying the South could only have peace if they handed over their money to a foreign power aka the US government.

Lincoln’s word “assail” here is important because it refers back to Jefferson Davis’ February 1861 Inaugural:

“If a just perception of mutual interest shall permit us peaceably to pursue our separate political career, my most earnest desire will have been fulfilled.
But, if this be denied to us, and the integrity of our territory and jurisdiction be assailed, it will but remain for us, with firm resolve, to appeal to arms and invoke the blessings of Providence on a just cause.”

Notice, Davis promised to start war if Confederate “integrity” was “assailed”.****

Uhhhh yeah. EVERY sovereign power will resort to war if their territory is attacked. The aggressor is of course their attacker, not them for defending themselves.

Lincoln promised he would not “assail” Confederates and they could only have war if they were aggressors.****

He promised to use violence against them to take their money if they did not willingly hand it over. He was clearly the aggressor here.

At Fort Sumter, Davis felt “assailed” and started war, as he promised.****

As any other sovereign country would have if a foreign power invaded their territory.

Lincoln did not consider his resupply mission “assailing” and did see Confederate firing on Fort Sumter as “aggression”.
It seems that most Northerners at the time agreed with Lincoln, most Southerners with Davis.*****

The mission accomplished exactly what Lincoln intended - it started a war.

Our Lost Causers tell us that Lincoln did “assail”, or at least would have “assailed” with his “war fleet” to Fort Sumter, but the fact remains that from his own words Jefferson Davis intended to take both Forts Sumter & Pickens, by force if necessary, regardless of what Lincoln did, or didn’t do.***

” , May 1st, 1861. Washington
Capt. G.V. Fox:
My Dear Sir, I sincerely regret that the failure of the late attempt to provision Fort Sumter should be the source of any annoyance to you. The practicability of your plan was not, in fact, brought to a test. By reason of a gale, well known in advance to be possible, and not improbable, the tugs, an essential part of the plan, never reached the ground ; while, by an accident, for which you were in nowise responsible, and possibly I, to some extent, was, you were deprived of a war-vessel, with her men, which you deemed of great importance to the enterprise.

I most cheerfully and truthfully declare that the failure of the undertaking has not lowered you a particle, while the qualities you developed in the effort have greatly heightened you in my estimation. For a daring and dangerous enterprise of a similar character, you would, to-day, be the man of all my acquaintances whom I would select. You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.
Very truly your friend, A. LINCOLN.”

Those “ provisions” as Abe called them and as some Americans continue to try to call them even when they have been presented irrefutable evidence to the contrary, as originally planned included the following:

The steam sloop-of-war USS Pawnee, 181 officers and enlisted Armament: • 8 × 9 in guns, • 2 × 12-pounder guns

USS Powhatan, 289 officers and enlisted Armament: • 1 × 11 in (280 mm) Dahlgren smoothbore gun, 10 × 9 in (230 mm) Dahlgren smoothbore guns • 5 × 12-pounder guns, also transporting steam launches and about 300 sailors (besides the crew, these to be used to augment Army troops)

Armed screw steamer USS Pocahontas, 150 officers and men (approx.) 4 × 32-pounder guns, 1 × 10-pounder gun, 1 × 20-pounder Parrot rifle

The Revenue Cutter USS Harriet Lane, 95 officers and men Armament: 1 x 4in gun, 1 x 9in gun, 2 x 8in guns, 2 x 24 lb brass howitzers

The 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 be used to tow troop and supply barges directly to Fort Sumter (or some other point since it is inconceivable that they would be taking small arms fire from a union held fortification )

Totals

4 war ships
4 transports
38 heavy guns
1200 military personnel (at least 500 of whom were to be used as a landing party)

Does this sound like “provisions” to you????

No the Fox expedition was no attempt to “provision” a “starving” garrison. It was exactly what abe said it was, a flagrant and deliberate attempt to provoke war and it worked very well. If for what ever reason it hadn’t worked abe and gang would have certainly provoked war at Pensacola very soon afterward.

“Lincoln and the First Shot” (in Reassessing the Presidency, edited by John Denson), John Denson painstakingly shows how Lincoln maneuvered the Confederates into firing the first shot at Fort Sumter. As the Providence Daily Post wrote on April 13, 1861, “Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor” by reprovisioning Fort Sumter. On the day before that the Jersey City American Statesman wrote that “This unarmed vessel, it is well understood, is a mere decoy to draw the first fire from the people of the South.” Lincoln’s personal secretaries, John Nicolay and John Hay, clearly stated after the war that Lincoln successfully duped the Confederates into firing on Fort Sumter. And as Shelby Foote wrote in The Civil War, “Lincoln had maneuvered [the Confederates] into the position of having either to back down on their threats or else to fire the first shot of the war.”

In his first inaugural address, Lincoln threatened to invade the Confederate states if they didn’t pay federal tariffs or if they refused to allow the federal government to occupy and maintain federal forts in Confederate territory
“. . . the President’s inaugural address. . . . he left the South no alternative but to return to the Union, or else fight to stay out. He declared it his intention to execute the federal laws in all states, to ‘hold, occupy, and possess the property and places’ belonging to the United States, and to collect as usual the duties and imposts.” (Hicks, The Federal Union, p. 557)

The Philadelphia Press in their 1861 edition proposed one of the most interesting ideas that made its way to Lincoln, January 15. This also seems to be the basis for Lincoln’s Inaugural Address. The paper said that: If South Carolina were to take the forts by force, this would be levying war against the United States and high treason against the Constitution” In other words, if South Carolina could be “tricked” into firing on the Forts in Charleston Harbor, that would be enough to go to War to stop the State from Seceding and thus reeking havoc on Northern and government revenues. The paper went on to say:

“In the enforcement of the revenue laws, the forts are of primary importance. Their guns cover just so much ground as is necessary to enable the United States to enforce their laws. Those forts the United States must maintain. It is not a question of coercing South Carolina, but of enforcing the revenue laws. The practical point, either way, is whether the revenue laws of the United States shall or shall not be enforced at those three ports.”

“That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the “rebel states”, or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things de done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasure will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order o things must come to a dead stop.” New York Evening Post “What Shall be done for a revenue?”

It went on with an amazing disclosure of the real reasons why the North and why Lincoln did not want, nor could allow the South to secede from the Union:

“What, then is left for our government? Shall we let the seceding states repeal the revenue laws for the whole union in this manner? Or will the government choose to consider all foreign commerce destined for those ports where we have no custom-houses and no collections as contraband, and stop it, when offering to enter the collection districts from which our authorities have been expelled?”

but but but....it was all about slavery! LOL!

Davis to Bragg, April 3, 1861:

“There would be to us an advantage in so placing them that an attack by them would be a necessity, but when we are ready to relieve our territory and jurisdiction of the presence of a foreign garrison that advantage is overbalanced by other considerations

Davis needed war to flip Virginia & the Uppoer South, that’s the bottom line.****

No he didn’t. Had Lincoln simply let the original 7 seceding states go in peace, they would have been perfectly content to do so. They didn’t “need” the Upper South. They were happy to go their own way without them if they didn’t want to come along.

FLT-bird: "And you could use a tutorial on doing something other than making 'me too' posts."

What's wrong with "me too"?
You should try it sometime.

FLT-bird: "Adams sure seemed to considering he was censured for proposing that for the mid Atlantic states.....and before you ask I have already provided that quote above. Go back and read."

Now that's just pure slothful ignorance on your part, you don't get away with that.

Which Adams?
Which states?
What date?
What circumstances?

FYI: I've never seen a quote from any Adams on any date recommending secession for any states under any circumstances.
Indeed, I'd almost guarantee that whatever quote you think you have is certainly phony baloney, plastic banana, good time B.S.

But let's see what you got.

FLT-bird: "Lincoln thought secession a great idea in 1848....."

And almost nobody in 1860 recommended military action just to stop secession.
As Lincoln said, Confederates could only have war if they themselves started it.

FLT-bird: "Lincoln said 'you’re gonna hand over your money to us in taxes....if you don’t I’ll use violence to take it from you'.
That was the real declaration of war."

Only if Confederates chose to take it that way, which of course they did.

FLT-bird: "Which was plainly a lie.
He was saying the South could only have peace if they handed over their money to a foreign power aka the US government."

It's true, Lincoln did not recognize secession as legitimate and so the Federal government must continue to function in those states.
But he did promise the Union would not start Civil War which I think offered a genuine chance for peace.

Of course, if we merely consider how Democrats today respond to peace offerings from a Republican President... well, the Dems have always been, ah, touched.

FLT-bird: "EVERY sovereign power will resort to war if their territory is attacked.
The aggressor is of course their attacker, not them for defending themselves."

Some points here:

Lincoln never considered Confederates a "sovereign power".
Lincoln did not think his resupply mission to Fort Sumter "assailed" much less "attacked" Confederates.
Lincoln did consider Jefferson Davis' attack on Fort Sumter an act or aggression and rebellion.
Jefferson Davis, by his own words, intended to start war at Fort Sumter or Pickens, or both, based on "other considerations", namely flipping Virginia and the Upper South.

FLT-bird: "He promised to use violence against them to take their money if they did not willingly hand it over.
He was clearly the aggressor here."

He promised there'd only be violence if Confederates started it.
Once again we should note that excluding New Orleans, tariffs collected at Confederate ports accounted for less than 2% of Federal revenues.
With New Orleans included, that rises to 6%, hardly a matter of life & death for the Union.

quoting BJK: "At Fort Sumter, Davis felt “assailed” and started war, as he promised."

FLT-bird: "As any other sovereign country would have if a foreign power invaded their territory."

Many sovereign countries have tolerated foreign presence on their soil without resorting to war to remove it.
Most notably, the United States tolerated dozens of British forts and trading stations in US territory, some for decades after the 1783 Treaty of Paris.
This map shows only some and they were decidedly hostile, supporting Indians and leading to arguably the greatest defeat in US history, St. Clair's Massacre, 1791.

My point is: our Founders decided not to declare war on Britain despite British forts & support for Northwest Indians.
By contrast, Confederates decided to go to war over a small unit of Union troops doing them no harm.

FLT-bird: "The mission accomplished exactly what Lincoln intended - it started a war."

Lincoln intended to resupply Fort Sumter peacefully, if possible, and to learn from that if Jefferson Davis intended to start war.
Turns out, he did.

FLT-bird quoting Lincoln to Fox: "You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail..."

But you draw the wrong conclusion -- Lincoln's point is not that he intended his resupply mission to fail, but rather that even if it failed, it was still a valuable effort.
Why?
Because it smoked out Jefferson Davis' intentions regarding war & peace.

FLT-bird: "Totals 4 war ships 4 transports...
Does this sound like “provisions” to you????"

Most of which didn't leave port until after Davis ordered his assault on Fort Sumter,
None of which arrived before Beauregard demanded Anderson's surrender -- an act of war.
None of which were visible, miles off shore at night, before Confederate gunners were ordered to "reduce" Fort Sumter.
Only two were on site as the sun rose April 12: 1) the Revenue Cutter Harriet Lane, 734 tons, six small guns, crew of 95, no troops, and 2) Fox's transport SS Baltic, 2,700 tons, no guns, about 200 troops.
Neither ship became involved in the action at Fort Sumter.

That makes claims they were instrumental totally bogus.

FLT-bird: "No the Fox expedition was no attempt to “provision” a “starving” garrison.
It was exactly what abe said it was, a flagrant and deliberate attempt to provoke war and it worked very well.
If for what ever reason it hadn’t worked abe and gang would have certainly provoked war at Pensacola very soon afterward."

Nonsense, and that kind of talk is just you Democrats doing what you Democrats always do -- accuse Republicans of your own worst impulses.
In fact, Davis' own words show he planned to start war at Fort Sumter or Fort Pickens or both.
Lincoln's goal was simply to maintain the forts and give Davis the opportunity to show if he wanted war.
Turns out, he did.

So the Lost Cause's ludicrous argument is that Lincoln somehow "tricked" Davis into starting war when in fact Davis knew perfectly well what he was doing and would have started war anyway, regardless of what Lincoln did or didn't do.

FLT-bird quoting: "As the Providence Daily Post wrote on April 13, 1861, 'Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor' by reprovisioning Fort Sumter."

Sure, the anti-Republican media will always put the worst possible spin on a Republican president (what is Trump's average, 95% negative?).
But this remains the "Lincoln tricked Davis" argument and the facts show Davis was in no way "tricked" but knew exactly what he was doing.
Davis' only real mistake was in not realizing that two Illinoisians -- Lincoln & Grant -- would make a mess of Davis' war plans.

FLT-bird: "And as Shelby Foote wrote in The Civil War, 'Lincoln had maneuvered [the Confederates] into the position of having either to back down on their threats or else to fire the first shot of the war.' "

Sure, from the Confederate perspective, but from Lincoln's it was the opposite.
In order to maintain President Buchanan's pledge to defend Fort Sumter, Lincoln had to resupply Maj. Anderson, or surrender.

As Jefferson Davis put it:

"There would be to us an advantage in so placing them that an attack by them would be a necessity, but when we are ready to relieve our territory and jurisdiction of the presence of a foreign garrison that advantage is overbalanced by other considerations."

Those "considerations" being Davis' need to bring more states to the Confederacy.

FLT-bird quoting: ". . . the President’s inaugural address. . . . he left the South no alternative but to return to the Union, or else fight to stay out.
He declared it his intention to execute the federal laws in all states, to ‘hold, occupy, and possess the property and places’ belonging to the United States, and to collect as usual the duties and imposts.” -- (Hicks, The Federal Union, p. 557)"

I agree that Confederates took that as a "declaration of war" because like all Democrats they put the worst spin possible on Republican words.
But they didn't have to, they could have found a more conciliatory approach.
Of course if you ever did such a thing, then you wouldn't be true Democrats, now would you?

FLT-bird: "In other words, if South Carolina could be 'tricked'into firing on the Forts in Charleston Harbor, that would be enough to go to War to stop the State from Seceding and thus reeking havoc on Northern and government revenues."

There's that word "tricked" again, but nobody was "tricked" because Davis knew exactly what he was doing, and chose a war that was not strictly necessary.

As for "reeking havoc" that's the most ludicrous argument of them all.
In fact, revenues from Charleston Harbor amounted to two tenths of one percent of total tariff revenues, so it would cost Washington more to collect those revenues than they were worth.
As for Fort Pickens in Florida, there were no revenues there.
So your claims here are pure nonsense.

FLT-bird quoting: "That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the 'rebel states', or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted.
If neither of these things de done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasure will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe.
There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order o things must come to a dead stop.” -- New York Evening Post 'What Shall be done for a revenue?'"

Curious there's no date or specific edition for this alleged editorial, looks dubious to me.
But even if we accept it as "pro-Lincoln propaganda", it is just as nonsensical as others because the amount of actual revenue coming from Charleston Harbor was miniscule.
Indeed, except for New Orleans, the entire Confederacy had supplied under 2% of US tariff revenues and with New Orleans included it was just 6%.
So in no way was that loss the disaster this editorial claimed.

FLT-bird: "but but but....it was all about slavery! LOL!"

Of course, when Fire Eaters declared secession they said at the time it was indeed "all about slavery".
Economic issues months later don't change that.

quoting BJK: "Davis needed war to flip Virginia & the Uppoer South, that’s the bottom line."

FLT-bird: "No he didn’t.
Had Lincoln simply let the original 7 seceding states go in peace, they would have been perfectly content to do so.
They didn’t 'need' the Upper South.
They were happy to go their own way without them if they didn’t want to come along."

Absolutely false.
This link and this link give long lists of quotes on reasons Davis needed war in April 1861.

There's plenty enough to demonstrate that Davis was in no way "tricked" into war.