pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 16 replies \ @Undisciplined 15 Jan \ parent \ on: On Lincoln history
I apologize for mischaracterizing your Lincoln position, but I didn't claim that "Lincoln started the civil war" or that "Lincoln is responsible for the conflict" (in the sense of solely responsible). I said he bore some responsibility. Even if some form of conflict was inevitable as you believe, it didn't have to be as horrific as Lincoln made it. Waging the war to the point of conquest was unnecessary.
I don't see what part of that speech indicates that a full scale war with the Union was desired. At best "controlling power" is open to that interpretation, but it could mean all kinds of stuff. I'm also not convinced that a minor skirmish breaking out at Fort Sumpter indicates that a war was desired broadly.
I don't see what part of that speech indicates that a full scale war with the Union was desired. At best "controlling power" is open to that interpretation, but it could mean all kinds of stuff
This speech is being made at the same time that Fort Sumter was under blockade, during negotations:
After consulting with his senior officers, Maj. Anderson replied that he would evacuate Sumter by noon, April 15, unless he received new orders from his government or additional supplies. Col. Chesnut considered this reply to be too conditional and wrote a reply, which he handed to Anderson at 3:20 a.m.: "Sir: by authority of Brigadier General Beauregard, commanding the Provisional Forces of the Confederate States, we have the honor to notify you that he will open fire of his batteries on Fort Sumter in one hour from this time."
At 4:30 a.m. on April 12, 1861, Lt. Henry S. Farley, acting upon the command of Capt. George S. James,[47][48] fired a single 10-inch mortar round from Fort Johnson. (James had offered the first shot to Roger Pryor, a noted Virginia secessionist, who declined, saying, "I could not fire the first gun of the war.")
Pryor had advocated for South Carolina to fire on the Fort in order to encourage Virginia to secede -to bring more states into the conflict.
They knew what they were signing up for.
reply
I have no doubt that there were particular individuals who wanted war. There always are. It doesn't seem nearly as widespread or explicit as Lincoln pledging to wage a war to prevent secession.
I've seen people breakdown the lead up to firing on Fort Sumter and it strikes me as a very messy situation. The South obviously fired first, but the North knew they were increasing the odds of that with their actions. Again, bad actors on both sides.
I don't have a strong opinion about who's most at fault in the incident. Since, I do believe in a right to secede, I think the Union should have already vacated, but that doesn't mean they necessarily deserved to be fired on.
reply
I have no doubt that there were particular individuals who wanted war.
The particular individuals in question were running the Confederate States of America.
Pryor was a politician in Virginia.The Cornerstone Speech was made by their Vice President. I highly encourage you to read it to understand what they thought their motivations were.
North knew they were increasing the odds of that with their actions
you haven't actually stated what that action would be - and all of the previous suggestions you've brought up are things that were attempted and rejected by the Confederates.
What action are you referring to? Not expanding slavery? It is their sole stated purpose for wanting to secede.
I think the Union should have already vacated, but that doesn't mean they necessarily deserved to be fired on.
Union troops were negotiating exactly when to leave and when they provided a time they would leave they were fired on literally an hour they did so. The Confederates intentionally ruined any possible chance of peaceful negotiation because they wanted to increase the scope of the conflict.
reply
Union troops were negotiating exactly when to leave
When you're on someone else's property staying on it and negotiating when to leave does not mean you have a right to be there or that the owner doesn't have a right to remove you. That's not a perfect analogy, but it should get my point across. Continuing to occupy the fort (and other territories in the seceding states) is the action that the North knew was provocative. Obviously, I don't think they should have expanded slavery.
It may well be true that some group of Confederates intentionally sabotaged a peace process. I would never rule something like that out.
reply
It may well be true that some group of Confederates
The group in question is the members of the Confederate government,up to and including the president of the CSA.
every time I've quoted the cornerstone speech it's the vice president talking.
this is not a weird minority fringe of the CSA,it's the people that made actual decisions about the nature of their government.
Obviously, I don't think they should have expanded slavery
Their desire for secession is directly conjoined at the hip to their desire to maintain slavery and their fear it would eventually go away.
Without this thirst for unpaid labor, and the desire for the state to protect that theft,
they would never have left.
Once this is understood then you'll see why the Confederates didn't consider peace an option.
reply
At no point was I seeking to defend the CSA. Even if they were not considering peace an option, if Lincoln also was not considering peace with the newly independent states an option (my understanding of the situation) then both sides bear some responsibility.
Also, even if the start of the war was entirely the CSA's fault, that wouldn't absolve Lincoln of responsibility for how the war was waged. He had many more people killed and maimed and much more property destroyed than was needed to defend the Union states from any southern aggression.
As interesting as this conversation has been, it has well surpassed my interest in the Civil War.
reply
When you're on someone else's property
It literally was the federal government's property initially and during negotiations for the transition to the new Confederates they held them hostage via blockade for weeks before opening fire.
You need to negotiate for some peaceful means of transitioning those soldiers and weapons out so the people inside know they won't immediately get killed- otherwise they have every incentive to stay inside -and it's during that process the Confederates opened fire.they would have gotten the fort without doing so- they were literally telling them time and date they would walk out so they would not see their movements as hostile
reply
Waging the war to the point of conquest was unnecessary.
Every single one of your suggestions that Lincoln 'could have done' are things he actually did do, and it didn't work because the Confederates wanted otherwise.
If you believe that conquest was unnecessary then the Confederates should have accepted the negotiations, given up the institution of slavery,or won the war.
They did none of these things and fired first during negotiations.
reply
My understanding is that Lincoln's primary goal of the war was to preserve the union. If there was an offer of independence for the CSA, then I was unaware of that. Is that what you're asserting?
reply
my understanding is that Lincoln's primary goal of the war was to preserve the union
this is in reference towards whether Lincoln would have allowed for slavery to occur if the Confederates didn't open fire. And he would have - nearly everything he offered the Confederates were given to slave holding states in the Union.
Confederates simply did not care.
Again, they were in active negotiations for months when the Confederates opened fire. They were even in negotiations up until the blockade. The attack was done at the time it was primarily to convince other states to join with the Confederate cause and end negotiations.
reply
As you said earlier, and I didn't dispute, secession was already going to happen. My point is that Lincoln chose to go to war over it. That's what I am claiming was both unjust and unnecessary.
reply
Lincoln chose to go to war over it
This ignores the fact that the Confederates engaged in hostilities first and during negotiations for peace. If they didn't want war, they shouldn't have started shooting.
That's what I am claiming was both unjust and unnecessary.
What's unjust and unnecessary is building an entire society around the enslavement of human beings and being upset you can't make others enforce that ruleset on your behalf - this is why Confederates say they prepared for conflict and opened fire.
Pretending that this isn't the case, that if Lincoln just didn't retaliate that there would be no conflict simply ignores the publicly made statements and historical documents of that time period. It's simply not based in objective reality.
reply
What's unjust and unnecessary is building an entire society around the enslavement of human beings and being upset you can't make others enforce that ruleset on your behalf
I'm not arguing against this, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.
If you want to say people don't have a right to secede from their current rulers, that's fine. We can just stop talking then. However, you seem to be dodging that the war was about preventing secession to Lincoln. Since he was explicit about being willing to fight to preserve the union, why wouldn't the seceding states prepare for conflict?
Unless I missed it, you never answered my question about whether Lincoln was offering to acknowledge the independence of the states that initially seceded. My understanding is that he was not willing to do so.
If peaceful independence was rejected by the south it would change my perception of events.
reply
Since he was explicit about being willing to fight to preserve the union, why wouldn't the seceding states prepare for conflict?
The statement "fighting to preserve the union" is referring his willingness to have offered the Confederates anything to stay, except the expansion of slavery.
The Confederate belief was that he would abolish slavery and they should secede before he had the opportunity to do so.
Unless I missed it, you never answered my question about whether Lincoln was offering to acknowledge the independence of the states that initially seceded
This is a question that cannot be answered because the Confederates shot first while negotiating the surrender of property they asked for, thereby ending any possibility of Lincoln acknowledging them as independent. How can they reasonably negotiate in good faith when being shot at after offering what they wanted?
The bombardment was done by the Confederates with the intent of ending peaceful discussion.
If peaceful independence was rejected by the south
Yes.
They were offered every concession you have suggested in previous posts over decades before Lincoln's election and during the civil war, and refused concessions/shot at troops in response during negotiations.
reply
As you can tell, I'm no expert on the Civil War. However, I've never even heard the claim that Lincoln was willing to allow the south to secede. Any historian who I've heard discussing the lead up to the war has held the opposite view. Even today, people refer to the Civil War having settled the question of states' rights to secede, which certainly indicates that the war was about that.
Since one of the concessions I suggested (really the only one), is allowing the south to secede, I'm not sure what you're referencing when you say that they were offered every concession I suggested. Maybe you just mean some of the alternatives to war that I offered.
This was interesting. I'll keep your insights and arguments in mind next time I'm reading something about the Civil War.