Welcome Guest

I already told you 4 posts ago what the simplest

Posted on: November 1, 2019 at 20:35:20 CT
90Tiger STL
Posts:
152465
Member For:
22.62 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
aspect is. Have you forgotten already?

Southern leaders of the Civil War period placed the blame for the outbreak of fighting squarely on Lincoln. They accused the President of acting aggressively towards the South and of deliberately provoking war in order to overthrow the Confederacy. For its part, the Confederacy sought a peaceable accommodation of its legitimate claims to independence, and resorted to measures of self-defence only when threatened by Lincoln's coercive policy. Thus, Confederate vice president, Alexander H. Stephens, claimed that the war was "inaugurated by Mr. Lincoln." Stephens readily acknowledged that General Beauregard's troops fired the "first gun." But, he argued, the larger truth is that "in personal or national conflicts, it is not he who strikes the first blow, or fires the first gun that inaugurates or begins the conflict." Rather, the true aggressor is "the first who renders force necessary."
Stephens identified the beginning of the war as Lincoln's order sending a "hostile fleet, styled the 'Relief Squadron'," to reinforce Fort Sumter. "The war was then and there inaugurated and begun by the authorities at Washington. General Beauregard did not open fire upon Fort Sumter until this fleet was, to his knowledge, very near the harbor of Charleston, and until he had inquired of Major Anderson . . . whether he would engage to take no part in the expected blow, then coming down upon him from the approaching fleet . . . When Major Anderson . . .would make no such promise, it became necessary for General Beauregard to strike the first blow, as he did; otherwise the forces under his command might have been exposed to two fires at the same time-- one in front, and the other in the rear." The use of force by the Confederacy , therefore, was in "self-defence," rendered necessary by the actions of the other side.

Jefferson Davis, who, like Stephens, wrote his account after the Civil War, took a similar position. Fort Sumter was rightfully South Carolina's property after secession, and the Confederate government had shown great "forbearance" in trying to reach an equitable settlement with the federal government. But the Lincoln administration destroyed these efforts by sending "a hostile fleet" to Sumter. "The attempt to represent us as the aggressors," Davis argued, "is as unfounded as the complaint made by the wolf against the lamb in the familiar fable. He who makes the assault is not necessarily he that strikes the first blow or fires the first gun."

From Davis's point of view, to permit the strengthening of Sumter, even if done in a peaceable manner, was unacceptable. It meant the continued presence of a hostile threat to Charleston. Further, although the ostensible purpose of the expedition was to resupply, not reinforce the fort, the Confederacy had no guarantee that Lincoln would abide by his word. And even if he restricted his actions to resupply in this case, what was to prevent him from attempting to reinforce the fort in the future? Thus, the attack on Sumter was a measure of "defense." To have acquiesced in the fort's relief, even at the risk of firing the first shot, "would have been as unwise as it would be to hesitate to strike down the arm of the assailant, who levels a deadly weapon at one's breast, until he has actually fired."

In the twentieth century, this critical view of Lincoln's actions gained a wide audience through the writings of Charles W. Ramsdell and others. According to Ramsdell, the situation at Sumter presented Lincoln with a series of dilemmas. If he took action to maintain the fort, he would lose the border South and a large segment of northern opinion which wanted to conciliate the South. If he abandoned the fort, he jeopardized the Union by legitimizing the Confederacy. Lincoln also hazarded losing the support of a substantial portion of his own Republican Party, and risked appearing a weak and ineffective leader.

Lincoln could escape these predicaments, however, if he could induce southerners to attack Sumter, "to assume the aggressive and thus put themselves in the wrong in the eyes of the North and of the world." By sending a relief expedition, ostensibly to provide bread to a hungry garrison, Lincoln turned the tables on the Confederates, forcing them to choose whether to permit the fort to be strengthened, or to act as the aggressor. By this "astute strategy," Lincoln maneuvered the South into firing the first shot.

Bibliography: Stephens, Constitutional View, 2: 35-41; Davis, Rise and Fall, 1: 289-95; Ramsdell, "Lincoln and Fort Sumter,"pp. 259-88.
Report Message

Please explain why this message is being reported.

REPLY

Handle:
Password:
Subject:

MESSAGE THREAD

Southerners - patriot MU - 11/1 19:50:44
     You mean the people that killed a - GA Tiger MU - 11/1 20:04:00
          RE: You mean the people that killed: You got that backwards - None**** MU - 11/2 07:36:46
          Those textbooks brainwashed you very well(nm) - TigerFan92 MU - 11/1 21:59:23
          RE: You mean the people that killed a - patriot MU - 11/1 21:07:04
          Were the British thus in the right to war against the - TigerMatt STL - 11/1 20:38:18
               I'd view in terms of property rights. The British viewed the - MUTGR MU - 11/1 22:57:38
               The answer is TOTALLY irrelevant to this discussion. - GA Tiger MU - 11/1 20:39:58
                    RE: The answer is TOTALLY irrelevant to this discussion. - patriot MU - 11/1 20:59:55
                    No it isn't. It is about whether people have a right to - TigerMatt STL - 11/1 20:42:47
                         The colonists were a bunch of racist hicks, Matt, just - 90Tiger STL - 11/1 20:48:33
                         Ok. They do. Now what? In the meantime, - GA Tiger MU - 11/1 20:46:11
                              It wasn't federal property. It was a hostile foreign - TigerMatt STL - 11/1 20:54:32
                                   I don't think you have this exactly right. nm. - MUTGR MU - 11/1 23:01:59
                                        South Carolina had not been part of the union for 5 months - TigerMatt STL - 11/1 23:06:02
                              RE: Ok. They do. Now what? In the meantime, - 90Tiger STL - 11/1 20:48:58
          RE: You mean the people that killed a - patriot MU - 11/1 20:25:00
          RE: You mean the people that killed a - patriot MU - 11/1 20:21:48
               "this issue"? What the holy hell is that? - GA Tiger MU - 11/1 20:30:14
                    the hilarious underlying reality here is you're more fun - 90Tiger STL - 11/1 20:40:11
                    RE: "this issue"? What the holy hell is that? - patriot MU - 11/1 20:34:41
                    you've gone astray again. Now you're saying lincoln fought - 90Tiger STL - 11/1 20:32:14
                         I did NOT say that you ****ing idiot. Talking to you - GA Tiger MU - 11/1 20:34:39
                              you didn't say this? - 90Tiger STL - 11/1 20:36:10
          If Lincoln would have allowed the legal secession, there - 90Tiger STL - 11/1 20:06:13
               He prosecuted a war to preserve ONE country. - GA Tiger MU - 11/1 20:14:07
                    The simplest aspect is that the States are sovereign and the - 90Tiger STL - 11/1 20:18:44
                         Apparently you feel any state could or should - GA Tiger MU - 11/1 20:25:25
                              Apparently you think the US Federal gvmt should wage war - 90Tiger STL - 11/1 20:29:07
                                   No, they should wage war if a state attacks a federal fort. - GA Tiger MU - 11/1 20:32:11
                                        I already told you 4 posts ago what the simplest - 90Tiger STL - 11/1 20:35:20
                                             Your precious slave owners ATTACKED FT. SUMPTER. - GA Tiger MU - 11/1 20:38:52
                                                  after S. Carolina lawfully seceded, GA, it was their fort. i - 90Tiger STL - 11/1 20:43:05
                                                       And the response was a full fledged invasion - ummmm MU - 11/1 20:47:17
                                                            nah, ummmm. it was a rational response to the attack - 90Tiger STL - 11/1 20:50:23
                                                            Or, just maybe, it was about the right of - GA Tiger MU - 11/1 20:50:21
                                                                 So now you're back to accusing anyone who disagrees - 90Tiger STL - 11/1 20:51:52
                                                                      It is as if slavery wasn't eliminated by other western - TigerMatt STL - 11/1 20:55:46
                                                                           GA went to west point, right? (nm) - 90Tiger STL - 11/1 21:27:07
                                                                                Yep.. the year it opened.(nm) - TigerMatt STL - 11/1 21:49:21
                                                  Foreign military base on South Carolina soil.(nm) - TigerMatt STL - 11/1 20:41:57
                                                  lol, you dopey military guys and you're federalist - 90Tiger STL - 11/1 20:40:48
                    lol GAT (nm) - SwampTiger MU - 11/1 20:14:59
                         Oh, nice comeback. How can I possibly recover? - GA Tiger MU - 11/1 20:41:10
          you still have it wrong (nm) - pickle MU - 11/1 20:05:28
               Can't respond, until I know what "it" is.(nm) - GA Tiger MU - 11/1 20:06:00




©2024 Fanboards L.L.C. — Our Privacy Policy   About Tigerboard