It because he is a martyr and has become somewhat of a Unionist saint. There is a cult of Lincoln who will not hear a word said against him and likewise there is a anti-Lincoln cult who wont hear a word said in his favor. The mainstream however tend to be dominated by the Pro-Lincoln cult so it's rare to find criticism of him in the mainstream.
Fort sumter
- Thread starter flamelord
- Start date
David S Poepoe
Banned
I think one can not emphasize 'Unionist saint' enough. The centralizing of Federal power under his administration complete changed how things are done and shaped a new nation. It would be very hard for anybody to imagine the Federal Government not as dominant and intrusive in one's life as it is now. There are these watershed moments in American history, IMHO, where our society and culture changed so much that the past seems like some distance backward antediluvian world. The War Between the States and the Great Depression are two that readily come to mind.
The Union could have kept is lawful property for as long as it wanted to unless someone chose to use violence to take it.
If the Confederacy wanted Peace it could have tried leaving the Union alone.
partly because of the shenanigans of then Sec. of War Floyd. When Robert Anderson took over Fort Sumter, he fully expected an attack by SC militia. But his messages to Floyd were pretty much ignored, and Floyd didn't even pass them on to Winfield Scott. After Anderson abandoned the Federal outposts on the mainland and moved all the Regulars under his command to Sumter, he recieved conflicting orders from various people in Washington... some saying he should surrender if attacked, some saying he should fight, and some saying he would be receiving reinforcements. Obviously, the people in DC were unclear of what to do.
The move to Sumter was actually rather admired in the north (and naturally demonized in the south)... the sentiment in the north clearly indicated that they thought Anderson was a hero and a patriot. Floyd was eventually forced to resign because of financial misdealings, and the President's Cabinet became dominated by Unionists... they eventually persuaded Buchanan to keep Sumter occupied and supplied. A relief expedition sent to the fort was fired on by SC militia, and turned away (these were arguably the first shots of the ACW). Basically, Sumter was kept by first Buchanan's vacillation, then the fact that Unionists took over the Cabinet.
When Lincoln took office, he took a stance that the secessions and Confederacy were illegal and states in rebellion, and thus, no surrender of Federal property would be allowed (in spite of that, CSA forces were seizing Federal territory all over the south); nothing that would give the CSA an air of legitimacy was allowed.
Probably what tipped the south into attacking Fort Sumter more than anything was a miscommunication from Seward to the south, where he practically promised that the fort would be evacuated. When the south found out that not only would it not be evacuated, but was going to be reinforced, the south felt that the north had broken a promise (although Seward was not officially speaking for Lincoln). Both sides were determined to avoid firing the first shot. One more reason the south did just that was because of worry (ah, irony) that SC would secede from the CSA if they didn't do something about Fort Sumter....
stupid or not, the CSA worried about it, and apparently, hotheads in SC talked about it. It was one of the several reasons that the CSA Cabinet almost unanimously voted to open fire on Sumter.
You know, we should regard old Floyd as a national hero (however unwillingly he might have been). Because of his failure to pass on Anderson's messages to Buchanan (combined with Buchanan's general procrastination), Fort Sumter was left manned until Lincoln took office, and then there was no more talk of abandoning the fort. Thus, the south was maneuvered into firing the first shots, and eventually got itself crushed, putting an end to the rebellion....
Lincoln couldn't declare war when the South started seizing federal forts because he wasn't President yet. After his inaguration, the only to forts left in the south were Sumter and Pickens.
And many people from the North, Midwest, and West were not willing to let the South just go. The governor of Minnesota offered troops for supressing the rebellion before Lincoln asked for any.
Well, excuse me for asking a question!I just wanted some answers. Is there anyway to avoid the war without the south firing on fort sumter?
I do not know if a more careful subtle policy might have forced the North to accept the Sessession.
Clearly starting the shooting removed that option.
Well, excuse me for asking a question!
I think war was coming one way or the other. I wouldn't say that Lincoln wanted a war, but he was determined to have the states back in the Union, peacefully or not....
Oh, please no. Not this again...
If you want it, do a simple search. More than enough flame wars on it on CSA topics.
David S Poepoe
Banned
Oh, please no. Not this again...
If you want it, do a simple search. More than enough flame wars on it on CSA topics.
I agree, tho that doesn't stop the downward slope once we start. We could recommend a few books, that will be good representations of both sides of the argument.
That I can deal with. In that case, I present the following site, which neatly compares the CSA constitution with the US Constitution and notes the differences and similarities. Apparently, the CSA Constitution didn't consider the right to secession strong enough to rectify, nor rectify many of the other federal "abuses" which were so damning of Lincoln. (Except slavery; the CSA constitution is rather clear on that.)
CSA Constitution
IIRC, much of the justification for the Confederate's seccession was that the Union government was exceeding its constitutional authority. If the CSA were to add a right of seccession to their constitution it would come across as a tacit admission that such a right was not in the original constitution; likewise changing the constitution to prevent the government from taking certain actions the Southern states disapproved of could be seen as implying that the Federal Government was in fact within its rights, rather than acting outside of its constitutional authority as the Confederacy claimed.
Except that the American legal tradition is opposed to that. The US Constitution includes a number of protections against what were considered illegal actions of British rule: the no Housing and Quartering Troops, for example, but no one argues that it meant that the British practice should have been considered right and legal. Putting an piece in the Constitution opposed to previous abuses is a way of declaring "NO!" to them.
Or are you saying that by changing their constitution to bar federal and state involvement in ending slavery, that the CSA was admitting that the Federal Government was in fact within its rights to make the slightest involvements regarding slavery, rather than acting outside of its constitutional authority as the Confederacy claimed?
David S Poepoe
Banned
The Federal Government was making no effort to bar or end slavery. The Northern states were breaking Federal Laws in not enforcing the Fugitive Slave Acts and returning escaped slaves to the owners. The South was continually blocking the North's attempt of either establishing or prolonging a National Bank (ie. the Bank of the United States) and any sort of protectionist tariffs. The South thrived on free trade. At the base of it, among other things, is the interpretation of how much authority the Federal Government has in relation to the States.
Last edited:
The situation with the US Constitution as opposed to the British one is somewhat different, given that the Confederate constitution was largely modeled upon the US constitution. Given that there is not even a single equivalent document in the United Kingdom for the US to have used as a model in forming its constitution, the comparison strikes me as somewhat out of place.
As far as the fact that the CSA constitution made much over slavery, I would say that this was probably prompted by the fact that slavery was the most important issue in prompting seccession, which is why their constitution was edited to explicitly and repeatedly confirm the right to own slaves.