Did Lincoln Start the Civil War?

[Michael Slaunwhite]

Hi.

I have to say that I haven't found better posts anywhere on the internet, just excellent.

I do know that since man has been out on his own, there has always been the need for laws, rules to help guide the whole of the population to live in harmony, and peace (unless the people in power are corrupt).

What I got from reading these posts is that people who wish to be free are wanting to live by the law of "do unto others as you wish to have done to you". This would be great if everyone lived their lives to this rule, but since we are human beings, with faults that reach to heaven itself, it is impossible to have true freedom, unless you live in the woods by yourself with no other person(s) nearby.

I noticed that the freeman of the past always wanted to have no law except the law they want to live by under their own roof. Even today in the United States, the same thing is playing out again (but in a slightly different way). Rush, Beck, Fox etc are stoking the fire once again, governors talking to those who support him/her are talking separating from the union. I know people today think that they are too civilized to have that happen again, but there it is, the face of possible civilwar is a grave possibility if these people are not checked.

Your forefathers thought that they were civilized too, and look what happened.

Sorry if I went of topic here, I love the posts here guys.

[Hampton Legion HQ]

Ah. Armchair... My arch nemesis....
Hi all. You from MMG will remember me. Too well.
And Yes, of course Lincoln started the war. Buchanan didn't have a war on his hands did he?
Buchanan made the right choices, and so he didn't, and yet, when Lincoln got elected, a war started instantly.

But that is not what my argument is based upon. As General Lee said, "The president's calling up of 75,000 volunteers has done nothing to abate the crisis. It has only deepened it." Virginia, and a huge number of other states only joined AFTER Lincoln had raised those troops. Lincoln also knew that resupplying Ft. Sumter was going to goad a fight, and against General Scott's advice, he did it.
He didn't try to be diplomatic about it, but only went to war, when a bit of diplomacy MIGHT have worked.

[RDBoles]

Oh boy, If memory serves me right Buchanan sent the Star of the West to send supplies and 200 troops to Sumter. They were fired upon and sent back. Only true restaint by Col Anderson prevented Sumter's retaliation. Gen Beauregard was chomping at the bit to fire on Sumter. In fact Beauregard new Anderson was going to surrender on the 12th or 13th, because that is when the food was going to run out. Anderson told the 3 men who came to find out the situation in the fort. Beauregard could have waited, but he didn't.

[Hampton Legion HQ]

What are you talking about? Buchanan? Lincoln sent the supplies to Ft. Sumter.

[Shirkon]

Hampton Legion HQ wrote:

What are you talking about? Buchanan? Lincoln sent the supplies to Ft. Sumter.

How about you learn the history of the Civil War. Buchanan first sent the Star of the West to resupply Fort Sumpter on January 9, 1861 well before Lincoln even arrived in Washington. Before you make comments you should at least read one of the excellent histories of the Civil War then at least you will have some basis for some of your ramblings. From what I've seen, you don't know Civil War history and you are even weak on your own English history.

[Hampton Legion HQ]

By April 4, President Lincoln, discovering that supplies in the fort were shorter than he had previously known, and believing a relief expedition to be feasible, ordered merchant vessels escorted by the United States Navy to Charleston.

How about that Shirkon?
It is in hundreds of books, and websites. I know how to cross reference.
And you don't even know me. How would you know if I am good on my history or not?
But it seems you don't really research your answers as this proves.

And also, the battle of Fort Sumter was in April, not in January as you said when the Star of the West got there. Buchanan resupplied it, and his ship got through, an Ft Sumter was fine. No rebels shelled it that time, or is my history really wrong?
The supply ship that caused Ft. Sumter's bombardment was launched by lincoln.

And also, to keep to the topic, Lincoln raised 75,000 volunteers almost the day after the Fort was bombarded. There was no diplomacy, and more states seceded after the US had raised those troops. Had Lincoln gone to methods of diplomacy, he could have avoided the war. But instead of talking it out, he decides to recruit loads of troops to invade America. I am telling you that that is not really great way to stop a conflict.
"The President's raising of 75,000 men has done nothing to alleviate the crisis, but has only deepened it."

[Ephrum]

Lincoln started the war huh? Really? I guess the states that left the Union had nothing to do with it.

Lincoln was the President. What was he supposed to do, sit there and say...."Okay, go ahead, tear the country in half so you can keep a race of people in chains and owned, in order to build the wealth and power of a handfull of people. By all means, go ahead and fire on our Fort in an act of war, don't worry, I won't do anything, because that might be aggressive. So go ahead and tell us about States Rights to protect Slavery and expand it further. But look out Mexico, Panama, and South America, for when the Confederacy moves to take your land, you'll be second or even third class citizens. Why? Well because your not White, and you don't come from a proper bloodline, that's why."

I absolutely applaud Lincoln's raising of 75,000 troops. It's a shame that he only asked for 75,000. But if he started it, then it's fair to say he also finished it, and with just cause.

[Hampton Legion HQ]

Now we are going into slavery...
Ok, Lincoln used the Emancipation Proclamation to his own need, not for any want to free slaves.
No, I think the raising of 75,000 volunteers was wrong, without talking it over first, and saving the blood of a million men. How would you find it if one of those million men was your father, when they could have avoided the whole war, and saved his life? I don't know about you, but I would be a little mad.
And you know, it was actually written that states could secede, in the declaration. It was also in a few states contracts for the union that they could leave the union if they wanted too. Those states had it absolutely legal. It was wrong of the US to hold forts in state commonwealth territory, it wasn't their own land by their own law, and therefore, the North was actually holding foreign territory. Lincoln knew his, and he wanted to use this to start an excuse for war.

[Kerflumoxed]

As a history and political science professor, I have purposefully declined to be involved in this thread...but would like to offer one or two overlooked observations.

First, it appears obvious to me and other historians that there is NO one cause of the "late unpleasantness"; rather, it is the old "he said, she said" array of "contrariness" that eventually lead to war.

Second, no one (at least in my quick survey of the posts) has addressed the "balance of power" aspect which had resulted in various compromises beginning with the Philadelpia (Constitutional) Convention in '87. (Refer to SC and Georgia threatening to walk out if slavery were interfered with.)

Thirdly, building on the first point, in simplistic terms, one must separate causation into two categories: 1) Underlying Cause(s) and 2) Immediate Cause(s). In the first case, the obvious underlying cause is simply "Slavery." In the latter category...well, every factual aspect stated in this thread may be included.

(It might be worth noting, that James Buchannan is often times cited as the worst and weakest president in American History (and I will purposely avoid the records of some of the 20th and 21st examples) and his "failure" to react quickly to the "impending crises." History has not been kind nor fair to "Old Buck's" accomplishments (yes, there were accomplishments!). Before castigating him any further, I would politely suggest a re-reading of the latests evaluations of his presidency.)

In summation, this was not a struggle resulting from any singular issue...rather it was a compilation of various efforts, statements, activities, and ERRORS (erroneous assumptions) perpetrated by honest men based, in many cases, on their own self-interests. (Yes, "honest men" can make erroneous assumptions, but we won't delve into modern politics!)

I hope that I have not stepped on anyone's toes...that was not my intent.

Best regards to all....

J

[Hampton Legion HQ]

Thanks J.