Did Lincoln Start the Civil War?

[Cleaburn]

Here, Here,!

[Shirkon]

Well, it's been awhile since I have visited this forum, but I would like to throw in my two cents.

I want to address two subjects that have been touched upon in the first page or so of this thread. The first would be the issue with Fort. Sumter; I am sure AC knows these arguments by heart now from the MMG forum. Abraham Lincoln sent a resupply ship to Fort Sumter, correct. Were there any reinforcements on the resupply ship, No. So many would say that the South would be at fault for firing upon the ship first if no reinforcements were on it. I see this froma different angle. Fort Sumter was in the waters controlled by South Carolina, therefore once the state seceded, property of the State. America really didn't give much back much of the British property once they won the American Revolution now did they? Well anyways, Lincoln sent a resupply ship to Fort Sumter, why? To continue to have a Federal presence in South Carolina. So, when Lincoln sent a ship to resupply the Fort, he was attempting to keep a permanent presence of federal Troops in a foriegn Country. No country would stand for foriegn troops inside their country. Remember, there are two sides in a game of tug-o-war. Lincoln could not do nothing when the South seceded, but the South also could not tolerate a federal presence in what they considered their land.

Why is it that everyone forgets that the first resupply ship was sent by Buchanan before Linclon even got to Washington and it was fired on by SC troops. There is no comparison of Lincoln trying to do his constitutional duty of holding Federal territory before a war and the British trying to hold territory after losing a war that will hold water. SC was not a nation in itself and just because they decided to leave the US did not give them title to Federal property even though it was within the borders of territory they claimed. That is like Spain claiming Gibraltar just because it's surrounded by Spain. Bet the British would fight that tooth and nail.

[2nd Kentucky]

Why is it that everyone forgets that the first resupply ship was sent by Buchanan before Linclon even got to Washington and it was fired on by SC troops. There is no comparison of Lincoln trying to do his constitutional duty of holding Federal territory before a war and the British trying to hold territory after losing a war that will hold water. SC was not a nation in itself and just because they decided to leave the US did not give them title to Federal property even though it was within the borders of territory they claimed. That is like Spain claiming Gibraltar just because it's surrounded by Spain. Bet the British would fight that tooth and nail.

First, I have not forgotten the Star of the West. I was under the assumption that we were talking about Lincoln, therefore I focused my argument about Lincoln.

Second,there is a connection, Fort Sumter was in South Carolina, the "land" or area of soverienty of South Carolina. The thirteen colonies were British lands, and I am sure that American militia secured various supplies and areas from the British upon Independence. You are right in saying that South Carolina was not a nation within itself, therefore I will change my argument to: the Confederacy did not want a federal presence within their borders. :whistle:

Third, your Spain-Gibralter-Britian example is not the same. I don't have a vast amount of knowledge on european history, but I'll go by what I do know. Gibralter is a sum of land, quite a bit larger than a Fort, the British would have a much better position of fighting to keep Gibralter than the North was to keep Fort Sumter. And as I recall, the Southern Authorities offered to let them leave. But Lincoln refused to withdraw Major Anderson. Lincoln knew the South would have to face this first challenge of their soverienty head on, which would escalade into warfare. So anyway you put it, Lincoln started the war, he did not fire the first shot, but his actions were the fuse, it just had to be lit.

[Braxton Bragg]

Lets face it the Fort Sumter issue was the only way the north could find, as an excuse to invade the south to force those free states back into an unhappy union

another thought is, lets free the slaves but enslave the Southern states!

Braxton Bragg

[2nd Kentucky]

Both sides had their issues, I find it interesting that the North was so hung up on slavery, yet refused to do anything about the factory workers who were virtually slaves masked in Freedom.

By the way, what is this karma thing about? It seems I have done poorly in it.

[Braxton Bragg]

Both sides had their issues, I find it interesting that the North was so hung up on slavery, yet refused to do anything about the factory workers who were virtually slaves masked in Freedom

Now then 2nd Kentucky wash your mouth out for sayin those bads things :whistle:
Its alright to enslave white folk!:whistle:

dont worry about the Karma thing you may have hit a few nerves, and upset some people :woohoo:

Braxton Bragg

[2nd Kentucky]

Now then 2nd Kentucky wash your mouth out for sayin those bads things
Its alright to enslave white folk!

Very, very true... haha

dont worry about the Karma thing you may have hit a few nerves, and upset some people

Then I have done my job, it seems on both forums, I can get a little testy... Even though I am right...

[Braxton Bragg]

You know when you look past the story line of some of these history books its amazing what you can really see going on.

Waterloo was won by the British, NOT! The British made up 1/3 of the forces engaged, most were Dutch/Belgium soldiers, and not forgetting Old Blucher's forces that did the real damage to Napoleons right flank.
Oh yeah and the Old Guard held plancenoit, it was the Middle Guard that were repulsed.

Braxton Bragg

[2nd Kentucky]

Very true, now I hope nobody takes me as a "Lost Causer". I am a very proud American. I do believe that the South had the right to secede, but I am glad they failed.

[charlesobscure]

Well, it's been awhile since I have visited this forum, but I would like to throw in my two cents.

I want to address two subjects that have been touched upon in the first page or so of this thread. The first would be the issue with Fort. Sumter; I am sure AC knows these arguments by heart now from the MMG forum. Abraham Lincoln sent a resupply ship to Fort Sumter, correct. Were there any reinforcements on the resupply ship, No. So many would say that the South would be at fault for firing upon the ship first if no reinforcements were on it. I see this froma different angle. Fort Sumter was in the waters controlled by South Carolina, therefore once the state seceded, property of the State. America really didn't give much back much of the British property once they won the American Revolution now did they? Well anyways, Lincoln sent a resupply ship to Fort Sumter, why? To continue to have a Federal presence in South Carolina. So, when Lincoln sent a ship to resupply the Fort, he was attempting to keep a permanent presence of federal Troops in a foriegn Country. No country would stand for foriegn troops inside their country. Remember, there are two sides in a game of tug-o-war. Lincoln could not do nothing when the South seceded, but the South also could not tolerate a federal presence in what they considered their land.

Now I want to mention the Lincoln campaign promise of "preventing slavery from spreading". By taking a glance, many would say that this was a good thing, Lincoln didn't want slavery to spread into the other territories. But not so, lets look at the political makeup of Congress in 1860. Because of the population advantage in the House of Representatives, the North had control of that house. But in the Senate, the states were generally still equal with two Senators each, the North still held a small advantage over the Southern and Border states. By promising to stop slavery from spreading, Lincoln effectively said that he would stop pro-southern representatives and senators from entering Congress via, stopping slavery from spreading. By making the new states free states, they are keeping the slave holding states in the borders of the states that already had slavery. The South would not gain anymore seats in the Senate and very little support in the House, the North would have domination over both houses of Congress, eventually stopping slavery, but crippling the South in the process.

As to your first point, you rest on the incorrect assumption that South Carolina by its act of "secession" became a sovereign entity. Yes, in their minds they separated from the rest of the country, but what makes that legitimate anywhere else? I can just as easily argue, and I think rightly, that South Carolina was in an act of rebellion on territory that was still part of the United States of America. Your comparison to post-Revolutionary War America is inapposite; the 1783 Treaty of Paris recognized the colonies as sovereign entities.

As to your second point, I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say, but I can understand why the South felt threatened by Lincoln's proposal to contain slavery in the territory where it already existed. This only further serves my earlier point that slavery was the predominant root cause of the war.