They did take over most other facilities without bloodshed. The Sumter garrison was deliberately (by Lincoln) ordered to remain, and a resupply convoy was announced, specifically to contrive that Confederate forces should feel compelled to fire on it first. It was not a serious attack–there was, in fact, no blood shed in the perfunctory bombardment–but it permitted the respective commanders, Beauregard and Anderson, who knew each other from West Point, to accomplish the handover with what they deemed appropriate honor all round.
Right. This is why the contrivance was necessary, from the point of view of a Northern President who wanted war.
Why does everyone always insist that Lincoln wanted a war? You can argue that both sides wanted a war but it’s ridiculous to imply that Lincoln was the sole aggressor. It’s pretty obvious that Davis, who actually started a war, wanted one even more than Lincoln did. But you never hear anyone talking about how Davis maneuvered events to start a war.
Lincoln had no qualms about using war to stop the South from seceding. And the South WAS going to secede and its kinda hard stop seceding any other way.
I agree that Lincoln would have eventually declared war against the CSA if it had come down to that. But I disagree with the common assertion I’ve seen made that Lincoln was somehow the sole aggressor for a war which he didn’t actually start. Davis didn’t get tricked into declaring war; he chose to start a war.
It may be hard to remember today but once upon a time the Chief Executive couldn’t unilaterally commit the nation to war- Congress declared war. Until they did Lincoln would have been all but helpless; there was next to no standing army, no draft law and no funding. Certainly Lincoln would try to lobby support, but in the end the decision to go to war, both de jure and de facto was in Congress. And, I repeat, several slave states hadn’t left the Union yet. They could have done more for the Confederacy by remaining in the Union and voting down bills to go to war.
What else could it have come down to? At his first inauguration, seven states had already seceded. Well, he could have let them go, with protest and regret, but in peace. He could have worked on developing political and economic pressures for them to return to the Union, which might have been fruitful, long after he was out of office. Or, he could raise the largest army the continent had ever seen, to invade those states and restore them by force. And coincidentally, to strengthen the position of the federal government relative to all the states, in accord with his Whig philosophy.
Lincoln, once in office, held most of the cards and made the most pivotal decisions. A massive war is what actually resulted.
How did Lincoln hold all the cards? If the Confederacy had rejoined the US it would have trumped anything Lincoln could have attempted. All Lincoln could do was react to Southern actions and preach union. Your view seems odd to me.
Now as I understand it, growing up in Kentucky Lincoln didnt think much of slaves because their plight wasnt much worse than the average poor white and maybe even better. It was on a trip to New Orleans when he saw a slave auction and people being whipped and chained and families forced apart that he really saw how truly evil slavery was.
But what if he had never made that trip?
Would he have had the drive to end slavery?
If you read any of his speeches or writing on the issue he knew slavery was against everything the US was supposed to stand for and he knew it would hold the nations growth back.
But Ft Sumpter* didn’t *fire on shipping, they didn’t cut off almost all imports and exports. Do you have any evidence the North would have, if the CSA hadnt started hostilities?
No, but its not an unreasonable fear that they might have. Part of what defines a state is the monopoly of force, and having a fort in your harbor filled with soldiers from the government you just seceded from isn’t that one thing that fills you with confidence.
But, I guess the question is, what would you have done, assuming you were the governor of South Carolina and you had just declared your independence? Assuming also, you’re not gifted with hindsight, of course. Do you leave the fort there?
Consult the works of Thomas DiLorenzo to discover The Evils of Lincoln. I’ve linked to one of his two works on the subject. Or just read the review excerpts & five-star comments. Evil Lincoln is a Right Wing meme.
Why South Carolina? Sam Houston, a strong Unionist, called the state the “nursery of disunion.”
Disengages overthruster and drops out of Hyperdrive
A couple of quick, mildly pedantic, remarks.
Lincoln (and Congress, once it was assembled) did not declare war against the Confederacy. That would have given them the status of a co-belligerent Nation-State, and that is something Lincoln and his Government avoided at all costs.
Lincoln (and Congress) voted funds to raise an Army to “Supress Rebellion” in those states that had illegally (and Un-Constitutionally) declared their succession from the Federal Union. So a formal 'Declaration of War" was not enacted.
As for Ft. Sumter, the Union forces there were too weak (not much more than 100 personnel) to mount any sort of real defense or blockade anything. In fact, the Southerners shelled several ships (see Star of the West) that attempted to re-supply the Federals, with no return fire by Sumter (and those actions could have been used by Lincoln as a casus belli if necessary.
Press on…this is a very fascinating thread.