0 sats \ 20 replies \ @Undisciplined 15 Jan \ parent \ on: On Lincoln history
There's a lot of room between no consequences and one of the ugliest wars in human history (to that point).
I doubt there would have been a war if Lincoln had acknowledged the Confederacy's independence, so that claim seems a tad too strong.
It seems like we agree about slavery being on the way out had there been no war. If slavery was soon to be abolished anyway, the only real point of the war was preserving the union, which again is not a just cause of war.
There's a lot of room between no consequences and one of the ugliest wars in human history (to that point).
One that the Confederates started, and were proud to start, whose underpinnings were in motion before Lincoln was ever president. It's simply not something a singular individual could have changed the course of with any one act - and it again would require the Confederates to not escalate tensions (which is something they did not want to do).
I doubt there would have been a war if Lincoln had acknowledged the Confederacy's independence, so that claim seems a tad too strong.
Why would you recognize the independence of an organization who steals your property & holds your people in slavery? And mind - the confederacy refused negotiations - acknowledging independence would also be denying their own national sovereignty - not something I see a statist doing. If the Confederates did not open fire, and participated in discussions, maybe things would have been different. Avoiding conflict simply wasn't something that the CSA wanted.
If slavery was soon to be abolished anyway, the only real point of the war was preserving the union, which again is not a just cause of war.
This ignores why the Confederates fought the war - which was to have the right to run a slave society, have that power recognized even in places that did not want it, and have the power of the state to keep it going as long as possible.
reply
Why would you recognize the independence of an organization who steals your property & holds your people in slavery?
I didn't say Lincoln should have done that. I'm countering your claim that there was only one way to avoid war. However, the answer to that question is "to avoid one of the worst wars in human history".
and have the power of the state to keep it going as long as possible.
That's a totally fair point. There's no shortage of evil regimes continuing evil practices even when they make no economic sense. Perhaps that would have gone on for a long time in this counterfactual.
I'm just not as convinced the CSA wanted a military conflict with the USA as you are. I'm also not as convinced as you that Lincoln was just a powerless bystander. I see both governments as pretty bad actors pursuing fundamentally illiberal goals.
reply
I'm just not as convinced the CSA wanted a military conflict with the USA as you are
You would be if you read what Confederates said about their situation:
From the Cornerstone Speech:
The process of disintegration in the old Union may be expected to go on with almost absolute certainty if we pursue the right course. We are now the nucleus of a growing power which, if we are true to ourselves, our destiny, and high mission, will become the controlling power on this continent. .... The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew." Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
Wanting to be the controlling power on the continent by an illiberal state implies violence.
At this time, Fort Sumpter is already under blockade. The Confederates would shoot first, literally 2 weeks after the speech is given. This is after they were offered compensation & legal protection and 7 of the 11 total states that made the CSA had already seceded.
To argue that the CSA didn't want conflict is to ignore their own actions, and their written and publicly documented thoughts at the time.
I'm also not as convinced as you that Lincoln was just a powerless bystander.
Also not a thing I said. He simply would not have been able to prevent the outbreak of war, solely because the CSA did not have a real interest in negotiating. They planned to secede before he ever took office as president, and he actively supported measures to stave off conflict as a Congressman.
To say that he singlehandedly could have done anything to change the outcome ignores the many future Confederates who did want that outcome and were actively preparing for it. One cannot avoid conflict while tied to another who actively seeks it.
I see both governments as pretty bad actors pursuing fundamentally illiberal goals.
saying that both governments are bad actors doesn't change the fact that saying 'Lincoln started the civil war' or 'Lincoln is responsible for the conflict' is on multiple levels, factually wrong and requires you to ignore history on both sides of the conflict.
reply
I apologize for mischaracterizing your Lincoln position, but I didn't claim that "Lincoln started the civil war" or that "Lincoln is responsible for the conflict" (in the sense of solely responsible). I said he bore some responsibility. Even if some form of conflict was inevitable as you believe, it didn't have to be as horrific as Lincoln made it. Waging the war to the point of conquest was unnecessary.
I don't see what part of that speech indicates that a full scale war with the Union was desired. At best "controlling power" is open to that interpretation, but it could mean all kinds of stuff. I'm also not convinced that a minor skirmish breaking out at Fort Sumpter indicates that a war was desired broadly.
reply
I don't see what part of that speech indicates that a full scale war with the Union was desired. At best "controlling power" is open to that interpretation, but it could mean all kinds of stuff
This speech is being made at the same time that Fort Sumter was under blockade, during negotations:
After consulting with his senior officers, Maj. Anderson replied that he would evacuate Sumter by noon, April 15, unless he received new orders from his government or additional supplies. Col. Chesnut considered this reply to be too conditional and wrote a reply, which he handed to Anderson at 3:20 a.m.: "Sir: by authority of Brigadier General Beauregard, commanding the Provisional Forces of the Confederate States, we have the honor to notify you that he will open fire of his batteries on Fort Sumter in one hour from this time."
At 4:30 a.m. on April 12, 1861, Lt. Henry S. Farley, acting upon the command of Capt. George S. James,[47][48] fired a single 10-inch mortar round from Fort Johnson. (James had offered the first shot to Roger Pryor, a noted Virginia secessionist, who declined, saying, "I could not fire the first gun of the war.")
Pryor had advocated for South Carolina to fire on the Fort in order to encourage Virginia to secede -to bring more states into the conflict.
They knew what they were signing up for.
reply
I have no doubt that there were particular individuals who wanted war. There always are. It doesn't seem nearly as widespread or explicit as Lincoln pledging to wage a war to prevent secession.
I've seen people breakdown the lead up to firing on Fort Sumter and it strikes me as a very messy situation. The South obviously fired first, but the North knew they were increasing the odds of that with their actions. Again, bad actors on both sides.
I don't have a strong opinion about who's most at fault in the incident. Since, I do believe in a right to secede, I think the Union should have already vacated, but that doesn't mean they necessarily deserved to be fired on.
reply
I have no doubt that there were particular individuals who wanted war.
The particular individuals in question were running the Confederate States of America.
Pryor was a politician in Virginia.The Cornerstone Speech was made by their Vice President. I highly encourage you to read it to understand what they thought their motivations were.
North knew they were increasing the odds of that with their actions
you haven't actually stated what that action would be - and all of the previous suggestions you've brought up are things that were attempted and rejected by the Confederates.
What action are you referring to? Not expanding slavery? It is their sole stated purpose for wanting to secede.
I think the Union should have already vacated, but that doesn't mean they necessarily deserved to be fired on.
Union troops were negotiating exactly when to leave and when they provided a time they would leave they were fired on literally an hour they did so. The Confederates intentionally ruined any possible chance of peaceful negotiation because they wanted to increase the scope of the conflict.
reply
Union troops were negotiating exactly when to leave
When you're on someone else's property staying on it and negotiating when to leave does not mean you have a right to be there or that the owner doesn't have a right to remove you. That's not a perfect analogy, but it should get my point across. Continuing to occupy the fort (and other territories in the seceding states) is the action that the North knew was provocative. Obviously, I don't think they should have expanded slavery.
It may well be true that some group of Confederates intentionally sabotaged a peace process. I would never rule something like that out.
Waging the war to the point of conquest was unnecessary.
Every single one of your suggestions that Lincoln 'could have done' are things he actually did do, and it didn't work because the Confederates wanted otherwise.
If you believe that conquest was unnecessary then the Confederates should have accepted the negotiations, given up the institution of slavery,or won the war.
They did none of these things and fired first during negotiations.
reply
My understanding is that Lincoln's primary goal of the war was to preserve the union. If there was an offer of independence for the CSA, then I was unaware of that. Is that what you're asserting?
reply
my understanding is that Lincoln's primary goal of the war was to preserve the union
this is in reference towards whether Lincoln would have allowed for slavery to occur if the Confederates didn't open fire. And he would have - nearly everything he offered the Confederates were given to slave holding states in the Union.
Confederates simply did not care.
Again, they were in active negotiations for months when the Confederates opened fire. They were even in negotiations up until the blockade. The attack was done at the time it was primarily to convince other states to join with the Confederate cause and end negotiations.
reply
As you said earlier, and I didn't dispute, secession was already going to happen. My point is that Lincoln chose to go to war over it. That's what I am claiming was both unjust and unnecessary.