This day in history: The Civil War begins
When President Lincoln took office seven states had already seceded and the Confederates held Fort Sumter in a siege and demanded the evacuation of Union troops from the fort. On April 12 1861 President Lincoln sent a note to the Confederates telling them that he was going to resupply the fort with food, but not with ammunition and he expected that the Confederates would allow the supply ship through.
Needless to say it does no good to hold a town or a fort in siege if you are simply going to allow the fort to be resupplied and President Lincoln knew this. He knew that the Confederates would fire on the ship and on the fort, but he also knew that at this point there was virtually no chance that war could be averted so he devised this plan in order to goad the south into firing the first shot. And that is exactly what they did–the Civil War had begun 150 years ago today.
America's Watchtower 
Yes, NPR had the author of 1861 on, and they were discussing Lincoln’s crafty ploy to get the Confederates to fire the first shot.
Boortz this morning was ranting that it shouldn’t be called a civil war, since it wasn’t a struggle between 2 or more factions for control of the nation. It was a (failed) war for independence.
And the more I learn about the war, the more clear it becomes that it was about slavery. The fact that the slave states tried to camouflage it by dressing it up as a states’ rights issue only shows that they knew deep down that their position was immoral and untenable.
Take good care, and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
Yes, the south certainly considered this a war for independence. And it was a war about states rights, but what right was it that they were fighting for–slavery. The war revolved around slavery, but not neccessarily freeing the slaves; Lincoln had the goal of saving the union at all costs and remember his famous quote about saving the union:
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”
LikeLike
Oh, there’s no doubt that freeing the slaves wasn’t the North’s objective at the war’s outset; it was more to stop the spread of slavery into new states – “manifest destiny” was an item of faith then. Another issue was that the free states didn’t particularly care to permit slaveholders to bring their “property” into free states, while the slaveholders felt that if they decided to visit New York City, they should be entitled to bring as many slaves with them as they cared to.
Another interesting component of this general debate, even though i comes from a few generations earlier, is the Three-Fifths Compromise – although many folks like to characterize it as emblematic of southern racism in that it “recognized blacks as only 60% of whites,” the fact is that it was the free states who didn’t want slaves counted at all in apportionment calculations, while the slave states wanted them counted at 100%. I cringe when I hear otherwise well-educated liberals spewing their ignorance about it.
Take good care and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
Great points TGY! I never even thought about the fact that it was the north who didn’t want the slaves counted at all while the south wanted them counted at 100%.
But the great irony in this was the reason for the debate on this in the first place. It was over representation in the House: The reason the south wanted the slaves counted was so that they would have more reps in the House and would be able to dictate policy which would allow the expansion of slavery into new states; while the north didn’t want to count the slaves so they could have a better chance of stopping the spread of slavery.
LikeLike
Absolutely – the free states reasoned that if the slaves weren’t going to receive the benefits of being counted toward representation, they shouldn’t be counted at all.
The more cynical position was adopted by the slave states, who wanted the benefits of the slaves being counted 100% without any intention that those slaves would receive any of those benefits – that is, the increased representation in the House.
Take good care and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
Agreed! I find the debates held over slavery–from the founding through the Civil War–to be a fascinating subject. It is hard to understand today how this could have been tolerated in a “free” country and I just wish that more people were more well read on this subject before deciding that today’s America is flawed for the sins of our past.
LikeLike
Slavery was the issue at hand. They did disguise it as something else. Of course, that is now used against any state that raises the issue. Oh the irony.
LikeLike
I have been called a racist here in the past when I wrote about my belief in states rights because of something that happened 150 years ago. In order for someone to fall back on that argument it shows that the do not have a legitimate point to make.
LikeLike
Not about good or bad, but I think we must recognize the Civl War for what it was, a war mainly about slavery and how to end it. This doesn’t make the South bad and the North good, as both sides engaged in a heinous practice in order to be prosperous at the expense of an entire people. The fact is, slavery was the issue, and we are, as a nation, both North and South, Red and Blue, conservative and liberal, completely responsible for it. May God have mercy.
LikeLike
Uhh, I never owned a slave, I don’t know anyone who has ever owned a slave, in fact, there is no one alive who has. So, how is it “we, as a nation” responsible for it? It is fixed, it is no more. God has shown mercy, if it was otherwise slavery would still be legal. No instead, the men of the past fought the bloodiest war in American history that resulted in the abolishment of the despicable practice. They did that, I did nothing. I was born in 1976, no slavery was in existence. I do not take the sins of my fathers on to my person.
LikeLike
Yes, NPR had the author of 1861 on, and they were discussing Lincoln’s crafty ploy to get the Confederates to fire the first shot.
Boortz this morning was ranting that it shouldn’t be called a civil war, since it wasn’t a struggle between 2 or more factions for control of the nation. It was a (failed) war for independence.
LikeLike
Eh? Feels like deja vu all over again . . .
LikeLike
That was a little strange, wasn’t it?
LikeLike
Good post, I never knew that about the start of the war. Thanks for sharing. =)
LikeLike
Thank you. There is still debate over whether Lincoln purposely drew the south into firing the first shot. According to one book I have read Lincoln said something to the effect of–and I am paraphrazing–“the results of this action are not disagreable.” There is no doubt in my mind that Lincoln knew war was inevitable and provoked the south into firing the first shot.
LikeLike
Last night’s NPR broadcast reported – and I also paraphrase — that Lincoln later mentioned that Ft. Sumter’s greatest contribution to the Union was to be fired upon.
LikeLike