150 years ago today - Lincoln shot

Bamaro

TideFans Legend
Oct 19, 2001
26,615
10,706
287
Jacksonville, Md USA
For those that dont know, this was a full fledged conspiracy to attack the government:
Booth's three co-conspirators were Lewis Powell and David Herold, who were assigned to kill Secretary of State William H. Seward, and George Atzerodt who was tasked to kill Vice President Andrew Johnson. By simultaneously eliminating the top three people in the administration, Booth and his co-conspirators hoped to sever the continuity of the United States government.
At seven o'clock that evening, John Wilkes Booth met for a final time with all his fellow conspirators. Booth assigned Lewis Powell to kill Secretary of State William H. Seward at his home, George Atzerodt to kill Vice President Andrew Johnson at his residence, the Kirkwood Hotel, and David E. Herold to guide Powell to the Seward house and then out of Washington to rendezvous with Booth in Maryland. Booth planned to shoot Lincoln with his single-shot Deringer and then stab Grant with a knife at Ford's Theatre. They were all to strike simultaneously shortly after ten o'clock that night.[13]:112 Atzerodt wanted nothing to do with it, saying he had only signed up for a kidnapping, not a killing. Booth told him he was in too far to back out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Abraham_Lincoln
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,466
13,303
287
Hooterville, Vir.
To Capt. G. V. Fox
Washington, D. C.
May 1, 1861
My dear Sir,
[The failure of the military expedition to reinforce Fort Sumter failed, but I do not hold you responsible.]
You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort-Sumpter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.
Very truly your friend
A. LINCOLN
Roy Basler, Collected Works of Lincoln, vol. 4, p 350-351.

The result was the war, and the explosion of uncritical "rallying around the flag" sentiment, which gave Lincoln the war he wanted, made it look like it was the South's fault and gave him the excuse to stifle dissent in the northern states.

Lincoln was a brilliant propagandist, a crafty politician, able to learn on the job about his role as Commander-in-Chief.

That said, he was the best friend the South had in April 1865. I do not believe he ever harbored any real animus against the people of the southern states, (he was just opposed to them exercising their right of self-government, if that right harmed northern Republican business interests). By 1865, he had the clout necessary to protect the southern people from the ravages of evil, hate-filled Radical Republicans. His death, coming when it did, was perhaps the worst disaster that could have befallen the South other than the defeat of the Confederate Army.

As an aside, there were co-conspirators assigned to kill Vice President Johnson (the assassin chickened out), Secretary of State Seward (the assassin stabbed Seward repeatedly in the face, but did not kill him), but not the evil Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. The Army moved with unseemly haste to get all of the conspirators executed, so they had little chance to talk. Not saying that Stanton was part of a conspiracy to get rid of Lincoln once he was no longer needed and his lenient policies would run against the grain of Radical Republican hate-filled policies, but it is suspicious.
Later, when President Johnson demanded Stanton's resignation, Stanton refused to vacate the office of Secretary of War (literally, refused to vacate the office, barricading himself in the office building), telling the President that only Congress could demand his resignation, since the Senate had approved his nomination. Stanton ordered the Army's officers not to follow the orders of the President, but only those that came from or through the office of the Secretary of War. You can see that Stanton had some odd ideas about his bosses and was not above hysterical evasions to avoid subordinating himself to the President.
 

Bamaro

TideFans Legend
Oct 19, 2001
26,615
10,706
287
Jacksonville, Md USA
Roy Basler, Collected Works of Lincoln, vol. 4, p 350-351.

The result was the war, and the explosion of uncritical "rallying around the flag" sentiment, which gave Lincoln the war he wanted, made it look like it was the South's fault and gave him the excuse to stifle dissent in the northern states.
Its ludicrous to think that Lincoln wanted the civil war.:rolleyes:
 

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
58,280
45,069
287
54
East Point, Ga, USA
Its ludicrous to think that Lincoln wanted the civil war.:rolleyes:
You're new here aren't you. ;)

Lincoln was using the war as a ruse to get his face on Mt rushmore. Had he not been assassinated, he was going to start another war so that he could get on stone mountain
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,466
13,303
287
Hooterville, Vir.
Its ludicrous to think that Lincoln wanted the civil war.:rolleyes:
What else does this mean?
Lincoln said:
You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort-Sumpter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.
If he really wanted to avoid war, all he would have had to do would be to order Major Anderson and his troops out of Fort Sumter and back into the United States, and then send the Confederate States a bill for (a) their share of the national debt and (b) whatever the balance was on moneys spent by the Federal government in the seceded states less whatever the citizens of those states had paid into Federal coffers. To adjust these, the Confederate Secretary of State Robert Toombs, had sent three commissioners Martin J. Crawford, John Forsyth, and A.B. Roman to Washington to arrange the matters. Lincoln refused to meet with them, but Lincoln's Secretary of States, William Seward, was informally telling them that Sumter would be evacuated without any fighting.
Even that would not necessarily have ended with the permanent division of the Union. Virginia (still in the Union in April 1861) was working on a compromise plan to try to bring the Deep South back into the Union at their own volition. But Virginia had warned Lincoln not to do anything that would result in fighting breaking out.
Of course, peaceful secession, even for a while, would have been disastrous to northern Republican business interests (as merchants would start shipping merchandise duty-free through Confederate ports). Lincoln could not allow peace to stand. He had to get a war started so he could blockade southern ports and help New York retain its dominant commercial position. Peace was bad for business. Peace had to go.
 
Last edited:

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,466
13,303
287
Hooterville, Vir.
I thought it was well-established historical fact that Lincoln was willing to fight a war to keep the country intact, and that the strategy at Sumter was to make no aggressive moves, but to goad the Southerners into attacking first.
Apparently not well-established in all minds.

He was a corporate attorney and a crafty politician. Why anyone would be surprised that he behaved like a corporate attorney and a crafty politician is beyond me.
 
Last edited:

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
Its ludicrous to think that Lincoln wanted the civil war.:rolleyes:
I don't think history bears that out. I do think he would have preferred to avoid it, but he had no problem with policies that he knew could (or even would) instigate it in an ultimate result to keep the union.

Edit: BiB said what I was trying to say better.
 

Bamaro

TideFans Legend
Oct 19, 2001
26,615
10,706
287
Jacksonville, Md USA
A little perspective:

November 6, 1860 - Lincoln Elected

November 9, 1860 the South Carolina General Assembly passed a "Resolution to Call the Election of Abraham Lincoln as U.S. President a Hostile Act" and stated its intention to secede from the United States.

December 20, 1960 - S C Secession

December 26, 1860 - Major Robert Anderson, commander of the U.S. troops in Charleston, withdrew his men to the island fortress of Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. South Carolina militia swarmed over the abandoned mainland batteries and trained their guns on the island.

January 9, 1860 - U.S. ship Star of the West approached to resupply the fort and was fired on (Buchanan still president)

March 4, 1861 - Lincoln Inauguration

April 12, 1861 - Ft Sumter battle begins

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina_in_the_American_Civil_War
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,466
13,303
287
Hooterville, Vir.
There's a big difference in wanting to go to war and being willing to go to war.
True, but the quote, written by President Lincoln to Capt. Fox still indicates that he sent the military expedition to Fort Sumter in the hope that if it should fail in relieving Sumter, it would at least start a war. That is something beyond merely being willing for a war to start. It was deliberately provocative.
If he had really wanted peace, it was easy to be had on terms honorable to both parties.
The irony is that peaceful secession would have been a really good way to get rid of slavery in the United States.
Virginia Convention delegate Jeremiah Morton correctly observed that "if we establish a Southern Confederacy, and bring a Canada to our borders, we shall lose all our slaves." (Reese, The Proceedings of the Virginia Convention of 1861, vol. 1, pg. p. 263).
If Virginia were to secede, secession opponent George Summers, said, "we are to become, to use a homely phrase, the outside row in the cornfield. ... I believe that the sundering and dismembering of the Union is the signal not only of vast injury to the slave institutions of this country, but possibly of its extinction in Virginia." (Reese, vol. 1, pg. 618)
Lincoln had to be aware of this thinking as well.
 

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
It should be obvious to everyone that Lincoln was never going to let the South go without a fight. War was inevitable.
A little perspective:

November 6, 1860 - Lincoln Elected

November 9, 1860 the South Carolina General Assembly passed a "Resolution to Call the Election of Abraham Lincoln as U.S. President a Hostile Act" and stated its intention to secede from the United States.

December 20, 1960 - S C Secession

December 26, 1860 - Major Robert Anderson, commander of the U.S. troops in Charleston, withdrew his men to the island fortress of Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. South Carolina militia swarmed over the abandoned mainland batteries and trained their guns on the island.

January 9, 1860 - U.S. ship Star of the West approached to resupply the fort and was fired on (Buchanan still president)

March 4, 1861 - Lincoln Inauguration

April 12, 1861 - Ft Sumter battle begins

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina_in_the_American_Civil_War
Yup.

People seem to overlook that the simple fact that Lincoln was elected almost certainly meant war. I am not sure whether he wanted it or not has any bearing.
 
Last edited:

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
True, but the quote, written by President Lincoln to Capt. Fox still indicates that he sent the military expedition to Fort Sumter in the hope that if it should fail in relieving Sumter, it would at least start a war. That is something beyond merely being willing for a war to start. It was deliberately provocative.
If he had really wanted peace, it was easy to be had on terms honorable to both parties.
The irony is that peaceful secession would have been a really good way to get rid of slavery in the United States.
Virginia Convention delegate Jeremiah Morton correctly observed that "if we establish a Southern Confederacy, and bring a Canada to our borders, we shall lose all our slaves." (Reese, The Proceedings of the Virginia Convention of 1861, vol. 1, pg. p. 263).
If Virginia were to secede, secession opponent George Summers, said, "we are to become, to use a homely phrase, the outside row in the cornfield. ... I believe that the sundering and dismembering of the Union is the signal not only of vast injury to the slave institutions of this country, but possibly of its extinction in Virginia." (Reese, vol. 1, pg. 618)
Lincoln had to be aware of this thinking as well.
Most certainly. I believe there is ample evidence that he was driving the narrative, and had no problem being provocative. I think it just gets into a semantic argument at this point. He was going to do whatever it took to preserve the union. I think it doubtful he could have had a purely peaceful secession. There certainly would have been fights between parties in states with large enough of a populace on both sides.

Rummaging that scenario around in my head leads me to believe the other states most likely would have joined in.

In a way Sumter kind of reminds me of Berlin. Three different presidents were pretty provocative with the Soviet Union over that enclave (for lack of a better term).
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,466
13,303
287
Hooterville, Vir.
Another timeline:
* 26 January 1861: Louisiana secedes and immediately declares Mississippi River open to “all friendly states and powers.”
* 9 February 1861: CSA declares US tariff of 1857 in effect.
* 18 February 1861: CSA lowers tariff rates and expands the duty free list.
* 2 March 1861: US adopts the Morrill Tariff, significantly raising US tariff rates. (& increasing the incentives to smuggling).
* 12 March 1861 New York Post writes: We happen to know that there are importing houses at this moment preparing to take advantage of this opening for an unencumbered trade. They are getting ready to convey their cargoes to Charleston or Savannah; the goods will be landed there, and then brought coastwise to New York, where, being importations from a port within the Union, they will be subject to no duty." The US was maintaining the fiction that South Carolina and Georgia were still in the Union, so cargoes coming to New York via the coastal trade could not be charged an import duty.
* 15 March 1861: CSA declares duty free transit of CS territory for goods bound for the US, making it very lucrative for importers to bypass New York and other northern ports.
* 27 March 1861: New York Times correspondent writes from Charleston, SC that “Four agents from Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield and Birmingham will be here [Charleston, SC] by the 1st of April, to make arrangements for direct trade with Great Britain.” (i.e. bypassing New York, the largest port of entry in the US.)
* 27 March 1861: A delegation of New York City businessmen go to Washington to discuss the current situation with President Lincoln. They declare "“The present uncertainty as to the new tariff is destroying trade and legitimate speculation. If we are to have war, we can adjust our business to that condition of things, but if the government lies upon its oars with t high tariff in New York and a low on in New Orleans we are undone.” (New York Post, 29 March 1861)
* 1 April 1861: Morrill tariff goes into effect in the US. There are no US customs officers in any seceded state to collect the new US duty.
* 4 April 1861: Lincoln makes the decision to send a military relief expedition to Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens (Pensacola).
* 4 April 1861: When Virginia Unionist John B. Baldwin suggests letting the South go, Lincoln responds: “what about the revenue? What would I do about the collection of duties?”
* 12 April 1861: Confederate authorities in Charleston, aware that a military expedition is en route to Sumter demand its surrender, then, when refused, open fire.
* 12 April 1861: When Virginia Unionist Alex. H. H. Stuart suggests Lincoln let the South go, Lincoln responds, “If I do that, what will become of my revenue? I might as well shut up housekeeping at once!“
* 22 April 1861: When Maryland Unionist Rev. Richard Fuller suggests Lincoln let the South go, Lincoln responds “And what shall become of the revenue? I shall have no Government—no resources?”
 
Last edited:

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,466
13,303
287
Hooterville, Vir.
Most certainly. I believe there is ample evidence that he was driving the narrative, and had no problem being provocative. I think it just gets into a semantic argument at this point. He was going to do whatever it took to preserve the union. I think it doubtful he could have had a purely peaceful secession.
Secession is normally peaceful, unless the imperialist power decides that resorting to violence is better than allowing people their self-determination. Sweden did not fight to keep Norway against the will of Norwegians. The Czechs did not fight to force the Slovaks to remain in Czechoslovakia. Heck, even the Soviets, as bad as they were, did not fight a bitter war to keep subject peoples in their nasty empire.
There certainly would have been fights between parties in states with large enough of a populace on both sides.
Yes, but states are the constituent polities of this federative republic. Lincoln seems to have had trouble distinguishing the significance between a county and a state. The states created the Federal government. They also created the counties.
Rummaging that scenario around in my head leads me to believe the other states most likely would have joined in.
New York merchants were deeply worried that the Old Northwest (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin) which were also overwhelmingly agricultural like the South, would tire of the northeast's high protectionist tariff policy and would leave the Union and sue for admission to the low-tariff Confederacy. (See Philip Foner, Business and Slavery: The New York Merchants and the Irrepressible Conflict, Chapter 13). Starting a war will cause people to stop thinking about their self-interest and start waving their flags.
 
Last edited:

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
Secession is normally peaceful, unless the imperialist power decides that resorting to violence is better than allowing people their self-determination. Sweden did not fight to keep Norway against the will of Norwegians. The Czechs did not fight to force the Slovaks to remain in Czechoslovakia. Heck, even the Soviets, as bad as they were, did not fight a bitter war to keep subject peoples in their nasty empire.
I agree. I just think the dynamics of what was going on, especially considering Missouri and Kansas, most probably would have started the fighting anyway and others would have joined those from each side. There is obviously no way of knowing.

Yes, but states are the constituent polities of this federative republic. Lincoln seems to have had trouble distinguishing the significance between a county and a state. The states created the Federal government. They also created the counties.
True. I think most people misunderstand this when discussing the dynamics of what happened. The whole United States is/are change is indicative. BTW:

http://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/wordroutes/the-united-states-is-or-are/

New York merchants were deeply worried that the Old Northwest (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin) which were also overwhelmingly agricultural like the South, would tire of the northeast's high protectionist tariff policy and would leave the Union and sue for admission to the low-tariff Confederacy. (See Philip Foner, Business and Slavery: The New York Merchants and the Irrepressible Conflict, Chapter 13). Starting a war will cause people to stop thinking about their self-interest and start waving their flags.
Thanks. That is one of the reasons I rummaged. I think there is ample evidence that there were plenty of people itching for a fight on both sides.
 

New Posts

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.