Slavery; the root cause of Secession & War

[mobile_96]

President Davis was "authorized...to ask for and accept the services of any number of volunteers, not exceeding 100,000."

He did not immediately call for 100,000. 
It would be many months before the Confederates had 100,000 troops in the field.

The authorization to call for up to 100,000 troops was made on March 6, 1861.
CSA
March 9- The first call is made for 11,700 men.  It took about a month for them to be fully organized.
CSA
April 8- An additional 19,500 are requested from the various states after the "discontinuance by the United States of negotiations with the Commissioners representing this Government (CSA)."
April 12- Fort Sumter.
USA-April 15- Lincoln calls for 75,000 troops.
CSA-April 16- The Confederates request another 32,000 from the various states.
As of April 16 the total number of troops being raised was-
USA  75,000
CSA  63,200

Thanks BR, got to thinking after I posted that. Knew the 100,000 was about right for authorized numbers. Have a friend going to help me research a bit more to see if we can get a better determination of reb troops in service by April 12. In Allen Nevins, I saw where 'Bo' (I think it was Bo) claimed there were about 16,000 already active with another 16T coming in soon. But, he could be wrong also.
In Jan, some southern states were already calling up their militia units since most of them had actually enlarged their militia units around 1854.
Have a nice life!
Chuck in ILL.

[ole]

The call went out for 100,000. There was nowhere near that number in Confederate service when Sumter was fired on.  I think I read maybe 30,000. But let's not get confused with the distinction between those in Confederate service and those in each state's militia.

When Lincoln issued his call for 75,000 militia troops, he had very few regulars and a few groups of militia of dubious loyalty. I think it was shortly after that when those who escaped from Texas arrived. (Many of those who didn't escape spent about 2 years at hard labor in a prison camp.)

I think the point here is that Lincoln made no call for troops until he was convinced that the Confederates intended to march on Washington. (Wrongly, as it happened, but there were indications that it was probable, given some rather impusive speeches.) A more prudent man might have been excused if he had kept Congress in session and properly asked for recalling the Regulars from their scattered posts. But Lincoln was apparently determined to do nothing to provoke the Confederacy.

And then came Sumter. Here we might discuss the specifics of the "resupply/reenforcement." Was it an invitation to war? Was it an invitation to start a war? Probably. But Lincoln knew, and so did Davis, that a conflict was coming, and that the question of "who started it" would make a huge impact on enthusiasm. Davis chose to open the hostilities. This is now called "hoodwinking" the poor Mississippi planter who just wanted to be left alone. Davis knew exactly what he was doing when he ordered Beauregard to open up. His rationale has yet to be explained satisfactorily. It's been said that secession fever was waning and he had to reignite it. And that to tip Virginia into joining the Confederacy, some action was needed. Whatever. He did know that ordering the reduction of Sumter would give Lincoln the moral high ground. And he did it anyway.

By the way. Is everyone aware that there was a commission waiting to offer to buy Sumter back? That seems like a clear admission that South Carolina didn't own it.

ole

[mobile_96]

I think the point here is that Lincoln made no call for troops until he was convinced that the Confederates intended to march on Washington.Correct, Ole! Lincolns call was a Reaction (To Protect)to a Action (Attack) by the South. (Wrongly, as it happened, but there were indications that it was probable, given some rather impusive speeches.) A more prudent man might have been excused if he had kept Congress in session and properly asked for recalling the Regulars from their scattered posts. But Lincoln was apparently determined to do nothing to provoke the Confederacy.

By the way. Is everyone aware that there was a commission waiting to offer to buy Sumter back? That seems like a clear admission that South Carolina didn't own it.New one on me. Have anymore info on this, or a reachable source??
ole

[Catherine Hopley]

BorderRuffian has beaten me to it. I was checking on this yesterday and, as he says, the Confederate Congress stipulated an upper limit of 100,000 and then followed that with an actual request to the various state governors for a dramatically smaller number. To interpret that as a request for 100,000 men shows an inadequate grasp of English and/or arithmetic.

Was there ever the slightest chance that Lincoln and his cabinet would recognise Confederate independence? I see nothing in the historical record to suggest that there was. Everything that Lincoln said on the subject indicated the opposite. Certainly he prevaricated, for reasons of political expediency, and certainly he did everything he could to manoeuvre the government in Montgomery into firing the first shot. But there is not a shred of evidence that recognition was ever an option for him.

So....where does that leave us? Well, it means that it is nonsensical to claim that the war was caused by the firing on Sumter. Sooner or later, Lincoln would have had to authorise the use of military force to subdue the "rebellion". If the flashpoint hadn't occurred at Sumter it would have happened somewhere else. But it would have happened. It is disingenuous to claim otherwise.

As for the question of whether the war was caused by slavery....I feel that we are speaking two different languages here. Every time I try to make the point that the causes of secession and the causes of the war are different subjects, someone responds by repeating the assertion that secession was mainly motivated by a desire to protect slavery. Please listen: I don't disagree with this. I never have. But it's entirely beside the point.

[M Anthony Young]

Catherine Hopley,
I'd just like to say, Catherine , how much I enjoy your postings.You have a delightful,informed eloquence and the combatative instincts to slug it out and hold your own with some of the best,most knowledgeable heads that this forum has to offer.On the central question raised in this thread I happen to be on the other side of the argument,agreeing as I do with Ole's succinct summation that the threat[real or perceived] to slavery led to secession and secession led to war.That,however,is neither here nor there.Where you and I stand on this[or any other] issue is of little or no concern in my humble opinion.What matters is that what you say entertains and,perhaps more importantly,informs me.Long may you continue!
Micky

[Catherine Hopley]

Dear Micky,

Thanks very much.

As you say, whether we happen to agree or disagree is really unimportant. The pleasure comes from swapping views and information.

One of the very closest friends I have made in cyberland is as committed a Unionist as you could ever hope to meet. He is wrong about...oooh....everything, and I am very fond of him!

CH

[mobile_96]

To interpret that as a request for 100,000 men shows an inadequate grasp of English and/or arithmetic. Are you positive that Davis didn't request the 100,000 to be available and that the Confederate Congress authorised exactly that?? How many he Called up at any time, of the numbers requested to be "authorized to be available" isn't the issue. The whole point, reqardless of the total numbers requested, is that the South requested troops Before Sumter, while Lincoln requested None, and Not until After a Federal installation was fired on.

Was there ever the slightest chance that Lincoln and his cabinet would recognise Confederate independence? Not based on the Constitution nor on the DoII see nothing in the historical record to suggest that there was. Everything that Lincoln said on the subject indicated the opposite. Certainly he prevaricated, for reasons of political expediencythats true, but the reason was to give time to the South to recognize its secession would not be recognized and to reject it. He also needed time to explore different avenues to try and avert the breaking up of the Union, and certainly he did everything he could to manoeuvre the government in Montgomery into firing the first shotWould you show how Lincoln, considered by the South to be a country bumkin, outsmarted the Learned men of the South?? Then, After you explain that, would you explain why Davis ordered the firing on Sumter when messages between him and Beauregard showed that Anderson said he would have to surrender the fort because he only had a few days rations. Why would anyone fire on a force giving advance notice they were surrendering?? . But there is not a shred of evidence that recognition was ever an option for him.

So....where does that leave us? Well, it means that it is nonsensical to claim that the war was causedWrong word-Started is more correct by the firing on Sumter. Sooner or later, Lincoln would have had to authorise the use of military force to subdue the "rebellion"Why? It was Davis that had to get something started. The longer the standoff kept up, the stronger the chance that not only would the upper South refrain from joining the rebellion, the better the chance that some of the already seceded states would waver and reject sucession, and rejoin the Union.Its important to remember that the southern people were not 100% behind secession. Possibly lower than 40%. Which goes a long way toward explaining state militia controlling the voting sites, In the few states that actually held a Popular secession referendem. More states refused to submit the vote to the public from fear that secession would be rejected.. If the flashpoint hadn't occurred at Sumter it would have happened somewhere else. But it would have happened. It is disingenuous to claim otherwise.

As for the question of whether the war was caused by slavery....I feel that we are speaking two different languages here. Every time I try to make the point that the causes of secession Slavery. So far you have failed to explain why the Southern political leaders (mostly slave owners) lied about the war being to protect slavery. This is a topic I'd very much like to learn more about and the causes of the war firing on a federal installation, flying the Amerincan flag and housing American soldiers. are different subjects, someone responds by repeating the assertion that secession was mainly motivated by a desire to protect slavery. Please listen: I don't disagree with this. I never have. But it's entirely beside the point. Sorry, but it is the Point in this thread

Everyone have a great day

[Catherine Hopley]

"so far you have failed to explain why the Southern political leaders (mostly slave owners) lied about the war being to protect slavery."

We're going round and round in circles here. I can accept the argument that slavery was safeguarded (from external enemies) by the creation of the Confederacy. What earthly reason would there be to then go to war to "protect" it?

As for calling for troops, let's remind ourselves that it is the duty of government to provide for the defence of the nation, and that it should make a realistic appraisal of the nature of external threats to its safety. In early 1861 a Confederate government which failed to take precautionary measures against a full-scale invasion by the United States would have been guilty of gross negligence. After all, that was precisely what came to pass.

The United States in 2008 has an awful lot of nuclear weapons. Does that mean it intends to vaporise the planet? No? Well, that's my point in a nutshell.

As for Lincoln's ultimate determination to crush the "rebellion", I can agree that he wouldn't have needed to do so if the Confederacy agreed to dissolve itself. But do you really believe that the decades of increasing tension between the two regions were going to reach a supreme anti-climax in which the South created its own republic and then said "Ooops. Sorry about that. What were we thinking of? May we come back now, please?"

In the real world that was never going to happen. The war came to pass for one of two reasons:

1. because eleven states engaged in an unjustified act of rebellion, a rebellion which the rest of the U.S. could not allow to succeed without mortal peril to themselves, or

2. because the U.S. government betrayed its own political heritage by denying free-born Americans the right to self-government when they saw fit to try to exercise that right.

That's what it boils down to. Everything else is just window-dressing.

[ole]

Goodness gracious!

Go to bed for four hours and see how far ahead everyone else has gone whilst sleeping!

Thanks, Mobile, for taking up the cause while I was sleeping. (I'm winging this because there are simply too many messages to conveniently fit in my memory, and more than I can refer to handily.)

Micky: I agree. Ms Copley's writing is indeed more than just skillful and enlightening.

Mobile: Most every book on Sumter includes the three-man commission that waited on Lincoln's attention. They were there to try to buy the doggone place and avoid the coming storm -- among other things.

Ms Copley: There were, as Mobile mentioned, many political factors playing behind the scenes, all of which involved preserving or separating the Union, none of which involved a desire to subjugate or dominate the slave south. It was in the best interest of everyone to keep business as usual. And the northern merchants were quite vocal on that subject.

Davis had another problem. He knew a conflict would break out somewhere, if not at Sumter, it would be in the taking of Ft. Pickens. And, anticipating the certain storm, he chose to start it at Sumter. Without action, he ran the risk of losing Virginia to "neutrality." He ran the risk of losing more than one of the more tenuous states that might, at any moment, lose interest and rejoin the Union for its more certain economic viability.

Lincoln had the same problem. He knew a conflict would break out somewhere, if not at Sumter, it would be at Ft. Pickens. And, anticipating the certain storm, he chose Sumter. And the entire world must know that Davis fired the first shots. That has been derisively call "manipulating" Davis into making that move. But it also the equivalent of calling Davis a dupe for falling for it.

The reality of the situation is that Sumter was a political symbol. The fort was useless. Fed, fat and happy, it was still useless. It could have been shut down or starved out at any time. Charleston was a minor port. In April, it's commerce was merely routine with small ships arriving from northern ports with imported and northern-manufactured goods that were received in major ports in the north.

Sumter was clearly the property of all the people of the United States through the auspices of the Federal Government. (As were all the other bases, forts, armories and Federal installations aready siezed during Buchanan's administration.) Lincoln apparently said he was going to take them back, hence, the idea that there would be a conflict somewhere, sometime.

Both Davis and Lincoln made the political decision that Sumter was the line in the sand.

But now I'm rambling. I've been agitating for more posts and now I have them and can't keep up.

ole

[ole]

1. because eleven states engaged in an unjustified act of rebellion, a rebellion which the rest of the U.S. could not allow to succeed without mortal peril to themselves, or

2. because the U.S. government betrayed its own political heritage by denying free-born Americans the right to self-government when they saw fit to try to exercise that right.

No to #2. It has never been established that any state had a "right" to separate itself from what was rapidly becoming a Union unique in the entire world. One in which there was no aristocracy ruling the free will of each citizen. Self-government was never denied to the seceding states. They left because they feared for their Constitutional right to own people. Despite all assurances that the "peculiar institution" could not legally be interfered with, some decided it was in their best interest to take the argument to another venue.

Lincoln and a majority of the northern states didn't see it that way. Take it to the courts or the ballot box, but do not take your ball and go home.

I haven't had my nap yet and it shows. And I need to make a run to the grocery store before the blizzard we're supposed to get tonight.

Ain't we got fun?

ole