'Slavery' as an explanation is pretty stupid, because slavery existed for the 80 years prior as well. Why is it that the Civil War erupted in 1861 and not any time before? Clearly, there was more going on. A lot of stuff related to slavery, like the South's anger over the Republicans wanting to block the expansion of slavery, their opposition to attacks on their sacred institution, as well as their anger over 'personal liberty laws'.
Tariffs as a reason was also pretty stupid. The government had in the past few decades been in the hands of Southern sympathizers. Same for state's rights. Lincoln did not violate their right to hold slaves, he was even willing to constitutionally guarantee it. He merely opposed its extension into the territories.
The least well known reason, however, is the fear that Lincoln would use the patronage power of the presidency to appoint anti-slavery people to positions in the South, who would then - the South feared - use their positions to foment slave uprisings. This got particular urgency after John Brown's mad attack.
Also the shifting of political and economic power from the rural south and self proclaimed "aristocrats" to an industrialized north didn't sit well with the idea of the gentlemen farmers of the south.
Tariffs aren't the reason for the civil war, but did play a role in the desire for secession. Around 74% of federal revenue came from southern exports, while the federal government was growing increasingly hostile to southern state interests. The reason for the outbreak of war was federal reinforcements sent to Sumter, which would have blockaded charleston harbor and effectively ended any warfighting ability the south had.
Whether reinforcements were actually sent is a point of contention, as there were orders both to relieve (Lincoln), and to reinforce (War Sec. Stanton, iirc).
Tariffs aren't the reason for the civil war, but did play a role in the desire for secession. Around 74% of federal revenue came from southern exports, while the federal government was growing increasingly hostile to southern state interests.
The first part I may accept, but the 'increasingly hostile' part, not so much. The Democratic Party, the party of the South, was in control of the federal government for most of the time before 1860.
The reason for the outbreak of war was federal reinforcements sent to Sumter, which would have blockaded charleston harbor and effectively ended any warfighting ability the south had.
That's quite unlikely. Lincoln wanted to make sure to paint the South as the aggressors, not himself. By blockading Charleston, he would have been the one to start hostilities. Meaning that the South would have been united, and the North would not have had the great boost in patriotism that resulted from the attack on Fort Sumter.
As for reinforcements, that was not the case. He was only sending supplies, not reinforcements, and he informed the governor of South Carolina of that. To send reinforcements would have been more widely seen as a hostile act.
In fact, Lincoln offered to surrender Fort Sumter, if only the Virginia secession convention would end its session without passing an ordinance of secession. "A state for a fort is no bad business," he said. But of course, the secession convention could gather later, if the federal government made moves that Virginia did not like - so I do regard it as quite bad business for Lincoln. But then again, he had a mythical belief in the non-existent Southern Unionist who would rise up, if only the Confederacy did not get its hand on Virginia and the other then-border states.
In my view, it was a great blunder for the Confederacy to attack Fort Sumter, which was done more for reasons of symbolism than anything else. Didn't the US itself allow many British-occupied forts to continue in the early years after you got your independence?
It's an interesting case, really. Were I a Southern Democrat at the time, I'm sure I would have taken as much stock in Lincoln's word as I would Biden today.
Sending warships to "relieve" the garrison was a provocative act, regardless of intent, though. Especially after the failed reinforcement attempt using the Star of the West a couple months prior. Granted, that was before Lincoln's inauguration, but as you acknowledge, Lincoln wanted to make sure to paint the South as aggressors. The Sumter expedition was a perfect way to kick it off.
The election of an abolitionist President alone shows increasing hostility to southern state interests.
Lincoln was not an abolitionist. He opposed abolition, in both words and deed, something that neo-Confederates try to use to smear him today. He just opposed the expansion of slavery.
Also, if it was just the 'election', then it was not something that had been going on for decades. Nor anything that had actually occurred.
It's an interesting case, really. Were I a Southern Democrat at the time, I'm sure I would have taken as much stock in Lincoln's word as I would Biden today.
The difference being that Lincoln was an honorable man, and not senile. Though of course, the Southern Democrats did not know that.
Granted, that was before Lincoln's inauguration, but as you acknowledge, Lincoln wanted to make sure to paint the South as aggressors. The Sumter expedition was a perfect way to kick it off.
Given the extent of his actions intended to avoid setting off a confrontation, it seems pretty clear to me that this is not what he wanted. Though he placed himself in a win-win position. Either Fort Sumter would be resupplied, a victory, or the South would be forced to start a civil war.
In fact, Lincoln offered to surrender Fort Sumter, if only the Virginia secession convention would end its session without passing an ordinance of secession. "A state for a fort is no bad business," he said.
Lincoln had no intention of doing that, ever. That quip was made after Virginia's first vote about secession (which was on February 13th), where they chose not to secede. After that, the Confederacy sent a delegation to DC, offering to buy the fort and Lincoln and almost his entire cabinet turned them down outright, because they didn't want to be seen as legitimizing the Confederacy.
On April 4th a 2nd vote was taken by Virginia, which again failed (by a 2/3 to 1/3 vote). That was the same day the Union sent a supply convoy to resupply Sumter. (Note that this was the 2nd time the Union tried to reinforce and resupply the fort - Buchanan had sent a relief ship back on January 9th which was repulsed. The fact that the first effort failed likely - in my opinion anyway - led to Lincoln's decision to send an entire fleet - including warships - in the second resupply attempt).
After the fort was taken, Lincoln demanded troops from every state still in the union, "as follows: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Arkansas, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota, one regiment each; New York 17 regiments; Pennsylvania, 15 regiments; Ohio, 13; New Jersey, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, four regiments each; Illinois and Indiana, six regiments each; Virginia, three regiments,Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Tennessee, two regiments each."
That is what triggered Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia to go. Kentucky did not secede, but essentially told Lincoln to f*** off, and Missouri had its own miniature civil war about what they wanted to do (which resulted in Union forces sending the governor of Missouri into exile within a couple months).
Lincoln wanted to make sure to paint the South as the aggressors, not himself.
I'll agree there as that is what Lincoln wanted people to think. And the Confederate Secretary of State agreed as well, saying that attacking the fort "will lose us every friend at the North. You will only strike a hornet's nest. ... Legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary. It puts us in the wrong. It is fatal." But, while he was good at playing the optics angle, Lincoln had multiple opportunities to keep the peace and chose not to take it. He could have just had Anderson surrender the fort outright, and chose not to. He could have taken the deal to have the fort bought out, and chose not to. He could have decided not to try to resupply the fort. And even after the fort fell, he could have agreed with his "no bad business" line and just let it go, but pressed the issue directly causing 4 more states to secede. But at every turn, he decided to keep playing chicken with Beauregard, and eventually Beauregard blinked with artillery fire.
Was demanding the surrender of the fort justified, though? Obviously in hindsight it was a bad idea, but having a hostile power retain - and keep resupplying - a fort with 60 guns in the middle of your main harbor, when the owners of said fort refuse any negotiations, I don't see how that situation could have lasted any length of time without exploding. Especially when the Confederates knew there was a relief convoy on the way, and when they asked again for Anderson to surrender his response was, in essence "I'll surrender in a couple days, but only if the relief convoy doesn't arrive first"
'Slavery' as an explanation is pretty stupid, because slavery existed for the 80 years prior as well. Why is it that the Civil War erupted in 1861 and not any time before? Clearly, there was more going on. A lot of stuff related to slavery, like the South's anger over the Republicans wanting to block the expansion of slavery, their opposition to attacks on their sacred institution, as well as their anger over 'personal liberty laws'.
Tariffs as a reason was also pretty stupid. The government had in the past few decades been in the hands of Southern sympathizers. Same for state's rights. Lincoln did not violate their right to hold slaves, he was even willing to constitutionally guarantee it. He merely opposed its extension into the territories.
The least well known reason, however, is the fear that Lincoln would use the patronage power of the presidency to appoint anti-slavery people to positions in the South, who would then - the South feared - use their positions to foment slave uprisings. This got particular urgency after John Brown's mad attack.
Also the shifting of political and economic power from the rural south and self proclaimed "aristocrats" to an industrialized north didn't sit well with the idea of the gentlemen farmers of the south.
Tariffs aren't the reason for the civil war, but did play a role in the desire for secession. Around 74% of federal revenue came from southern exports, while the federal government was growing increasingly hostile to southern state interests. The reason for the outbreak of war was federal reinforcements sent to Sumter, which would have blockaded charleston harbor and effectively ended any warfighting ability the south had.
Whether reinforcements were actually sent is a point of contention, as there were orders both to relieve (Lincoln), and to reinforce (War Sec. Stanton, iirc).
The first part I may accept, but the 'increasingly hostile' part, not so much. The Democratic Party, the party of the South, was in control of the federal government for most of the time before 1860.
That's quite unlikely. Lincoln wanted to make sure to paint the South as the aggressors, not himself. By blockading Charleston, he would have been the one to start hostilities. Meaning that the South would have been united, and the North would not have had the great boost in patriotism that resulted from the attack on Fort Sumter.
As for reinforcements, that was not the case. He was only sending supplies, not reinforcements, and he informed the governor of South Carolina of that. To send reinforcements would have been more widely seen as a hostile act.
In fact, Lincoln offered to surrender Fort Sumter, if only the Virginia secession convention would end its session without passing an ordinance of secession. "A state for a fort is no bad business," he said. But of course, the secession convention could gather later, if the federal government made moves that Virginia did not like - so I do regard it as quite bad business for Lincoln. But then again, he had a mythical belief in the non-existent Southern Unionist who would rise up, if only the Confederacy did not get its hand on Virginia and the other then-border states.
In my view, it was a great blunder for the Confederacy to attack Fort Sumter, which was done more for reasons of symbolism than anything else. Didn't the US itself allow many British-occupied forts to continue in the early years after you got your independence?
The election of an abolitionist President alone shows increasing hostility to southern state interests.
https://www.tulane.edu/~sumter/FinalOrder/FApr6.1Comm.html
It's an interesting case, really. Were I a Southern Democrat at the time, I'm sure I would have taken as much stock in Lincoln's word as I would Biden today.
Sending warships to "relieve" the garrison was a provocative act, regardless of intent, though. Especially after the failed reinforcement attempt using the Star of the West a couple months prior. Granted, that was before Lincoln's inauguration, but as you acknowledge, Lincoln wanted to make sure to paint the South as aggressors. The Sumter expedition was a perfect way to kick it off.
Lincoln was not an abolitionist. He opposed abolition, in both words and deed, something that neo-Confederates try to use to smear him today. He just opposed the expansion of slavery.
Also, if it was just the 'election', then it was not something that had been going on for decades. Nor anything that had actually occurred.
The difference being that Lincoln was an honorable man, and not senile. Though of course, the Southern Democrats did not know that.
Given the extent of his actions intended to avoid setting off a confrontation, it seems pretty clear to me that this is not what he wanted. Though he placed himself in a win-win position. Either Fort Sumter would be resupplied, a victory, or the South would be forced to start a civil war.
Lincoln had no intention of doing that, ever. That quip was made after Virginia's first vote about secession (which was on February 13th), where they chose not to secede. After that, the Confederacy sent a delegation to DC, offering to buy the fort and Lincoln and almost his entire cabinet turned them down outright, because they didn't want to be seen as legitimizing the Confederacy.
On April 4th a 2nd vote was taken by Virginia, which again failed (by a 2/3 to 1/3 vote). That was the same day the Union sent a supply convoy to resupply Sumter. (Note that this was the 2nd time the Union tried to reinforce and resupply the fort - Buchanan had sent a relief ship back on January 9th which was repulsed. The fact that the first effort failed likely - in my opinion anyway - led to Lincoln's decision to send an entire fleet - including warships - in the second resupply attempt).
After the fort was taken, Lincoln demanded troops from every state still in the union, "as follows: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Arkansas, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota, one regiment each; New York 17 regiments; Pennsylvania, 15 regiments; Ohio, 13; New Jersey, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, four regiments each; Illinois and Indiana, six regiments each; Virginia, three regiments,Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Tennessee, two regiments each."
That is what triggered Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia to go. Kentucky did not secede, but essentially told Lincoln to f*** off, and Missouri had its own miniature civil war about what they wanted to do (which resulted in Union forces sending the governor of Missouri into exile within a couple months).
I'll agree there as that is what Lincoln wanted people to think. And the Confederate Secretary of State agreed as well, saying that attacking the fort "will lose us every friend at the North. You will only strike a hornet's nest. ... Legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary. It puts us in the wrong. It is fatal." But, while he was good at playing the optics angle, Lincoln had multiple opportunities to keep the peace and chose not to take it. He could have just had Anderson surrender the fort outright, and chose not to. He could have taken the deal to have the fort bought out, and chose not to. He could have decided not to try to resupply the fort. And even after the fort fell, he could have agreed with his "no bad business" line and just let it go, but pressed the issue directly causing 4 more states to secede. But at every turn, he decided to keep playing chicken with Beauregard, and eventually Beauregard blinked with artillery fire.
Was demanding the surrender of the fort justified, though? Obviously in hindsight it was a bad idea, but having a hostile power retain - and keep resupplying - a fort with 60 guns in the middle of your main harbor, when the owners of said fort refuse any negotiations, I don't see how that situation could have lasted any length of time without exploding. Especially when the Confederates knew there was a relief convoy on the way, and when they asked again for Anderson to surrender his response was, in essence "I'll surrender in a couple days, but only if the relief convoy doesn't arrive first"