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.
There was a huge difference between someone who was anti-slavery, and an abolitionist. The former respected the constitutional rights of the South to hold slaves, while the latter wanted immediate abolition (as the name implies).
Of all the democratic politicians, Lincoln is one of the greatest, ranking up there with Churchill. A man of true conviction, rather than expediency. I wish we had men of their stature today.
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"
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.
Okay, not an abolitionist. Just anti-slavery.
Time has given Lincoln a great deal of moral prestige he scantly enjoyed in his lifetime.
There was a huge difference between someone who was anti-slavery, and an abolitionist. The former respected the constitutional rights of the South to hold slaves, while the latter wanted immediate abolition (as the name implies).
Of all the democratic politicians, Lincoln is one of the greatest, ranking up there with Churchill. A man of true conviction, rather than expediency. I wish we had men of their stature today.
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"