Posted on 02/26/2003 1:10:37 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
To this:........... 'hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government'
in a grand total of 30 days. What happened to cause him to change his peaceful policy?
The two passages you mention were separated by 135 words, not 30 days. They were part of the same pledge, that the government would continue in its duties and not press the issue in the hopes that a peaceful resolution could be found. The policy changed, of course, when the confederate army fired on Sumter.
Our Great Mr. Lincon went from this policy-----So far as possible, the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security..on March 4, 1861, to this on March 29:
After the meeting on this same day, Lincoln sent notes to the Secretaries of War and Navy:
“I desire that an expedition, to move by sea, be got ready to sail as early as the 6th of April…”
And I point out to you that that was not 135 words of distance, but a monumental reversal of policy, especially in view of the lack of support from his cabinet and the military.
He was moving from caution, at the time of his inauguration, through deliberate deception and conspiracy at the end of March, and entering into military adventurism.
And don't be silly about Beauregard. I could just as easily argue that his action was pre-emptive to avoid a major naval engagement in the harbor, as had happened the January prior.
No, you are fleeing from the point. What happened between March 4 and March 29 to change his policy?
There was no change in policy. On March 4th he pledged that the "...power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government..." Fort Sumter belonged to the government and he was sending supplies to the fort. He pledged to Governor Pickens and he informed Major Anderson that if the confederate forces did not interfere then only food would be landed. The status quo would continue and no escalation would occure. If the confederates did interfere then the fleet would attempt to land not only food but reinforcements.
So there was no reason for the south to be alarmed. Landing food did not represent a threat to anyone so people should still have a sense of security. There was no change in his stated policy in any sense of the word. The threat to security came when the south opened fire.
The fact that President Lincoln disagreed with the majority of his cabinet and General Scott is meaningless. President Lincoln was Commander in Chief. It was his decision, regardless of whether the entire cabinet disagreed. Jefferson Davis also acted against the advice of at least one member of his cabinet, too. But it was Davis' decision and not Robert Toombs'.
Though I doubt that you possess the ability to comprehend any of what I am about to say, I will note it for the record anyway. Your argument is a non-sequitur, hence what it professes to be "clear" is not so. Its conclusion (that the war was a necessary result of Southern action) does not follow from the premise you allege to be the necessary cause of that result (Fort Sumter). The law of causality dictates that no necessary connection exists requiring the invasion of the south, including what were at the time non-seceded states, as a result of the Fort Sumter seige. In order for a causal relationship to be necessary, B must happen if A, which causes B, happens. Invasion did not -have- to happen because Sumter happened. Thus that invasion, which was itself the direct precipitant of the product known as the civil war, did not have any necessary causality in Sumter - only a proximate one. The only direct and necessary cause of that invasion was the decision to carry it out, and that decision was made by Abe Lincoln. He therefore bears direct responsibility for the war. And no - blaming God for Lincoln's sins won't absolve him now any more than it did when he tried to do that himself back in 1865.
A = Firing on the US flag; B= suffering the consequences (ie:WAR).
A causes B. EVERY TIME.
Are you disputing that SIPhead?
No it doesn't. The Star of the West did not cause war. It could have caused war, but did no. Thus, B is not a necessary consequence of A. Try again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.