[Axis of Evil Knievel]

Lincoln was positive. The South attacked Fort Sumpter first.

Was it necessary? Yup. Since the beginning of the country two issues were never resolved - Federal power as opposed to state power; and slavery.


-TIG

But was it legal? Nope. If the South illegally seceded from the Union then Federal occupation of Ft. Sumter would have indeed been legal, but that is not the case. Let's look at Lincoln's dishonest appraisal of the situation. In his inaugural address Lincoln said that, "“there shall be [no violence] unless it be forced upon the national authority.” and then he proceeded to define "national authority" in such a way that war was sure to follow. "The power confided in me, will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion—no using of force against, or among the people anywhere." Or in other words Lincoln promised no violence as long as the seceding states continued to pay taxes and agree to hostile military outposts on their soil, which is an absurdity.
The truth of the matter was that the seceding states wished to go in peace, but Lincoln would not have it. The South was too integral in his protectionist Whig agenda whereby the South was burdened with the costs of said program.
So, it seems to me that the basic question facing us here is whether secession was legally permitted under the Constitution.
In an address to the Congress Lincoln characterized secessionist arguments as having been "invented an ingenious sophism, which, if conceded, was followed by perfectly logical steps, through all the incidents, to the complete destruction of the Union. The sophism itself is, that any state of the Union may, consistently with the national Constitution, and therefore lawfully, and peacefully, withdraw from the Union, without the consent of the Union, or of any other state."
Yet, this "sophism" (a word I am loathe to use regarding the state's rights to secede) did not originate in the insurrectionist Southern states, it was originated by Thomas Jefferson, a man Lincoln referred to as the “the most distinguished politician in our history”
Jefferson, who called Virginia his “country,” planted the seeds of the secession doctrine when he wrote his Kentucky Resolution of 1798, in protest to the Alien and Sedition laws:
"The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by compact, under the style and title of the Constitution of the United States, and of certain amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for general purposes, delegated to that government certain powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no effect."
I love this quote from Jefferson as it renders "void and of no effect" most of the Federal goverment's legislation these days. As I believe the primary purpose of the Constitution was to limit central government authority because the Founders viewed unchecked government authority as the primary threat to the liberty of "the People" Even the most ardent Lincoln supporter would have to concede that the modern Federal government has intruded into every area of our personal lives.

[Captain Hat]

There were few die-hard confederates in the secession crisis. Most politicians in the south hoped that by seceeding, the North would cave in and would give the South everything it wanted. Even if the CSA had won the war, its my belief that the southern states would have returned to the Union.
The reason Fort Sumter remained federal property is because the US government did not recognize the secession of South Carolina. For that matter, neither did any foreign state.

The fact of the matter is, that both sides wanted a conflict to settle things, and secession was the only way of bringing it about.

[Axis of Evil Knievel]

There were few die-hard confederates in the secession crisis. Most politicians in the south hoped that by seceeding, the North would cave in and would give the South everything it wanted. Even if the CSA had won the war, its my belief that the southern states would have returned to the Union.
The reason Fort Sumter remained federal property is because the US government did not recognize the secession of South Carolina. For that matter, neither did any foreign state.

The fact of the matter is, that both sides wanted a conflict to settle things, and secession was the only way of bringing it about.

I agree with you...I think the South would have eventually reentered the Union. However the initial post in this thread was whether or not the Lincoln presidency was in toto a positive thing for the US. 600,000 dead and scores wounded and maimed. A terrorist Union campaign on women and children. Destruction of limited federal government and voluntary nature of the Union. Adoption of disastrous economic policies...etc. I can only describe these events as anything but positive.

[Captain Hat]

Really good points, however....

The guilt for terrorist campaigns against women and children can be laid at the feet of such ass-holes as Jim Lane (The Bloody Chieftain), Bill Anderson, and other such "Jayhawkers" and "Bushwackers."

As to poor economic decisions, the US after the war was the emerging industrial power with only Britain, France and Germany ahead of it. A period of railroad construction, industrial investment, and western settlement followed the war.

I do agree with you though, that the innocent and voluntary state of the Union ceased to exist after 1865. The Radical Republican Congress that ruled after Lincoln's death, however, did nothing to remedy the situation.

[Axis of Evil Knievel]

Really good points, however....

The guilt for terrorist campaigns against women and children can be laid at the feet of such ass-holes as Jim Lane (The Bloody Chieftain), Bill Anderson, and other such "Jayhawkers" and "Bushwackers."

As to poor economic decisions, the US after the war was the emerging industrial power with only Britain, France and Germany ahead of it. A period of railroad construction, industrial investment, and western settlement followed the war.

I do agree with you though, that the innocent and voluntary state of the Union ceased to exist after 1865. The Radical Republican Congress that ruled after Lincoln's death, however, did nothing to remedy the situation.

I agree with your characterization of those you mentioned as assholes and indeed they were, I was particularly referring to Sherman and his march to the sea. I believe Sherman is the father of what is now referred to as "total war" or killing woman and children, destruction of private, militarily insignifigant property and behavior completely devoid of any decency or honor.
As for poor economic choices, I'll stick with my characterization of Lincoln's whig agenda and the damage it has wrought in our present day.

[Attila The Nun]

Why am i not surprised that you believe that was his goal. As usual i'll let the people you look up to destroy themselves, or as you call it spam.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union." ~ Letter to Horace Greeley, Editor of the New York Tribune, August 22 1862. This more than anything else demonstrates that Lincoln's centralist superstitions derived from Daniel Webster and Joseph Story about "the Union," rather than the immorality of slavery, were his motivations in plotting war. This letter also contradicts Lincoln's sentiment expressed in his first inaugural address, that he had neither the "lawful right," or the "inclination" to abolish slavery.






"... when they [slaveowners] remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the claiming of their fugitives." ~ Lincoln, speaking in support of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

"...in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you... I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that 'I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.' "

"I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." ~ Lincoln, speaking in regards to slavery and in support of a proposed Thirteenth Amendment to explicitly guarantee slavery.

"The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people." ~ Lincoln, on whether blacks – slave or free – should be allowed in the new territories in the west, October 16, 1854.

"I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary." ~ Lincoln, Aug. 21, 1858, in remarks stating his belief that blacks were naturally inferior to whites, which was a nearly universal belief on the part of whites in both the North and South long before and long after the Civil War.

"Root, hog, or die" ~ Lincoln's suggestion to illiterate and propertyless ex-slaves unprepared for freedom, Feb. 3, 1865.

"They had better be set to digging their subsistence out of the ground." ~ Lincoln in a War Department memo, April 16, 1863

"Send them to Liberia, to their own native land." ~ Lincoln, speaking in favor of ethnic cleansing all blacks from the United States.

"I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I favor colonization." ~ Lincoln, in a message to Congress, December 1, 1862, supporting deportation of all blacks from America.

"President Lincoln may colonize himself if he choose, but it is an impertinent act, on his part, to propose the getting rid of those who are as good as himself." ~ America's preeminent immediate Abolitionist and advocate of free trade, William Lloyd Garrison.

"[Lincoln] had not a drop of anti-slavery blood in his veins." ~ William Lloyd Garrison.

The comments shown here illustrate that abolition was not what motivated Lincoln. The coldness in Lincoln's remarks, the lack of thought and preparation about the process of emancipation, and how the freedman would cope without the necessary skills is readily apparent.

It's surprising how many of those quotes are misleading. Once again, you are a great propoganda force.

While, it's true, Lincoln did not want to abolish slavery when he got into office, it was only because he thought it would divide up the Union, and he didn't want to do abolish it during the Civil War for fear that it might cause more States to rebel, but he was an abolitionist. He did what the people wanted, not his own agenda. I think that's a good thing for the president to do, listen to his people.