From this article:
Lincoln later revealed that he manipulated the Confederates into firing the first shot, which helped generate war fever in the North.
Any sources to back this up?
I believe the South fired upon a customs/duties building, a.k.a. the Fort Sumter. I would read DiLorenzo on this.
Yes, what I want to know is when Lincoln admitted that he provoked South into firing the first shot.
Lincoln didn’t accept the right of secession of the southern states. They replied with an armed revolution.
As far as I understand, South was actually prepared to secede peacefully, it’s the North that woudn’t let them do it.
Correct, the south tried on several occasions to meet with Lincoln in hopes of discussing peaceful secession. As far as Lincoln was concerned this was an act of treason and refused to listen to what they had to say.
This lecture does a good job in separating Civil War myths from realities:
http://media.mises.org/MP3/mu2006/DiLorenzo-MC.mp3
I would contend that the North committed the first overt act of aggression. When the South seceded, Fort Sumter legally became property of the State of South Carolina. The North refused to surrender it and by attempting to resupply it, committed an overt act of aggression. The South’s firing on the Fort was a DEFENSIVE gesture as well as an attempt to reclaim their rightful property.
I’d assume that Fort Sumter was built using money stolen from both citizen of the North and the South. Upon the succession of South Carolina does the North no longer have the right to what was partly theirs? The North was wrong in refusing to leave South Carolina but isn’t it also wrong to say something both parties created together is now the sole property of the South?
The South offered to pay for union infrastructure absorbed in the secession.
Actually the SC legislature deeded to island to the federal government in order to get the fort built so it was the sole property of the federal government. But this sort of argument recasts what is a dispute over sovereignty as a mere dispute over property titles. The issue was not who would own the facility but who would be pointing guns at ships entering and leaving Charleston Harbor.
I assume SC gave up its rights to the federal property in the North, too?
I’m reading more about it now: the garrison of Ford Sumter was given enough time to evacuate, but they refused to do it in time - waiting for the Union reinforcements I assume?
Actually, there was a system in place to deal with turning over federal holdings to the state’s. The processes was almost entirely completed before Lincoln got into office.
Sumter is significant because its where Lincoln showed his intent to not allow the peaceful separation of states to continue to completion.
Consider that the south helped fiance federal outposts in the north as well. If the South is required to reimburse the federal government, the federal government would be required to reimburse the south in turn.
Do you think South would have stayed in the US if the offending tarifs were repealed?
Doubt it. The tariff war was a game the federal government had been playing with the South almost since independance.
Lincoln, (speaking of Fort Sumter) July 4th, 1861, “having thus chosen our course without guile and with purpose, let us renew our trust in God, and go forward without fear and with manly hearts”
From Abraham Lincoln: His Speeches and Writings
See a Century of War, by John V. Denson p. 81-84.
The diary of Senator Orville H. Browning is particularly revealing.
No. Prior to the demise of the Whig party the sectional disputes were fought out in a more or less civil manner. Both parties had member on both sides of most issues. But the new Republican party was exclusively a Northern party. This combined with the increasing difference in relative population sizes probably made the two sections irreconcilable regardless of the specific issues.
Interesting, thank you everyone for your responses.