Civil War 150th

[Capt. Harlock]

150 Years Ago Today:

The Confederate Constitution was formally adopted. This time it was signed by delegates from all seven seceded states, including Texas. The Constitution was largely copied from the original U.S. Constitution, but with explicit protection for slavery, and a limit that the President could serve only a single six-year term. (Jefferson Davis' time in office would run a little less than four years and three months.)

[Capt. Harlock]

I have not been able to find the exact date, but somewhere around March 12, 1861, General Winfield Scott informed Lincoln of his estimate of the Fort Sumter situation. Scott believed that 5,000 regular troops and 20,000 volunteers would be needed to relieve the fort. Six to eight months would be required to assemble the men, plus the fleet to carry them.

Not surprisingly, given that there were a number of Southern sympathisers in Washington, rumors began to spread that Sumter would be surrendered. Secretary of State William Seward, who at this point still felt that he rather than Lincoln should have been president, quietly encouraged them. He knew that an expedition such as Scott described would mean war, and on bad terms for the Union. Nearly all the border slave states could be expected to join the Confederacy if the North attacked first, and if Maryland went, Washington D.C. would be surrounded.

[Capt. Harlock]

March 14th, 1861:

Sometimes it's both what you know and who you know. Postmaster-General Montgomery Blair has a brother-in-law named Gustavus Fox, who is a former naval officer. Fox puts together a plan to reinforce Fort Sumter entirely by sea. The idea is to have two tugs loaded with supplies sail to the fort, backed by a steamer carrying troops in case of trouble.

Because at this time the Postmaster-General is a cabinet member, Blair is able to arrange for Fox to meet with president Lincoln and present his idea. Lincoln is impressed, and decides to submit it to the rest of the cabinet the next day.

[Capt. Harlock]

150 Years Ago Today:

President Lincoln submits the Fox plan for reinforcing Fort Sumter to his cabinet, and asks for their responses in writing (a boon to historians). Only Postmaster-General Blair was entirely in favor. There was one other conditional 'yes', but the remainder of the cabinet was opposed. Back to the drawing board.

Especially opposed was Secretary of State William Seward, playing a double game. He hoped to arrange a peaceful evacuation of Fort Sumter, gaining credit with the South for giving them what they wanted, and with the North for avoiding bloodshed. In this amateur historian's opinion, he was foolish. Nearly all other Federal property in the seceded states (Forts, naval bases, court-houses, etc.) had been seized. (The Union managed to keep Fort Pickens, off of Pensacola, Florida.) Northern indignation was running high, and there was talk that surrender of Sumter would be treason.

[RedArgo]

Thanks for posting, I have enjoyed reading this.

You should publish one of those calendars where each day has it's own page and put your historical info on it.

[Capt. Harlock]

150 Years Ago Today:

Governor Sam Houston, who was to Texas what George Washington was to the 13 original states, refused to take the oath of allegiance to the Confederacy. He was ousted from office and replaced by lieutenant-governor Edward Clark.

[Capt. Harlock]

In late March 1861, both Lincoln and Davis played for time -- and both their countries were unhappy about it. Northern opinion grew more and more restless. "The bird of our country is a debilitated chicken, disguised in eagle feathers." was a typical comment. "Have We a Government?" shouted some newspapers, and even the New York Times declared, "The Administration must have a policy of action." In the South, the people were scarcely less displeased. "If something is not done pretty soon," complained a newspaper in Mobile, Alabama, "the whole country will become so disgusted with the sham of southern independence that the first chance the people get at a popular election they will turn the whole movement topsy-turvy." This was exactly what Lincoln's policy of "voluntary reconstruction" had in mind.

However, Lincoln's inaugural speech had come back to haunt him. If he meant "to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government", he had to reinforce Fort Sumter. But doing so would be seen as an aggressive move, both by the vital Upper South states, and Great Britain. And this would violate his pledge that "The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors." This dilemma gave Davis the edge. Both sides were running out of time, but Lincoln's time was running out faster.

[Capt. Harlock]

150 Years Ago Today:

Winfield Scott submitted another report to Abraham Lincoln. Scott gave the opinion that yielding either Fort Sumter or Fort Pickens alone would not be enough to gain the allegiance of the border states -- it would have to be both. But these were the only two significant pieces of Federal property still in Union hands. Scott was advocating "giving away the store" for no guarantees.

At a formal dinner later in the evening, Lincoln pulled aside the members of his cabinet who were attending, and read them the report. Stunned silence followed, except for Montgomery Blair who forcefully advised keeping both forts. Lincoln scheduled a second cabinet vote for the following day.

[Capt. Harlock]

150 Years Ago Today:

Lincoln convened his cabinet members, and gave them additional information, including Gustavus Fox's latest report on Major Anderson and his garrison at Sumter. Surprisingly, but not too surprisingly, Secretary of War Simon Cameron was absent; time was to show him the weakest member of an otherwise remarkably talented team. The remaining six generally reversed their opinion of two weeks before. This time only Secretary of State Seward and Secretary of the Interior Caleb Smith were against reinforcing the forts.

After the meeting, Lincoln gave orders for ships to reinforce Fort Pickens. He did not openly decide to reinforce Sumter just yet, but had already quietly requested Fox to prepare a list of ships for an expedition there. William Seward, who had been all but promising to Southern envoys that Sumter would be surrendered, was thus kept guessing for a short time.

[Anthropoid]

The idea that the American Civil War was about anything other than slavery to me has always seemed insane. The southern economy was based on slave-manned agriculture particularly cotton. The concern about Lincoln being elected among southern Democrats was that he was not sufficiently pro-slavery, and would thwart the expansion of slavery into future Western states. The harboring of the abolitionist sentiment in the north and the whole John Brown thing were part of straw that broke the back. Faced with no other options for fighting a successful war to restore the Union as it was, Lincoln determined to emancipate the slaves and restore the Union as it should have been. When the war was done, slavery was done too.

You can qualify and technicalize it all you want. At the end of it, it was about the "rights" of the Southern patriarchs to own other people with brown skin in their own states.

Thank the almighty that the Confederacy was crushed uterly and will NEVER rear its disgusting head again.

I spent most of my life living in the south (southern Missouri, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia) and there is much that I love about contemporary southern society. But the Confederacy was perhaps the most repugnant political entity in the last 10,000 years, so rife with hypocrisy, ethnocentrism, and inhumanity, it has always boggled my mind that anyone could without shame continue to think themselves in anyway aligned with that polity. No society is perfect, and many have a history that is checkered and full of guilt. But the Confederacy was fighting to maintain an ancient tradition of evil and there is in my mind no excuse, no justification, no technical detail of political controversy that can dilute that basic fact sufficiently to restore any measure of nobility or merit to the Confederacy. Doesn't mean all southerners were "evil," or even that some of the most influential leaders were "evil." But the cause itself was evil, and cumulatively, the self-indulgent hubris, narrow-mindedness, dogma, delusion and racism of the individuals it comprised made up the evil of the Confederate States of America.

[Capt. Harlock]

150 Years Ago Today:

"Leaks" in Washington are an old tradition. Assistant Secretary of the Treasury George Harrington hurried over to William Seward's house to give him the news that Lincoln had met with the Navy and determined to reinforce Fort Sumter.

According to Doris Kearn Goodwin's "Team of Rivals", Seward said, "Thunder, George! What are you talking about? It cannot be." In this amateur historian's opinion, it is likely that Seward used stronger language. His attempt to play both sides of the fence was about to backfire: the friends he had in the South would leave him. He now needed something to secure his standing in the administration.

[ilovestrategy]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

The idea that the American Civil War was about anything other than slavery to me has always seemed insane. The southern economy was based on slave-manned agriculture particularly cotton. The concern about Lincoln being elected among southern Democrats was that he was not sufficiently pro-slavery, and would thwart the expansion of slavery into future Western states. The harboring of the abolitionist sentiment in the north and the whole John Brown thing were part of straw that broke the back. Faced with no other options for fighting a successful war to restore the Union as it was, Lincoln determined to emancipate the slaves and restore the Union as it should have been. When the war was done, slavery was done too.

You can qualify and technicalize it all you want. At the end of it, it was about the "rights" of the Southern patriarchs to own other people with brown skin in their own states.

Thank the almighty that the Confederacy was crushed uterly and will NEVER rear its disgusting head again.

I spent most of my life living in the south (southern Missouri, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia) and there is much that I love about contemporary southern society. But the Confederacy was perhaps the most repugnant political entity in the last 10,000 years, so rife with hypocrisy, ethnocentrism, and inhumanity, it has always boggled my mind that anyone could without shame continue to think themselves in anyway aligned with that polity. No society is perfect, and many have a history that is checkered and full of guilt. But the Confederacy was fighting to maintain an ancient tradition of evil and there is in my mind no excuse, no justification, no technical detail of political controversy that can dilute that basic fact sufficiently to restore any measure of nobility or merit to the Confederacy. Doesn't mean all southerners were "evil," or even that some of the most influential leaders were "evil." But the cause itself was evil, and cumulatively, the self-indulgent hubris, narrow-mindedness, dogma, delusion and racism of the individuals it comprised made up the evil of the Confederate States of America.

Slavery wasn't "THE" reason, it was "A" reason.

[Capt. Harlock]

150 Years Ago Today:

Seward made his play:

[font="Times New Roman"]Some thoughts for the President's Consideration,
First. We are at the end of a month's administration, and yet without a policy either domestic or foreign.
Second. This, however, is not culpable, and it has even been unavoidable. The presence of the Senate, with the need to meet applications for patronage, have prevented attention to other and more grave matters.
Third. But further delay to adopt and prosecute our policies for both domestic and foreign affairs would not only bring scandal on the administration, but danger upon the country.
Fourth. To do this we must dismiss the applicants for office. But how? I suggest that we make the local appointments forthwith, leaving foreign or general ones for ulterior and occasional action.
Fifth. The policy at home. I am aware that my views are singular, and perhaps not sufficiently explained. My system is built upon this idea as a ruling one, namely, that we must CHANGE THE QUESTION BEFORE THE PUBLIC FROM ONE UPON SLAVERY, OR ABOUT SLAVERY, for a question upon UNION OR DISUNION: In other words, from what would be regarded as a party question, to one of patriotism or union.
The occupation or evacuation of Fort Sumter, although not in fact a slavery or a party question, is so regarded. Witness the temper manifested by the Republicans in the free States, and even by the Union men in the South.
I would therefore terminate it as a safe means for changing the issue. I deem it fortunate that the last administration created the necessity.
For the rest, I would simultaneously defend and reinforce all the ports in the gulf, and have the navy recalled from foreign stations to be prepared for a blockade. Put the island of Key West under martial law.
This will raise distinctly the question of union or disunion. I would maintain every fort and possession in the South.
FOR FOREIGN NATIONS,
I would demand explanations from Spain and France, categorically, at once.
I would seek explanations from Great Britain and Russia, and send agents into Canada, Mexico, and Central America to rouse a vigorous continental spirit of independence on this continent against European intervention.
And, if satisfactory explanations are not received from Spain and France,
Would convene Congress and declare war against them.
But whatever policy we adopt, there must be an energetic prosecution of it.
For this purpose it must be somebody's business to pursue and direct it incessantly.
Either the President must do it himself, and be all the while active in it, or Devolve it on some member of his Cabinet. Once adopted, debates on it must end, and all agree and abide.
It is not in my especial province; But I neither seek to evade nor assume responsibility.
[/font]

Lincoln was not fooled by the last sentence; Seward was attempting to make himself "the power behind the throne". The President composed and sent his reply the same day:

[font="Times New Roman"]HON. W. H. SEWARD.
MY DEAR SIR:--Since parting with you I have been considering your paper dated this day, and entitled "Some Thoughts for the President's Consideration." The first proposition in it is, "First, We are at the end of a month's administration, and yet without a policy either domestic or foreign."
At the beginning of that month, in the inaugural, I said: "The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government, and to Collect the duties and imposts." This had your distinct approval at the time; and, taken in connection with the order I immediately gave General Scott, directing him to employ every means in his power to strengthen and hold the forts, comprises the exact domestic policy you now urge, with the single exception that it does not propose to abandon Fort Sumter.
Again, I do not perceive how the reinforcement of Fort Sumter would be done on a slavery or a party issue, while that of Fort Pickens would be on a more national and patriotic one.
The news received yesterday in regard to St. Domingo certainly brings a new item within the range of our foreign policy; but up to that time we have been preparing circulars and instructions to ministers and the like, all in perfect harmony, without even a suggestion that we had no foreign policy.
Upon your Closing propositions--that,
"Whatever policy we adopt, there must be an energetic prosecution of it.
"For this purpose it must be somebody's business to pursue and direct it incessantly.
"Either the President must do it himself, and be all the while active in it, or,
"Devolve it on some member of his Cabinet. Once adopted, debates on it must end, and all agree and abide"--
I remark that if this must be done, I must do it. When a general line of policy is adopted, I apprehend there is no danger of its being changed without good reason, or continuing to be a subject of unnecessary debate; still, upon points arising in its progress I wish, and suppose I am entitled to have, the advice of all the Cabinet.
Your obedient servant,
A. LINCOLN.
[/font]

A humbled Seward would serve loyally for the remainder of Lincoln's time in office, and would redeem himself by quite possibly preventing a war with Great Britain during the Trent affair.

Events were also happening in the South. South Carolina Governor Francis Pickens received a telegram from one of the Northern commissioners negotiating over Fort Sumter: "I am authorized to say this Government will not undertake to supply Sumter without notice to you." The last four words were the key ones, indicating the Fort might not be given up at all. Pickens resolved to take sterner measures towards Sumter and its garrison.

P.G.T. Beauregard, the first man to be made a general in the Confederacy, had been directing improvements to the cannons and mortars ringing the fort. On April 1, he telegraphed to the Confederate government in Montgomery: "Batteries ready to open Wednesday or Thursday. What instructions?"

[Anthropoid]

I've been reading Davis "Battle at Bull Run" which is I understand one of the classic discussions of that battle. I generally like his style and the overall sense of what transpired that I get from his synthesis. Moreover, he seems to be fairly reasonable in martialiing his facts and reaching sound conclusions. However, one peccadillo he consistently shows in his analysis (at least so far at about halfway through the book) is that he portrays Beauregard as a delusional self-important bordering on megalomaniac, but seems to take a rather positive view of McDowell. He seems to feel that McDowell actually did a pretty good job at trying to plan that battle, and approach it with a proper stance, but was foiled by (a) Patterson's bumbling and (b) Tyler's recklessness. Haven't finished it yet but those are the big themes that crop up so far. Been having great fun playing that battle with Take Command Second Manassas.

Kind've jumping the gun to July 21 and Bull Run, but thought I'd get that in there in advance [;)]

[parusski]

I have enjoyed following your great thread and just wanted to thank you very much.

[Capt. Harlock]

150 Years Ago Today,

South Carolina Governor Francis Pickens gave his orders. All courtesies to the Sumter garrison would stop, and no one from the fort would be allowed to land on shore.

It made little difference, for the situation in the fort was already serious. General Beauregard had sent bottles of expensive brandy and boxes of cigars to Major Anderson as generosity to a fellow commander, but Anderson had returned them, fearing the appearance of impropriety. Likewise, the garrison has been counting on its own rations rather than anything from Charleston. These would last for only two more weeks.

[ilovestrategy]

Reading this is like reading an intense page turner! [&o]

[Capt. Harlock]

April 4, 1861:

Lincoln privately met with John Baldwin, a pro-union Virgina man. The purpose was to see if a bargain could be reached to to yield Fort Sumter in exchange for adjournment of the Virginia convention, without secession. What exactly was said has not been preserved, but nothing was agreed, and Lincoln seems to have decided that Unionist sentiment in Virginia was too weak to count on. He gave the order for the Fort Sumter relief expedition to sail the same day.

The expedition got off to an unpromising start. Because the preparations had been kept secret, a mix-up in paperwork had gone undetected. The USS Powhatan, the most powerful warship in the Union navy, had been assigned to both the Sumter and Pickens forces. Because the Pickens mission had been given the go-ahead already, the Powhatan's captain set sail for Pensacola, where her firepower would be unnecessary.

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: Rotherman

It would be great to have a brand new hex-based Computer wargame of the battle of Gettysburg. The game would have Battalion sized units each equipped with realistic firearms, and uniforms. The map would be a work of art.

What I want is a combination of Forge of Freedom for the Strategic/Political (except with WeekLong turns instead of monthlong) + a 3D tactical interface similar to that used in Take Command Second Manassas, with virtually all the playable area east of Kansas playable and realistic relative to 19th century.

That's not too much to ask is it? [:D]

ADDIT:

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

Reading this is like reading an intense page turner! [&o]

Agree this thread is great. I hope you will keep it up for the whole four years! If you get burned out, let us know. I could fill in maybe.

[Capt. Harlock]

April 6, 1861:

The key problem at Fort Sumter was food. Eventually, the men would need many other kinds of supplies, including new uniforms and fresh ammunition, but those could wait. Lincoln used this to find a middle path to the dilemma of whether to reinforce or not to reinforce the fort. He wrote a proposal to South Carolina Governor Pickens, offering to supply the garrison with food only, and entrusted it to a special messenger.