1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
harina [27]
3 years ago
5

What did Lincoln do to provoke war?

History
2 answers:
Reptile [31]3 years ago
7 0
Southern leaders of the Civil War period placed the blame for the outbreak of fighting squarely on Lincoln<span>. They accused the President of acting aggressively towards the South and of deliberately provoking war in order to overthrow the Confederacy. For its part, the Confederacy sought a peaceable accommodation of its legitimate claims to independence, and resorted to measures of self-defence only when threatened by Lincoln's coercive policy. Thus, Confederate vice president, Alexander H. Stephens, claimed that the war was "inaugurated by Mr. Lincoln." Stephens readily acknowledged that General </span>Beauregard's troops fired the "first gun." But, he argued, the larger truth is that "in personal or national conflicts, it is not he who strikes the first blow, or fires the first gun that inaugurates or begins the conflict." Rather, the true aggressor is "the first who renders force necessary."

Stephens identified the beginning of the war as Lincoln's order sending a "hostile fleet, styled the 'Relief Squadron'," to reinforce Fort Sumter. "The war was then and there inaugurated and begun by the authorities at Washington. General Beauregard did not open fire upon Fort Sumter until this fleet was, to his knowledge, very near the harbor of Charleston, and until he had inquired of Major Anderson . . . whether he would engage to take no part in the expected blow, then coming down upon him from the approaching fleet . . . When Major Anderson . . .would make no such promise, it became necessary for General Beauregard to strike the first blow, as he did; otherwise the forces under his command might have been exposed to two fires at the same time-- one in front, and the other in the rear." The use of force by the Confederacy , therefore, was in "self-defence," rendered necessary by the actions of the other side.

Jefferson Davis, who, like Stephens, wrote his account after the Civil War, took a similar position. Fort Sumter was rightfully South Carolina's property after secession, and the Confederate government had shown great "forbearance" in trying to reach an equitable settlement with the federal government. But the Lincoln administration destroyed these efforts by sending "a hostile fleet" to Sumter. "The attempt to represent us as the aggressors," Davis argued, "is as unfounded as the complaint made by the wolf against the lamb in the familiar fable. He who makes the assault is not necessarily he that strikes the first blow or fires the first gun."

From Davis's point of view, to permit the strengthening of Sumter, even if done in a peaceable manner, was unacceptable. It meant the continued presence of a hostile threat to Charleston. Further, although the ostensible purpose of the expedition was to resupply, not reinforce the fort, the Confederacy had no guarantee that Lincoln would abide by his word. And even if he restricted his actions to resupply in this case, what was to prevent him from attempting to reinforce the fort in the future? Thus, the attack on Sumter was a measure of "defense." To have acquiesced in the fort's relief, even at the risk of firing the first shot, "would have been as unwise as it would be to hesitate to strike down the arm of the assailant, who levels a deadly weapon at one's breast, until he has actually fired."

In the twentieth century, this critical view of Lincoln's actions gained a wide audience through the writings of Charles W. Ramsdell and others. According to Ramsdell, the situation at Sumter presented Lincoln with a series of dilemmas. If he took action to maintain the fort, he would lose the border South and a large segment of northern opinion which wanted to conciliate the South. If he abandoned the fort, he jeopardized the Union by legitimizing the Confederacy. Lincoln also hazarded losing the support of a substantial portion of his own Republican Party, and risked appearing a weak and ineffective leader.

Lincoln could escape these predicaments, however, if he could induce southerners to attack Sumter, "to assume the aggressive and thus put themselves in the wrong in the eyes of the North and of the world." By sending a relief expedition, ostensibly to provide bread to a hungry garrison, Lincoln turned the tables on the Confederates, forcing them to choose whether to permit the fort to be strengthened, or to act as the aggressor. By this "astute strategy," Lincoln maneuvered the South into firing the first shot.

timofeeve [1]3 years ago
4 0
He basically let the United States apart themselves because one half wanted slavery and the other didn't. He was trying not to be biased. (Hope I helped, this is how I understand it)
You might be interested in
Which side won the Civil War?<br> A)Union/North<br> B)Confederacy/South
UkoKoshka [18]

Answer:

A

Explanation:

6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
In 1941, who commanded US troops in Europe?
Svetradugi [14.3K]
It was franklin Delano Roosevelt
5 0
3 years ago
About how many years did the period of the crusades warfare between the muslims and christians last
Ierofanga [76]
Nearly 200 years.
Hope it helps!
4 0
3 years ago
Why was the battle of Midway so important and explain the techniques used by
spayn [35]

The Battle of Midway was an epic WWII clash between the U.S. Navy and the Imperial Japanese Navy that played out six months after the attack on Pearl Harbor. ... naval power and effectively turned the tide of World War II in the Pacific. ... with other U.S. ships near Midway in preparation for Japan's attack.

7 0
3 years ago
Backcountry South Carolinians didn’t choose either the patriot or loyalist side originally because?
olga_2 [115]
Loyalists, also known as Tories or Royalists, were American colonists who supported the British monarchy during the American Revolutionary War. ... Americans either remained Loyalists or joined the Patriot cause based on which side they thought would best promote their interests.
5 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • What is generally considered to be theodore roosevelt's greatest contribution to the reform movement of the early 20th century?
    12·1 answer
  • Which city is considered to be the birthplace of the Italian Renaissance?
    6·2 answers
  • Which civilization was known to use geometry to construct canals for the transportation of water?. . .
    8·1 answer
  • What problems did the Ohio valley pose for British officials
    11·1 answer
  • 46.
    13·1 answer
  • How far south into Mexico did the United States Army go during the Mexican war
    13·1 answer
  • What action decided that California would enter as a free state while Texas would become a slave state? This action also put the
    5·2 answers
  • 7) Why did Stalin kill Millions of his own people during his attempt to implement his “collectivization” program?
    9·1 answer
  • What was the goal of the muchrackers
    12·1 answer
  • Which president's most effective achievements were in conservation, adding enormously to the national forests in the West, reser
    6·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!