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
Writing Workshop: The Importance of Free Enterprise
user100 [1]

Free Enterprise involves the free exercise of any economic activity, freedom of labor, craft or profession beyond freedom of contract. In a broader concept, work can be understood as the ordered array of man's energies toward an economic end.

Free enterprise must be understood as the possibility of private action in the economic domain, without the embarrassment of the public power. It is the portion of freedom, unfolded as freedom to the exercise of economic activity. And because of that is so important.

4 0
3 years ago
Which of the following were the key changes made to the economy by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913? Select all that apply.
tankabanditka [31]
<span>the increase of the dollar and the increase of international banking
thats what i got.
</span>
5 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which European country originally settled the colony that would later become known as new York?
anastassius [24]
It would be the Netherlands that was the European country that originally settled the colony that would later become known as New York, since the city's original title was "New Amsterdam"--named after the capital city of the Netherlands. 
5 0
3 years ago
PLEASE GIVE CORRECT ANSWER!!!!
Alex73 [517]

Answer:

it do be b tho

Explanation:

6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Please help me answer these. i’m not sure if i’m correct
LekaFEV [45]

Answer:

12,653 Union casualties

4,201 Confederate casualties.

Explanation:

(Union is north Confederate is south obviously, it was a confederate decisive victory, I'm guessing they want you to answer D for the first question and B for the second as its rounding down and up.)

7 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • The cotton industry assured that slavery would remain an important part of Southern life well into the 1800s. What factors may h
    9·2 answers
  • The Marshall Plan was designed to keep Europe from falling to communism. In one or two sentences, list two reasons why the Marsh
    7·2 answers
  • What was an accomplishment by the Song Dynasty of China?
    11·2 answers
  • Was the rise to power of hitler— or a hitler— inevitable?
    6·2 answers
  • The Protestant reformation In England: was lead by John calvin
    5·1 answer
  • True or False <br> God made the earth flat and there is no outer space.
    15·1 answer
  • What is the slope of a vertical line? ​
    6·2 answers
  • How did trade routes impact the political, social, and economic environment of the period by the spreading of ideas throughout E
    6·1 answer
  • How did the growth of the western population int he late 1800's impact<br> Native Americans?
    15·1 answer
  • What pulled people to move to California in the mid 1850'?
    9·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!