Did Lincoln Start the Civil War?

[norb]

Read somewhere, can't remember, that had Lincoln not taken the aggressive steps before the war, that the entire thing might have been avoided. I'm just wondering what people here think.

[estabu2]

Do you mean the physical act of war? The states were already leaving before Lincoln was even sworn in, but his call for 75,000, after sumter, was not necessarily uncalled for. I believe that his aggression was warranted and it was the inevitability of the situation. Sooner or later, blood needed to be shed.

[Armchair General]

No, Lincoln definitely did not start the Civil War. As mentioned above, the states were already leaving and there wasn't much he could do. Even when he tried a peaceful resolution to Sumter simply by sending a resupply ship it was fired upon. And Lincoln's call for 75,000 volunteers was completely justifiable.

[Little Powell]

Armchair General wrote:

No, Lincoln definitely did not start the Civil War. As mentioned above, the states were already leaving and there wasn't much he could do. Even when he tried a peaceful resolution to Sumter simply by sending a resupply ship it was fired upon. And Lincoln's call for 75,000 volunteers was completely justifiable.

But what if Lincoln just cut his losses after Sumter, and recognized the Confederacy? So in a way, he did start the war.

[norb]

If Lincoln had recognized the Confed, then I guess we would not have the USA. States would have more power, not be pawns of the federal government. Instead, we have what we do today, a crippled system. Not blaming it on Lincoln, but wasn't that the first step in knocking down states rights?

Legally, I believe, the states did have a right to leave. So which state left first and what were their reasons? I had thought that Lincoln massing the army is what brought so many other states to the southern cause. If he had not massed the army, who knows? Then you go into the question of was it better for the greater good for him to forbid states to leave or would it have been better to allow some to leave and support the law. But that opens the debate as did the states have enough cause to legally leave.

[Armchair General]

Little Powell wrote:

Armchair General wrote:

No, Lincoln definitely did not start the Civil War. As mentioned above, the states were already leaving and there wasn't much he could do. Even when he tried a peaceful resolution to Sumter simply by sending a resupply ship it was fired upon. And Lincoln's call for 75,000 volunteers was completely justifiable.

But what if Lincoln just cut his losses after Sumter, and recognized the Confederacy? So in a way, he did start the war.

No one can expect a ruler of their country to just sit back and watch as a huge portion of it decides to leave because they feel like it. Lincoln had to make a stand against the rebels, he was not about to let the Union crumble under his command. In his first inaugural he said, "In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war."

[norb]

I could not imagine any President being able to sit back and watch that happen, who wants that under their name in the history books. But the basis of the country was a union of states, that's the only reason many even signed on, because they had so many checks and balances on the fed. If in one of the first tests of those laws, the fed oversteps the law, then what good is the law. It's just interesting thinking about this today because there are news stories about states getting very upset in that the fed is dipping their hands so deep into things that the states feel they should control.

[Chris G.]

So which state left first and what were their reasons?

After Lincolns election...South Carolina (Dec. 20, 1860), Mississippi (January 9, 1861), Florida (January 10, 1861), Alabama (January 11, 1861), Georgia (January 19, 1861), Louisiana (January 26, 1861) and Texas (February 1, 1861) After Licolns call for 75,000 volunteers to invade the south... Virginia (April 17, 1861), Arkansas (May 6, 1861), North Carolina (May 20, 1861) and Tennessee (June 8, 1861).

[norb]

So had lincoln not won the election, there would not have been a civil war?

[Armchair General]

norb wrote:

So had lincoln not won the election, there would not have been a civil war?

That's an extremely big 'If.' Even if Lincoln had lost the election, the Civil War would have probably just been delayed a few more years. There were too many Garrisons and Douglass' up north and too many Calhouns down south. Civil War almost broke out in the '30s, but Andrew Jackson countered with the Nullification and threatened to use the Federal Army. I asked my American History teacher today about this thread, and asked what he thought, and he said the Civil War had to happen sometime for the South to finally get rid of slavery and to settle the sectional crisis that had been going on for centuries.