|View single post by 5fish|
|Posted: Tue Aug 26th, 2008 02:44 pm||
|There is a debate on this board about if the south was provoked or not by Abe Lincoln into insurrection, secession, war and firing the first shots.
Abe Lincoln did provoke the southern leaders into committing following acts of insurrection, secession and war.
A background to this argument.
Our nation had two earlier acts of insurrection before 1860. There was the Whiskey rebellion 1790's and the Nullification crisis 1832 in both the president at that time acted forcefully and made it clear that any acts of insurrection were illegal and they would use military force to end the insurrection. Neither insurrection lasted and both presidents Washington and Jackson made it clear an insurrection is illegal and set the present that the union must be preserved.
Now lets move the 1859 the Southern leaders see a weak waffling president in Buchanan and the fires of insurrection are lighted. In 1860, Southern leaders see a country lawyer from IL. become president and again they believe they have a weak president to contended with and the fires of insurrection explored.
President Lincoln reinforces this view(of weakness) with his first inaugural address where he tries to appease the leaders of the insurrection. This act appeasement reinforced Southern leaders view he was weak and fueled the fires of the insurrection that will lead to war.
I argue again:
Abe Lincolns act of appeasement(show of weakness) to leaders of the insurrection only provoked the leaders to increase their demands and set our nation toward civil war.
If only Lincoln had followed the precedents set by Washington and Jackson and forcefully rejected the insurrection demands and show resolve the war might never had happen.
It was Lincoln's appeasement to the Southern slavers, like England's appeasement to Hitler, fueled the Civil war as it fueled WWII.
Appeasement was the true provokator of the Civil War!!