The Aftermath of the Fort Sumter Attack

The attack on Fort Sumter was a monumental event that marked the start of the American Civil War. On April 14, 1861 Major Anderson of the Union surrendered Fort Sumter to the Southern forces who had bombarded the fort for days. Prior to the attack which was the first battle between Union and Confederate forces Lincoln had sent supplies and men to the fort on April 4.

Lincoln knew full well that there was a strong possibility of armed conflict erupting at the fort but proceeded anyway, without the consent of Congress. After the attack the North was furious with what they viewed as treason.

The north was not in an ideal situation following the attack with many of their soldiers away on the frontier and few rifles and warships ready for battle. After the battle Lincoln called for the formation of a militia and implemented a naval blockade of the southern states on April 19. He called for a special session of Congress for July 4. By delaying the special congressional session Lincoln was able to quickly and efficiently mobilize a militia while maintaining a firm grasp on war strategy.

 

There was great fear that Washington DC might be vulnerable to attack so Lincoln enlisted more men, censored mail and the press, and bought and armed steamships for the possible defense of the capital. In his July 4 address to Congress Lincoln maintained that the South acted with reckless aggression in their attack against Fort Sumter, maintaining that Fort Sumter was not in any position to attack. Lincoln aggressively wielded executive power following the attack on Fort Sumter, so much so that he quarreled with Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Taney over matters of Executive authority and the wartime powers. Lincoln eventually won these quarrels and maintained a strong grasp on executive power for the remainder of the war. One of the reasons I think that Lincoln sent supplies and men to Fort Sumter was to maintain some semblence of Union power. It was very smart of Lincoln not to be the one who initiated the conflict. With the South striking first Lincoln was able to use their reckless aggression as a just cause to go to war in the name of restoring the Union. 

The Southern Perception of Slavery

As most sane people would agree slavery is an abhorrent institution and the practice and use of it in the United States is a black eye the country will never truly get over. Many of the Framers of the constitution also saw slavery as an evil institution. Daniel Farber, author of “Lincoln’s Constitution,” states that the Founding Fathers saw slavery as “a necessary evil that would die out in time.” One of the reasons the Founding Fathers saw slavery as a repugnant, but necessary institution was because of the economic power and manpower slavery brought to America. One of the chief reasons the Founding Fathers allowed for the continuation of slavery was because it would have been impossible to get representatives from southern states to go along with the constitution if slavery or the slave trade was abolished. The best they could do was to ban the Atlantic Slave Trade, effective in 1808. 

This 20 year time period gave southerners the opportunity to horde slaves before the ban was in place. The views on slavery changed so much in between the ratification of the constitution and the Civil War that many southerners saw slavery not as a “necessary evil,” but instead as a “positive good.” 

A "positive good"?

This shift in opinion can be attributed to a variety of reasons. One reason is that the southern states depended on slaves for their economic prosperity. Another reason was that white slave owners saw it as their duty to take care of what they perceived to be ignorant child like slaves, forming a type of perverse paternal bond. 

Pro-slavery Propaganda

One of the chief reasons, in my opinion, was that with increased attacks from abolitionists the south tried to fight the moral wrongness of slavery by trying to turn a negative into a positive. By the 1850s many southerners viewed slavery not as evil, but as a good for society as a whole. For more insight into the issue of slavery as a “positive good” read this article. 

Obama, Lincoln, and the National Defense Authorization Act

Lincoln has long been seen as a historic defender of the constitution and the union among the populace. Few choose to remember the sacrifices Lincoln made to preserve the union. These sacrifices included instituting martial law and suspending the writ of habeas corpus. It is still unknown if Lincoln’s violations of the constitution were truly necessary to preserve the Union. 

America has found itself in a similar, though far less perilous, situation since the terrorist attacks of 9-11. President Obama recently found himself in a situation where he must choose between restricting the constitution in the name of security or not. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 gives the American government the power to detain suspected enemies of the state without trial, an action eerily similar to those of Lincoln. 

Although the actions of Obama are not very different from his predecessor, what is different is the reverence Obama has for Lincoln. Some have criticized Obama for agreeing to pass a bill whose unclear wording could lead to the unjust incarceration of people vaguely defined as “allies of Al Qaeda.” On December 31, 2011 Obama passed the National Defense Authorization Act, even though the bill allows for  the continued use of overseas detention centers for suspected enemies of America. Although the situations differ vastly between Obama and Lincoln, what is important to note is the similar ways they chose to solve the problems facing the country.