Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
There were plenty of Supreme Court cases that dealt with the subject of secession before the war and could be reviewed by those who proposed secession. There were also views on the Consitution written by men well-versed in Constitutional law who found the idea of secession wrong.
And there are plenty of things listed in the Constitution that show what a State CANNOT do. Aside from everything else, the Constitution clearly lists how a State may join the Union and under what conditions. There is NOTHING in the document that provides for a State leaving. Mainly because the debate leading up to the ratification of the document covered this question and all states who joined knew once in, the only way out was by the approval of ALL the states.
Like you, I see ways the seceding states could have achieved the goal of separation. The Constitution provides mechanisms they could have used for it.
The Supreme Court could have ruled they had the right -- but they chose not to pursue that route. The Court had consistently ruled in their favor on slavery issues and was still, in 1860, 5 Southern Justices to 4 Northern Justices (although that was about to rapidly change due to deaths and resignations).
They could have passed a Constitutional Amendment outlining exactly what this "right" might be and how it could be exercised. They made no attempt to do so that I have ever heard of.
They might have worked through the Congress, where they were likely to be successful in my view. Here they could have exerted much power by voting as a bloc: something their descendants in the Solid South of a later day developed into an art form.
They attempted none of these. They chose from the first to use aggressive actions and armed force to obtain their goal.
The most interesting question is why they avoided such easily available and peaceful options if they felt they must separate from the US. Even if they felt they might not be successful, the failure to even attempt these methods seems to cast the blame for the war on them.
Actually, I have never managed to figure out how an officer moving his command from one side of his garison to another is an act of war... it seemed a pretty thin line of reasoning then and it seems so now.
Ft Sumter as a threat to Charleston has been an idea thouroghly debunked on other threads. Davis needed a dramatic victory that would enrage the rest of the US into a call to arms... he got it and the rest of the soon to be CS states that were on the fence made a decision... it turned out to be the wrong one.
Concur. Fort Moultrie and Fort Sumter were both Federal property. Sumter was not a threat in a sense that its guns were predominantly aimed seaward. It's ability to defend itself from land based attacks was very weak (hence the significance of Battery Gregg and later on Battery Wagner on Morris Island). The move ensured that the tiny Federal garrison was in a more defensible position - at least they couldn't be taken by coup d' main. In a sense, Sumter was even more Federal (with respects to real property rights) in that it was originally a sand bar that was made into an island such for a fort to be built upon - all done at Federal expense.
BTW, I also concur with Suwanee on the suggestion of not firing upon Sumter and starving it out via blockade.
BTW, I also concur with Suwanee on the suggestion of not firing upon Sumter and starving it out via blockade.
Sure thing. It is what the South was doing anyway, and the batteries and fortifications they put up were a far more effective means of blockade of the fort than Suwanee's suggestion. Anderson was about to surrender the post when attacked precisely because he was running out of supplies.
Lincoln and Davis and all the rest understood this. That is why Lincoln sent to reprovision the garrison. That is why Davis and the rest decided to attack.
Lincoln is simply telling them that he will not give them the fort. He will resupply and keep it, which would strengthen his negotiating position. He put the ball back in their court: would they allow him to reprovision the fort and maintain the status quo, or not?
Their answer is clear. They would love to have the fort starved out and fall into their hands without a shot (so they told Beauregard), but they would attack it before they saw it reprovisioned. Concrete evidence of this exists in the Official Records, in the correspondence between the parties on the Confederate side.
In doing so, the Confederates decided they would not proceed through negotiation. They would take what they wanted by force of arms. The only reasons the fort was not fired upon earlier were:
1) the need for time and material to complete Beauregard's preparations to attack and
2) the possibility the fort might be starved out without a shot being fired.
Personally, I think the Confederates should have waited. It would have served them better to simply refuse entrance to the Federal relief expedition. Then the Federals would have had to attempt to penetrate the harbor (which I believe would have failed) to resupply Sumter, and the Confederacy could have portrayed the Federals as the attackers. Failing that, the fort falls anyway.
Lincoln informed the leaders of the insurrection that an unarmed supply ship is going to be sent to resupply the fort. What does the insurgents do, back down or up the ante? Either way Lincoln wins.
Davis, Beauregard, the Confederate Congress et al., knew exactly what they were doing, they had already decided that Sumpter was to be taken, even the means was decided, either starvation or direct military attack. Lincoln merely used logic, to arrange events so that the decision for Peace or War would rest upon the confederate leadership. But they were not tricked or duped into their decision, they saw the problem exactly as Lincoln did, but blinded by their righteous arrogance, they boldly and deliberately decided for war.
"Ok, Ft Sumpter was purchased, initially on long lease for the use of a Fort to be constructed, then much later on a full purchase price, due primarily to Congress inability to maintain the cost the long term lease being agreed between State and Government and disiring to own outright the proprty rights to the Fort by the US AG of the 1830s. Not all Federal Forts were fully purchsed and ownership passed from the states to the Union untill 1890 or so.
What the SC AG was pointing out that Congress had not paid that full purchase price, not had it mainatined in full the original long term lease payments part of the contracts, but had invested heavily in the construction costs of the Fort. Hence the legal forms of ownership revert to SC due to failure to fullfill the contractual obilgations,yes SC had passed full and complete tranfer of property to Congress, on the understanding Congress would actually a) pay the lease while construction of the Fort was undertaken, and B) much later, aquire full property rights after making full payment to SC, along with outstounding lease payments. Congress had never done so, which was in no small measure why it was not a federal post, as it was not federal property, and why the Pres and US AG were aghast when without orders Anderson moved to it."
I have always equated Anderson's action with crossing the Rubicon - a signal of hostile intent.
What has always eluded me is why he did it. In military terms it was an incredible blunder that gave away the game, and I can imagine the pandemonium that erupted in CSA hq over such a seemingly harmless event.
If indeed Lincoln was aghast why would he be? He was not a military man who would understand the explosive ramification of what happened - his horror would have to have a political source.
If the man indeed did this on his own initiative without orders from the commander in chief, then all that saved him from courtmartial and ruin was the Confederate attack.
None of which changes the fact that his was the first act of war.
In truth the start of the Civil War would be when a battle fleet was dispatched and notice of its destination given, along with the movement of Union troops into a forward fighting position that would support that fleet when it arrived.
"We're sending a battle fleet to your city but it isn't an invasion fleet. You can trust us."
We should have notified the Japanese that any battle fleets we dispatched to Japan were merely humanitarian missions - then we could be certain they wouldn't attack those fleets. Right.
Lincoln informed the leaders of the insurrection that an unarmed supply ship is going to be sent to resupply the fort.
Lincoln's verbal notification to Governor Pickins is recorded as being: "I am directed by the President of the United States to notify you that an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only; and that, if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made, without further notice, or in the case of attack upon the fort."
By the time that notification was given, everyone who could read knew that a flotilla of considerable military strength had sailed from New York. Lincoln's notification clearly implies that resistance can be met.
Quote:
Lincoln merely used logic, to arrange events so that the decision for Peace or War would rest upon the confederate leadership. But they were not tricked or duped into their decision, they saw the problem exactly as Lincoln did,
And on that, I agree completely. Sumter was recognized on both sides to be that line in the dirt -- if there was to be shooting, it would start here. To me, it's unfortunate that JD needed Virginia and the border states so badly that he started a shooting war to get it.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Hence the legal forms of ownership revert to SC due to failure to fullfill the contractual obilgations,yes SC had passed full and complete tranfer of property to Congress, on the understanding Congress would actually a) pay the lease while construction of the Fort was undertaken, and B) much later, aquire full property rights after making full payment to SC, along with outstounding lease payments.
Was wondering when someone would pick up on this one. I can see where SC could expect return of the island to its jurisdiction. But I can't see where actual title could be transferred without a default judgement or foreclosure.
Quote:
Congress had never done so, which was in no small measure why it was not a federal post, as it was not federal property, and why the Pres and US AG were aghast when without orders Anderson moved to it."
Floyd's orders clearly authorized Anderson to move if he (Anderson) considered it necessary. President Buchanan and his Attorney General where aghast, not because it was not federal property, but because they had an understanding with Governor Pickens that no move would be made. It was abrogation of this understanding that riled SC, again, not because it was considered state property.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
I have always equated Anderson's action with crossing the Rubicon - a signal of hostile intent.
What has always eluded me is why he did it. In military terms it was an incredible blunder that gave away the game, and I can imagine the pandemonium that erupted in CSA hq over such a seemingly harmless event.
At the time he did it, secessionists in SC were urging the fort be taken immediately by assault, armed boats were patroling the water between Moultrie, and he had just heard that a battery was being constructed in the harbor. Secretary Floyd had just ordered the guns in Sumter that bore on Ft. Moultrie to be mounted 9Sumter being unoccupied and vilnerable, secessionists were also saying they should seize that fort and use it to reduce Moultrie). Crowds of militiamen and citizens were parading outside Ft. Moultrie, listening to speeches by ardent secessionists who advocated taking the fort.
He himself believed his command was in imminent danger of being taken by a coup de main in the night, and he calculated that if besieged his force would be so exhausted from simply standing guard that he would have to surrender in 60 hours. He was, at this point, using a couple of the officer's wives as guards during the night due to his shortage of men.
He moved to Ft. Sumter to remove the immediate danger to his command and gain time for a negotiated solution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
If indeed Lincoln was aghast why would he be? He was not a military man who would understand the explosive ramification of what happened - his horror would have to have a political source.
Lincoln was at home in Illinois. Buchanan was in the White House.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
If the man indeed did this on his own initiative without orders from the commander in chief, then all that saved him from courtmartial and ruin was the Confederate attack.
His instructions came from Sec. of War John Floyd. He was given full initiative if he considered his command to be in danger. Anderson was completely within his orders in acting as he did. It would be easier to claim that he was negligent and/or derelict in his duty if he did not move in that situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
None of which changes the fact that his was the first act of war.
Well, no. SC had already taken a number of warlike measures before this, even before they passed their secession declaration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
In truth the start of the Civil War would be when a battle fleet was dispatched and notice of its destination given, along with the movement of Union troops into a forward fighting position that would support that fleet when it arrived.
No again. Dozens of examples of the use of armed force and illegal seizures by the seceding states exist before that, from Texas to the Atlantic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
"We're sending a battle fleet to your city but it isn't an invasion fleet. You can trust us."
Come on, now. The secessionists had just spent the last three months and more raising troops and building batteries that were designed to attack and reduce Ft. Sumter, and to prevent the reprovisioning of the fort. They were intercepting the mail from the fort and attempting to starve the occupants out. They had already fired on two other US flag ships entering the harbor. The estimate of General Scott was that many thousands of men and a much larger fleet would be needed. The force that was sent was a token force, it was sent openly and with an announcement of their purpose, it was promised that they would leave if allowed to reprovision the fort.
Realistically, what would you expect given the existing aggressive acts by Southerners, and the constant demands of the Confederacy? Should the US government have sent an unarmed ship and said: "Oh, they won't fire on us. They won't really use all those cannon. They are just joking."?
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
We should have notified the Japanese that any battle fleets we dispatched to Japan were merely humanitarian missions - then we could be certain they wouldn't attack those fleets. Right.
Seems completely unrelated. If I am mistaken, please spell out exactly how and where you see a relationship.
I have always equated Anderson's action with crossing the Rubicon - a signal of hostile intent.
I equate it with avoidance of hostile action. Moultrie was all but indefensible from the east. Anderson was simply delaying the day when shooting started, and would have been elated if he'd been ordered to abandon everything.
Quote:
What has always eluded me is why he did it. In military terms it was an incredible blunder that gave away the game, and I can imagine the pandemonium that erupted in CSA hq over such a seemingly harmless event.
The act caused more consternation on the state level than it did at the CSA. For the state, it's plans for a takeover were thrown into disarray; for the CSA, implications were far more serious.
Quote:
If indeed Lincoln was aghast why would he be? He was not a military man who would understand the explosive ramification of what happened - his horror would have to have a political source.
To my knowledge, there is no record of how Lincoln viewed the move. He kept quite out of sight until he took over as president on March 4th. It doesn't take a military man to understand the explosive ramifications of what was clearly a political situation.
Quote:
If the man indeed did this on his own initiative without orders from the commander in chief, then all that saved him from courtmartial and ruin was the Confederate attack.
The Secretary of War gave Anderson permission to move if, in his judgement, there was a threat. In Anderson's judgement, there was a threat -- he moved. Floyd's order would have precluded a court martial.
Quote:
None of which changes the fact that his was the first act of war.
None of which changes your opinion that this was the first act of war.
For sources and reference, check out the link supplied by Battalion above.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
