Who started the war?

I know the first response to the question will be the south, firing on Fort Sumter. But here is my question...
If the Confederacy had in fact become an independent country (the reason for secession was to form that independent country, not to destroy the union) which many true historians believe (
I use the term true historian to separate these people from those who see only revisionist history), who started the war?
Lincoln when he attempted to reinforce Fort Sumter and also send troops into Florida to reinforce Fort Pickens? I mean, if the southern states were really in rebellion (what southern state first declared War on the Union, what southern state sent troops onto Federal soil) then why "re-inforce"?

I look for answers ...

[iron_brigade]

Ron
Its quite clear to any objective observer that the seven "Cotton/Slave" states,who were in open rebellion, precipitated the Civil War by opening fire on Fort Sumter.On this, the historic record is very clear.
You state,"If the Confederacy had in fact become an independent country which many true historians believe, who started the war?"What "true" historians believe that the cotton states were a true independent nation as oppossed to a section in rebellion?I am well aware that some writers who cater to the "Southern Heritage" crowd advocate this view but to my knowledge no professional historian has ever signed on to this massive revision of history started by the president and vice- president of the confederacy.
You conclude that Lincoln started the war.In your words,"he attempted to reinforce Fort Sumter and also send troops into Florida to reinforce Fort Pickens?".What historian lays this in the lap of Lincoln?Federal property is not the perview of the executive branch.This is clear in the Constitution. Even the slavestate boot licking Buchanan realized this.
You write,"(what southern state first declared war on the union, what southern state sent troops onto Federal soil)".Again I must ask, what history do you read!? I will give a few examples of many.
Georgia seceded on January 19, 1861 but seized the Federal soil of Fort Pulaski on January 3rd 1861.
Alabama seceded on January 11, 1861 but the state seized the federal soil of the arsenal at Mount Vernon on January 4,1861 and Forts Morgan and Gaines on the 5th of January.
Louisiania seceded on January 26th, 1861 but had already seized the Federal property at Fort Jackson , Fort St. Philip and Baton Rouge on the 10th of January.
I hope you get the point and trust that I could present many more examples of open rebellion as apposed to the psudo-legal nation building effort espoused by the southern heritage "victims" groups today.
Ron,my belief is that the great southern fighting man should be remembered and respected .The southern politicians were among of the worse ever to curse our planet.Don't wed the two,its not fair to their memory.
Greg

Greg,
You validate me. You state, "the seven Cotton/Slave states, who were in open rebellion, precipitated the Civil war by opening fire on Fort Sumter."
However, you go on to provide a secession date for Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and then state they "seized ...federal soil."
Logic, sir. If the state had yet to secede which you clarify by date, how could they "seize" any federal property. As of the date they "seized" this property, THEY WERE STILL A PART OF THE UNION!.
As to that. Lincoln ordered, in March, the invasion of Florida. Had it not been for a subordinate officer, Federal troops would have landed on "Southern soil" (Florida had already seceded when these Union men sailed) two weeks BEFORE the firing on Fort Sumter. As it was, the junior officer was relieved of command and the troops landed at Fort Pickens ON THE DAY FORT SUMTER was fired on.
You state, Federal property is not the perview of the executive branch.
My point exactly sir. Lincoln was not taking Fort Pickens into account, he was invading a state that had declared itself OUT OF THE UNION, hence, attacking another country. In each of the statements of secession, the seceding state considered itself a sovereign nation. This stood until the state joined the Confederacy.
Mr. Lincoln had NO AUTHORITY to reinforce Pickens or Sumter BUT HE DID.
In none of the articles of secession did any state, and I mean any state, declare themselves in open rebellion to the United States or to any Federal state. They all stated, that with the stand the United States was taking on States Rights, the tariff of goods in the individual states (a violation of the Constitution), the failure of many of these states to return Slaves (a violation of the Fugitive Slave Act), the seceding state could not in all conciousness remain in the Union. No southern state ever advocated the overthrow of the Union (not in written words anyway 8<) )
And what historians are you reading? I urge you to expand your horizons, read the histories that were written prior to 1964. You will find a whole different outlook on the War for Southern Independence.
The histories today written by Gallagher, Trudeau, Robertson, McPhearson, et al are revisionist history at its finest.
Read Shelby Foote, STackpole, Coddington, or better yet, read the diaries of the men of the South. I am compiling a history of the men of the 17th Mississippi Infantry, definitely a cotton/slave state, and yet in the 10 personal diaries I have read, the dozens of letters I have read and transposed, no mention is ever made of 1. fighting to keep slavery as an institution, and 2. the overthrow of the Federal government.

I am not a member of any southern heritage Victim group Greg. Nor am I a racist, skin-head, neo-nazi, or any group that follows those misguided ideologies. I am a historian. Plain and simple. I read more than just one point of view and I try to provide more than just one person's quotes.
As for southern politicians being "among the worse ever to curse our planet" come on. This country was founded and lead by Virginians, Georgians, North Carolinians, South Carolinians, Tennesseans, and more from 1776 to 1860. Our first president came from Virginia. The man that wrote the Declaration of Independence came from Virginia. 14 hands that signed the Constitution were from the South. Nine of the first 12 Presidents were Southern, Washington (VA), Jefferson (VA), MAdison (VA), Monroe (VA), JAckson (SC), Harrison (VA), Tyler (VA), Polk (NC), and Taylor (VA). Henry Clay was one of the greatest statesmen of his time, from Virginia.
The three Presidents leading up to the War for Southern Independence were all Northerners, Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan.

Well, this has run on quite long enough for me.

I would love to get into the fact that in the 1820's ten percent of the population of Philadelphia and New York was run away slaves (where was the fugitive slave law?) and these same African Americans were banned by law from attending white churches, public schools, trade unions, skilled crafts, dock work and eventually even house hold staffs. Race riots were common in these cities as well as Cincinnati.

No friend, Deuel, as I tell my pards up here in Columbus, OH who reenact Confederate with me, read more, learn more, widen your horizons. Open your mind. Forget the things you (and I) were taught in grade school, high school and college. Read and form your own opinions based on your readings.

Then, come back, and we can do this again.

Your servant, sir
Ron Goodwin
aka OldReb

[lorrierivette]

That's not my first response Ron. I think reinforcing those Forts is what started it but then so many will debate otherwise. I just feel that it could have happened at another point but that was what started it.
Lorrie

[russ_aukerman]

Ronald -

I'm a new poster on this board. I read your post above and generally agree with your sentiments. Prior discussions I've had on this topic have likewise concerned whether, upon secession, the southern states were sovereigns. I believe they were. Thus, for example, when S.C. seceded, the "federal land" reverted to state land if it was state land at the time of ratification. I have maintained that the southern states necessarily abandoned their claims to any other federal land not within their boundaries, but retained that within their boundaries. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Also, what do you think would have happened if Beauregard did not fire on Ft. Sumter (and no similar event took place)?

[iron_brigade]

Ron
You ended your last post in this thread by admonishing me to,"read more,learn more,widen your horizons.Open your mind.Forget the things you (and I)were taught in grade school,high school and college.Read and form your own opinions based on your readings.

Then,come back,and we can do this again."

Ron, in the words of the great Lucas in "Independence Day".........I'M BACK!!!!

Its clear from your statement that you think I'm either ignorant or not too bright.Well thats fine and there is nothing I can do about that.I will freely admit that there are people who I have met who could truthfully make this claim.However,in my opinion,you are not one of them.I will be as frank with you as you have been with me.
Ron,friend,you are so southern biased that both Ricks and my points have gone way over your head.

To illustrate,let me again respond to one key
aspect of your original post in this thread.This time I shall endeavor to go a bit slower.You asked, "what southern states sent troops into Federal soil". I gave you a partial list of southern states that seized Federal property while still legally members of the United States of America.You responded,and I quote,"Logic,sir.If the state had yet to secede which you clarify by date, how could they "seize" any federal property.As of the date they "seized" this property,THEY WERE STILL A PART OF THE UNION!"
Historian Friend Ron, what planet do you get this line of logic from?Let me get this straight, any State can seize Federal property as long as they are still a member of the Federal government! Ron do you have even the faintest clue as to what the meaning of Federal property is? It pains me to have to spell it out but Federal soil is land jointly owned by ALL the states.Wholey owned and operated by the Congress of the United States of America as per the Constitution which the President swears to uphold and DEFEND!
Ron,again there is no doubt that what I have written will fly over your head but I will rest well in the knowledge that others will read and not tread the path that you have chosen.
Ron,friend,The American Civil War was not a good thing.It killed 620,000 great Americans.Let us not hinge our heritage on the Civil war.let not one side gain their identity or sense of self worth at the expense of the other.The North, the South,the East and the West of America are the greatest Nation ever to grace this planet.Lets leave it at that...........its only logical.

I Am now, as always, your obedient servant
Greg

P.S. Ron,There are other aspects of your latest post that I will respond to but as I am not a historian and work for a living, I must take my leave

[minie57]

With the energetic debate this question has precipitated I wish to place my comments and point of view to this question.

As a New Englander, I see things with a little different perspective. The Federal Government, when it acquire lands for its use, reserves the right of both practical as well as physical ownership of this property and if necessary to protect it by any means necessary, from enemies foreign or domestic, and only releases it's responsibility for said property when agreed to with local authority or by treaty or agreement with a foreign state. This is not just policy of this Nation but also of the Civilized World in general.

When The Original Seven States were in the process of seceding whether they were or not independent they nonetheless committed acts of aggression against the United States Government by seizing Federal Property. The point also made is that resupply of US Installations in Florida and South Carolina was in of itself an act of aggression. however once I point out that Lincoln really didn't want to be aggressive during this period of secessionism. That Actually he in most cases allowed federal facilities to be seized by states even prior to their secession, though as Chief of State he could have well had a more agressive stance towards this, and only contested Pickens and Sumter near Charleston and at that passively by just only attempting to resupply these sieged garrisons.

In this view, Lincoln could have at any time from March 1861 on pulled the trigger, and yes, he had every right to but chose to wait and see if cooler heads prevail. He sought to end this rebellion by any and all means necessary that includes if possible being passive at the start. The South, and South Carolina in Particular, chose to be aggressive.

Despite what many of revisionists from both North and South may state. I retain the view that the seceding states by their agressive policies over US Property by taking by seizure was the true first shot of the Civil War. The Firing of Fort Sumter like the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, Kuwait and the WTC simply made us wake up "smell the coffee" and take action.


We're Lucky Fidel Castro in Cuba didn't do to us what the so called sovereign state of South Carolina did in April, 1861. Lets say we might not be having this debate.

First off, to Greg, I am sorry if you think from my postings that I consider you in any way "ignorant or not to bright." If I thought that, I would never have bothered to respond to you. Far from it, I only enjoy debates with people of intellect. You, Greg, meet that category.
Second, I am going to drop this thread. It seems that my "southern bias" must not be based on good sound logic. To me, if a state asks the Federal government to remove their troops, their forts, their property from within its boundaries, the state is within its rights to do so. For what does the State receive from having those troops, those forts, that property within its boundaries? So it was with Forts Sumter and Pickens. South Carolina and Florida asked repeatedly for the Federal government to remove their troops. So much so, that Major Robert Anderson felt compelled to move his troops from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter.
In the seizure of the Federal Properties, in each case, as far as I can ascertain in my readings, the state promised the Federal government compensation for the properties. Granted, the seizure of these properties was a hasty, illogical act on the parts of the states, particularly those that had already seceded, however, hindsight is one of the human species better senses.
Again, except for two forts in the Florida keys, only Pickens and the forts in Charleston harbor were in Federal hands by March 1861. Lincoln had troops on board ships outside of Pensacola harbor and (I believe it was) Seward who advised him there were prepared to land, "as soon as the insurregents (spelling -1 point) started"...
BTW - on April 1, 1861, Lincoln signed orders to move not only troops into Florida to reinforce Fort Pickens, but to have a warship steam into Pensacola Florida harbor to block the harbor. A warship? My, Mr. Lincoln certainly intended to keep his house from being divided, didn't he?
So, Greg, I hope you accept my apology if I sounded trite or seemed to insult you. Nothing could have been further from my mind. I just believe, as I have stated many times in discussions and debates with my friends here in Ohio, you can not make a point with only a single quote or a single point of reference.

Finally, to Tom (please read this as I typed it with tongue firmly planted in cheek!) of course you New Englanders have a different point of view. Had it not been for you people and your sense of emancipation, the events that lead to the War of Southern Independence. [That was a joke, really!]
Ok, you say that Lincoln could have pulled the trigger from March 1861 on. Why? Why did Buchanan tuck tail and refuse to do anything, and why did Lincoln have the right to pull the trigger?

In the formation of this country, the Continental Congress accepted and identified the soveriegnty of each state from the Articles of Confederation to the final drafting of the Constitution. (If the framers of the Constitution did not recognize the authority of the states, why did they require that at least nine of the 13 states must ratify the Constitution before it became the LAW OF THE LAND?). With this as basis for history, why did the people in the Union think otherwise? What made Lincoln so certain that the States did not have the right to secede? Let's face it, Mr. Lincoln was a lawyer with a sixth grade education. The rest of what he knew was self-taught or his own formulations of thought. That is no more or no less than many of the men of that era, including, yes, dare I say it, the men of the South. (actually many of them didn't even have a sixth grade education, could not keep books or balance their budgets, etc. That is why they married!)
But, I regress. South Carolina and Florida both send delegations to the President of the United States, first Buchanan, then Lincoln and asked that the Federal forces be removed. This was refused by both administrations, Buchanan basically cowered as a lame duck President, Lincoln got with Seward and Scott, proposed several concepts to either force the Southern states to sue for readmittance to the Union on Lincoln's terms or to fight. As they were too stubborn (e.g., stupid) to see that they were outmanned, outgunned, outprovisioned, out smarted, they fought.
And as a result 2 millions American followed a flag into battle where 620,000 died.
I do not believe that it took the firing on Fort Sumter to make the Union wake up and smell the coffee. Lincoln, Seward and the rest of the Washington power pack had already brewed their coffee. In his inaugural speech, Mr. Lincoln threw down the gauntlet when he said, "In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."

The Government will not assail you? With troops setting in Pensacola harbor, in Fort Pickens, in Fort Sumter, in the Florida Keys?

And as Greg said, I am a working man. Even as Lincoln said, "I am loathe to close. We are not enemies, we are friends."

But, I feel I can not address this topic again, for fear of insult to someone I do not even know.

Yours, my friends, in the bonds of the Old South
Old Reb

[tamaroa]

I don't pretend to be an expert at this, but I need an opinion here. What is the difference between disbanding the entire government and forming a new one (as in the Articles of Confederation transformed into the Constitutional Republic we have now) as opposed to forming two governments out of one. Did not each SOVEREIGN state have to withdraw from one government and join the other? What was the status of those states that did not ratify the constitution while the constitution was being formed. Were they sovereign unto themselves or did they have a relation to the federal government? I know that majority rules and when 2/3's of the states ratified the constitution all were bound, but what was the legal status of states that did not ratify until the requisite 2/3 approved the new form of government. Or did every state ratify? I am not clear on this subject.

Thanks,

Bill

Bill, may I suggest going to the postings on "Did Lincoln start the war, particularly the debate between BlackIrish and OldReb. It covers a lot of what you are asking here.
I think you might really enjoy the history and debates.
Best regards
OldReb