Ft. Sumter: Can of Worms

[thea_447]

I expect this thread to open a big can of worms but I think it's important.

<u>Firing on Sumter</u>: who was to blame, and the far-reaching results are obviously viewed differently from Northern and Southern points of view. I fully expect Neil and other Yanks to reach for their big guns as will their Southern counterparts.

First, let me say that the South had been taking supplies,armaments, etc. for months before Fort Sumter. Unless someone on this board can prove to me that every single stick, stone,or brick of the fort's structure was brought in from some other location than South Carolina, in my opinion the fort was the property of South Carolina, not the Federal government. (Take a really big breath, Neil, you're turning blue.)<smile>

I also believe that Lincoln "drew" the South into war at this point, knowing the South had to either "put up" or "shut up". He counted on it. He miscalculated on how long it would take to put down "this rebellion" as he mistakenly called it. (Take another, Neil.)<grin>

The New York Evening Day Book, April 17, 1861 : the event at Fort Sumter was "a cunningly devised scheme" contrived to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South."

The Providence Daily Post, April 13, 1861: "Look at the facts." "For three weeks the administration newspapers have been assuring us that Fort Sumter would be abandoned," but "Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor," and so he did just that.

The Jersey City American Standard, April 12, 1861: "there is a madness and ruthlessness" in Lincoln's behavior "which is astounding...this unarmed vessell...is a mere decoy to draw the first fire from the people of the South, which act by the pre-determination of the government is to be the pretext for letting loose the horrors of war."

"Abstractly it was enough that the Government was in the right. But to make the issue sure, [Lincoln] determined that in addition the rebellion should be put in 'the wrong'." --Lincoln's personal secretaries: John Nicolay and John Hay

The Confederates fired on Fort Sumter for thirty six hours, damaging the fort but injuring no one. During that time Federal warships did not return fire -not even one shot -which suggests that their mission had already been accomplished. The South was goaded into firing the first shot. Nothing afterward would stop the Federals from firing or even make them hesitate for the remainder of the war.

Lincoln had hoped to goad South Carolina into firing on Ft. Sumter; his hopes were realized. He was determined to start a war; he incorrectly assumed it would last only a short time, afterwhich the secessionists would be brought to heel.

Lincoln, July 4, 1861 in an audacious speech to Congress: "...having thus chosen our course <u>without guile and with pure purpose</u>,(my emphasis) let us renew our trust in God, and go forward without fear and with manly hearts".

Jefferson Davis, in conformity with a resolution of the Confederate Congress, sent a number of peace commissioners to Washington, March 1861, before the attack on Ft. Sumter, and offered to pay for any Federal property on Southern soil as well as the Southern portion of the National debt. Lincoln refused to even see them. It is obvious to me from Lincoln's stance that he wanted war.

There you have it, now let the fun begin. Ladies and Gentlemen:
Advance your chosen Flag. (And might I also add, let's keep it civil, please.)

[hawglips]

I have always wondered what possible value Ft. Sumter had to the northern States?

Hal

[unionblue]

Thea,

If the Fort had no value, why was it fired upon by the South?

Unionblue

I have returned, with a sick leave in my pocket, to answer the clarion call of battle. Granted, in my current condition, my efforts are rather feeble. Yet alas, I must strive my utmost to stem this tide of the rampant Black Republican Dogma.

Ok...First. Major Anderson had already seized Fort Sumter in defiance of President Buchanan's orders, because he knew he could not defend Fort Moultrie in Charleston. This was basically an act of war. Buchanan had ordered Anderson not to make any move that could be construed as aggressive.

Robert Chew, aide to Secretary of State Seward, stated In a message to Governor Pickens of South Carolina, "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 case of an attack upon the fort." Having no honor, they lied.

Major Anderson, in a letter to Colonel Thomas, Adjutant-General, United States Army, expressed his concern. "I had the honor to receive, by yesterday's mail, the letter of the Honorable Secretary of War, dated April 4th, and confess that what he there states surprises me greatly - following, as it does, and contradicting so positively, the assurance Mr. Crawford telegraphed he was "authorized" to make. I trust that this matter will be at once put in a correct light, as a movement made now, when the South has been erroneously informed that none such would be attempted, would produce most disastrous results throughout the country......I ought to have been informed that this expedition [to resupply the fort] was to come. Colonel Lamon's remark convinced me that the idea, merely hinted at to me by Captain Fox, would not be carried out.

We shall strive to do our duty, though I frankly say that my heart is not in this war, which I see is to be thus commenced." (April 8, 1861)

Anderson wrote the letter on the same day South Carolina's governor was informed about the coming of the resupply mission, the day after Anderson himself learned of the mission.

It is quite pellucid that Lincoln had a flagitious plan to get the South to fire on Ft. Sumter. It was evident from his letter to Fox that he was happy as a pig in mud with the success of his plan. "You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Ft Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result."

The New York Times believed that, "the attempt at reinforcement was a feint--that its object was to put upon the rebels the full and clear responsibility of commencing the war"

Bear in mind that Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia were Union. Fact. They remained loyal to the North until President Lincoln announced his intention to invade their neighbors, demanding they send troops to do so, in fact. These four then seceded, rejecting, along with the divided-border states of Kentucky and Missouri, Abraham Lincoln's illegal call to arms.

John Bell, the 1860 presidential candidate of the Constitutional Union party, from whom many moderates in the upper South took their cue, announced in Nashville on April 23 his support for a "united South" in "the unnecessary, aggressive, cruel, unjust wanton war which is being forced upon us."

One North Carolina unionist complained, "Union sentiment was largely in the ascendant and gaining strength until Lincoln prostrated us. He could have adopted no policy so effectual to destroy the union. . . . Lincoln has made us a unit until we repel the invaders or die."

Zebulon Vance, a rising political leader, had long argued for North Carolina to remain in the Union. While addressing a crowd to that very purpose, he received a telegram announcing Lincoln's actions. In Vance's own words, "My arm was extended upward pleading for peace and the Union of our Fathers. When my hand came down, it fell slowly and sadly by the side of a Secessionist."

In fact, many Americans in the North and South alike supported the Union, but even they believed that no one should be forced to stay in the Union. Colonel Robert E. Lee wrote, "I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. . . . Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords or bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me."

Horace Greeley editorialized in the New York Tribune, "We hope never to live in a republic whereof one section is pinned to the residue by bayonets."

One factor helping drive the northern citizens to war was the apprehension that the South would close the Mississippi, and that other sections of the nation might also secede. The fear of the possibility that the South would bar the Mississippi is ironic in that Lincoln’’s own railroad had done its iniquitous best to nullify Southern business on the river.

Ultimately, the most important issue pressing for war was complete and utter nationalism: the belief that the Union was indivisible and destined to overspread the entire continent. But, of course, the Union was only to spread as the Republicans desired. President Lincoln spoke of, "the mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land." But only for those willing to submit to doing things the northern way.

Yet such sentiments, however eloquent, offered no justification for war. Such a Union may be a good thing, but only if voluntary. It loses its appeal once "maintained by swords and bayonets."

President Lincoln's best argument would seem to have been that South Carolina committed an act of war by firing on Fort Sumter. But the Confederacy did not thereby open general hostilities, and the bombardment warranted at most a limited response, not a full-scale invasion.

It's like you own a house, you try to get a man out of it and you shove him...he pulls out a double-barreled shotgun, shoots you in the guts, and while you're laying there, he puts his knee on your neck, rubs your face into your own intestines on the floor and decides to go through your pockets, takes all your money, thinks "why not", steals everything out of your house, then sets fire to it. And then goes next door......

Lincoln deliberately invited conflict with his inimical plan to resupply the U.S. garrison in Charleston, and probably expected, correctly, that the incident would unite the northern public behind him. In short, Fort Sumter did not cause the civil war. Rather, it enabled Lincoln to successfully wage civil war on those who wished to be free.

Fort Sumter represented the South's legitimate claim to Independence, yet the ultimate cost of the war far exceeded its value to the union.

As Senator Henry Wilson of Massachusetts, after the Wilderness campaign in May 1864, said, "If that scene could have been presented to me before the war, anxious as I was for the preservation of the Union, I should have said: 'The cost is too great; erring sisters, go in peace.'"

The resulting cost of the retaliation for the firing on Fort Sumter was blatantly unconscionable.

It left over 620,000 soldiers dead; countless citizens dead or dispossessed; hundreds of thousands of hungry refugees; mass destruction of agriculture, community, and property throughout the South; sweeping and unrestricted violations of civil liberties in the north; and, of course, the republicans' ultimate goal: the centralization of national power that has increasingly intensified over the succeeding century.

Not to mention the legacy of suffering the south endured for well over a hundred years.


As Always,
YMOS
tommy

[unionblue]

Tommy,

Welcome back! And in strength, no less! I have missed you like a razor cut and a dull tooth ache! Good to see you back at it, my friend. You're wrong, of course, on several levels and points and I will address these shortly, but for now, I want to fully go over your above post, so I can wack you back good!

Sure missed you Tommy.

Unionblue

[thea_447]

Thanks, Tommy. Once again you've shown that fighting Rebel spirit that cries: Once more into the breech!

Your fellow Southrons salute you and hope you are feeling much better!

YMOS,

[johan_steele]

THea, do you know if any of the Cannon in Ft Sumter were built in the CSA? Or for that Matter Ft Pulaski or Ship Island? How about the rifles or powder in the armories?

Seems to me the CSA wanted Ft Sumter bad enough to start a shooting war over it.

[unionblue]

From the 'Did Lincoln declare War on the Confederacy?' thread on this board, and the post written by Rick McLeroy on Tuesday, June 18, 2002 - 09:06 pm:

From the Constitution of the United States, Article 1 Section 8
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;--

As you can see this Article plainly gives Congress "Exclusive legislation" over such forts, magazines, arsenals, etc., etc. This complete control is further augmented by Article IV section 3 paragraph 2:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

If there is further doubt as to the complete jurisdiction of Congress over such federal properties I refer you to United States vs Cornell in 1819 (25 Fed. Cas. 646, no. 14,867 C.C.D.R.I. 1819)

...The Constitution of the United States declares that congress shall have power to exercise "exclusive legislation" in all "cases whatsoever" over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings. When therefore a purchase of land for any of these purposes is made by the national government, and the state legislature has given its consent to the purchase, the land so purchased by the very terms of the Constitution ipso facto falls within the exclusive legislation of congress, <u>and the state jurisdiction is completely ousted.</u> (Justice Story)

The last sentence in this ruling aptly expresses the situation we find at Fort Sumter in 1860 but I need to back up a little to make this point perfectly clear. As you can see, the construction in this instance, and indeed the references to Fortifications in the Constitution, revolve around the neccessity of the State legislature first ceding any such property to the Federal Government.

On March 20, 1794, Congress approached the problem of the neccessity of such Fortifications. Calling upon the power vested in them by the aforementioned Article I section 8 of the Constitution, they passed 'An Act to Provide for the Defense of Certain Ports and Harbors in the United States.' This rather wordily titled act specifically called for such fortifications to be erected in Charleston Harbor (amongst various other places). Section 2 of this act provides that it "shall be lawful" for the President to employ as garrisons in any of these fortifications that the President shall deem neccessary. This section also calls for the placement of sundry cannon and artillery preparations as well. Section 3 of this act approached the Constitutional requirements of such fortifications by making it lawful for the President to accept cession of these properties from the state legislatures; provided that no purchase should be made where such lands are property of a state.

Another act was passed shortly afterwards to provide funds to accomplish the building of these fortifications. On May 3, 1798, Congress passed another act, concerning these fortifications titled 'An Act Supplementary to the Act Providing for the Further Defence of the Ports and Harbors of the United States.' This act called for a sum of $250,000 to be appropriated for the completion of such fortifications already underway. The states were concerned with the neccessity of such fortifications as there was some sabre rattling going on between Washington and Europe and were actively calling for the completion of such fortifications. If these huge expenditures were not enough, Section 2 of this same act made it lawful for the States themselves that were indebted to the United States Government to finish such preparations and take such expenses off of their debt to the Federal Government (within listed caps of course). However, as a provision to this clause; all such properties would expressly be declared and established as the property of the United States while maintained by them. To further bring this point home Section 3 of this same act repealed Section 3 of the earlier act which required the State Legislatures to formally cede these properties to the United States Government. By expressly tying the funding and further work upon such fortifications to cession of the property they sat upon, the United States Government became the lawful owner of Fort Sumter (amongst others) with the complete approval of the states.

At the time of the crisis at Fort Sumter; South Carolina, the United States Government, and the Confederate States Government considered the Fort to be the Lawful property of the United States Government. I would reiterate that an attempt to re-supply a lawful garrison on Federal property could hardly be logically construed as an "invasion" of South Carolina under these circumstances.

Some very thoughtful facts submitted by Rick, don't you think? And Thea, I think this pretty much destroys your idea that the Fort belonged to South Carolina, as it doesn't much matter where the building materials came from as the US Government used funds from acts of Congress (I.E. ALL the states as represented in that body).

As for Lincoln 'drawing' the South into the conflict, I do not consider the men in the Confederate government stupid enough to be drawn into anything. The South evaluated the situation and decided to fire on the Fort no matter the outcome of any resupply mission. The Fort had to go to convince the rest of the South to jump into the fire with the hot heads of the Deep South.

And Thea, it continues to amaze me that you feel that the fact the Southern artillery killed no one during the 36 hour seige is some how a point for secession, the south or some strange thing. I assure you, everytime a gun was fired on the Fort, it was not the intent of the gunners to save lives. It was simply by the grace of God that no one died until after the seige was over. And suggest away, but find me proof that Union ships did not want to help their fellows based on a plot their mission was 'already accomplished.'

Lincoln did not have to 'goad' anyone into war, all he had to do was simply wait. South Carolina could not wait to fire on the Fort and even officials in the Confederate Government were fearful of that fact.

Lincoln refused to pay for property that was the lawful property of the United States after the South, in an illegal rebellion, had stolen from the country. It's obvious to me the South leaped before it looked.

Enjoy your thread here, it looks like a doosey.

Tommy,

First Major Anderson moved his men because of his concern for their safety and to remove them so as not to create an aggressive act by being in such close contact with persons in rebellion.

As for Lincoln anticipating anything concerning the firing on Fort Sumter, that's about all the man could do. The order to fire had to come from the South. EACH side wanted the other to fire first and each side hoped it would be the other. The South blinked first and there stands a historical fact.

As for the idea that the South had not yet opened 'general hostilities' what about all the 'hostilities' even BEFORE secession and the firing on Fort Sumter? Taking federal troops prisioner, seizing Mints, Forts, Ships, Dock Yards, Arms, Magazines, and other assorted properties, and again I remind you, BEFORE any state had left the Union. And taking over the Southern half of the nation does represent an invasion as it was all the United States soil.

It's like you own a house you are trying to live in and someone breaks in to steal your stuff and he shoves a double-barreled shotgun, shoots you in the guts and says its all your fault. And then goes next door after setting up shop and installing his slave in your place.

The South (more to the point, its selfish, slaveowning leadership) decided to spend lives, blood, treasure and its future by firing on the Fort to gain more bodies for the fire of war from the undecided Border States. I lay at their feet the results of the war, the suffering of refugees and all the destruction brought about. As for the conspirisy of the republicans ultimate goal, the centralization of national power, bunk! You have to lay that at a Democrat's door, FDR during the 1930s &amp; 40s, when the government REALLY started getting into more central rule.

Nice to see you back, by the way.
Unionblue


(Message edited by Unionblue on January 21, 2004)

(Message edited by Unionblue on January 21, 2004)

Neil,

Well, that is mildly interesting. Legality if not reality. Did the north show proof of ownership? Did they present a deed or a title of ownership as evidence? Why did they not press the legality issue on the other places seized? Where did they file suit? What legal procedures had they put into motion?? None. Wonder why? What not use civil authorities rather than full scale military assault on an entire country?

Why the cold, calculated and dishonorable methods designed specifically to start a war rather than let the courts handle it?

Lincoln wanted war. You can talk legality but the reality is Lincoln wanted war.



YMOS
tommy



(Message edited by aphillbilly on January 21, 2004)

[unionblue]

Tommy,

What 'civil authorities'? You mean the Rebel government in rebellion against a lawfully elected President and government? Why deal with folks who are breaking the law and their word?

Why didn't the South present a case to the Supreme Court or introduce legislation on the floor of the Congress and the Senate to leave the Union? Why not a national referrendum to let the people decide? Why not a legal forum within the Government?

'Cause it would not have flown in ANY branch by the reasoning of the men who led the South to secession. If you start giving the people a choice, my GOD! They just might not agree with what you want and we can't have that.

An opinion,
Unionblue
PS I don't think you saw my rewrite to the above post.

(Message edited by Unionblue on January 21, 2004)