Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
And although the Major's move might now be considered deceptive and blunderous, to him, at the time, it was a way to protect his command from the obvious military buildup in Charleston and its environs.
Just out of curiousity, what Federal officers were attacked in the numerous cases in which Southern States seized Federal arsenals and forts across the South?
I believe that Major Anderson had assurances from the South Carolina officials that his command would not be molested as long as they stayed put and showed no aggressive action. His act (in occupying Fort Sumter) seems provocative, to say the least. He was under no real threat at Fort Moultrie.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
Just out of curiousity, what Federal officers were attacked in the numerous cases in which Southern States seized Federal arsenals and forts across the South?
Is it necessary that a Federal officer be attacked? It is the offense against the nation, not the property or army/navy personnel involved.
Quote:
I believe that Major Anderson had assurances from the South Carolina officials that his command would not be molested as long as they stayed put and showed no aggressive action. His act (in occupying Fort Sumter) seems provocative, to say the least. He was under no real threat at Fort Moultrie.
Perhaps there was no real threat at Moultrie. Perhaps there was. To him, it certainly looked like it with all the activity going on around him. Assurances from a potentially hostile force can never be taken seriously (like assurances from Mississippi and Louisiana that the river would remain open).
Moving a small force of musicians, civilians, and regulars from a perceived vulnerable position to one of greater safety, but no greater danger to Charleston does not now appear provocative. Could the secessionists have been looking for anything they could call provocative?
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 believe that Major Anderson had assurances from the South Carolina officials that his command would not be molested as long as they stayed put and showed no aggressive action. His act (in occupying Fort Sumter) seems provocative, to say the least. He was under no real threat at Fort Moultrie.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
Obviously, Major Anderson did not agree with you. He felt there was danger in remaining:
No. 11.] FORT SUMTER S. C., December 26, 1860--8 p.m.
(Received A. G. O., December 29.)
COLONEL: I have the honor to report that I have just completed, by the blessing of God, the removal to this fort of all of my garrison, except the surgeon, four non-commissioned officers, and seven men. We have one year's supply of hospital stores and about four months' supply of provisions for my command. I left orders to have all the guns at Fort Moultrie spiked, and the carriages of the 32-pounders, which are old, destroyed. I have sent orders to Captain Foster, who remains at Fort Moultrie, to destroy all the ammunition which he cannot send over. The step which I have taken was, in my opinion, necessary to prevent the effusion of blood.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
ROBERT ANDERSON,
Major, First Artillery, Commanding.
Col. S. COOPER,
Adjutant-General.
[Telegram. ]
WAR DEPARTMENT,
Adjutant-General's Office, December 27, 1860.
Major ANDERSON, Fort Moultrie:
Intelligence has reached here this morning that you have abandoned Fort Moultrie, spiked your guns, burned the carriages, and gone to Fort Sumter. It is not believed, because there is no order for any such movement. Explain the meaning of this report.
J. B. FLOYD,
Secretary of War.
[ Telegram. ]
CHARLESTON, December 27, 1860.
Hon. J. B. FLOYD, Secretary of War:
The telegram is correct. I abandoned Fort Moultrie because I was certain that if attacked my men must have been sacrificed, and the command of the harbor lost. I spiked the guns and destroyed the carriages to keep the guns from being used against us.
If attacked, the garrison would never have surrendered without a fight.
ROBERT ANDERSON,
Major, First Artillery.
----
No. 12.] FORT SUMTER, S.C., December 27, 1860.
(Received A. G. O., December 31.)
COLONEL: I had the honor to reply this afternoon to the telegram of the honorable Secretary of War in reference to the abandonment of Fort Moultrie. In addition to the reasons given in my telegram and in my letter of last night, I will add as my opinion that many things convinced me that the authorities of the State designed to proceed to a hostile act. Under this impression I could not hesitate that it was my solemn duty to move my command from a fort which we could not probably have held longer than forty-eight or sixty hours, to this one, where my power of resistance is increased to a very great degree. The governor of this State sent down one of his aides to-day and demanded, "courteously, but peremptorily," that I should return my command to Fort Moultrie. I replied that I could not and would not do so. He stated that when the governor came into office he found that there was an understanding between his predecessor and the President that no re-enforcements were to be sent to any of these forts, and particularly to this one, and that I had violated this agreement by having re-enforced this fort. I remarked that I had not re-enforced this command, but that I had merely transferred my garrison from one fort to another, and that, as the commander of this harbor, I had a right to move my men into any fort I deemed proper. I told him that the removal was made on my own responsibility, and that I did it because we were in a position that we could not defend, and also under the firm belief that it was the best means of preventing bloodshed. This afternoon an armed steamer, one of two which have been watching these two forts, between which they have been passing to and fro or anchored for the last ten nights, took possession by escalade of Castle Pinckney. Lieutenant Meade made no resistance. He is with us to-night. They also <ar1_4> took possession to-night of Fort Moultrie, from which I withdrew the remainder of my men this afternoon, leaving the fort in charge of the overseer of the men employed by the Engineer Department. We have left about one month's and a half of provisions in that fort; also some wood and coal and a small quantity of ammunition. We are engaged here to-day in mounting guns and in closing up some of the openings for the embrasures--temporarily closed by light boards, but which would offer but slight resistance to persons seeking entrance. If the workmen return to their work, which I doubt, we shall be enabled in three or four days to have a sufficient number of our guns mounted, and be ready for anything that may occur.
I am, colonel, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ROBERT ANDERSON,
Major, First Artillery, Commanding.
Col. S. COOPER,
Adjutant-General.
Just out of curiousity, what Federal officers were attacked in the numerous cases in which Southern States seized Federal arsenals and forts across the South?
I believe that Major Anderson had assurances from the South Carolina officials that his command would not be molested as long as they stayed put and showed no aggressive action. His act (in occupying Fort Sumter) seems provocative, to say the least. He was under no real threat at Fort Moultrie.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
Well, clearly the garrison of Ft. Sumter was. Then there was the force in Texas, and all the other posts across the South, that the secessionists occupied through the threat of force. Or are you not "attacked" if they act politely and don't shoot you, only take your property against your will through threats?
STEAMSHIP BALTIC, OFF SANDY HOOK,
April 18, 1861--10.30 a.m.--via New York.
Having defended Fort Sumter for thirty-four hours, until the quarters were entirely burned, the main gates destroyed by fire, the gorge walls seriously injured, the magazine surrounded by flames, and its door closed from the effects of heat, four barrels and three cartridges of powder only being available, and no provisions remaining but pork, I accepted terms of evacuation offered by General Beauregard, being the same offered by him on the 11th instant, prior to the commencement of hostilities, and marched out of the fort Sunday afternoon, the 14th instant, with colors flying and drums beating, bringing away company and private property, and saluting my flag with fifty guns.
ROBERT ANDERSON,
Major, First Artillery, Commanding.
Hon. S. CAMERON,
Secretary of War, Washington.
-----------
This delivered by Ben McCulloch with a large force of Texas militia surrounding General twiggs HQ in San Antonio:
SAN ANTONIO, February 16, 1861--6 o'clock a.m.
SIR: You are hereby required, in the name and by the authority of the People of the State of Texas, in Convention assembled, to deliver up all military posts and public property held by or under your control.
Respectfully, yours, &c.,
THOS. J. DEVINE,
S. A. MAVERICK,
P. N. LUCKETT,
Commissioners on behalf of the Committee of Public Safety.
To the OFFICER IN COMMAND of the Department of Texas.
-------
Tim, it appears you have fallen into the selectivity trap again.
Well, no. However I note that you have very carefully skipped over the parts where Lee says exactly what I attributed to him in the quotes you provide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
When I read Lee's words that: "...the South, in my opinion has been aggrieved by the acts of the North..."
and, "...a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness has no charm for me....";
and, "...I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and her institutions, and would defend any State if her rights were invaded...."
Why bother to break this up? It is all continuous in the letter to Custis, but you have rearranged the order and made it appear that it came from a number of sources instead of one paragraph in a letter. For that matter, you left quite a bit out. Let's take a look, shall we, at what Lee actually said. The parts you chose to be "selective" about are in italics. The parts you chose to ignore are in blue.
-----
From a letter of Lee to his son,
Fort Mason, San Antonio P.O.
29 Jany 1861
My dear Son
... [Note: this omitted part deals with family and financial matters] ...
The South in my opinion has been aggrieved by the acts of the North as you say. I feel the aggression, & am willing to take every proper step for redress. It is the principle I contend for, not individual or private benefit. As an American citizen I take great pride in my country, her prosperity & institutions & would defend any State if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, & I am willing to sacrifice every thing but honour for its preservation. I hope therefore that all Constitutional means will be exhausted, before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for perpetual
[
sic] union, so expressed in the preamble,& for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jeffersons Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now? Still a union that can only be maintained by swords & bayonets, & in which strife & civil war are to take the place of brotherly love & kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country, & for the welfare & progress of mankind. If the Union is dissolved & the government disrupted, I shall return to my native State & share the miseries of my people & save in her defence will draw my sword on none. Give much love to Charlotte to my dear little son & believe me always your devoted father
R.E. Lee
----
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
...then, it appears very clearly to me that the quote does indeed express his view, and that Lee did indeed believe in secession; and was willing to back that belief up with his sword in defense of that right.
Amazingly enough, you skipped exactly what I had told you Lee had said. How'd that happen? Were you being "selective" here? If so, doesn't that make the quotes you provide rather, well, suspect and unreliable?
As noted above, Lee specifically says that "Secession is nothing but revolution." and "It is idle to talk of secession." He also states: "... In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jeffersons Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now? ..."
Pretty clear on it, wasn't he? How come you wish to blot out his words here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
Lee believed Virginia was wrong?
Obviously. He said as much to his son, that secession did not exist as a right. He just viewed his primary loyalty as belonging to Virginia, and so he would follow her anyway. For example, Lee to his friend Charles Anderson (brother of Major Anderson at Ft. Sumter) in San Antonio after Twiggs surrendered the US posts in Texas: "I think it but due to myself to say that I cannot be moved by the conduct of those people from my sense of duty. I still think, as I then told you and Doctor Edwards, that my loyalty to Virginia ought to take precedence over that which is due the Federal Government. And I shall so report myself at Washington. If any stands by the old Union, so will I. But if she secedes (though I do not believe in secession as a constitutional right, nor that there is sufficient cause for revolution), then I will still follow my native state with my sword, and if need be with my life. I know you think and feel very differently, but I can't help it. These are my principles, and I must follow them."
So once again, Lee did not believe in the "right of secession", and he would follow Virginia whichever way she went.
Not surprising. Lee was convinced that the war with Mexico was unjust as well (just as Grant did), and wrote a letter stating such when he received his orders to go there. He went anyway, because he believed it was his duty as a soldier to obey the orders of his country. The only difference in 1861 is that his loyalty to Virginia split him off from the United States. He still knew what he believed, and said so very, very clearly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
Not a chance.Hal
I am glad we cleared that up. If you had been betting here, you would have lost money.
The Confederacy did not strike the first blow. The Confederacy did not draw first blood. The Confederacy didn't reject talks to discuss grievances. The Confederacy asked only to be allowed to go their own way.
You are kidding, aren't you?
The 3,000+ rounds of heavy artillery fired at Ft. Sumter don't count as a blow? The siege of both Sumter and Ft. Pickens don't count? The use of armed force, even if not lethal, by all the seceding states to grab what they wanted without due process of law (violating even their own state constitutuions? Or the seizure of federal property, the taking of federal funds, the economic threats against Northern merchants and even those states that had not yet seceded? Firing on a US flag merchant vessel?
"Their own way", as elaborated by the Fire-Eaters, included the seizure of large amounts of property and the use of armed force to get their own way, to be followed by a planned expansion into Cuba, Mexico, Central America, etc. Oh, yeah, and the re-opening of the Atlantic slave trade if you were from the Deep South, particularly SC. Apparently "their own way" involved a lot of stepping on other people for the leaders of secession in the 1850s.
Take a look at that "entire picture" you like to talk about. You seem to have again covered up a very large part of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
But the US would not allow them to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination.
This would be the right of secession? That was a very debatable "right" at the time. Many Americans, including many Southerners like Lee, did not believe it existed. Many of those same Americans also believed that there was no power to compel a state to stay by force (Lee seems to have fallen into this group from his reaction to Lincoln's call for troops.)
I cannot recall the US exhibiting any tendency to let parts of the nation have an "inalienable right to self-determination" in the nineteenth century. Can you?
I don't think it ever had anything to do with North or South -- it was simply an American way of thinking, particularly under Manifest Destiny. The first example I can think of would be, oh, Cuba, maybe. Maybe the Phillipines after WWII. Anything or anybody else?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
Not at all. I prefer to view the entire picture rather than just one corner of it. Right Neil?
Well, no. As noted in my other post, you threw a blanket over all the parts of Lee's letter you didn't like. We can't really say you are trying to see the "entire picture" here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
As Jefferson so eloquently pointed out, the tree of liberty requires fertilization every now and then.
Yes. Applies to lots of situations. There is little evidence that the South was seceding over any "liberty" other than the liberty of having slaves -- and the North hadn't done anything to take that away when they seceded. This is what is known as trial by combat, or the "natural right of revolution" in mid-nineteenth cenury America. It is based on nothing but the power to make it succeed -- and the political philosophers of the day believed you were in the wrong if you started a revolution without having the power to succeed. Win and you were obviously in the right. The South, as noted, lost when they attempted this trial, by their own choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
"Rebellion" against a government that had turned its back upon the Constitution seems neither dishonorable nor treasonous to me.
Come on. Setting up your own straw man to shoot at doesn't prove anything. What unconstitutional act had the government done? Nothing at all, maybe? And if it had, it was the agreed-upon responsibility and oath of all the parties to take such a dispute to the courts under the Constitution. Please show where the South did so.
Meanwhile, the seceeding states acts were later ruled to have no force of law by the courts -- granted, only after 4 years of war and the resulting situation. Granted, with dispatch, because no one wanted that can of worms opened. As noted, I think the South might have had a good chance in court in 1861, if they had bothered to act legally instead of resorting to violence. But they chose to throw that opportunity away.
The whole letter does seem to be viewed in a different light when it is viewed in its entirety and not just selectively.
Nice work, trice.
Sincerely,
Unionblue aka Neil
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
I note that you have very carefully skipped over the parts where Lee says exactly what I attributed to him in the quotes you provide.
I skipped something?
You claimed Lee thought Virginia and secession were wrong. I showed that he considered secession to be the lessor of the two evils and that you misappropriated his comments regarding his longing to keep the union intact.
Quote:
Amazingly enough, you skipped exactly what I had told you Lee had said. How'd that happen? Were you being "selective" here? If so, doesn't that make the quotes you provide rather, well, suspect and unreliable?
Pardon me, but I didn't realize that your claim was that Lee said anything at all.
I thought you said Lee believed secession and Virginia's decision to secede were wrong, and that he was with Lincoln on that point.
I believe you made an inaccurate statement regarding Lee's beliefs about secession, and so I corrected you.
He felt the aggressions and oppressions of the north, and the denial of the rights of his southern brethren, and then took up arms and contended for the principles involved.
He said the south had been wronged by the north.
He voiced his disgust with a union maintained by swords and bayonets, and said he would come to the defense of any state whose rights were invaded by the feds (not just Virginia). And thus he did.
He made a long list of the wrongs perpetrated upon the southern people by the feds, and explained his army's presence among them to give them relief from those wrongs.
He explained that the south (the seceders) only contended for the supremacy of the constitution, and the just and true and pure administration of those laws was the reason for the discontent.
Yes, Lee's words and actions showed his feelings about secession.
Quote:
The only difference in 1861 is that his loyalty to Virginia split him off from the United States. He still knew what he believed, and said so very, very clearly.
Yes, he said so very, very, clearly, "...I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and her institutions, and would defend any State if her rights were invaded...."
Did he think those rights were invaded?
Yes, he said so, very, very, clearly,
"Feeling the aggression of the North, resenting their denial of the equal rights of our citizens to the common territory of the commonwealth, etc,..."
"...I feel the aggression and am willing to take every proper step for redress. It is the principle that I contend for, not for individual or private benefit....";
"[The Southern States] have seen with profound indignation their sister-State deprived of every right and reduced to the condition of a conquered province....."
"...the South, in my opinion has been aggrieved by the acts of the North..."
"...have long wished to aid you in throwing off this foreign yoke, to enable you again to enjoy the inalienable rights of freemen and restore independence and sovereignty to your State....";
Quote:
I am glad we cleared that up. If you had been betting here, you would have lost money.
Regards,
Tim
Yes, I'm glad you are clear on the point now. It is unbecoming to pretend Lee's ony reason for fighting against the Union was Virginia.
Though Lee, like many Southerners, would have preferred to remain in the Union, if the laws were administered justly, he saw the wrongs perpetrated on the South, and out of an honorable desire to contend for truth and correct principles, he took up arms to defend those rights, as the lessor of two evils.
I think I feel the extra jingle in my pocket. Thank you Tim.
And Neil, I'm quite disppointed in you. You should know me better than that.
The 3,000+ rounds of heavy artillery fired at Ft. Sumter don't count as a blow? The siege of both Sumter and Ft. Pickens don't count?
The use of armed force, even if not lethal, by all the seceding states to grab what they wanted without due process of law (violating even their own state constitutuions? Or the seizure of federal property, the taking of federal funds, the economic threats against Northern merchants and even those states that had not yet seceded? Firing on a US flag merchant vessel?
I thought the question was about striking the first blow?
You are moving the target on me!! Please, keep it still!!!
Quote:
I cannot recall the US exhibiting any tendency to let parts of the nation have an "inalienable right to self-determination" in the nineteenth century. Can you?
So, the "inalienable right to self-determination" is not inalienable?
If it is inalienable, then how does the US "let" them exercise the inalienable right?
Is it inalienable, or is it not?
Quote:
There is little evidence that the South was seceding over any "liberty" other than the liberty of having slaves -- and the North hadn't done anything to take that away when they seceded.
How can you expect me to take you seriously when you make a statement like this?
Quote:
This is what is known as trial by combat, or the "natural right of revolution" in mid-nineteenth cenury America.
You keep throwing in the "nineteenth century" in the same sentence when you are discussing rights -- as if contemporary politics somehow alters the "inalienable rights" of the people.
Quote:
What unconstitutional act had the government done? Nothing at all, maybe?
Surely, you jest?
Instead of me wasting my breath and reciting to you the rulings of the supreme court, for starters, perhaps you could review a few of them and then list some for us here.
Quote:
And if it had, it was the agreed-upon responsibility and oath of all the parties to take such a dispute to the courts under the Constitution. Please show where the South did so.
Good, you mention the courts. See the above.
I thought that under the rule of law, the burden is on the accuser to show that a law was broken. Secession broke no law, and was not prohibitted by the constitution.
Quote:
I think the South might have had a good chance in court in 1861, if they had bothered to act legally instead of resorting to violence. But they chose to throw that opportunity away.
Regards,
Tim
Since when is the burden on the accused to prove that he broke no law?
In Soviet Russia or Cuba maybe, but not in a free society ruled by the law.
It is because I have come to know you (a bit) that I respect you in debate and the way you diligently and relentlessly present your own view of the late war.
I am sorry that I always seem to be disapointing you. I do secretly admit that I view it as a good sign for myself, in spite of my sincere regret at continuing to do so. It is my rather fervent hope that I do not cause you too much distress by your continual disapointment with my own views of the war and its cause. You are very much my compass, Hal, and I appreciate that you for you the needle points South while for me it points North. You keep me on track and from losing my historical way.
You are very, very good, and your passion and devotion to the cause you have chosen to represent is to be admired, even from my little corner.
But, in my own humble opinion, when Trice presented the entire letter by Lee, it is my own corner's view that the sum of its parts does speak a bit louder then selected quotes here and there, carefully selected to present to the audience here to come to the conclusion you most desire to direct them to.
I have always admired your ability to take verified historical sources and use them with great effect and skill in forwarding your arguments. No one on this board can say you have 'created' history out of thin air or fabricated any source to support your view of the late Confederacy. You have never done so and I know you never will.
But I feel Trice has done well to present the entire document allowing all here to come to their own conclusions on the matter. There can be no such thing as too little information on something as tragic as the Civil War.
And I feel I am beginning to know you a little more as a result. I just hope Trice learns more about you while there is still time.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
