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.
This is more equivalant to shooting someone for cutting across your yard to feed their dog, however. Since after all, he was trespassing.
A truly awesome analogy!
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
To tell you the truth, I don't think the Brooklyn actually accompanied the Star of the West into Charleston Harbor.
More from Klein:
"That same day (Jan. 5) Buchanan also learned that South Carolina troops had put a new battery on Morris Island overlooking the harbor entrance. If Anderson felt secure, he asked Scott uneasily, why send an unarmed (my emphasis) ship into a potentially dangerous confrontation? They decided to recall the ship, but the Star of the West had already departed. Two days later (my emphasis) the Brooklyn was ordered to pursue and aid the Star. Would nothing in these wretched weeks go right? Buchanan wondered. For more than a month Anderson had pleaded for reinforcements, and now that they had finally been sent he suddenly stopped asking for them."
From me: I don't think the Brooklyn ever catches up to the Star because the Star, as previously noted, is faster. So apparently she enters the harbor as a single unarmed merchant vessel, hardly an invading warship.
"...On the 8th, Buchanan sent a special message to Congress stressing the gravity of the crisis and urging it to pass the Crittenden compromise or any similar measure. The seizure of federal forts, arsenals, and magazines by states that had not seceded had heightened the threat of war. These acts he labeled 'by far the most serious step which has been taken since the commencement of the troubles.' While pleading for peace, he reiterated his belief that "the right and duty to use military force defensively against those who resist the federal officers in the execution of their legal functions...is clear and undeniable. (Klein's emphasis). But he had done all he could; it was up to Congress now to act."
I would have to say, that 'war' was not even declared at that point in time, when the Star of the West and or Ft. Sumter were fired upon.
The ship was not declared a vessel of war but of resupplying the fort.
The fact that General Beauregard's forces fired upon the Star of the West and Ft. Sumter was an act of war. Up to that point only 'rebellion' was the term used. Aggressive attack --first shots were instituted by the newly established CSA. No different than Pearl Harbor or 9-11. USA was minding its own business when the Japanese planes attacked Pearl and terrorists attacked civilians turning airplanes into missles. Retalliation is to be expected.
I think Jeff Davis and Beauregard and any other 'officer' from the old US Army would know exactly what it meant to shoot at the ship and the fort. I see no excuses myself; as it is within the "Articles of War" for previous conflicts the US Army had; e.g. Mexican War, etc.
Just some thoughts.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
Invading warships? Um, no. Sorry. No invading warships. One merchant ship and one warship to defend it against attack by those who had taken up arms against the American government.
This is more equivalant to shooting someone for cutting across your yard to feed their dog, however. Since after all, he was trespassing.
Even that's not a good metaphor for it.
This isn't a statement that I would compare to what happened with firing on the federal warship. Does this mean that any country in the UN can have the right to have their battleships passing through the US waterways without our permission?
I would have to say, that 'war' was not even declared at that point in time, when the Star of the West and or Ft. Sumter were fired upon.
The ship was not declared a vessel of war but of resupplying the fort.
The fact that General Beauregard's forces fired upon the Star of the West and Ft. Sumter was an act of war. Up to that point only 'rebellion' was the term used. Aggressive attack --first shots were instituted by the newly established CSA. No different than Pearl Harbor or 9-11. USA was minding its own business when the Japanese planes attacked Pearl and terrorists attacked civilians turning airplanes into missles. Retalliation is to be expected.
I think Jeff Davis and Beauregard and any other 'officer' from the old US Army would know exactly what it meant to shoot at the ship and the fort. I see no excuses myself; as it is within the "Articles of War" for previous conflicts the US Army had; e.g. Mexican War, etc.
Just some thoughts.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
This is a problem here. I don't know why many thinks whoever fires the first shot is the one who started the war. Wars have never or not always been declared by whoever fires the first shot or sheds first blood. It's the events that leads to the firing of the first shot that brought war.
The reason why Japan bombed Pearl Harbor was because the US government had cut off economic trade with them since they were allied with Germany. The Japanese economy was crumbling and all they could see to revive it was through war.
When the US was going through the great depression, war brought the US out of it; World War II.
When the South seceded from the Union, the rich and the elite up North were losing money from all the tariff taxes they had passed on the South.
Your question does not relate to the situation in which the Confederates issued a de facto declaration of war by firing upon a ship of the United States, engaged in the act of resupplying a fort held and owned by the same nation.
So why are you asking?
Red herrings are a bad defense.
I don't know where your idea on how "he who started the war" is based on something other than he who begins attacking first came from, I really don't.
As to tariff taxes...government tariff taxes...
The North was getting rich off of its own successes and enterprises. The amount of money the government collected in tariffs is not how, even if they were (which is highly doubtful) unreasonable.
__________________ Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less. - Robert E. Lee
The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just. - Abraham Lincoln
Well, you see that the South's firing at Fort Sumpter was the declaration of war while I see that the invasion of the federal warship was a violation and a act of war.
Since we differ on that issue, there is no need nor should we argue against each other about that because that produces quarrels. I don't want to quarrel with anyone on differences in opinions about this great war subject.
This isn't a personal, petty trivial distinction with no real relevance.
It is the difference between the statement that the Southerners (the Confederacy, if you prefer) attacking the United States started the war (based on disinterested law) and the statement (unfounded in law past or present) that the mere presence of the USS Brooklyn, in order to protect the resupply of an American fort, meant that there was an 'invasion" South Carolina.
Now, if the Brooklyn had opened fire, that would be one thing. Or if the Confederacy was clearly and legally established as a recognized independent nation, it might be an offense (though not an act of war in and of itself) to bring the Brooklyn along.
As is, it wasn't recognized as an independent nation. It was recognized as part of the United States in rebellion against the government of said country, with the intent of becoming independent.
Whatever the rationalization of the Confederates opening fire, "self defense" doesn't hold water.
Thusly, they started the war.
I refuse to accept "agree to disagree" on something that's not subject to opinion.
__________________ Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less. - Robert E. Lee
The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just. - Abraham Lincoln
Well, you see that the South's firing at Fort Sumpter was the declaration of war while I see that the invasion of the federal warship was a violation and a act of war.
Neither am I interested in starting a quarrel, but I am interested to know why you insist the Star of the West to be a 'federal warship?'
She was a merchant vessel hired by the United States government, not owned or commissioned by same.
She was unarmed.
She entered the harbor alone.
She was resupplying a Federal garrison on property deeded to the United States government, and while I'm not a lawyer, I would guess she had legal right of access to Sumter (Somebody please correct me if I am wrong on this because I am curious to know). If she had a right to access, then what is she in violation of?
Even so, how does all of this constitute an invasion?
Even if you fast forward to April 12, 1861, the naval relief flotilla never got a chance to enter Charleston Harbor before the bombardment of the fort began. I've never understood how the relief mission — which was known by Gov. Pickens in advance — is considered an invasion.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Fort Sumter 
Linear Mode
