Fort Sumter

[unionblue]

Originally Posted by DHPatrick

Battalion,

Thanks, you may be right. ...but I truly have to say I have a greater expectation in the members of this site. I think they will all do it proud. If I can have a second and third, I will begin my thoughts in the matter.

DHPatrick,

Pray, continue sir.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[matthew mckeon]

I can guarentee my own civility, but not that I might disagree with something you write.

[DHPatrick]

Originally Posted by matthew mckeon

I can guarentee my own civility, but not that I might disagree with something you write.

Unionblue and matthew mckeon

I'll take that as two votes of acceptance.

I will appear to be pro-South, so please give me some leeway in the matter.

As I take it, the Governor warned the North about sending re-inforcements to his State. Am I correct or am I wrong? Further, if his State was suceeding from the Union did his proclamation have some merit - or no merit? Did the North recognize this merit? Please consider the subsequent events.

[Parrott Gun]

Originally Posted by DHPatrick

Unionblue and matthew mckeon

I'll take that as two votes of acceptance.

I will appear to be pro-South, so please give me some leeway in the matter.

As I take it, the Governor warned the North about sending re-inforcements to his State. Am I correct or am I wrong? Further, if his State was suceeding from the Union did his proclamation have some merit - or no merit? Did the North recognize this merit? Please consider the subsequent events.

Lincoln specifically told Governor Pickens that he was only sending provisions. No attempt would be made to supply the fort with munitions or reinforcements if the attempt to supply it with provisions was not resisted. Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter soon after this message from Lincoln was received, before the fleet arrived to resupply Fort Sumter.

IMO, sending food to hungry men is not an act of aggression.

[M E Wolf]

Dear DHPatrick;

The problem concerning Fort Sumter was; that it was a US Government fort that was occupied.

It was on state soil however; the problem is/was; the legal rights to access the fort when it became an island per se. In property law; if you bought a house that existed before you bought it; say on a farm and the farm was broken up into patches; suddenly--you have no road or way to get there; without trespassing on someone else's property. So, that was the problem. You have a right to access your house but, the legal problem--how to do so without violating other's rights?

Then on top of that; having given the US Government permission to have a fort by agreement in the past and past administration; then suddenly when secession rears its head; the state that Ft. Sumter sat upon said; in affect -- "We declare Ft Sumter ours because its on our soil." Problem is/was -- it was 'gifted'/'given'/appropriated for the national defense--by that state to the US Government a patch of land for the fort and it would be 'fairly reasonably' self contained. So, as I see it - the state gave the land to the US Government to build Ft. Sumter and then a generation or so later-they want it back -- ok; so would you give a gift given by others in an earlier and more friendly time? Or, give it back without compensation? Well, the state didn't want to compensate the US Government--they wanted to seize it. And, seized it they did--which would be, to me--no different from snatching a gift of times past; now my property due to being a gift; is being stolen. Or, no different if I gave you a gift and months later (to be fast here); demand it back and if you don't give it back--I take it back; no matter how much you protest and or ignore your request for equal value to replace the snatched item.

Where it should have gone; was to court. The ownership rights to Ft. Sumter should have gone there first; to establish ownership, compensation and whatever loose ends there were.

Personally, I don't think it was a Southern/Northern political issue but, entirely legal. Rights of the US Government to operate the fort, to which was there and a state who wants it back.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

[DHPatrick]

Originally Posted by Parrott Gun

Lincoln specifically told Governor Pickens that he was only sending provisions. No attempt would be made to supply the fort with munitions or reinforcements if the attempt to supply it with provisions was not resisted. Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter soon after this message from Lincoln was received, before the fleet arrived to resupply Fort Sumter.

IMO, sending food to hungry men is not an act of aggression.

Parrott Gun,

Certainly, to be fair I have to consider what you have to say. Why would the South believe their secession gave them any special rights in their own State territory? If they succeed from the Union - could the Union continue to expect to own territory in that State or not? Why did the North vacant several other forts and consolidate at Fort Sumter - did they know what to expect?

Did the governor limit his talk in terms of resupply or not? Why did the Union send this particular kind of ship? Why did they attempt to stop that ship after they received Major Anderson's message?

I believe these questions all weigh in on the facts - or do they not?

[matthew mckeon]

Guys,
I'm repeating myself a little. But let's go back to the 1860s.

1. The firing on Ft. Sumter is not due to a technicality about who owned the land, or the deed etc. Who is 1861 seriously thought that was the issue?

2. Fort Sumter did not pose a military threat to South Carolina. Fully provisioned, and with ten times the garrison, it wouldn't pose a significant threat.

It's all your point of view:
If you're a Confederate, trying to jump start a new nation, Ft. Sumter flying the American flag in the heart of secession is an intolerable situation. If the Confederacy is a real, sovereign nation, then it has the right to ask foreign troops to remove themselves.

If you're Abraham Lincoln, trying to preserve the Union, Ft. Sumter, flying the American flag in the heart of secession is an essential promise that the Union will be perserved, secession is not legitimate, and the Confederacy is not a real, sovereign nation.

The infant Confederacy couldn't tolerate a Union Ft. Sumter, the Adminstration couldn't tolerate any further retreat on secession.

[DHPatrick]

Originally Posted by matthew mckeon

Guys,
I'm repeating myself a little. But let's go back to the 1860s.

1. The firing on Ft. Sumter is not due to a technicality about who owned the land, or the deed etc. Who is 1861 seriously thought that was the issue?

2. Fort Sumter did not pose a military threat to South Carolina. Fully provisioned, and with ten times the garrison, it wouldn't pose a significant threat.

It's all your point of view:
If you're a Confederate, trying to jump start a new nation, Ft. Sumter flying the American flag in the heart of secession is an intolerable situation. If the Confederacy is a real, sovereign nation, then it has the right to ask foreign troops to remove themselves.

If you're Abraham Lincoln, trying to preserve the Union, Ft. Sumter, flying the American flag in the heart of secession is an essential promise that the Union will be perserved, secession is not legitimate, and the Confederacy is not a real, sovereign nation.

The infant Confederacy couldn't tolerate a Union Ft. Sumter, the Adminstration couldn't tolerate any further retreat on secession.

matthew mckeon,

I have to agree with you. It is truly a matter of perspective. The North wanted to preserve the Union, the South wanted independance. I don't think either was necesarily wrong, but also agree there may be some element where neither were necessarily right either - that is if you consider the position of both sides in these matters.

If there is additional discussion to this point, I'm willing wait, else I'm prepared to move on to the next point. I certainly do not want to be guilty of pushing the discussion, but also do not want to tarry. I'll wait another day or two for any follow on discussion reguarding these matters.

[Parrott Gun]

Originally Posted by DHPatrick

Parrott Gun,
Did the governor limit his talk in terms of resupply or not? Why did the Union send this particular kind of ship? Why did they attempt to stop that ship after they received Major Anderson's message?

I believe these questions all weigh in on the facts - or do they not?

Honestly, I don't think those questions are all that relevant. I'm certainly not the first to make this comparison, but I think the whole situation is closely paralleled by the situation at Guantanamo Bay.

We signed a lease with Cuba at a time when they were our friend. They've been trying to get us to leave since the 1950's but there is nothing they can do about it short of attacking the base and starting a war with the United States. Do you think they would be justified in doing this?

It's exactly the same case with Fort Sumter. South Carolina ceded the title to Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie in the 1840's at a time when they were a friend of the Federal Government. If secession was constitutional—which IMO it was not—then South Carolina was a sovereign state when they ceded the title to the Federal Government. They had no legal right to take it back just because the relationship between them and the Federal government changed, just as Cuba has no legal right to take back Guantanamo Bay just because the relationship between them and the United States has changed.

[unionblue]

Originally Posted by DHPatrick

matthew mckeon,

I have to agree with you. It is truly a matter of perspective. The North wanted to preserve the Union, the South wanted independance. I don't think either was necesarily wrong, but also agree there may be some element where neither were necessarily right either - that is if you consider the position of both sides in these matters.

DHPatrick, in my own view, you are trying too hard to say "I don't think either was necesarily wrong, but also agree there may be some element where neither were necessarily right either." So we are left with the end result that the South was not wrong with the untried, untested, wholly without precedent, unilateral secession ploy. And the idea that unilateral secession was only employed to protect the intstitution of slavery. And that all of the illegal acts up and until the firing on Ft. Sumter was "not necessarily wrong or not necessarily right." That equates to a free pass for the South, no matter what it did to bring on the crisis.

If there is additional discussion to this point, I'm willing wait, else I'm prepared to move on to the next point. I certainly do not want to be guilty of pushing the discussion, but also do not want to tarry. I'll wait another day or two for any follow on discussion reguarding these matters.

A revolution does not start with both sides not being wrong or right. Someone brings it on or someone has issues that bring it on. It does not start in a complete political and social vacuum.

IMO.

Unionblue