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.
Effectively, negotiations never got that far, since neither Buchanan nor Lincoln felt they could accept the papers of both the state and the CSA delegates. In many cases, states seized the property first, without any offer of negotiations -- a clear violation of due process under their own laws, if nothing else.
Regards,
Tim
You seem to be referring to incidents after the initiatation of hostilities of 12/26?
Prior to that unfortunate event, the SC convention (not the CSA) sent three commisioners to Washington "authorized and empowered to treat with the Government of the United States for the delivery of the forts, magazines, light-houses, and other real with their appurtenances, within the limits of South Carolina, and also for an apportionment of the public debt and for a division of all other property held by the Government of the United States as agent of the confederated States, of which South Carolina, was recently a member; and, generally, to negotiate as to all other measures and arrangements proper to be made and adopted in the existing relations of the parties, and for the continuance of peace and amity between this Commonwealth and the Government at Washington"
Effectively, negotiations never got that far, since neither Buchanan nor Lincoln felt they could accept the papers of both the state and the CSA delegates. In many cases, states seized the property first, without any offer of negotiations -- a clear violation of due process under their own laws, if nothing else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
You seem to be referring to incidents after the initiatation of hostilities of 12/26?
Nope. To begin with, no "hostilities" were initiated on that date. In addition, Buchanan had already refused to accept the first delegation from South Carolina more than two weeks before that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
Prior to that unfortunate event, the SC convention (not the CSA) sent three commisioners to Washington "authorized and empowered to treat with the Government of the United States for the delivery of the forts, magazines, light-houses, and other real with their appurtenances, within the limits of South Carolina, and also for an apportionment of the public debt and for a division of all other property held by the Government of the United States as agent of the confederated States, of which South Carolina, was recently a member; and, generally, to negotiate as to all other measures and arrangements proper to be made and adopted in the existing relations of the parties, and for the continuance of peace and amity between this Commonwealth and the Government at Washington"
The delegates had certainly been sent. They had not been accepted by the US government. Among other things, accepting the paper you just quoted puts the US government in the position of having already acknowledged the secession of South Carolina: something that neither Lincoln nor Buchanan felt they had the power to do under the Constitution. Ergo, they could not accept the delegation, a point which I believe South Carolina understood before they sent them. In effect, nice try by South Carolina, but life is rarely that easy.
Prior to their being sent, the state of South Carolina had voted in a military appropriation of $100,000 (legislature of 1859), the Governor of SC had requested 10,000 Volunteers be raised (legislature of 1860, convening November 5, 1860) and the legislature of 1860 had authorized the Governor to spend the $100,000 the same day. In case anyone is wondering, this is the day before the official 1860 Election Day. SC troops were then called up and, IIRR, surrounded the US Arsenal in Charleston on about November 12, 1860. Some of the men from that force were later used to patrol Charleston harbor, and were on the steamboat Major Anderson's force had to evade as they moved to Ft. Sumter on December 26. Also, of course, the Governor of SC went directly from the Secession Convention to the nearby military encampment on December 20 to read the declaration aloud, and the artillery company there began firing guns as part of the celebration as the infantry cheered.
Now if you want to talk about "hostilities", the military actions of the outgoing South Carolina governor and the SC legislatures of 1859 and 1860 mentioned above are much closer to "hostilities" than Major Anderson's move from one Federal post to another. They are also more than a month before Anderson's move, and become the start of these "hostilities" if you want to play this game -- and beating Lincoln's call for troops by some 5 months and more, to boot.
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
This quote is to be taken to mean that South Carolina attempted to peacefully settle the questions of ownership and to acquire government property with fair compensation. For these apparent intentions, South Carolina ought to be appreciated for doing the right thing.
However, the commission had the misfortune of attempting to negotiate with a president who wanted nothing more than to hide in his office until March 4. And, who hadn't the power to negotiate for the sale of US property in the first place.
I suppose a state has a right to petition the government for recovery of federal property, and to negotiate for a mutually agreeable exchange. The problem: South Carolina had declared that it was no longer a state.
Consider the uniqueness of the situation: A state, now calling itself a foreign soverign, wants to buy back property it had given to the US and to settle on its portion of debt incurred while it was a state. Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? I'm unaware of any precedent for such a situation in 1860. Had the commission obtained audience, the debates in Congress would certainly have dragged on for years (if the southern representatives hadn't walked out.
It was a nice try, but a foolish one. Sounds more like a pipe dream intended to paint a veneer of legitimacy on secession. But that's just an observation.
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
You embarrass me! But I thank you very much for your kind words.
Meant every word, hawglips. I hope I didn't give others the idea that you were ever correct--just a very worthy proponent.
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
Nope. To begin with, no "hostilities" were initiated on that date.
According to the victors' spin, of course not. According to the South Carolinians, it was an open act of war. According to Major Anderson, the act that initiated hostilities was the Fox Expedition.
According to the victors' spin, of course not. According to the South Carolinians, it was an open act of war. According to Major Anderson, the act that initiated hostilities was the Fox Expedition.
One of the things I have noticed online over the last 20 years is a tendency for those who call themselves "Southern" loudly to ignore all prior events and acts committed by secessionists. Looks like you are at it here. Part of the responsibility of debating these issues is to include all the acts of both sides -- not to carefully avoid the ones you don't like.
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
One of the things I have noticed online over the last 20 years is a tendency for those who call themselves "Southern" loudly to ignore all prior events and acts committed by secessionists. Looks like you are at it here. Part of the responsibility of debating these issues is to include all the acts of both sides -- not to carefully avoid the ones you don't like.
Regards,
Tim
Tim, I am not the one who said that the South Carolinians had no reason to be upset about the Moultrie to Sumter fiasco.
I find it hard to believe that you sincerely believe that, particularly since it so well documented. Avoidance? It has all the appearance of such.
Tim, I am not the one who said that the South Carolinians had no reason to be upset about the Moultrie to Sumter fiasco.
I find it hard to believe that you sincerely believe that, particularly since it so well documented. Avoidance? It has all the appearance of such.
Nope. I understand perfectly that they were upset. I just think it is silly to believe they were treated badly. But if so -- because of the foolishness with Buchanan and a "gentlemen's agreement" that seems to be regarded as only binding one side -- then you must also acknowledge that the chain of events before December 26th exists and that it contains many more egregious, aggressive acts by the South Carolina side. The problem with your argument is that you find fault only with one side.
Given the situation and the orders he had, Anderson's act is perfectly reasonable. I would say he was virtually required to make the move when his judgement said it was the best way to safeguard his command. At least part of the upset on the South Carolina side is realizing that Anderson was now harder to get at, and they could no longer seize Ft. Sumter to blast Ft. Moultrie with. In short, they had lost a turn in the game they thought would go their way.
But Ft. Sumter is uncompleted and understrength. They can starve it out if they want -- as they were in the process of doing when Lincoln arrived in office. With enough preparation, they can blast it apart -- as Beauregard showed. So all that really happens here is a little time is gained before the confrontation. My own guess is that, if Anderson had not moved and Buchanan had refused to surrender the post a little longer, the South Carolina forces would have assaulted or besieged Ft. Moultrie (as was being openly discussed throughout Charleston at the time).
Truth is that Anderson's force never attempted to interfere with commerce in the harbor, never fired upon South Carolina until attacked. Moving your troops from one post in your command to another is not "hostilities" -- and the total force involved here is less than 100 men, not exactly a major army.
But if you want to look at initiating "hostilities", please tell us what the intent of the Governor of SC was when, on November 5th, he asked the new legislature to raise a force of 10,000 Volunteers? At that time the entire US Army East of the Mississippi River was approximately 2,000 strong. Just who did he intend to use that force against?
When Governor Gist had the state Militia surround the US Arsenal in Charleston (November 12th?), what was it he was doing? When SC used some of those same men to patrol the waters off Ft. Sumter, weren't they violating the "gentlemen's agreement" with Buchanan? When the new Governor of SC demanded/requested that he be allowed to garrison Ft. Sumter, wasn't he violating the "gentlemen's agreement" as well? Since the "gentlemen's agreement" on the South Carolina side was only good until the Secession Convention acted, hadn't it already expired before Anderson moved? Why is it that "Southerners" seem to demand that the US troops allow themselves to be left vulnerable to slaughter while the secessionists move to strengthen their position, but that the slightest move by the Federals is an intolerable insult?
I do think SC had good reason to be upset with the people they had assigned to watch over Anderson's force at Ft. Moulrie, though. Lousy job, there.
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
The problem with your argument is that you find fault only with one side.
Trice, you cut me to the quick. I have plenty of problems with both sides.
That being said, when you first pretend that nothing happened to precipate the flurry of facility take-overs across the South; and then state that there was no reason for them to be upset about it, while trying to say that a governor's call for militia in preparation for having to go it alone after secession was a hostile act, seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black, and then some.
Quote:
When Governor Gist had the state Militia surround the US Arsenal in Charleston (November 12th?), what was it he was doing?
Trice, are you pretending to be unaware again? Assuming you are being sincere, then I will answer your question, by pointing to Col. John Gardner, commanding officer at Fort Moultrie, trying to transfer arms from Charleston arsenal to Fort Moultrie, on November 8. This is what he was no doubt trying to make sure wouldn't happen again. And the fact that Col. Gardner was promptly relieved of command by President Buchanan for this provocative and destabilizing act is more evidence that violating the status quo was not taken lightly by the administrations of either side.
Quote:
Since the "gentlemen's agreement" on the South Carolina side was only good until the Secession Convention acted, hadn't it already expired before Anderson moved?
Not according to Buchanan, Floyd, Pickens, Davis, Hartwell and everybody else that was so upset about it.
Quote:
At least part of the upset on the South Carolina side is realizing that Anderson was now harder to get at, and they could no longer seize Ft. Sumter to blast Ft. Moultrie with. In short, they had lost a turn in the game they thought would go their way.
No one had any interest in getting at Anderson, as I'm sure you know. They wined him and dined him right up until his cloak and dagger move. Their only interest was a harbor free of hostile troops representing a government intent on preventing their exercise of self-government in all its forms. The mere recognition that they could have taken all the forts in the harbor at any time they pleased, for at least 6 months prior to Anderson's move, is sufficient to quell any errant thoughts such as you suggest.
One little detail keeps tripping up modern southrons (as it did the southerners of 1860 - 1865), SC was not out of the Union. Starting with their act of secession, nothing they did had the force of law. SC (and the south) were rebellious states, temporarily operating outside the laws and Constitution of the United States of America, but were in the process of being brought back to a proper relationship to the Constitution and the Nation.
P.S. SC was not going it alone, if the state officials had not conspired with state officials of the deep south (the so-called Gulf Squadron) to assure themselves of fellow seccessionist states in rebellion, then like the Nullification crisis, SC would have had to meekly climb off its high horse and accept the fact that they were in the Union and always had been.
If not for the conspiracy, SC would have learned the folly of it ways in 1860 rather than 1865 AND save the rest of the south much grief. .
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
