Fort Sumter


Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Battalion

Banned
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
4,813
trice said:
"Historians have also concluded that the no secession/no compulsion opinion vanished from public view like the melting snow immediately after the arrival of news of Ft. Sumter in any particular area of the North. It was replaced with anger and outrage -- followed by massive volunteer enlistment to avenge the insult.

From that, we can conclude that the declarations of secession and the subsequent provocative acts of the seceding states (January-early April, 1861) were not enough to cause a war. The violent assault on Ft. Sumter, coming on top of all that, was enough to cause a war in the minds of Northerners and Westerners.

That all seems clear and decided. We know why the North went to war: the South attacked them."
"Any story sounds true until someone tells the other side and sets the record straight."
Proverbs 18:17 (Living Bible)


"The Secret Out. -- It is evident now that the reason why the fleet did not assist Major Anderson was because the Government really wished Major Anderson to be defeated. The Tribune tacitly confesses it this morning. It says: 'We have lost Fort Sumter, but we have united the North.' This corresponds with the wish of a prominent Republican, who said he hoped Major Anderson would be defeated, in order to do just what the Tribune now claims it has done--expose a gallant band of soldiers to death in order to carry a political point!"

There is every reason to believe that the above paragraph from the New York Day Book speaks the truth, and unmasks the guilty authors of the war. The whole Charleston exhibition was a compound of treachery, dissimulation and devilishness. The war of coercion had been resolved upon, and afraid to assume the responsibility of their own act, the Cabinet secretly got up this affair only for the purpose of provoking a conflict in such a manner as to give them a plausible appearance of having been the attacked party. In this way have they imposed upon the Northern people and aroused them by their crafty appeals and false representations to the desired pitch of indignation. It was a smart trick, but an ineffably base one. They have accomplished their infernal purpose, and are now glorifying in their success.

Petersburg Express, April 1861

~


"...by an accident, for which you were in no way responsible, and possibly I, to some extent, was, you were deprived of a war-vessel [Powhatan], with her men, which you deemed of great importance to the enterprise....

...You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result."

Abraham Lincoln to Capt. G.V. Fox (commander of expedition to relieve Fort Sumter), 1 May 1861



It is strange that the one vessel considered absolutely necessary for the success of relieving Fort Sumter was diverted elsewhere by an "accident"...


Fort Sumter Relief Force

U.S.S. Pawnee
1289 Tons
Armament- 10 (Eight 9-inch guns, Two 12-pounders)

U.S.S. Pocahontas
694 Tons
Armament- 6 (Four 32-pounders, One 10-inch rifle, One 20-pounder Parrott)

U.S.S. Harriet Lane (revenue cutter)
600 Tons
Armament- 2 (Two 32-pounders)

Baltic (transport)
Armament- None
Carrying 200 troops (artillerists) for the re-enforcement of Fort Sumter.

U.S.S. Powhatan
2415 Tons
Armament- 3 (Three 12-pounders)
Carrying 300 additional seamen to assist in the re-supply/re-enforcement effort.
(Never arrived.)
 

OpnDownfall

Cadet
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
2,871
Fort Sumpter

It would be better if one read a few more history books rather than contemporary newspaper articles and Editorials.
It is no secret that Lincoln AND Davis knew that if one or the other did not back down over the question of Ft. Sumpter, there would be war. Both assumed that the other would not back down, so Lincoln made sure that the first shot of the war would be fired by the south. Davis knew the implications of firing the first shot, but Lincoln had out manuevered him.
No, that does not mean that Lincoln 'Really' started the war, Davis had the 'choice' of peace or war And he knew it. Davis, cooly, with deliberate forethought, chose war. Lincoln merely, manuevered such, that the responsibility for the starting of war would rest on the south, who waere the ones intent on (and preparing for) war.
 

Battalion

Banned
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
4,813
OpnDownfall said:
Lincoln merely, manuevered such, that the responsibility for the starting of war would rest on the south, who waere the ones intent on (and preparing for) war.
"merely manuevered"

What hogwash...

The one who provokes a war has no responsibility for it?(...?????)

~

"...the south, who were the ones intent on (and preparing for) war..."

...and the North wasn't preparing for war?
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,671
Battalion said:
"merely manuevered"

What hogwash...

The one who provokes a war has no responsibility for it?(...?????)

~

"...the south, who were the ones intent on (and preparing for) war..."

...and the North wasn't preparing for war?
To be blunt: No, the US government had made no particular effort to prepare for war with the seceding states. However, the Confederacy had made substantial preparations for war, and had already used armed force.

Before the attack on Ft. Sumter, the seceding states had seized many arsenals, revenue service vessels, forts, weapons and equipment. They had begun purchasing arms in large quantities. They had used force against US government employees to do this. They had threatened to attack US forces in Texas (where Twiggs capitulated, handing much equipment to the secessionists). They were besieging US soldiers in Charleston and Pensacola. They fired on US flag ships twice at Charleston. They had already called up over 30,000 troops to Confederate service (doesn't count many state troops, such as the South Carolina Army) -- while the US Army consisted of only 16,000 men and about 14,000 of those were west of the Mississippi, maintaining order and defending against Indians, many as far away as California and Oregon.

The Buchanan administration never called for additional forces. All of this is BEFORE the Lincoln administration called for a single soldier. All of it is true, and can be documented and verified. Please explain the difference between known history and what you seem to be saying.

Tim
 

OpnDownfall

Cadet
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
2,871
Fort Sumpter

Exactly right, Trice. All the provocation for war was southern, Buchanan was trying to maintain the status quo, as was Lincoln when he assumed office, to be met immediately by the Sumpter question, the North was not prepared for a war, so all he could do was make sure the world knew Who were trying to change the status quo (by war, if necessary)
What does depending on newspapers to do ones thinking indicate? Is it a reflection on education or intellect?
 

johan_steele

Regimental Armorer
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
14,949
Location
South of the North 40
18 guns & 200 men on four ships only two of which can even remotely thought as warships... now that is what I call a provacative invasion force.

Jefferson Davis calling for 100,000 troops well prior to Ft Sumter (while the US Army fielded about 16,000)... would that be viewed as provocative?
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,767
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Battalion,

"Be not righteous overmuch."
Ecclesiastes vii. 16.

Editorials do not a history make. If this were so, the South would have been in deep trouble with all those editorials that said the war was about slavery.

"Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting."
Daniel v. 27.

Again, it would help to know what you are trying to say vice just typing dates, names, etc. I gather from your posts you are trying to say Lincoln started the whole thing, had the Union armed to the teeth and was just waiting for an excuse (over the loss of the tariff, from what I gather) to conquer the South and extract tribute.

Trice and Opndownfall dispute this theory with debate and form, not just a ledger book with some figures and names.

"And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."
Matthew xv. 14.

Bible quotes are interesting, but like editorials, can be used to support almost any position or to highlight a post in a particular way. But on their own, they prove little.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 

Battalion

Banned
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
4,813
OpnDownfall-
"It would be better if one read a few more history books rather than contemporary newspaper articles and Editorials."

ublue-
"Editorials do not a history make. If this were so, the South would have been in deep trouble with all those editorials that said the war was about slavery."

I believe you missed the Lincoln quote which backs up what is said in the editorial...

ublue-
"I gather from your posts you are trying to say Lincoln started the whole thing, and was just waiting for an excuse (over the loss of the tariff, from what I gather) to conquer the South and extract tribute.

Trice and Opndownfall dispute this theory with debate and form, not just a ledger book with some figures and names."

Yes, I use statements, reports, facts and figures from the 1860s.
Far more relevant than what the Glorious Unioners of 2006 have to say.
 

Battalion

Banned
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
4,813
trice said:
Before the attack on Ft. Sumter, the seceding states had seized many arsenals, revenue service vessels, forts, weapons and equipment. They had begun purchasing arms in large quantities. They had used force against US government employees to do this. They had threatened to attack US forces in Texas (where Twiggs capitulated, handing much equipment to the secessionists). They were besieging US soldiers in Charleston and Pensacola. They fired on US flag ships twice at Charleston.
Number of Federal soldiers and employees killed or injured from the time of the Secession of South Carolina (20 Dec 1860) thru the bombardment of Fort Sumter (12 April 1861) -

0

Number of Southern Civilians killed or wounded by Federal troops within one month of Fort Sumter-

250


I see no reason for any moral outrage at all on part of the North.



trice said:
To be blunt: No, the US government had made no particular effort to prepare for war with the seceding states. However, the Confederacy had made substantial preparations for war, and had already used armed force.
Here is the original statement-
"the south, who were the ones intent on (and preparing for) war."

...and my reply-
"...and the North wasn't preparing for war?"


"We have 5,000 infantry now armed and equipped and properly officered."
Wm. Schouler, Adjutant-General, Massachusetts, to Simon Cameron, Sec. of War, 13 April 1861

- a force of 5,000 already organized, armed and equipped, before Lincoln's call for troops.


"I wrote on yesterday to Col. H.K. Craig, asking to anticipate now the quota of arms that will be due this State for 1862."
Samuel J. Kirkwood, Governor of Iowa, to Joseph Holt, Sec. of War, Washington, 25 Jan. 1861


"I will have a save place of deposit for the 5,000 stand of arms to be sent to Indiana" (quota for 1862)
O.P. Morton, Governor of Indiana, to Ordnance Dept., Washington, 4 April 1861


“I have the honor to inclose a letter tendering to the President the services of the Governor’s Greys, a military company at Dubuque in this State. The services of other military companies have been tendered directly to me.”
Samuel J. Kirkwood, Governor of Iowa, to Joseph Holt, Sec. of War, Washington, 21 Jan. 1861


"Two regiments of volunteer infantry--the First and Second Regiments of the Washington Guards--have been organized in this city [Philadelphia] for immediate duty in defense of the Union"
Wm. F. Small, Washington Guards, to President Buchanan, 28 Jan. 1861

…and several other volunteer companies, battalions, and regiments being organized throughout the North prior to Fort Sumter.
 

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
34,431
Location
Near Kankakee
Number of Federal soldiers and employees killed or injured from the time of the Secession of South Carolina (20 Dec 1860) thru the bombardment of Fort Sumter (12 April 1861) - 0.
Nobody got killed or injured when I robbed the banks, so I should get a pass. Apples and dill pickles.
Number of Southern Civilians killed or wounded by Federal troops within one month of Fort Sumter - 250
We demand the right to be in no danger whatever after we've opened hostilities.

A good many arguments have been and are being advanced on one side or the other on the questions and opinions on all aspects of the WBTS. Many of them are supported and debated with knowledge, logic and evidence. But the silliest I've ever encountered is the "no harm, no foul" position as it applies to the seizure of Federal property leading up to the ultimate outrage -- firing on the flag.

I can accept that SC and the CSA considered themselves a soverign nation claiming its right to regain control of a foreign fortress in their waters. Reducing that claim to, "hey! nobody got hurt," just boggles.

Pausing now to regain composure.
Ole
 

Battalion

Banned
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
4,813
ole said:
0 Federal troops killed or wounded-

"Nobody got killed or injured when I robbed the banks, so I should get a pass. Apples and dill pickles."


250 Civilians slaughtered-

"We demand the right to be in no danger whatever after we've opened hostilities."

What a outrageous and absurd view.

But does a great deal to explain why a war was fought against a people with such attitudes.
 

OpnDownfall

Cadet
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
2,871
Fort Sumpter

Obviously, After the 'Gulf Squadron' seceded And made known their intentions of actually resisting Federal laws with force (the firing on of Ft Sumpter) the North had no choice but to respond to the Overt 'Actions' and threats of more to come from southerners in armed rebellion.
One advantage of answering newspaper articles and editorials (contemporary or not) is that one is not facing reasoned debate nor, necessarily, facts.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,767
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Battalion,

Posting editorials and facts 'out of the blue' as it were, does not mean the facts you post apply at all to the outcome you wish. The combative attitude you employ when trying to quote Bible verses and then attack responses that disagree or offer another view, does not aid your cause, just to put it mildly. Explaining yourself or putting your census and tariff tables in context with a bit of effort at explanation would help. I am reluctant to figure out your reasoning at such posts as I do hope you are not as easy to read and that you have ideas of your own you wish to share.

But if you do not wish to debate, exchange ideas nor view other points of view, simply continue to put up the unexplained links and web sites, the charts, and editorials in a verbal vacuum. It simply does more harm than good to the cause you claim to support and makes them easier to ignore.

As to the idea that no federal soldiers were killed during the Southern bombardment of Ft. Sumter, are you of the opinion all those cannon balls fired were from 'smart' cannon? That all those gunners knew in their heart to fire on the fort only when they knew their shells would kill no one? Talk about an absurd notion!

It was only by God's good grace and the inexperience of the gunners of both sides that no one was killed during that action and not by any lack of intent to do bodily harm. The idea that the North would not react because no one was killed simply lacks historical knowledge and is a desperate attempt at historical spin in order to put the South in some kind of 'good' light.

When you fire a loaded weapon, ANY weapon, at another person, it is an attack, a method of violence to enforce, impose you will on that person. Discussion is at an end and you have declared force, violence and bloodshed is you chosen vehicle for argument from hence forth. One should not be so shallow, shocked nor surprised when the same is then offered in return.

'0' casualities!:confused:

Simply absurd.
Unionblue
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,671
Battalion,

We have been through this before. You like to take isolated sentences and fragments of quotes out of context to try to "prove" something the original doesn't relate to at all. You tried it with General Lee, and when people saw what you had left out, they saw through your game clearly.

So I wondered what we might find by looking for the complete text of what a few of these pieces are from. Here, for example, you quoted Governor Kirkwood to show he was preparing for war against the South. That is a false presentation of his actual letter. Here's what you quoted:

Battalion said:
"I wrote on yesterday to Col. H.K. Craig, asking to anticipate now the quota of arms that will be due this State for 1862."
Samuel J. Kirkwood, Governor of Iowa, to Joseph Holt, Sec. of War, Washington, 25 Jan. 1861


But here is what that letter actually says. I put the parts you omitted in Blue italics to make it clear what you left out.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE, IOWA,
January 25, 1861.
Hon. JOSEPH HOLT.
Secretary of War, Washington:


DEAR SIR:
I wrote on yesterday to Col. H. K. Craig, asking to anticipate now the quota of arms that will be due this State for 1862. Since mailing that letter I have thought the application should have been made to you, and now make it. I have been informed that during last year the same privilege was granted to other States, and hope it may be granted to Iowa. Will the quota of arms for 1862 be still under the apportionment and census for 1850?

I learn that the present unfortunate condition of public affairs has rendered necessary the transfer of the U.S. troops from Fort Kearny and other points in the West to the sea-board. It is now rumored here that large bands of Indians are gathering near Fort Kearny with hostile intentions. The northwestern border of this State has for several years last past been subject to Indian depredations, the evidence of which is on file in your Department. Should an outbreak occur among the Indians near Fort Kearny it will probably stimulate the Indians in Dakota and Minnesota again to make inroads in the northwestern part of this State. Owing to the small number of arms distributed to this State under the census of 1850 we are almost without arms and all sent to this State prior to 1860 were the old regulation muskets, altered from the flint to the percussion lock.

Can an extra number of arms be in any way sent to this State, to provide against the contingencies of an Indian outbreak? They might be stored at Fort Des Moines or Fort Dodge, in the care of a person to be selected by you, and used only in case of necessity. If a single U.S. officer were at either of these places, and had a supply of arms, he could at any moment have as many men as would be necessary for the protection of our frontier. I shall be pleased to hear from you touching these matters at your earliest convenience. And have the honor to be,

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
SAMUEL J. KIRKWOOD.

Amazingly enough, the way in which you used the quote totally misses the sense of the actual letter. How'd that happen?

BTW, the practice of anticipating arms from the US arsenals to the states (they purchased them against an annual quota) was common. It required the approval of the Secretary of War in both times of peace and war. You might want to understand that by far most of the states requesting this were south of the Mason-Dixon Line in 1860 before trying to make an issue of this -- or do you really think you'd like to show how the South was arming themselves in the year before secession?

Tim
 

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
34,431
Location
Near Kankakee
I was going to see your outrage and raise you a snit and a pout. That appears to be unnecessary.
Ole
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,671
Battalion,

Let's take a look at this one to see what the reality is.

Battalion said:
"We have 5,000 infantry now armed and equipped and properly officered."
Wm. Schouler, Adjutant-General, Massachusetts, to Simon Cameron, Sec. of War, 13 April 1861


Here is the complete letter. As before, I have put the parts you omitted in Blue italics to make it easy on those reading it.

ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE,
Boston, Mass., April 13, 1861.
Hon. SIMON CAMERON,
Secretary of War, Washington:
SIR: I am directed by His Excellency the Governor to request of you, if consistent with law and the policy of your Department, to allow me to draw 2,000 rifled muskets from the U.S. Arsenal at Springfield in advance of our annual quota becoming due.
We have 5,000 infantry now armed and equipped and properly officered. Only about 3,000 of them, however, are armed with the rifled musket; the others have the old smooth-bores, all of which have been changed from flintlocks to the percussion. If you will permit us to draw 2,000 more of the new rifled musket, we will have 5,000 as well armed, drilled, and officered infantry as ever handled a musket.

I would also suggest that a couple of regiments of our volunteers be ordered by the President to garrison Forts Warren and Independence in Boston Harbor. They are now without men, and might be taken by lawless men and turned against the Government. I believe that our troops would like to do garrison duty until called upon by the President for active service. The regiments might alternate every four or six weeks, and thus they would learn much that would be of service to them, and hold the forts against attack or surprise.

With great respect, I have the honor to be, your obedient servant,
WM. SCHOULER,
Adjutant-General, Massachusetts.



Battalion said:
- a force of 5,000 already organized, armed and equipped, before Lincoln's call for troops.


This is the Massachusetts State Militia -- a force that all states were required to maintain at all times. The Southern states had it in plenty, and there had been a strong resurgence in militia in Southern states in 1859-1860 after Harper's Ferry, but many Northern states had allowed it to decay into near uselessness. Massachusetts had perhaps the most well-equipped and organized militia in the North.

Note that the MA adjutant-general is writing this on April 13, 1861. News has just arrived that Ft. Sumter had been fired on by the secessionists on April 12. You no doubt remember that the Confederacy has started the war that way, so how surprising is it that the state would be ready to volunteer to call out the militia in response? And you did notice when you first read this that the man is talking about having the men garrison empty forts in Massachusetts?

You also no doubt noted that the state of SC already has more than 8,000 men under arms -- many of them in Charleston, participating in the attack. These Massachusetts fellows haven't even been activated yet. You do see the difference there, don't you?

Tim
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,671
Battalion said:
Number of Federal soldiers and employees killed or injured from the time of the Secession of South Carolina (20 Dec 1860) thru the bombardment of Fort Sumter (12 April 1861) -

0


Hmm. This would be the three months or so before the shooting started. Not very surprising that no one was killed or wounded then, is it?

If you want to include the bombardment of Ft. Sumter, the Confederacy fired over 3000 rounds of heavy artillery into the place, clearly intending grave injury and death for the garrison. The fort caught fire and came close to a catastrophic explosion of the magazine on the 2nd day of the attack. A combination of Major Anderson's decisions to spare his men exposure and great luck kept casualties down. However, there were US casualties at Ft. Sumter -- even if you do not count the killed and injured during the gun explosion after the surrender.

Battalion said:
Number of Southern Civilians killed or wounded by Federal troops within one month of Fort Sumter-
250


Would you care to list when and where these "Southern Civilians killed or wounded by Federal troops" happened? And what the circumstances were?

Tim
 

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
34,431
Location
Near Kankakee
I'm going to assume that Battalion has figures to support "Southern Civilians killed or wounded by Federal troops." I'll check in sometime tomorrow to see his evidence. Could be a case. Probably not. Too much of the Gospel according to the Saints Kennedy, Rutherford and Pollard to suit me.
Ole
 

Battalion

Banned
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
4,813
trice said:
"We have 5,000 infantry now armed and equipped and properly officered.

WM. SCHOULER,
Adjutant-General, Massachusetts."


This is the Massachusetts State Militia -- a force that all states were required to maintain at all times.
-On paper.

These were already armed, equipped and ready to go.

~

The State of Massachusetts having a standing army almost half the size of the United States Army is a common situation?


trice said:
Note that the MA adjutant-general is writing this on April 13, 1861. News has just arrived that Ft. Sumter had been fired on by the secessionists on April 12. You no doubt remember that the Confederacy has started the war that way, so how surprising is it that the state would be ready to volunteer to call out the militia in response?
Are you kidding?

You are claiming they called out the militia from all over the State, had them equipped and ready to board the trains in LESS than 24 hours?


trice said:
You also no doubt noted that the state of SC already has more than 8,000 men under arms [2,000]-- many of them in Charleston, participating in the attack. These Massachusetts fellows haven't even been activated yet. You do see the difference there, don't you?

Tim
Please re-read:
"We have 5,000 infantry >now< armed and equipped and properly officered."

operative word- "now"

They were in Baltimore, Maryland, by April 19th.
 

Battalion

Banned
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
4,813
trice said:
Would you care to list when and where these "Southern Civilians killed or wounded by Federal troops" happened?
Tim
Baltimore, Md., and several incidents in St. Louis, Mo.
 

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Top