Ft. Sumter: The First Act of Aggression

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

major bill

Colonel
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Not much new here. We could bump several threads on this subject, but still would not have much new to add. Carl Jones as member of the SCV restate the stand of that organization. Most of us know the views of the SCV on this subject, but some on the forum might want to rehash it.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

IcarusPhoenix

Sergeant Major
Joined
May 22, 2011
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Most of us know the views of the SCV on this subject, but some on the forum might want to rehash it.
I would say I missed the days when the SCV was more of a fellowship organization than a political one, but I can't actually remember a time when that was true.

The article's author - in addition to the rather glaring decision to ignore whose property the fort was and whether or not secession was the least bit legal in the first place - peppers the piece with small falsehoods to make the US out to be the aggressor (turning the Star of the West into a US Naval vessel rather than a civilian steamer, implying that Anderson's move from Moultrie wasn't within his rights, repetition of the never-verified Colonel Baldwin story, the idea that Seward was leading the Confederates on to give Lincoln time to prepare, etc.). I always have to wonder: If the case against Lincoln is so obvious, then why to proponents of this theory always feel the need to embellish the truth when making their case?
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Near Kankakee
Ole ,Carl Jones account was well presented and I did not think Carl's work was at all dumb. All I am saying is I saw nothing new.
There is really nothing new here, Bill. Anderson was obliged to finish a fort that Charleston came to not want.

We are directed to finish a fort. Not in my harbor.
 

unionblue

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

Carl Jones should read the following book:

The Beginning and the End: The Civil War Story of Federal Surrenders Before Fort Sumter and Confederate Surrenders After Appomatox, by Dayton E. Pryor.

"Months before Fort Sumter was attacked, even before the Confederacy was formed, fifty-six U. S. forts, arsenals and ships were seized by the first states to secede, and one-seventh of the U. S. Army was surrendered to the militia in Texas. The Beginning and the End tells the dramatic story of these events, largely ignored in Civil War histories (and articles by the SCV), and describes the Confederacy's other war preperations..."

Read the rest of the article at the following website:

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1430185.The_Beginning_And_The_End

We have gotten information from this book before on another thread that showed that the first acts of aggression were by the Confederacy, sometimes even before a state had seceded from the Union.

From the 'Why War' thread on this forum, I offer page 18 in which I gave incidents and dates of Confederate aggression before Fort Sumter. I suggest you take a glance at it:

Why War?
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/why-war.97021/page-18#post-838060

And here is another thread with similar information.

Federal Soldiers Take Captive Before Fort Sumter.
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/federal-soldiers-taken-captive-before-fort-sumter.21620/

Point is, Carl is leaving out HUGE chunks of information in his article of what happened to who before Fort Sumter came about. I can't say that I blame him, as these facts pretty much shoot down his theory of who made the first aggressive moves.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Barrycdog

Major
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Location
Buford, Georgia
http://abesblogcabin.org/the-fort-sumter-attack-in-april-1861-was-not-the-first


The attack on Fort Sumter in April 1861 was not the first act of aggression in what would become the American Civil War. Shots from a battery were actually fired from high ground at Vicksburg, Mississippi at several Federal vessels, including the Gladiator, A.O. Tyler, and the Imperial. Those actions took place in January 1861. The armed battery had been ordered for placement by Mississippi’s governor who wanted Union vessels to stop to be searched (looking for war materials).

In January 1861, Lincoln was President-elect. He must have felt somewhat helpless as he received word that, in fact, Southern states were seizing Union forts and arsenals. While Lincoln was discussing cabinet appointments, Alabama, for instance, had taken over the U.S. Arsenal at Mt. Vernon. Alabama would also send troops to take Forts Morgan and Gaines at the mouth of Mobile Bay. Florida saw similar events. The Arsenal at Apalachicola was taken. Afterward, Fort Marion at St. Augustine was taken. While these and other like-situations were taking place, the problem involving Fort Sumter was ongoing. By the end of January, six states left the Union. Lincoln was preparing to leave Springfield for Washington. He had been working on his Inaugural Address. President Buchanan seemed absolutely unable to deal with the crisis of the nation as it was unfolding. Abraham Lincoln closed out the month with a visit to his stepmother , Sarah Bush Lincoln in Coles County, Illinios. After Lincoln’s assassination, she commented that she “knew” she would never see her son alive again. I think Lincoln knew it too. On to Washington he went…

- See more at: http://abesblogcabin.org/the-fort-sumter-attack-in-april-1861-was-not-the-first#sthash.PPRLodXt.dpuf
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

W. Richardson

Captain
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Location
Mt. Gilead, North Carolina
So, what's the original poster's reaction to all this?:unsure:

Kevin Dally

My reply is.........Everyone has their opinions, and beliefs and entitled to post them. I read the article, and posted it here for others to read, and decide for themselves. I really saw no reason to comment on their post as I stated before "Everyone has their opinions, and beliefs and entitled to post them".

Respectfully,

William
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
My reply is.........Everyone has their opinions, and beliefs and entitled to post them. I read the article, and posted it here for others to read, and decide for themselves. I really saw no reason to comment on their post as I stated before "Everyone has their opinions, and beliefs and entitled to post them".

Respectfully,

William
There is informed speculation and then there is wistful speculation.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

JerseyBart

Lt. Colonel
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Location
New Jersey
There is informed speculation and then there is wistful speculation.
Wistful speculation..."I wish the timeline of events did not take place the way they did, so since they did take place that way, I'm going to say how wish things would have gone and say it enough that others who wish the same can help me muddy what are very clear waters."
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Wistful speculation..."I wish the timeline of events did not take place the way they did, so since they did take place that way, I'm going to say how wish things would have gone and say it enough that others who wish the same can help me muddy what are very clear waters."
I'll never understand why folks with a wonderful rebellion, unmatched in human history, want to make stuff up.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top