More silly guys who worried that slavery would tear the country apart

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Location
Midwest
Some folks would call moving troops to Ft Sumter, & attempting to resupply them a hostile action.

And yet it was merely a standard, if delayed, re-supply of provisions for a U.S. fort. It is something that countries do, supply their forts via unarmed vessels if by water. And troops weren't "moved" to Sumpter on a lark, they had been pushed out of the other forts in the harbor. In other words utterly non-aggressive actions by the U.S., as those "some folks" know full well at some level below their agenda.
 

Scooter_B

I am jgoodguy
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Jun 8, 2019
No, it did not.

It started a war before ANY hostile action was taken by US Armed Forces.

The South chose war and begin hostile actions before ANY attempt at force by the US was ever made.

I seem to recall the Fox expedition and whatever was sent to Pickens.
 

Scooter_B

I am jgoodguy
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Jun 8, 2019
And yet it was merely a standard, if delayed, re-supply of provisions for a U.S. fort. It is something that countries do, supply their forts via unarmed vessels if by water. And troops weren't "moved" to Sumpter on a lark, they had been pushed out of the other forts in the harbor. In other words utterly non-aggressive actions by the U.S., as those "some folks" know full well at some level below their agenda.
This an example of Yankee imperialism peremptory assuming that their viewpoint is the only viewpoint. South Carolina, Flordia and the CSA has courts and legal systems in place and claimed sovereignty. A leader sending forces into such a region is sending those forces into harm's way.
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
From the restricted reading room at Abbeville U.

Drawn with the Sword: Reflections on the American Civil War by McPherson James M. (1997-12-18) Paperback
P64 For better or worst, the flames of Civil War forged the framework of modern America.

Not politics, not courts, but war. Perhaps a war mutually agreed to, but a war nevertheless and the sword of war forged the US. Lincoln eliminated compromise and that is documented in Lincoln and the Decision for War: The Northern Response to Secession. With that a war that could have been avoidable, became ineverable. Forged in war, the firey sword heated white-hot by Lincoln and quenched in Southern blood made the US.
By "Abbeville U" do you mean the Abbeville Institute?

To be fair, the Abbeville Institute is a place where reading history would be restricted.
 

johan_steele

Regimental Armorer
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
South of the North 40
The fledgling CS opted to seize mail, currency, mints, armories, federal vessels etc long before Ft Sumter was fired upon. The troops were moved to FT Sumter to keep them out of physical reach of the rabid militant secessionists who were calling for their heads on a platter. It kept them from getting ticked and shooting some of the provocateurs; which is what the secessionists wanted.

The idea that moving less than 100 soldiers and their families to an isolated post was hostile is purposefully naive or worse. US soldiers were ill used, at best, by the CS in the opening months of their Secession movement. They never had any intent of a peaceful separation. They wanted war and they got it. They opted to poke the sleeping giant and the giant poked back.
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
The fledgling CS opted to seize mail, currency, mints, armories, federal vessels etc long before Ft Sumter was fired upon. The troops were moved to FT Sumter to keep them out of physical reach of the rabid militant secessionists who were calling for their heads on a platter. It kept them from getting ticked and shooting some of the provocateurs; which is what the secessionists wanted.

Was this before or after SC exercised her sovereign independence..?

The idea that moving less than 100 soldiers and their families to an isolated post was hostile is purposefully naive or worse. US soldiers were ill used, at best, by the CS in the opening months of their Secession movement. They never had any intent of a peaceful separation. They wanted war and they got it. They opted to poke the sleeping giant and the giant poked back.

Would the 200 troops aboard the Star of the West be considered a hostile action..? While Ft Sumter may have been isolated, it had strategic importance.

I think a fair argument can be made, there were a few war hawks up North as well.
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
And yet it was merely a standard, if delayed, re-supply of provisions for a U.S. fort. It is something that countries do, supply their forts via unarmed vessels if by water. And troops weren't "moved" to Sumpter on a lark, they had been pushed out of the other forts in the harbor. In other words utterly non-aggressive actions by the U.S., as those "some folks" know full well at some level below their agenda.
Anderson forcefully moved his men into Sumter under bayonet. THAT is what South Carolina got upset about. No. They were not PUSHED out as you say. They were withdrawn by Anderson for better protection.
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Location
Midwest
This an example of Yankee imperialism peremptory assuming that their viewpoint is the only viewpoint. South Carolina, Flordia and the CSA has courts and legal systems in place and claimed sovereignty. A leader sending forces into such a region is sending those forces into harm's way.

A leader with oversight of a typical army function, moving forces from one fort to another, oh my! How dare he! I can't think of anything more egregious, aggressive and unfair than troop reassignment! (Lions, tigers and bears, oh my!).

And this happening while urban areas of the South were in great distress from conniving Northern power brokers. Homeless families roiling about in the gutters searching for scraps of food falling from the fine carriages of the Northern landlords and investors who had foreclosed on them. Southern belles forced into amalgamation. Hordes of unchecked Abolitionists inciting plantation slaves into insurrection, and murder. Selfless plantation slavemasters having to enlist armed patrols to protect their loyal and defenseless chattel (hide, Mammy!). And Tariffs everywhere! (Yes, it had reached that extreme). And now insult to injury, a great Northern army consisting of European low-country miscreant immigrants poised to sweep the South...

...uh...wait a minute, none of that.

...There really were no plans to invade the South at that point; no army had been raised that could even hope to accomplish that, and those Nor-Easters ("Yankees") had no imperial designs whatsoever, they pretty much stuck to fish and factories.
 
Last edited:

johan_steele

Regimental Armorer
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
South of the North 40
Was this before or after SC exercised her sovereign independence..?



Would the 200 troops aboard the Star of the West be considered a hostile action..? While Ft Sumter may have been isolated, it had strategic importance.

I think a fair argument can be made, there were a few war hawks up North as well.
It was likely planned as early as the 1860 Democrat convention if not prior.

200 troops added to how many at Ft Sumter is a threat? Is a call for 100,000 troops by Davis a threat?

To quote a period saying:
Charleston is too small to be a state and to large to be an insane asylum.

The CS wanted a war and they got one. Why did the slaveocracy need a war? Because the CS made no effort to prevent one instead the kept provoking. I think the question that needs to be asked is why did they want a war so badly?
 

GwilymT

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
Was this before or after SC exercised her sovereign independence..?



Would the 200 troops aboard the Star of the West be considered a hostile action..? While Ft Sumter may have been isolated, it had strategic importance.

I think a fair argument can be made, there were a few war hawks up North as well.

As history has shown us, SC did not have sovereignty. Certain secessionists in SC tried to take sovereignty at the point of a sword and their rebellion failed.
 

Scooter_B

I am jgoodguy
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Jun 8, 2019
By "Abbeville U" do you mean the Abbeville Institute?

To be fair, the Abbeville Institute is a place where reading history would be restricted.

Abbeville U the scholastic arm of Abbeville Institute. Very nice ivy covered clock tower photographed by visitors from all over the world. However, we actually read Baptist's book instead of making voluminous excuses for not knowing what was within.
 

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Anderson forcefully moved his men into Sumter under bayonet.
At the risk of extending this regurgitation of all things Fort Sumter, Anderson did not "forcefully" move into the fort. Although Andrson was prepared- the first men to cross to the Fort, a party under Doubleday, fixed bayonets- there was no trouble. They were met by both cheers and some hostility. Fifty-five laborers, loyal to the Union, were asked to stay. The remainder were taken into Charleston. All were paid by Anderson.
<David Detzer, Allegiance: Fort Sumter, Charleston, and the Beginning of the Civil War. (New York: Harcourt, Inc., 2001), pp. 118-119.>
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
I seem to recall the Fox expedition and whatever was sent to Pickens.

And yet can still ignore all the hostile acts of the Southern slaveholding states prior to Anderson's move to Sumter, months prior to some of those same states before they seceded. You still continue to ignore all the acts of war and theft prior to ANY Union action.

Now, why is that?
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Most folks are aware that those acts occurred in the slaveholding states and not somewhere off in Yankeestan.

So, their location is the key as to whether they were acts of war or not?

Doesn't work that way then or now.

And your biggest and most glaring problem is that all of those acts of war took place in the United States, even before some of those very same States had seceded.
 
Last edited:

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Was this before or after SC exercised her sovereign independence..?



Would the 200 troops aboard the Star of the West be considered a hostile action..? While Ft Sumter may have been isolated, it had strategic importance.

I think a fair argument can be made, there were a few war hawks up North as well.

@Viper21 , If these early moves by the North are what you consider a "hostile action" then what do you consider the earlier moves of the South BEFORE Sumter and the Star of the West?

Seriously,
Unionblue
 
Last edited:

Scooter_B

I am jgoodguy
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Jun 8, 2019
And yet can still ignore all the hostile acts of the Southern slaveholding states prior to Anderson's move to Sumter, months prior to some of those same states before they seceded. You still continue to ignore all the acts of war and theft prior to ANY Union action.

Now, why is that?

Thanks for these comments. It is my job to put forth the Southern Cause as best as I can, not to correct other's history homework.
 

Scooter_B

I am jgoodguy
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Jun 8, 2019
The fledgling CS opted to seize mail, currency, mints, armories, federal vessels etc long before Ft Sumter was fired upon. The troops were moved to FT Sumter to keep them out of physical reach of the rabid militant secessionists who were calling for their heads on a platter. It kept them from getting ticked and shooting some of the provocateurs; which is what the secessionists wanted.

The idea that moving less than 100 soldiers and their families to an isolated post was hostile is purposefully naive or worse. US soldiers were ill used, at best, by the CS in the opening months of their Secession movement. They never had any intent of a peaceful separation. They wanted war and they got it. They opted to poke the sleeping giant and the giant poked back.
Just like any revolutionary sovereign would do.
 
Top