Most Underrated General

[Rebel from Finland]

"Commanding position"?

Eighty men, dependent on provisions from either outside the area under their control or from your good will, in an unfinished fort do not have a commanding position over anything. Anderson had less influence over the use of Charleston harbor than Gibraltar has over Spain's Mediterranean trade.

Speaking for myself I wouldn't mind if the Confederates stationed troops to defend Charleston harbor - defending it is an utterly unobjectionable thing to do in the context of a wannabe nation - but they went well beyond "stationing troops to defend Charleston harbor" in their treatment of Fort Sumter.

Yeah.. I just don´t get it. And that´s my point of view.

 

[Elennsar]

Yeah.. I just don´t get it. And that´s my point of view.

Well, let me ask you this as a person who likes to think he's reasonable minded: What about an undermanned, unfinished fort is a threat to Charleston harbor that warrants the amount of effort the Confederates made to surround it and then, when it was clear it wouldn't be given peacefully, take it by force?

You come from a country more used to having to treat its neighbor as a security issue until proven otherwise than I do, but even assuming the Confederacy took that stance with the US as a neighbor, I'm not sure I understand how Sumner is posing a threat any more than you seem to understand how it could be ignored.

 

[CSA Today]

"Commanding position"?

Eighty men, dependent on provisions from either outside the area under their control or from your good will, in an unfinished fort do not have a commanding position over anything. Anderson had less influence over the use of Charleston harbor than Gibraltar has over Spain's Mediterranean trade.

Speaking for myself I wouldn't mind if the Confederates stationed troops to defend Charleston harbor - defending it is an utterly unobjectionable thing to do in the context of a wannabe nation - but they went well beyond "stationing troops to defend Charleston harbor" in their treatment of Fort Sumter.

Then what possible use were eighty dependent men there for other than to antagonize South Carolinians and other Southerners?

 

[1SGDan]

They were there conducting the duty assigned to them in a US fort. That's what soldiers do.

 

[ole]

A president cannot, by himself, give away or sell property belonging to all the people of the united states.

 

[CSA Today]

They were there conducting the duty assigned to them in a US fort. That's what soldiers do.

Now we are getting down to the reason for Southern antagonism.

 

[Elennsar]

Then what possible use were eighty dependent men there for other than to antagonize South Carolinians and other Southerners?

As 1SGDan said - holding a United States fort. Formal adjustments of national territory is outside Anderson's authority.

Why should he abandon his duties because it annoys South Carolina that they have to deal with the fact the US government controls some islands?


There seems to be the assumption in your question that because South Carolina (and six other states) wanted something that it was justified and that everyone should be scrambling to meet their demands. The rights of the US (not even "the Federal government", but the US as a country)? It has no rights South Carolina et al. are bound to respect.

 

[KeyserSoze]

Where did you find the info about President Davis issuing a call for 100000 troops as early as Fed. 1861? He was sworn president in that month, but didn't make the proclamation. I searched the events for the particular month and didn't find anything like President Davis calling for troops.

Here you go: Link You can find additional information in here: Link

If the Confederacy had peaceful intent then why did they need an army seven times the size of the U.S. army?

Legally speaking, the states had seceded. Secession was followed by the formation of the Confederacy. The states proclaimed themselves independent after secession and formed the new nation by their own free will.
The numbers are for Southern white males who could vote. Seth may has found the same source with me.
Washington, Jefferson and Madison agreed that secession was a right given to the sovereign states.
Civil War Scholar.

I submit, sir, that you knowledge of what is legal under the U.S. Constitution is about as good as my understanding of what is legal under the Greek one.

 

[KeyserSoze]

It was the provisional Government that set up what they thought they would need. Davis wasn't even president yet.

Davis was appointed president on February 18 while Congress voted on the 100,000 troops on March 6. It was Davis's doing.

 

[KeyserSoze]

Yes, he was sworn as a provisional President on February 28, I think. How could he issue the proclamation during that month? I wonder...
Civil War Scholar.

February 18.

 

[KeyserSoze]

It wouldn't credible to wait for a hostile act then raise an army. Countries maintain peacetime armies for a reason and with Lincoln soon to take power the Confederates had good reason to prepare for any contingency.

Especially since you had your own hostile plans to begin with.

 

[1SGDan]

The inability to separate Southern arrogance from the unreality of Southern independence seems more the problem than 80 men in a US fort

 

[CSA Today]

As 1SGDan said - holding a United States fort. Formal adjustments of national territory is outside Anderson's authority.

Why should he abandon his duties because it annoys South Carolina that they have to deal with the fact the US government controls some islands?


There seems to be the assumption in your question that because South Carolina (and six other states) wanted something that it was justified and that everyone should be scrambling to meet their demands. The rights of the US (not even "the Federal government", but the US as a country)? It has no rights South Carolina et al. are bound to respect.

Now we are getting down to the real bone of contention and what it portended and not what you wrote in posts 645 and 647.

 

[KeyserSoze]

President Davis called for troops to defend the Confederacy.

Why did he need an army that was seven times the size of the U.S. army if all he wanted to do was 'defend the Confederacy'?

 

[CSA Today]

Especially since you had your own hostile plans to begin with.

Only you would think raising an army for national defense was a hostile plan.

 

[KeyserSoze]

It is made in the defense of your country. This is the part I just don´t get, and I´m very doubtful that I ever will. To me, leave a federal fort in commanding position of your most important harbor, would be idiotic. They didn´t leave when asked, so they were driven off..

So then if the Cubans decided to bombard the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay into surrender then would you say they were in the right?

 

[KeyserSoze]

Only you would think raising an army for national defense was a hostile plan.

If you're calling up an army seven times larger than you neighbors then it's pretty foolish to think it was for defense.

 

[KeyserSoze]

You get the impression that some of the people here would see nothing non-threatening about a potential hostile fort left in Boston or New York Harbours.

It was a U.S. fort in a U.S. city. How threatening is that?

 

[CSA Today]

Why did he need an army that was seven times the size of the U.S. army if all he wanted to do was 'defend the Confederacy'?

For one thing many of these volunteers were poorly armed and secondly the territory between South Carolina to Texas is a vast thinly populated area difficult to defend.

 

[CSA Today]

It was a U.S. fort in a U.S. city. How threatening is that?

From a the Confederate government and citizens point of view --extremely threatening.