Proposed Invasion of Charleston harbor by the North

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

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Messages
7,678
Location
California
Please refer to post 797
The upside, section 1(a). The reason why should be self explanatory, but is sometimes forgotten.
There were quite a number of people at the time, on both sides, who considered war the better option.
They would rather chance the destructiveness than compromise their principles any further.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,519
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
In response:
The downside for Lincoln:

1. Possibly, but that did not happen under Buchanan with several forts and posts captured.
2. Possibly, but that did not happen under Buchanan with several forts and posts captured.
3. Possibly, the onset of the war helped change the mood.
4. Possibly, it happened under Buchanan without war.
5. What bad things?

The upside:

1. Don't necessarily need hindsight. VA, NC, TN, and AR possibly avoid joining the Confederacy without or a delayed war. The longer the states remained out of the Confederacy, the more difficult a chance it had to survive. At the forefront, VA declared its intentions beforehand.

1(a) the human element that would not have to experience the destructiveness that the actual war produced.

re " 1(a) the human element that would not have to experience the destructiveness that the actual war produced."

Your argument seems to be based on this, but this was not known in 1861. Why is this alleged responsibility put on Lincoln instead Davis?
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,519
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
There were quite a number of people at the time, on both sides, who considered war the better option.
They would rather chance the destructiveness than compromise their principles any further.
I'd suggest that few correctly estimated the cost of war and many saw war as a cheap and decisive(especially since they did not consider they could lose) alternative to a iffy political solution.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Lost Cause

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
3,057
And that is totally ignoring the key fact about the border states..The Confederacy needed a war in order to survive and gain them, while Lincoln needed to avoid a war to keep them, Thats the primary difference in their mind sets...One way or another the deep South was going to get their war...
Please refer to the upside, section 1.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Lost Cause

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
3,057
The Confederacy freely decided to enact the first act of war.

Trial-by-combat was the only effort put forth by Davis and company. No other serious attempt at a legal or lawful solution was given any serious effort.

We have the verdict of said trial.
What serious attempt was made by the Lincoln and company for compromise?
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

wilber6150

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
19,320
Location
deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
As a poster wrote on another thread, "both sides were too stubborn."
Stubborn? Lincoln was forced into a corner by the Confederates giving him three options either give into blackmail or do nothing and let US troops be starved into submission or do something to help them.. Theres only one thing that a US President could have done..
 

wilber6150

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
19,320
Location
deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
What serious attempt was made by the Lincoln and company for compromise?
And what compromise were the Confederates willing to accpet? The only thing the men sent to Washington were there for was to determine the price they would accept for Sumter and the other installations that they had already stolen...Compermise only works if both sides are willing to do it...
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

CW3O

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
871
Location
Massachusetts
The idea that any Union effort to support Fort Sumter, regardless of its percieved intent, could in any way represent an "invasion of Charleston Harbor" is beyond belief. A few hundred soldiers isolated on Fort Sumter, without boat lift, or any reliable means of reinforcement, does not represent a threat to Charleston or any other location on the planet, Any educated military man of that age or any other age would recognize this. War was wanted , war was sought, and war was found by Jeff Davis et al...
 
Last edited:

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
34,394
Location
Near Kankakee
The idea that any Union effort to support Fort Sumter, regardless of its percieved intent, could in any way represent an "invaion of Charleston Harbor" is beyond belief. A few hundred soldiers isolated on Fort Sumter, without boat lift, or any reliable means of reinforcement, does not represent a threat to Charleston or any other location on the planet, Any educated military man of that age or any other age would recognize this. War was wanted , war was sought, and war was found by Jeff Davis et al...
There were less than 100 soldiers and bandsmen on Sumter. I think it was about 85, including a regimental band.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top