Sumter Provocation

[unionblue]

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."

Hebrews 11:1

Karen,

Exactly.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[unionblue]

My church is Presbyterian.

I belong to no church and my wife is a devoted Catholic.

This has what to do with historical evidence concerning Ft. Sumter provocation by either Davis or Lincoln?

I submit, none.

What people believe and what they know to me is two very different things.

Another quote that I find very interesting on the topic of faith.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Quincy Adams.

A long time ago, when I first joined this board, I came to the descion that I would not argue faith or belief that a person would claim to support a historical conclusion. I likened it to "punching out a cloud," as a belief had no form, no substance, and no fact or evidence to support it, just a person's faith in that conclusion being correct.

Just as I will not argue a person's religious beliefs, I will not argue an unsupported opinion based on what that person 'believes' is right.

Does this mean I have no faith, no belief, "no hope for and certain of what we do not see?"

Nope.

But in my own, personal, unseen opinion, it has no place when discussing history on a Civil War forum.

But you are free to disagree and to attend the church of your choice.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[unionblue]

Yes Ole, but if one couches it that way he can't be smugly self assured that he, and only he, always knows the truth.

As a man asked another so long ago, "What is truth?"

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[RobertP]

As a man asked another so long ago, "What is truth?"

Sincerely,
Unionblue

And as another said, "Hubris will get you every time."

 

[RobertP]

But you are free to disagree and to attend the church of your choice.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Thanks for the Heads Up, Blue.

 

[unionblue]

RobertP,

My point is, and has been for quite a while, is faith is a very slippery slope. And it is also very handy when you don't want to work very hard at defending your point of view in a historical argument.

There's no sense debating faith and I surely will not purposefully inflict my faith on anyone else. Its too personal and its too specific to me and simply would not work for anyone else. And I have no right to force it on anyone else.

Believe what you want but why act so surprised when you are asked to prove acutal historical events and your points of view concerning such events?

And, as I inferred above, believe what you want, but bring your sources to a CWT thread.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[unionblue]

To All,

Found this section of The Crisis at Ft. Sumter website to be pretty interesting and spot-on for this thread.

http://www.tulane.edu/~sumter/Reflections/Reflections_intro.html

It reads as almost a summation of the views and arguments presented here by forum members.

Enjoy,
Unionblue

 

[OpnCoronet]

Much food for thought. However, do we not have some historical evidence of the defensibility of Sumter. It was reduced to a pile of rubble, but could not be taken by direct assault, by Union forces in the siege of Charleston.
It is at least reasonable to assume if the Fort had been resupplied and reinforced, it would have effectively contributed to an earlier ending of the siege.

 

[ole]

I tend to put a condition on the re-supply of Sumter -- even the reenforcement. Once resupplied, Sumter would have had to be resupplied again and again. Reenforcing it could only add to the supply problem. In short, it was in an untenable position.

The fort was plenty strong enough to repel a seaborne invasion, but it couldn't withstand the pressure of being almost ringed by land-based large guns, even with plentiful ammo and gunners to use it.

It's a what if, but I really think that if Davis hadn't resolved to level the fort rather than let it be resupplied, Lincoln would eventually have had to evacuate the garrison. Sumter was symbolic, at best -- no threat to the Confederacy or to Charleston.

 

[OpnCoronet]

As with all "what if's" anything is probable,; but the objective evidence from the actual siege of Charleston, indicates that punding the Ft. to rubble would take time, and once Union forces started nosing around the Carolina sounds and Hilton Head(very early in the war, in fact), many of the guns ringing Sumter would have to be redirected and/or re-sited.


P.S. the 'real' what if, in this, is whether Maj. Anderson could be replaced. in time. He was interested only in a symbolic resistance, for honor's sake.

 

[unionblue]

Expired Image Removed Originally Posted by ole Expired Image Removed
Justify the "provocation," please. Supplying a few small units of US troops, doesn't look much like a provocation.

Ole

I decided to start this as a seperate thread. I'm sure its been hashed out on here before but I wanted to answer Ole without highjacking a thread.

It wasn't just a few small units, there were also supplies and ammuntion. In my mind this is an act of aggression. I also lean toward the ideas of Charles W. Ramsdell that Lincoln did this purposely to provoke the Southerners into firing the first shot. Lincoln couldn't maintain the Fort because he didn't want to offend the upper South and Border States and those in the North that still wanted peace. He also couldn't just abandon the Fort because then he would look weak in European eyes and he would in essence be recognizing the Confederacy. Not a good a good place to be politically. He played it perfectly though. He put the ball in the South's court. Now you have to put yourself in their shoes. In their eyes this was an act of aggression. Now they had the chance of looking weak and illegitimate. I believe Lincoln was a shrewed politician and knew exactly what he was doing.

Having said all of this, I believe this idea of provoked or not will essentially boil down to an oft debated topic on this forum; Was secession legal/right/wrong/blah/blah. But, I decided to start the thread anyway.

"...In pursuance of the plan adopted by the framers of the Constitution, Congress proceeded at once to establish forts, lighthouses, arsenals, mints, vessels of war, etc., for the protection of the lives, liberty, and the property of the people of the United States. Where land and materials were not furnished gratuitously by the States or by individuals, it was [sic] purchased and paid for by Congress, and, in every instance became the absolute property of the General Government. Such was the case with Forts Sumter and Pensacola, and the mint at New Orleans.

A vast amount of this property has been seized by bands of armed men, acting under the direction of temporary political juntos which profess to represent the "sovereign nations" of South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Alabama and Louisiana. What we have insisted is, that the property which has been taken shall be returned to its legitimate owners, and that the forts, customhouses, mints, which we still retain shall be held by force and arms [sic]. For recommending this policy, we are termed by shallow-brained men "coercionists." How few that use this word know what they are talking about!

The same principle would deny a man the privilege of defending his house, and barn, and furniture against highwaymen! The same principle would deny him the right to raise his rifle in defense of his wife and children! The same principle would not permit him to resist the assaults of armed men in a lonely alley, at midnight! The idea is too rediculous and too cowardly to be entertained for a moment.

What is it to "coerce?" The dictionary defines it to be to assault, to attack, to employ a positive or outward agency, whether that agency be of a moral or physical character. Who, then, are the "coercionists?" Charleston "coerced" Castle Pinckney, Fort Moultrie, the Custom House, and the "Star of the West;" she only refrained from "coercing" Fort Sumter, because she was not able to assault that water-bound Gibraltar, Flordia, Georgia, Alabama and Louisiana, followed in the illustrious steps of Charleston.

It matters little that the Cotton States propose to buy the property they have illegitimately grasped. Civilized men are not accustomed to take forcible possession of their neighbors' stores and dwelling houses--whether they be occupied, as in Pensacola fortress, or empty, as was Fort Moultrie--and then commence negotiations for purchasing, or renting.

Our esteemed friends, SHERLOCK and VATTIER, would be rather surprised if we were to attack their private dwellings, yet they would not be an iota less surprised if we were to assist a body of armed men, under the direction of Gov. Dennison, in an assault upon the Custom House and Post Office in Cincinnati.

In both cases we should be called coercionists; yet, we would be doing precisely what Charleston did when she demanded money of her citizens; and what New Orleans did when she seized the United States Mint.

If to defend, by the use of the army and navy, the property of the General Government, and the honor of the American flag, on the sea and on the land, be to "coerce," we acknowledge we are coercionists."

--Cincinnati Daily Times, February 14, 1861.

Just thought the folks of the period ought to have their say.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[ole]

Nicely said, and thanks for the post.

We know, and perhaps agree. that editorials are not history. But often, they express an opinion in words that most of us don't have.

Again, thanks.

Ole

 

[wilber6150]

Bumped and can this be moved into the Sumter forum

 

[jreb721]

Yeah it all comes back to the question is secession legal? Of course it is. Was our secession from Britian legal? What makes secession legal is force of arms. We have a right to change our government, the people of the south voted and decided the old ties weren't working so they left and formed another government. It will happen again one day, whether it be the south, north, west, or wherever, no nation has lasted forever but I hope we last at least as long as the Roman empire.

 

[brass napoleon]

Yeah it all comes back to the question is secession legal? Of course it is. Was our secession from Britian legal? What makes secession legal is force of arms.

Force of arms makes "secession" legal if that's the path the secessionists choose - and if they win. But the rebels of 1861, unlike their forefathers of 1776, had other options besides force that they could have resorted to. But they didn't, they lost, and a whole lot of people died.

 

[ole]

Yeah it all comes back to the question is secession legal? Of course it is. Was our secession from Britian legal? What makes secession legal is force of arms.

What our forefathers did was rebel. They didn't secede. As they won (with the help of France), it is now called a revolution. What the Confederates did was rebellion. As they didn't win, it remains a rebellion.

We have a right to change our government, the people of the south voted and decided the old ties weren't working so they left and formed another government. It will happen again one day, whether it be the south, north, west, or wherever, no nation has lasted forever but I hope we last at least as long as the Roman empire.

Agree on that, jreb. Everyone has a right to rebel. Having the power to do it successfully is quite another story. "If you secede, you must succeed."

 

[wilber6150]

O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME 1 [S# 1] CHAPTER I.
CORRESPONDENCE AND ORDERS RELATING SPECIALLY TO THE OPERATIONS IN CHARLESTON HARBOR FROM OCTOBER 31, 1860, TO APRIL 14, 1861.
UNION CORRESPONDENCE, ETC.--#1
-----------------------------------------
No. 8.] FORT MOULTRIE, S.C., December 18, 1860.
(Received A. G. O., December 21.)
Col. S. COOPER, Adjutant-General:
COLONEL: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 14th instant, giving answers to questions contained in my letters.
In reference to the instruction given me in reply to my question about Captain Foster's men, it would appear that I had not stated the matter with sufficient distinctness.
As I understood it, the South Carolina authorities sought to enroll as a part of their army intended to act against the forces of the United States, men who are employed by and in the pay of that Government, and could not, as I conceived, be enrolled by South Carolina "under the laws of the United States and of the State of South Carolina."

So would these men be the construction workers at the forts?

 

[OpnCoronet]

jreb721 is correct, the south was, indeed, engaged in open insurrection against the authority and laws of the United States of America, in hopes of validating it as a rebellion by sucessfully establishing its independence by force of arms. But that was not the official claim of Jefferson Davis or the gov't of the csa. They tried to make a sharp distinction between the 'supposed' legal act of secession allowed them by 'legal' right, instead of the illegal act of revolution.

 

[ole]

Bumped this thread into the Sumter forum.

 

[TerryB]

Force of arms makes "secession" legal if that's the path the secessionists choose - and if they win. But the rebels of 1861, unlike their forefathers of 1776, had other options besides force that they could have resorted to. But they didn't, they lost, and a whole lot of people died.

I've answered this objection elsewhere, but I'll go into it again. The math was against the Slave States if you assume that every territory joins the Union as a free state. That would upset the delicate balance of power that already existed in the Congress.
Second, the apologists of this position conveniently forget just how paranoid John Brown, Henry Ward Beecher and their ilk made the Southern states. For every Ruffin in the South who wanted war, there was a Beecher or Brown in the North.