Sumter Provocation

[ForeverFree]

This might be off-topic, perhaps you guys can indulge me.

One the subject of Sumter: I've always thought that historians have erred in the way that this is taught in our school (pre-college).

There is all of this emphasis on who fired the first shot. An emphasis which, for grammar school or high students, is often interpreted (actually, misinterpreted) to be the "cause" or "start" of the Civil War.

In fact, both sides were aware of the possibility of war. After the lower South states seceded, they openly began marshaling troops in anticipation of conflict.

Edward Ayers made this point in What Caused the Civil War: Reflections on the South and Southern History:

Slavery was... the most profound (problem) the nation ever faced. But the problem did not lead to war in a rational, predictable way. The war came through misunderstanding, confusion, miscalculation.

Both sides underestimated the location of fundamental loyalty in the other. Both received incorrect images of each other in the partisan press. Political belief distorted each side's view of the other's economy and class relations. Both sides believed the other was bluffing, both believed that the other's internal differences and conflicts would lead it to buckle, and both believed they had latent but powerful allies in the other region that would prevent war.

These views led to an unwillingness, perhaps inability, of the sides to find a compromise on what were by then very extreme positions. Military conflict was probably inevitable.

In the end, somebody was going to fire the first shot; an intricate set of circumstances would lead to that. I think the way this is taught in schools, people get the idea that Sumter was the "start" of the war... it's more complex than that.

Note: This should not be interpreted as saying that it's unimportant to "get the facts straight" about what happened at Sumter, which is the theme of this thread.

 

[brass napoleon]

Military conflict was probably inevitable.

I agree that Fort Sumter was just the fuse sitting on top of a giant powder keg. I'll also accept that war might have been inevitable (Seward's "irrepressible conflict"). But as I stated before, there were avenues to pursue a peaceful secession that were never given a chance. Had those avenues been pursued, Fort Sumter might not have happened. We'll never know though, because war, which should always be the last option, was made the first option.

 

[OpnCoronet]

As a general statement of fact, I think it is accurate enough. However there are specifics, that IMO, need clarification. It is not altogether clear that the North was preparing for war, at least in comparison with that of the south.
I would also, question whether there was miscalculation involved, at least as far as Ft. Sumter. Both Lincoln and Davis calculated very carefully their actions concerning the crisis in Charlesston Harbor and each calculation's planned results were (more or less) realized as calculated by both men.

 

[Arkansas59]

To all, a very lively discussion that I've enjoyed reading. I am in agreement with Foreverfree that while the tactical facts are in plain site to see, the overall strategy of both sides is not taught properly in school. It seems agreeable to say that the south had grown anxious to solve the problem with bloodshed instead of taking the long road thru constitutional amendment. It is arguable as to whether the north could have averted the larger war. At this point only opinions can be projected. My opinion is that the department of education founded in 1867 has done a masterful job at making President Lincoln into an equally great president to President Washington and making the south out as villians. To the victor go the spoils of history.

 

[OpnCoronet]

The issues of slavery were not equally divided. The causes of secession were no equally divided and the cause of the war is not equally divided. That is the history of the Civil War and, IMO, that is how it is being taught.(where it is being taught, at all).

 

[unionblue]

My opinion is that the department of education founded in 1867 has done a masterful job at making President Lincoln into an equally great president to President Washington and making the south out as villians. To the victor go the spoils of history.

Arkansas59,

The above portion of your post above reminds me of a line I read in the book, 3001, The Final Odyssey, by Arthur C. Clarke.

"Faith is believing what you know isn't true."

I don't think the department of education had to do a 'masterful job' at making President Lincoln into an 'equally great' president to President Washington. The historical record of the time shows the man reached far and above with his own abilities, in spite of his many flaws and shortcomings, to become great in his own right.

Then there is another line I remember that was posted here some time ago.

"The victors write the history. The losers write the myths."

How much more true is one statement over the other? Depends on what you believe vice what you know to be true.

Until our next post,
Unionblue

 

[ForeverFree]

I would also, question whether there was miscalculation involved, at least as far as Ft. Sumter. Both Lincoln and Davis calculated very carefully their actions concerning the crisis in Charlesston Harbor and each calculation's planned results were (more or less) realized as calculated by both men.

I totally agree. Indeed, I'd go further and say that the story of their calculations and attempted manipulations is even more important to know, than knowing who "fired the first shot."

... there were avenues to pursue a peaceful secession that were never given a chance. Had those avenues been pursued, Fort Sumter might not have happened. We'll never know though, because war, which should always be the last option, was made the first option.

Agreed. Ayers would probably add that the choices which were made were based on miscalculations, misperceptions, misinformation and misunderstandings. But still: we are accountable for our choices, regardless of how poorly we came to make them.

 

[brass napoleon]

Ayers would probably add that the choices which were made were based on miscalculations, misperceptions, misinformation and misunderstandings. But still: we are accountable for our choices, regardless of how poorly we came to make them.

Indeed. And there lies a lesson for the ages. If you're going to go to war, you better be prepared to go all out. And you better be prepared for your enemy to do the same.

 

[OpnCoronet]

The calculations of both men were correct. It can be argued that most(if not All) lost wars was the result of "miscalculation". But the miscalculation is only knowable 'after' the losing of the war, not before.
At the time, both men's calculations were more or less, completely successful.(more completely for Lincoln, a little less so, for Davis)

 

[Savez]

You mention Charles W. Ramsdell's 'written history' as going along with your beliefs. Does the book he has written have a title I can look up? I am curious as to what you base you views and beliefs on so that I can better understand where you are coming from.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

It wasn't a book it was an article.
Ramsdell, Charles W. "Lincoln and Fort Sumter," Journal of Southern History 3 (1937): 259-88.

I've tried to find a full text online but their doesn't seem to be one.

 

[unionblue]

Savez,

I appreciate you looking for an on-line source and for providing the information about Charles W. Ramsdell and the article from the Journal of Southern History.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[unionblue]

To All,

Found the following on another forum.

"Obviously the US Secretary of War as well as South Carolina's Attorney General knew the real status of Ft. Sumter. No half truths or revisionism here. On February 6, 1861, the U.S. Secretary of War, John Holt, sent a letter to South Carolina's Attorney General, Isaac Hayne, which assured by its response that if South Carolina was true to her threats, Ft. Sumter was going to be seized by Southern military action sometime in the near future. Holt's letter was a response to Hayne's January 31, 1860 demand of surrender of the fort made to President Buchanan. Hayne invoked a sovereign's (South Carolina) right of eminent domain to take possession of Sumter and wished to negotiate monetary compenstation threatening that if the United States refused to vacate, then force would be used to seize it.

In his reply to Hayne, Holt acknowledged that South Carolina's claim could have some validity only if the United States' "interest in this property [was] purely proprietary, in the ordinary acceptation of the term, it might, probably, be subjected to the exercise of the right of eminent domain" but Holt furthers that the United States interest in Sumter is not that of a proprietor but that of a sovereign which "has absolute jurisdiction over the fort and the soil on which it stands. This jurisdiction consists in the authority to 'exercise exclusive legislation' over the property referred to, and is therefore clearly incompatible with the claim of eminent domain now insisted upon by South Carolina."

Holt rejected South Carolina's claim of eminent domain and put the final nail in the coffin for any future negotiations over Sumter's return to South Carolina when he responded that "[t]he President is, however, relieved from the necessity of further pursuing this inquiry by the fact that, whatever may be the claim of South Carolina to this fort, he has no constitutional power to cede or surrender it. The property of the United States has been acquired by force of public law, and can only be disposed of under the same solemn sanctions. The President, as the head of the executive branch of the Government only, can no more sell and transfer Fort Sumter to South Carolina than he can sell and convey the Capitol of the United States to Maryland, or to any other State or individual seeking to possess it.

His excellency the governor is too familiar with the Constitution of the United States, and with the limitations upon the powers of the Chief Magistrate of the Government it has established, not to appreciate at once the soundness of this legal proposition."

Offered for your consideration,
Unionblue

 

[Savez]

Savez,

I appreciate you looking for an on-line source and for providing the information about Charles W. Ramsdell and the article from the Journal of Southern History.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

No problem. I had been looking for the actual full text so I could maybe quote some of it. Its been a good while since I have read it.

 

[RobertP]

Arkansas59,

"Faith is believing what you know isn't true."

Really? You never hear that in Church.

 

[unionblue]

Really? You never hear that in Church.

Faith of a religious kind can be put in my quote.

How many times have we heard that muslim terrorists twist what is really in the Holy Koran completely out of its original meaning so that those who take the lives of innocents can have faith in what they are doing is correct and condoned by God, yet most know isn't true.

I also had a co-worker at one time who professed to be a Black Muslim. When I read up on the subject, I read that, as I recall, black people came from the Moon, and that when humans were created by God, they were made from clay and baked in an oven. One was not completely done and was pasty white, one was partly done and was red, the other was completely done and was black, hence the creation of the races.

After I had read this, I went back to work and questioned my co-worker on these beliefs and if she honestly believed such. She admitted to me she professed belief in such, that she knew was not true, to get insurance and monetary benefits by being a member of the Black Muslim faith.

I guess it really depends on what type of church you attend, isn't it?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[ole]

Maybe 'twere better said that faith is believing in what you can't prove? That kinda brings us back full circle, doesn't it? Can't prove creation; can't prove evolution. Can't prove secession was either legal or illegal. Gotta have faith!

Ole

 

[Karen Lips]

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

Hebrews 11:1

Arkansas59,

The above portion of your post above reminds me of a line I read in the book, 3001, The Final Odyssey, by Arthur C. Clarke.

"Faith is believing what you know isn't true."

I don't think the department of education had to do a 'masterful job' at making President Lincoln into an 'equally great' president to President Washington. The historical record of the time shows the man reached far and above with his own abilities, in spite of his many flaws and shortcomings, to become great in his own right.

Then there is another line I remember that was posted here some time ago.

"The victors write the history. The losers write the myths."

How much more true is one statement over the other? Depends on what you believe vice what you know to be true.

Until our next post,
Unionblue

 

[RobertP]

Maybe 'twere better said that faith is believing in what you can't prove? That kinda brings us back full circle, doesn't it? Can't prove creation; can't prove evolution. Can't prove secession was either legal or illegal. Gotta have faith!

Ole

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.

 

[OpnCoronet]

Well, unilateral secession has been proven to be wrong. The South chose trial by combat to enforce its validity, they failed, ergo, it was not valid.

 

[RobertP]

Faith of a religious kind can be put in my quote.

How many times have we heard that muslim terrorists twist what is really in the Holy Koran completely out of its original meaning so that those who take the lives of innocents can have faith in what they are doing is correct and condoned by God, yet most know isn't true.

I also had a co-worker at one time who professed to be a Black Muslim. When I read up on the subject, I read that, as I recall, black people came from the Moon, and that when humans were created by God, they were made from clay and baked in an oven. One was not completely done and was pasty white, one was partly done and was red, the other was completely done and was black, hence the creation of the races.

After I had read this, I went back to work and questioned my co-worker on these beliefs and if she honestly believed such. She admitted to me she professed belief in such, that she knew was not true, to get insurance and monetary benefits by being a member of the Black Muslim faith.

I guess it really depends on what type of church you attend, isn't it?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

My church is Presbyterian.