What about Ft. Pulaski?"

[trice]

Reposted from the "How This Great Struggle Began" thread:

Why don't you all discuss the US capitulatoin of Fort Pulaski in Savannah Harbor and its implecatoins to/for the Fort Sumpter event?

On January 3, 1861, a Confederate force of 134 men easily overran Fort Pulaski. Why is / was Fort Pulaski so unimportant while Fort Sumpter became such a flashpoint?

This seems like it deserves a thread of its' own. I'll repost your message as the start of a new one called "What about Ft. Pulaski?" to keep this thread clear of unnecessary crosstalk.

Tim

 

[timewalker]

So the argument essentially is, "We committed one illegal act and were not punished for it, so that gives us license for other, more egregious criminal acts"?

Makes sense to me.

Different time. Different President. Different provocation.

 

[ole]

One might restate the obvious: We committed more than 20 illegal acts and got no reaction, so what's the big deal about Sumter? Excellent question. Excellent answer. The wimp, Buchanan vs. the less-than-wimp Lincoln. One doesn't have to like or appreciate Lincoln to recognize that he planted his considerable feet on the idea that the Union was sacrosanct. And he didn't budge off that idea. If some consider that to be provacative and warlike, that's understandable, but Abe drew a line. That others thought it was okay to cross it is quite another matter. He was president, and he had the authority to draw it.

Much has been said about Lincoln's manipulation of and occasionally straying from the Constitution. Considering the end and the means, I give him a pass. War has its own way of defining a constitution. Am particulary fond of the (loosely paraphrased) statement: "Must I sacrifice the whole for the preservation of a small part?"

Herein is the rub. It's apparently cool to shriek about unconstitutional. Give me an example of when "unconstitutional" worked practically during a war. In war, the constitution is silent.

ole

 

[whitworth]

Insurrection was insurrection

Abraham Lincoln simply considered insurrection as insurrection, which the U.S. government had the Constitutional power to suppress.
It mattered not if it were 1000 people in insurrection; 200,000 or two million.

Secession was insurrection. The Confederate States were forced to fight for the land, if they were to maintain secession. There was no free ride. If the Confederate government wanted a separate state, they would have to fight and die for it.

By mid 1863, much land that the Confederacy claimed in secession was forever lost.
By mid 1863, the Confederacy lacked the manpower and the logistics to defend all of its territory.
By mid 1863, it was realistically questionable whether slavery, as an economic institution, was maintainable.

Secession brought Grant to Mississippi and Sherman to Georgia. And in the end, the Confederacy was unable to do anything about it.

 

[trice]

Why don't you all discuss the US capitulatoin of Fort Pulaski in Savannah Harbor and its implecatoins to/for the Fort Sumpter event?

On January 3, 1861, a Confederate force of 134 men easily overran Fort Pulaski. Why is / was Fort Pulaski so unimportant while Fort Sumpter became such a flashpoint?

There was no garrison of US troops in Fort Pulaski, and so no way to prevent the Georgia troops from occupying the place. That is probably the main difference.

As things worked out, there were really only a few places the Federal government had the opportunity to hold their property for even a slight period of time with the available resources. Fort Sumter was one because of Anderson's action; Fort Pickens was another. Texas was yielded because of Texan use of force and a lack of resolution on the part of Buchanan/Twiggs. The offshore forts were essentially unreachable by the secessionists.

Tim

 

[OldGreyWolf]

I have often lamented the fall of Fort Pulaski to Union cannon.

On February 19, 1862, Brig. Gen. Thomas W. Sherman ordered Captain Quincy A. Gillmore, an engineer officer, to take charge of the investment force and begin the bombardment and capture of the fort. Gillmore emplaced artillery on the mainland southeast of the fort and began the bombardment on April 10 after Colonel Charles H. Olmstead refused to surrender the fort. Within hours, Gillmore's rifled artillery had breached the southeast scarp of the fort, and he continued to exploit it. Some of his shells began to damage the traverse shielding the magazine in the northwest bastion. Realizing that if the magazine exploded the fort would be seriously damaged and the garrison would suffer severe casualties, Olmstead surrendered after 2:00 pm on April 11.

I reckon they should've stuck it out.

I have been to Fort Pulaski. Although it has been refitted, you can still see the impact of the rifled howitzers. Impressive.

But not impressive enough. Olmstead and crew should've went down with the ship. Last Man Standing! Alamo type situation.

Can you imagine Hood's screaming Texans running down a routed Yankee army at 2nd Manassas? Screaming "Remember Pulaski!"

I think they would've got across the Potomac.

 

[trice]

I have often lamented the fall of Fort Pulaski to Union cannon.

On February 19, 1862, Brig. Gen. Thomas W. Sherman ordered Captain Quincy A. Gillmore, an engineer officer, to take charge of the investment force and begin the bombardment and capture of the fort. Gillmore emplaced artillery on the mainland southeast of the fort and began the bombardment on April 10 after Colonel Charles H. Olmstead refused to surrender the fort. Within hours, Gillmore's rifled artillery had breached the southeast scarp of the fort, and he continued to exploit it. Some of his shells began to damage the traverse shielding the magazine in the northwest bastion. Realizing that if the magazine exploded the fort would be seriously damaged and the garrison would suffer severe casualties, Olmstead surrendered after 2:00 pm on April 11.

I reckon they should've stuck it out.

I have been to Fort Pulaski. Although it has been refitted, you can still see the impact of the rifled howitzers. Impressive.

But not impressive enough. Olmstead and crew should've went down with the ship. Last Man Standing! Alamo type situation.

Can you imagine Hood's screaming Texans running down a routed Yankee army at 2nd Manassas? Screaming "Remember Pulaski!"

I think they would've got across the Potomac.

Generally speaking, this represents the tipping point of a phase of military history. When completed, Fort Pulaski had been a state-of-the-art fortress; now it was being reduced to rubble in less than a day. This proved that masonry forts were no longer useful, that the rifled cannon had made them obsolete. Gillmore's actions were carefully studied by soldiers interested in such things around the world.

As to the dying-to-the-last-man idea, that's pretty rare in history. I can't think of any sizable force in the Civil War doing it (the garrison at Ft. Pillow springs to mind, but about half of them survived.) It is a lot easier to suggest that others should do it, I suppose, than for someone to actually carry it out.

Tim

 

[ole]

Just so y'all know, I just dumped a bunch of posts, a few of which had a lot of good information in them, because not a single one of them referred to Ft. Pulaski. Thank Beowulf.

ole

 

[5fish]

FT Pulaski was no Ft Sumter for in was handed over to GA. in the last weeks of our foolish Pres. Buchanan. He was wise enough(somehow) not to start a conflict before the next President came into office.

You could argue that Ft Pulaski could have been the flash point that started the war but is was not. A rare moment of wisdom exercised by Pres. Buchanan avoided its moment in history.

Ft. Pulaski moment in military history was to be the first fort to become victim to the rifle howitzer with its fall to the union Savannah harbor was sealed...

 

[trice]

FT Pulaski was no Ft Sumter for in was handed over to GA. in the last weeks of our foolish Pres. Buchanan. He was wise enough(somehow) not to start a conflict before the next President came into office.

You could argue that Ft Pulaski could have been the flash point that started the war but is was not. A rare moment of wisdom exercised by Pres. Buchanan avoided its moment in history.

Ft. Pulaski moment in military history was to be the first fort to become victim to the rifle howitzer with its fall to the union Savannah harbor was sealed...

It wasn't "handed over". There was no garrison in place (well, there was a single ordnance sergeant and a "fortkeeper"/custodian, both probably living there with their families, to make sure things weren't vandalized/stolen/destroyed by the elements). A force of Georgia militia arrived to take the place (someone said 134 men). The US occupants protested, but had little choice in the matter.

Much the same story at other arsenals, posts, and forts throughout the South: they were generally "held" by one or two men detailed as custodians (usually older men not suited for active duty). When a few hundred armed men show up to take the place, they protested but submitted. In Louisiana, for example, the Governor sent some 700 armed Militia led by Braxton Bragg to take the stores and equipment at Baton Rouge.

Tim

 

[DHPatrick]

Reposted from the "How This Great Struggle Began" thread:





Tim

Tim

I suspect because there were so little Union presence there at the time. But I also believe the North probably expected (at least some) of these actions because of the times. I imagine they drew an imaginary line in the sand and said ' now cross this line'. This is all conjecture on my part you understand.

 

[trice]

Tim

I suspect because there were so little Union presence there at the time. But I also believe the North probably expected (at least some) of these actions because of the times. I imagine they drew an imaginary line in the sand and said ' now cross this line'. This is all conjecture on my part you understand.

There is no evidence that the Buchanan administration was doing anything at all to "draw lines in the sand". There is plenty of specific and overwhelming evidence of Southern secessionists acting illegally (even by their own theories) to seize Federal property and use armed force to threaten Federal employess and soldiers. Mainly, the Federals sat where they were and took the abuse in order to prevent things from getting out of hand.

Ft. Pulaski is simply another example: the state militia shows up, armed, to "take" the fort from its two caretakers. The caretakers are simply there to make sure the condition of the fort and its' equipment is maintained against the weather, vandalism, and theft. They have no knowledge that the state militia is coming when they land, and no orders from above about the situation. Georgia militia apparently 134 armed men against one ordnance Sgt. and one civilian caretaker (probably with their families present). Is this the way you think "the North" "drew an imaginary line in the sand and said ' now cross this line'"? Or is it simply another example of aggressive provocation and insult by the secesssionists?

Tim