Why Was Fort Sumter a 'Big Deal'?

Both located in Confederate territory...
[Sigh]....I can't believe I'm jumping into this, but will scold myself later.

Just because a state has seceded doesn't make it stick. The example I've used many times before is that I can declare California to be the Grand Duchy of Adam-Land, but my declaration does not make it so. I can see one of three ways that the Grand Duchy of Adam-Land becomes a political reality:
1) Conquering all of California through military might
2) Having my independence conceded by the US government, or
3) Gaining foreign recognition of my new nation and having those foreign governments pressure the US into accepting it.

I can whine all day long about California occupying my "territory", but until one of these things happen, how is my government a political reality? As none of these conditions were met by the Confederacy, how was their claim of ownership of US property in any way valid?
 
The difference is, that these forts were located in "Confederate" territory. I believe that's the part you don't like. When you stated "If there "wasn't much there anyway," then why did the Confederates attack and start a war over it?" The Confederates, again, just wanted them out of their territory. Now when you say "start a war", my idea of starting a war is marching thousands of troops with guns drawn into another's territory. Just like Lincoln did.

Let me repeat, yet again:
Correction: they wanted the Union out of what they claimed was their territory. There was a counterclaim, and deciding the matter by an all-out bombardment was a sure fire way to start a war.
 
[Sigh]....I can't believe I'm jumping into this, but will scold myself later.

Just because a state has seceded doesn't make it stick. The example I've used many times before is that I can declare California to be the Grand Duchy of Adam-Land, but my declaration does not make it so. I can see one of three ways that the Grand Duchy of Adam-Land becomes a political reality:
1) Conquering all of California through military might
2) Having my independence conceded by the US government, or
3) Gaining foreign recognition of my new nation and having those foreign governments pressure the US into accepting it.

I can whine all day long about California occupying my "territory", but until one of these things happen, how is my government a political reality? As none of these conditions were met by the Confederacy, how was their claim of ownership of US property in any way valid?

How do amweiner, not sure if we've crossed paths B4.

Apparently, because you want it is the only requirement.

I would add a fourth:

4) Implementing a clear, recognized, preestablished process that allows you to do so.

Which the secessionists/Confederates also did not do.
 
How do amweiner, not sure if we've crossed paths B4.

Apparently, because you want it is the only requirement.

I would add a fourth:

4) Implementing a clear, recognized, preestablished process that allows you to do so.

Which the secessionists/Confederates also did not do.
Thanks @CW Buff! Not sure about that, either, but howdy and hello right back.

I did forget about that fourth option and appreciate you adding it!
 
Lincoln and the Republican Congress are the ones who "made" Fort Sumter a "big deal". No one got killed from enemy fire, simply the South just wanted the North out of their territory. Other than some lost pride, it should have just been another incident.
Edited.

Secession is much like a divorce. At some point the "our" property becomes "mine" and "yours". The Seceding states rightfully felt they were owed some of the community property of the past union. They paid for much of the military equipment, land buildings, resources etc under the federal government for 100 years so much of the federal investment was theirs too. Few divorces have one person leaving with only their clothes leaving all the property, savings, investments etc with only one party. Unfortunately both sides knew there was no unbiased binding third party to manage the property division or divorce itself.

Sumter was the first jointly owned property made from an "ours" to a "mine". Like a divorce that meant time to start grabbing and protecting "your" things or start losing other property. History has shown that he who appears weak and hesitates loses in those situations. Taking the fort set the stage such confiscations would not be negotiated.

The South could not have started the secession worse than a confiscation of a military fort with arms. The North would have to assume the arms were to be used against them as there was no prior discussion nor trust. Like an ugly ugly divorce it was obvious this was not going to be amicable. Strike hard and fast if you are going to strike. I just wish the South would have managed the secession better and entered a negotiation process instead of war. The entire thing from Sumter on was grossly mismanaged by both sides.

Lincoln and the Republican Congress are the ones who "made" Fort Sumter a "big deal". No one got killed from enemy fire, simply the South just wanted the North out of their territory. Other than some lost pride, it should have just been another incident.
Edited.
 
Secession is much like a divorce.
I can't agree with that, although I know it's a popular sentiment (not unlike the gentlemen's club analogy in The Killer Angels). A marriage is essentially a contract that can be dissolved through commonly understood legal mechanisms. The Union was not such a contract, as other threads and members have pointed out, and there were no commonly understood processes by which a state could leave the Union. Sure, if the states had tried bringing a case before the Supreme Court, maybe they would've had a chance to do the whole thing without war, but they didn't.

Even your analogy as it pertains to property is pretty thin - yes, you can grab all sorts of stuff that belongs to your partner, but if it isn't yours, there's a better-than-average chance it's going to go back to the other person.

Finally, Fort Sumter was an oddly chosen place (or item, if you will) to contest, being incontrovertibly property belonging to the United States of America. You don't get to lay claim to it just by virtue of its location, nor can you say you used to belong but don't now but want your stuff back.
 
Lincoln and the Republican Congress are the ones who "made" Fort Sumter a "big deal". No one got killed from enemy fire, simply the South just wanted the North out of their territory. Other than some lost pride, it should have just been another incident.Edited.

Oh, you're talking about the attack on Fort Sumter, not the fort itself. The bloodless attack on Sumter was one of the flimsiest, worst excuses to go to war in the history of mankind.

That said, Davis's decision to attack the fort was utterly foolish and dumb. In firing the first shot, Davis played right into the hands of Radicals and inflamed Northern opinion against compromise and peaceful coexistence.
 
Oh, you're talking about the attack on Fort Sumter, not the fort itself. The bloodless attack on Sumter was one of the flimsiest, worst excuses to go to war in the history of mankind.

That said, Davis's decision to attack the fort was utterly foolish and dumb. In firing the first shot, Davis played right into the hands of Radicals and inflamed Northern opinion against compromise and peaceful coexistence.

Maybe you could go back in time and tell the Confederates themselves this since they had a very different view than you clearly do, to quote again Gov Pickens two days before Lincoln called for troops.

http://secession.richmond.edu/docum...31&order=date&direction=ascending&id=pb.3.740
----
Received your despatch. It is true that Fort Sumter was bombarded all day yesterday, after refusing to evacuate, and four vessels were off the bar with troops and supplies waiting for the tide to come in, and the Fort was in signal with them.

President Lincoln sent a special messenger, and informed me in writing that supplies would be put in, but asked no reply. Not a man at our batteries was hurt even. The Fort was furious in its fire on us. Our iron battery did great damage to the Fort in the south wall. Our shells fall freely in the Fort; it is not known exactly with what effect, but supposed to be serious, as they are not firing this morning. Our Enfield battery dismounted three of the large Columbiads. We will take the Fort and can keep sixteen ten-inch mortars all the time on it, besides heavy guns which will give no peace, night or day. We can sink the fleet if they attempt to enter the channel. If they land elsewhere we can whip them. I have here, now, nearly seven thousand of the best troops in the world, and a reserve of ten thousand on our railroads. The war is commenced, and we will triumph or perish. This is my answer to you. Please let me know what Virginia will do, as I telegraph to you candidly. F. W. PICKENS.

----
 
The US did not invade Fort Sumter. That's simply ahistorical nonsense.

We may have different definition of invade but my definition of it is the same as this "(of an armed force or its commander) enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it." That is what I got from googling it.

Even though slavery was a cause of the war, the war is not about slavery.
slavery was a cause of the war.

Common sense still tells me they do not contradict. Saying these contradict is like saying that these two contradict:

Even, though Coca Cola may not be healthy, you can still drink it.
Coca Cola may not be healthy.

How these contradict just does not make sense to me.
Edited.
 
We may have different definition of invade but my definition of it is the same as this "(of an armed force or its commander) enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it." That is what I got from googling it.

I suggest reading a real history book to see why US soldiers were in a US fort in a US harbor of a US city in a US state in the United States, and not some fly-by-night, spurious website.
Edited.
 
... and electing Lincoln didn't directly change that. All it did was signal the shifting of the majority of the population supporting more anti-slavery policies, starting with the territories. It did nothing immediately though, Lincoln and the Republicans still needed legislation, amendments, etc to follow.

Every other major faction in US history tried to "keep what they had" through the political process established by our Founders. The Confederates opted out of that, deemed the Constitutional process established by our Founders wasn't enough and wanted to have complete political control in a new Nation.

The United States of America wasn't good enough for them and they abandoned it, well at least they tried.

There's the rub. Plenty of folks at the time, & certainly since, believe the act of Secession was sanctioned by the Constitution. Never being ruled "illegal" until AFTER the conflict was settled in blood.
 
There's the rub. Plenty of folks at the time, & certainly since, believe the act of Secession was sanctioned by the Constitution. Never being ruled "illegal" until AFTER the conflict was settled in blood.

Viper21,

If, as you say, "Plenty of people at the time" believed that the act of secession was sanctioned by the Constitution, then why was it set in motion by acts of war by the South? Why was it so fervently opposed by the North who wanted to preserve the Union?

It appears Lincoln's earlier words come back to haunt us with the phrase, "having the power" to separate. One also should consider the rest of his words in said speech, where he states a majority has the right to deny a minority in or about them.

Belief in the idea that "Plenty of folks at the time" believed secession was sanctioned by the Constitution, runs smack dab into the harsh reality that "not enough people" believed the Constitution sanctioned unilateral secession.

As Chief Justice Taney of the US Supreme Court wrote prior to Ft. Sumter wrote, "In this, the South errs."

Unionblue
 
There's the rub. Plenty of folks at the time, & certainly since, believe the act of Secession was sanctioned by the Constitution. Never being ruled "illegal" until AFTER the conflict was settled in blood.
Yet there was no appeal to Constitutional courts or Congress was there instead there was a series of acts of war which are what rebels do to win a Civil War. The act of firing on Fort Sumter moots any legality.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top