Posted on 04/12/2009 5:56:49 AM PDT by mainepatsfan
April 12, 1861
Fort Sumter fired upon The American Civil War begins when Confederates fire on Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor.
The fort had been the source of tension between the Union and Confederacy for several months. After South Carolina seceded, the state demanded the fort be turned over but Union officials refused. A supply ship, the "Star of the West," tried to reach Fort Sumter on January 9, but the shore batteries opened fire and drove it away. For both sides, Sumter was a symbol of sovereignty. The Union could not allow it to fall to the Confederates, although throughout the Deep South other federal installations had been seized. For South Carolinians, secession meant little if the Yankees still held the stronghold. The issue hung in the air when Abraham Lincoln took the oath of office on March 4, stating in his inauguration address: "You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors."
Lincoln did not try to send reinforcements but he did send in food. This way, Lincoln could characterize the operation as a humanitarian mission, bringing, in his words, "food for hungry men." He sent word to the Confederates in Charleston of his intentions on April 6. The Confederate Congress at Montgomery, Alabama, had decided on February 15 that Sumter and other forts must be acquired "either by negotiation or force." Negotiation, it seemed, had failed. The Confederates demanded surrender of the fort, but Major Robert Anderson, commander of Fort Sumter, refused.
At 4:30 a.m. on April 12, the Confederate guns opened fire. For thirty-three hours, the shore batteries lobbed 4,000 shells in the direction of the fort. Finally, the garrison inside the battered fort raised the white flag. No one on either side had been killed, although two Union soldiers died when the departing soldiers fired a gun salute, and some cartridges exploded prematurely. It was a nearly bloodless beginning to America's bloodiest war.
Fort Sumter was the bait,for Mr. Lincoln’s war.
Enemies of the United States chose to attack it and suffered the consequences.
Citadel cadets fired the first shots upon “The Star of the West.”
Haynes, Hawthorne, & Pickney
elCid’91
tahDeetz
Fort Sumter was the bait,for Mr. Lincoln’s [necessary] war.
Yeah it was a supply ship all right! It was attempting to supply "250 United States troops."
Shots were fired, but it would be inconvenient for our historians now to consider these the first shots of the "Civil War" as the sending of this ship into Charleston harbor was clearly an act of war, and clearly something the North did. Better to say it all began with some other incident where the North could pretend to be blameless.
ML/NJ
Lincoln murdered the Republic, all this is the slow decline before the end comes.
It's interesting how that incident is overlooked as almost a non event.
Opinions vary.
Again Opinions vary
Issues regarding the regional imbalance in tariffs stoked the embers of conflict dating back to Whig leader Henry Clay's tariff increase in 1824 and the "Tariff of Abominations" in 1828. The successor party to the Whig's, the Republican Party, pushed a huge increase (250% on some items) in the Tariff, (the Morrill Tariff), in early 1861. The shelling of the Revenue Post, Fort Sumter, in Charleston Harbor came when negotiations to end the standoff in the harbor failed.
Slavery was a sideshow by comparison, as stated by A. Lincoln to Horace Greeley in 1862.
Jeff Davis didn't seem to have any hesitation in accommodating him. Obviously he wanted one just as bad as you say Lincoln did.
The inconvenience is that if you did claim that as the opening shots of the war then you couldn't blame it all on Lincoln. Where's the fun in that?
How? I've listened to you lost causers claim that for years now. How exactly did Lincoln murder the Republic?
Then why didn't the South rebel then? Why did it take the election of a president unalterably opposed to the expansion of slavery for tariffs to suddenly become a major issue?
The successor party to the Whig's, the Republican Party, pushed a huge increase (250% on some items) in the Tariff, (the Morrill Tariff), in early 1861.
Actually it was pushed early in 1860 where it passed in the House but failed in the Senate, yet the South didn't rebel then. And by the time it finally passed in March 1861 the Southern states had already announced their secession. So how can something that hadn't happened yet be the reason for their actions?
The shelling of the Revenue Post, Fort Sumter, in Charleston Harbor came when negotiations to end the standoff in the harbor failed.
Fort Sumter was an Army post. The revenue collection point was, if memory serves, on East Bay Street on the Charleston waterfront.
Slavery was a sideshow by comparison, as stated by A. Lincoln to Horace Greeley in 1862.
Quote please.
It would perhaps be better to describe Mr. Lincoln as an accessory after the fact. The anti-Federalists were right after all. A. Hamilton was Lincoln's political progenitor.
Professors Thomas DiLorenzo and Walter Williams seem to have a handle on it. Have you read Lysander Spooner? Why exactly did New England States ponder secession so seriously?
There were the tariff disputes, the arguments over the expansion of slavery into the western territories, the argument over a strong central government and weaker state governments versus strong state governments and a weaker central government, and the fact that the North was slowly gaining an unbeatable majority in Congress.
Both sides were itching for an excuse to go after the other. If it wasn't Fort Sumter, it would have been something else.
And how so.
Professors Thomas DiLorenzo and Walter Williams seem to have a handle on it.
Tommy DiLorenzo and Walter Williams blame Lincoln for everything up to and including a rainy day. Doesn't make them right.
Have you read Lysander Spooner?
I have. Have you read the parts of his writings where he says slavery was illegal and a violation of the Constiution? Was he right there as well?
Why exactly did New England States ponder secession so seriously?
It's debatable that New England seriously pondered secession, in 1815 or any other time. Certainly nothing coming out of the Hartford Convention specifically threatens it. But it's interesting to note the response that even the hint of secession got. One prominent newspaper went so far as to post an editorial on the subject:
The Union is in danger. Turn to the convention in Hartford, and learn to tremble at the madness of its authors. How far will those madmen advance? Though they may conceal from you the project of disunion, though a few of them may have even concealed if from themselves, yet who will pretend to set the bounds to the rage of disaffection? Once false step after another may lead them to resistance to the laws, to a treasonable neutrality, to a war against the Government of the United States. In truth, the first act of resistance to the law is treason to the United States. Are you ready for this state of things? Will you support the men who would plunge you into this ruin?
No man, no association of men, no state or set of states has a right to withdraw itself from this Union, of its own accord. The same power which knit us together, can only unknit. The same formality, which forged the links of the Union, is necessary to dissolve it. The majority of States which form the Union must consent to the withdrawal of any one branch of it. Until that consent has been obtained, any attempt to dissolve the Union, or obstruct the efficacy of its constitutional laws, is Treason--Treason to all intents and purposes.
Any other doctrine, such as that which has been lately held forth by the ‘Federal Republican’ that any one State may withdraw itself from the Union, is abominable heresy – which strips its author of every possible pretension to the name or character of Federalist.
We call, therefore, upon the government of the Union to exert its energies, when the season shall demand it – and seize the first traitor who shall spring out of the hotbed of the convention of Harford. This illustrious Union, which has been cemented by the blood of our forefathers, the pride of America and the wonder of the world must not be tamely sacrificed to the heated brains or the aspiring hearts of a few malcontents. The Union must be saved, when any one shall dare to assail it.
Countrymen of the East! We call upon you to keep a vigilant eye upon those wretched men who would plunge us into civil war and irretrievable disgrace. Whatever be the temporary calamities which may assail us, let us swear, upon the altar of our country, to SAVE THE UNION.
That was the Richmond Enquirer, November 1, 1814. Why were they wrong then and right 46 years later?
It’s been argued for 150 years now and opinions still vary. No sense in arguing here about it.
Why not?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.