First of all sir, I applaud you..
You are having a reasonable discussion without emotions...
You are not accusing me of things that are just not true, and are not accusing me of being a “Yankee” supporter, there are things that I agree with and disagree with regarding the politics of the war between the states....
Having said that, sumpter was an island, not a property sitting in the middle of a state, and if I am correct (please correct me if I am wrong) federal installations within the confederates states were abandoned, except for the one that sat in the water... a territorial dispute, yes, but a reason to start a shooting war, no....
to state that sumpter was going to be used as a staging point for an invasion is speculation at this point..
one could say the technology did not exist at that time for a full fledged amphibious assault, and considering the enormous firepower the confederacy had surrounding the island, it would be safe to say that even with sumpter resupplied, any landing or attack would have been doomed to failure...
No, my contention is that a politician (davis) wanted a shooting war, was looking for a reason for it, and found one...
But this one was doomed to failure, not because of right or wrong, not because of fighting spirit or personal beliefs of the men involved, but, to put it quite simply, logistics..
they did not have enough stuff, and very few ways to get what they needed..
their only chance of success was to strike quickly and decisively... It almost worked
The issue with Sumter was its command of the harbor. Amphibious attacks were carried out with the technology of the day, but as you point out, they were not likely to originate from Sumter. Generally armies were landed miles up the coast from fortified positions and then marched into place.
I don’t really think that the South wanted a shooting war. They just wanted peaceful secession. However, I think many if not most influential Southern leaders presumed that the North’s postering over the first two months and rejection of the right to secede meant that a shooting war was inevitable.
Federal installations were abandoned, but not out of good will. Many were seized. The Charleston, SC garrison moved to Sumter because it was more defensible. No one (North nor South) really knew what to expect.
IMHO firing on Sumter was a huge mistake. It was a small victory for the South, but provided an enormous rallying cry for the North. It also lit the match to a hot war. No matter what provocation occurs prior to a fight, most people fixate on who threw the first punch. Its questionable whether the Northern states had the political will to attack the South, before Fort Sumter was fired on.
The issue of Sumter being an island is a nonissue in my opinion with regard to sovereignty, as it is clearly an “inland island” within the territorial boundaries of SC. The surrounding water is clearly territorial to SC.
Just parenthetically- I’ve been to Fort Sumter. Two things struck me when I was there. Nope, not quite old enough for them to have been projectiles- I just feel that old. :-)
1. It was a lot smaller than I had imagined- even having seen contemporary photos of the place.
2. It was a LONG WAY from any land that you could emplace front-stuffer arty on. It was a clear day and the nearest land was a loooong way off.
I guess artillery gunners had to really know their stuff to beat that place up as they did.