Trouble is, this fort was a serious threat to their shipping. At least one Northern newspaper had already called for the guns of fort Sumter to be fired at Charleston to prevent them from getting out of the tariffs demanded by the Federal Government. Anderson's officers at Fort Sumter actually discussed using the guns of Fort Sumter to attack Charleston.
The Fort commanded the entrance to the harbor of Charleston, and it would scare away trade so long as the potential existed that those guns might open up on ships attempting to trade with Charleston.
So Fort Sumter was not merely an issue of face with the Confederates, it was a sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of Charleston's merchant traders. Of course it was also a slap in the face to the efforts of the Confederates to be seen as a legitimate government. A government that cannot control it's own territory, isn't a real government.
When you deny the other side breathing room and an opportunity to save face and demand that they give in to you absolutely, it's hard to see how you can blame anyone else for the war.
I've read discussions among Lincoln's cabinet that one of the things they feared most is that the Southerners would do nothing at all, and they would have a fort full of men doing nothing, and it would become an embarrassment. In the meantime the South would establish European trade and continue to behave as an independent state, and if it went on too long, it would become irrevocable.
That's why your claim not to have a dog in the fight or a horse in the race is so laughable. Of all the people here, you are the one with a dog in the fight.
I don't have an ancestor "dog" in the fight. I think we all have a "dog" in the fight when it comes to Federal overreach. I think much of modern federal overreach and modern judicial overreach stems from the consequences of the civil war.
Federalism was severely damaged by the Civil War, and in that regard, I think we all have a "dog" in that fight.
I was opposing Federal and Judicial overreach long before I ever thought of the civil war, and every time I looked at the roots of some horrible federal policy of judicial ruling, it kept tracing back to the 14th amendment and the Civil War.
Trouble is, the political crisis and possibility of war disturbed trade. Do you seriously think the cotton planters were just dying to collect the superprofits you think were coming their way? No. They were trying to get through a crisis and trying to make a country, and some of them thought that war would help them to create a strong, united, independent South.
At least one Northern newspaper had already called for the guns of fort Sumter to be fired at Charleston to prevent them from getting out of the tariffs demanded by the Federal Government. Anderson's officers at Fort Sumter actually discussed using the guns of Fort Sumter to attack Charleston.
You find that shocking? Surprising? In some way significant? Nonsense. You can always find some newspaper advocating some fringe policy. Back then, before the Internet, those ideas found their way into newsprint, rather than onto computer screens. And at any meeting of officers in a crisis, some nutty ideas are bound to be floated.
But you'll note that they didn't act on that notion. They recognized that "attacking" or shelling the city would only bring the surrounding forces down on the fort faster than would otherwise be the case. Meanwhile nutty ideas were also circulating on the other side, but they weren't rejected.
The Fort commanded the entrance to the harbor of Charleston, and it would scare away trade so long as the potential existed that those guns might open up on ships attempting to trade with Charleston.
Then the guns of the city and other batteries would open up on the fort. It was a stalemate, and as the fort was at a disadvantage, I'd say they were pretty well deterred from attacking anyone.
So Fort Sumter was not merely an issue of face with the Confederates, it was a sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of Charleston's merchant traders.
Overdramatic in the extreme. And you've already as much as said that secession would destroy New York economically. Why couldn't Charleston wait until the crisis was peacefully resolved? Tell me, were those Charleston merchants just aching for war? Just dying to get every last penny sooner rather than later? And what made them superior to their Northern counterparts?
Of course it was also a slap in the face to the efforts of the Confederates to be seen as a legitimate government. A government that cannot control it's own territory, isn't a real government.
In terms of pride, that was something that Confederates probably could have lived with. The idea that people wouldn't take their government seriously was more serious, but still, if you think in those terms you're only hurting yourself.
What I mean is, if you think that if you don't get everything that you want immediately then you are done for, then you've painted yourself into a corner unnecessarily. You've made the situation more dire for yourself than it has to be.
Today, we recognize that Spain could live without Gibraltar and China could live for long decades without Hong Kong, and that two forces could exist side by side in a stand-off or stalemate without either being existentially threatened.
I've read discussions among Lincoln's cabinet that one of the things they feared most is that the Southerners would do nothing at all, and they would have a fort full of men doing nothing, and it would become an embarrassment. In the meantime the South would establish European trade and continue to behave as an independent state, and if it went on too long, it would become irrevocable.
First, you can't keep saying things like that without citing sources. Otherwise people will just assume you are making things up. Second, I really doubt that was the case. Secessionists were seizing federal property all over the place. That they would do nothing was probably the least of Lincoln's worries. Third, so what? If the secessionists really did do nothing and this won them their independence peacefully, isn't that what you would want and what America could probably live with? That they didn't was nobody's fault but their own.
I was opposing Federal and Judicial overreach long before I ever thought of the civil war, and every time I looked at the roots of some horrible federal policy of judicial ruling, it kept tracing back to the 14th amendment and the Civil War.
You needed to have some way of guaranteeing that states couldn't deny their people basic liberties. Without that we'd still have separate water fountains and washrooms for different races. Is that what you want? Twentieth century jurisprudence turned the 14th Amendment into something it wasn't meant to be, but how would you keep states from denying large parts of their populations basic human rights?