On this date in 1865

Troops in the Army of the Tennessee, under the Command of General Oliver O.Howard, entered Columbia, South Carolina. For the next three days, a rampage of destruction by the Union Army soldiers resulted in two thirds of the city being destroyed. General Howard's forces were part of General William T.Sherman's Armies advancing North from Savannah, Georgia.

“But it didn’t, and there is no evidence it would have.”

I disagree. There was heated rhetoric from both sides, and hostilities were inevitable, it not imminent. Sumter was a dagger pointed at the commercial lifeline of South Carolina, and Lincoln had announced that he was going to resupply it and reinforce it.

I guess you would suggest that Davis should have waited for Sumter to be resupplied and reinforced, and for Charleston Harbor to be blockaded (which Lincoln was preparing anyway), in which case the commercial lifeline would have been severed in any event. Sounds like you would have Davis surrender without offering any resistance. Such a surrender would not even have been contemplated in nineteenth century America (but it’s something someone like Obama would have done in a heartbeat if faced with a similar situation).

ought-six: "In his state of the Union report of December 5, 1859, President Buchanan’s Secretary of the United States Treasury...
The value of total US exports for the year was $278,392,000.
The value of the exports grown or produced in the South was 74% of the total."

Question: do your figures for total 1859 exports come from the December 5 Treasury report?
If they do, then we need to remember who wrote that report -- Georgia's former governor and future (briefly) President of the Confederacy, Howell Cobb.
By 1860 Cobb is effectively a secessionist Fire Eater, and these are numbers used to justify their agenda.

But more careful analysis shows at least three problems with them:

First, only cotton and rice exports are indisputably products of the Deep South.
Together, they total $162 million, which is just 57%, not 74%, of the $278 million total exports shown.
All other major items listed (i.e., tobacco) were just as much products of Union states (i.e., Kentucky) or regions (i.e., Eastern Tennessee).
More careful analysis showed 1859 merchandise exports as $293 million, plus $64 million in specie makes the total $357 million, of which cotton & rice were 45%, other Southern products maybe another 10%, giving 55% total.

Of course, 55% is still a huge number for barely 10% of the US population.
But it turned out, during the war, that 55% was not as critical to the US economy as perhaps people like Georgia's Howell Cobb imagined.
Indeed, with the total loss of Confederate states' exports, US Federal revenues fell only 11% in 1861, then rose 22% in 1862 and doubled in each of the following years.

So, in 1860 the US Southern states were indubitably the Saudi Arabia of cotton, but just as with today, if Saudi Arabia suddenly stopped shipping oil, the world would certainly suffer, but then quickly adjust.
And that's just what happened during the Civil War.

It turned out, neither the Union nor the world generally were as dependent on Deep South products as it had seemed in 1860.

ought-six: "Your observation that in 1862 and subsequent years federal revenues increased is because Lincoln initiated an income tax (the first time in U.S. history) and borrowed up a storm.
The taxes and the loans were responsible for any increases."

Actually, income taxes were first proposed by President Madison and considered by Congress during the War of 1812.
Thankfully that war ended before such taxes proved necessary.
The Civil War was on a vastly larger scale.

The important point here is that US imports did not stop, or even drastically decrease due to the loss of Southern exports.
Instead, substitutes & alternatives were found and life in the North, if anything, was more prosperous in 1865 than it had been in 1860.

ought-six: "The South chose to stop it; indeed, it really had no other option.
And in so doing, the South played right into Lincoln’s hands, because Lincoln could – and did – wax indignant that the South fired the first shot."

Remember, on February 18, Jefferson Davis promised that he would go to war if the Union "assailed" Confederate "integrity".
On March 4, Abraham Lincoln promised he would not "assail" them and so they could only have war if they themselves started it.

On April 12 Davis decided he was being "assailed" at Fort Sumter and Lincoln decided the Confederacy had started war.
"And so the war came."

Whether Davis was correct in using Fort Sumter as his excuse to start Civil War is undeniable, short term, since the Confederacy immediately received four new states -- Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas -- nearly doubling their white population.
In that sense, Davis' move was a stroke of pure genius.

Longer term, of course, Davis had roused the Union to action, and to the Confederacy's eventual doom.
But politically, Davis had no real choice since almost the entire Deep South was clamoring for decisive actions at Fort Sumter.
Voices urging caution (i.e., Confederate Secretary of State Robert Toombs) were few & far between.
So had Davis delayed too long in taking action at Fort Sumter chances are good Davis himself would be replaced by more aggressive Confederate leaders.

Toombs to Davis on reading Lincoln's letter to _Pickney:

"Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North.
You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death.
It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal."

In late March, 1861 the Lincoln administration ordered four navy ships (the Powhatan, the Illinois, the Pocahontas, and the Harriet Lane) to resupply and reinforce Fort Sumter and to employ force to eliminate all opposition to that mission (i.e., fight its way through if necessary).

The ships were sent to resupply the fort, not to "reinforce" it, so far as I know. If the ships had fought their way through, that would have been the beginning of the war and it would have been on Lincoln's head. Why didn't Davis or Pickens or Beauregard wait to see if the fleet would shoot first and lose the moral high ground?

Lincoln had left the South with an “either/or” decision: Either the South allowed the provisioning and reinforcement of Sumter, or it would have to stop it.

So they allow it. What would have been wrong or impossible in that?

Indeed, the act of resupply and military reinforcement of Sumter was an act of war against the Confederacy in general and South Carolina in particular.

You've got people saying Lincoln's blockade of the South was an act of war. Blockading the fort could by the same standard be seen as an act of war. Resupplying the fort -- federal property which had been deeded to the US government -- was no act of war.

After the war Davis was taken into custody. He was told that Beauregard’s bombardment of Sumter was what started the war. Davis pooh-poohed the idea, and rightfully so. He said that it is not who fires the first shot that starts the fight or the war, but rather he who renders force necessary is the true aggressor. Davis said that if someone puts a gun to another person’s chest, and that other person knocks the gun aside, is that other person the true aggressor or is the man who wielded the gun?

That is what aggressors usually say. And maybe if Davis wasn't always "pooh-poohing" ideas he disagreed with he would have had a more successful career.

“That is what aggressors usually say.”

Is it? Someone points a gun at your head, and you knock it away; are you the aggressor because you physically struck at the other fellow? Perhaps, in California in 2017 a court would find you the aggressor, and the gun-wielding fellow the victim (though, in California they’d find him guilty of gun possession, which in California is the ultimate evil).

Also, remember that on the evening of April 11, 1861 the federal ship Harriet Lane fired on the steamship Nashville, which was just outside Charleston Harbor. That preceded the bombardment of Fort Sumter by almost a day. Then again, a cadet unit from the Citadel fired on the federal ship Star of the West as it entered Charleston Harbor to resupply Sumter, and that was in January, 1861! Perhaps that was the first shot of the war.

That is the wonderful thing about history: We can “fight it out” years later, sitting in the comfort of our homes, a cocktail in hand, and know the most serious physical threat we will face is tripping over the sleeping dog at our feet when we get up to go to the bathroom.

The Civil War was the greatest tragedy ever to befall our nation, and there is enough blame to go around. What is scary is that today we are more divided than we were in 1860 and 1861. Perhaps “divided” is not quite accurate, because it assumes just two sides; I think “fractured” is more appropriate, as there are so many factions now, each with competing interests and allegiances, which is far more dangerous.

I enjoy the discussions.

Aggressors do talk that way, but I don't want to name any names at this point (Godwin's Law).

One little fort is a gun to the head of the Big Confederacy? I don't think so.

Also, remember that on the evening of April 11, 1861 the federal ship Harriet Lane fired on the steamship Nashville, which was just outside Charleston Harbor.

It sounds like that was a warning shot -- an intentional miss -- to get the ship to stop and identify itself. When we say "first shot" we're usually talking about something more.

What is scary is that today we are more divided than we were in 1860 and 1861. Perhaps “divided” is not quite accurate, because it assumes just two sides; I think “fractured” is more appropriate, as there are so many factions now, each with competing interests and allegiances, which is far more dangerous.

If one issue deeply divides the country it can be worse than if people are divided in different ways by different issues.

Right now if somebody wanted to secede based on one issue -- sanctuary cities, say -- they'd have to face the fact that people in their own part of the country were divided on other issues (and some in the other part of the country might well agree with the seceders on that one issue).

Back then, you had solid blocs agreeing about slavery and not caring about other issues. People were willing to follow Davis and didn't quibble about his views on other things.

Mr. x said: “The ships were sent to resupply the fort, not to ‘reinforce’ it, so far as I know.”

If you accept the validity of the “Official Records...” and Lincoln's statement of approval, then you see his order to reinforce. He said the same thing in his orders to go in to Pensacola the same day.

Here in Lincoln's words:

April 4, 1861
To: Lieut. Col. H.L. Scott, Aide de Camp

This will be handed to you by Captain G.V. Fox, an ex-officer of the Navy. He is charged by authority here, with the command of an expedition (under cover of certain ships of war) whose object is, to reinforce Fort Sumter.

History is replete with such “little forts,” the world over. The forts at the mouth of Mobile Bay; Fort Pickens that protected Pensacola (and that the federal navy invested at the same time as Sumter). On a more global scale there was the fort on Corregidor that guarded Manila bay; Gibraltar was constructed to command the channel between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic; the fort at Singapore was built to command the Strait of Malacca. I can go on and on.

Exactly. Gibraltar, Guantanamo, Hong Kong, Macao, Goa, Ceuta and Mellila, West Berlin, Konigsberg, Nagorno-Karabakh.

There have been plenty of enclaves, exclaves, semi-enclaves, and semi-enclaves -- territories of one country surrounded or almost surrounded by the territory of another country. Some of them have great strategic importance. Some are resented by the countries on their borders.

But we've grown accustomed to such places and so has international law. Calling them knives at the throat or guns at the head of the large states outside is overly dramatic sword-rattling. The Confederacy could have survived with two or three US forts off shore.

Jefferson Davis, though, was concerned that his government would collapse if he didn't get tough. Also, attacking the forts and starting a war could bring other slave states into the secessionist camp. But these political concerns shouldn't be mistaken for matters of national survival.

“But we’ve grown accustomed to such places and so has international law. Calling them knives at the throat or guns at the head of the large states outside is overly dramatic sword-rattling. The Confederacy could have survived with two or three US forts off shore.”

We were talking about Fort Sumter and 1861, not about a fort in today’s political and social environment. You make the quintessential mistake in discussing history: Applying today’s standards and mores to a bygone era.

“Also, attacking the forts and starting a war could bring other slave states into the secessionist camp. But these political concerns shouldn’t be mistaken for matters of national survival.”

You mean other slave states such as Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky — even Massachusetts (yes, THAT Massachusetts, which even though had abolished slavery it allowed “grandfathered” slavery into its state law, which set forth that someone who was a slave when the law was enacted could remain a slave). Then, there was Mrs. U.S. Grant of Galena, Illinois who owned four slaves in 1861. But, of course, those states did not secede and join the Confederacy.

It's true that law and practice have changed much since those days (both about exclaves and blockades). A wise statesman, though, might have an inkling of what the complexities and possibilities were in his own day. Jefferson Davis didn't. If he'd had more imagination and more discernment he might have understood that the federals retaining a fort or two didn't have to be a cause for war. But Davis wasn't one to question what he believed or to consider different options and ways to do things.

You mean other slave states such as Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky — even Massachusetts

No, I mean states like Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas. Authorities in those states had rejected or delayed secession before Sumter, but rushed to secede after war began and Lincoln called for troops. Davis's gamble paid off. At least in the short run.

THAT Massachusetts, which even though had abolished slavery it allowed “grandfathered” slavery into its state law, which set forth that someone who was a slave when the law was enacted could remain a slave

Not actually true. Massachusetts abolished slavery in 1780, so there were no slaves left by 1860. You may be thinking of New Jersey, which abolished slavery in 1804 but still had 18 "apprentices for life" listed as slaves in the 1860 census. Neither, though, qualified as a slave state, properly speaking.

But, of course, those states did not secede and join the Confederacy.

Not for want of trying on the part of slaveowners in those states who were energized in the way that Davis might have intended. If things had gone differently, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri might have gone with the rebels.

Are you claiming that General Scott was issuing false orders?

Note that the order by General Scott invokes the military form so as to define the responsibility of the appointment as originating from higher authority, Abraham Lincoln.

The first sentence clearly indicates this to any one knowledgeable with military affairs.

It was clear to the participants to begin action under Federal authority.

Had resupply been their order, then the ships would have been loaded with beans and coffee instead of Springfields and powder.

Are you claiming that General Scott was issuing false orders?

Who can say? If you look at what Secretary of War Cameron and Secretary of the Navy Welles wrote in their orders, it corresponds to what Lincoln claimed: it was a mission to "reprovision" the fort or to "deliver the sustenance" not to bring more troops or arms to the fort. Troops were included in the expedition in case war had already begun.

The mission was to bring supplies to the fort, but there was an expectation that war might already have begun, therefore, troops and armaments were included in the larger expedition. That did not mean that they were going to be sent to the fort directly.

Also, note once again that "reinforce" is an ambiguous term. Delivering food to a besieged fort in a sense "reinforces" the position (i.e. makes it stronger), even without bringing additional troops or weaponry.

I'd like to think General Scott's order represents his interpretation of what he was authorized to do, which might not be put in the same words or sense that Lincoln used. Think of the game of "telephone" -- what people relay isn't necessarily what they heard.

Had resupply been their order, then the ships would have been loaded with beans and coffee instead of Springfields and powder.

So you're saying there wasn't any food on the ships? How do you know?

In any case, Scott's view of what was required for a resupply expedition may have differed from Lincoln's, and Lincoln probably left it up to Scott to decide just exactly what would be shipped.

Do you consider the use of the term “reinforce” in this context as simply being food supplies?

Washington, April 1st, 1861.
“Sir:

You have been designated to take command of an expedi-
tion to reinforce and hold Fort Pickens in the harbor of Pensa-
cola. You will proceed to New York where steam transportation
for four companies will be engaged ; and putting on board such
supplies as you can ship without delay proceed at once to your
destination. The object and destination of this expedition will
be communicated to no one to whom it is not already known.

(Signed) WINFIELD SCOTT.

To Brevet Colonel Harvey Brown, U. S. Army.
Approved April 2nd, 1861.

” .(Signed) ABRAHAM LINCOLN.”

“Evidently General Scott required Lincoln's written author-
ity before committing this act of war.

“Lincoln, to insure the intent of this ‘ order, ‘ issued a special
order, as follows:

(Enclosure) “Executive Mansion,

Washington, April Ist 1861.

” All officers of the Army and Navy, to whom this order may
be exhibited will aid by every means in their power the expedi-
tion under the command of Colonel Brown; supply him with
men and material; and co-operating with “him as he may desire.

(Signed) ABRAHAM LINCOLN.”

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.