Anderson merely moved his troops from Union fort to another.
South Carolinians then lawlessly seized the fort Anderson abandoned.
DiogenesLamp: "So the principle that the 'Union must be preserved' was negotiable?
Then it wasn't a 'Principle.'
It was a bargaining chip. "
So what do you think, if Lincoln traded Fort Sumter for a promise by Virginia not to succeed, would that be just a "bargaining chip" or a "principle" preserved?
Personally, I think it would have been a good bargain to preserve the Union.
You disagree?
DiogenesLamp: "Interestingly enough, Representatives of Virginia came to Lincoln after his flotilla of warships had already been sent to start a war with the South, and they told him that Virginia would agree to remain in the Union in exchange for the other states being permitted to leave peaceably.
Lincoln was said to have replied 'Too late! You are too late sir!' "
Totally apocryphal, not vouched for by any reputable historian.
In fact, in Lincoln's last meeting with Virginia's Unionist delegates, they informed him they could neither disband their secession convention nor promise not to succeed.
Once South Carolina seceded, it was no longer a Union Fort. The land belongs to the people who live on it.
South Carolinians then lawlessly seized the fort Anderson abandoned.
Apparently they had been led to believe that the Secretary of War was going to turn it over to them peaceably, as this account by a Union officer relates.
Silly people believed that the Union government would tell them the truth.
So what do you think, if Lincoln traded Fort Sumter for a promise by Virginia not to succeed, would that be just a "bargaining chip" or a "principle" preserved?
If he's letting several pieces of it go, (In exchange for Virginia staying) then "preserving" the Union must not be such an important principle. In fact, if it can be broken, it isn't even a principle. It's just a slogan.
Personally, I think it would have been a good bargain to preserve the Union.
Except for the pieces that didn't get preserved. How are you preserving the Union when you willingly let states go? Is it only a necessity to preserve it when it reaches some particular number wanting to leave, or doesn't the principle hold for all states, no matter how lowly or unimportant?
This thing doesn't make any sense. If you are willing to fight a war that kills 750,000 people to "preserve the Union", then aren't you really just fighting for Virginia? Cause you were going to let the rest of them leave, right?
Sounds like a made up excuse to justify a war after the fact of having started it.
Totally apocryphal, not vouched for by any reputable historian.
Maybe, but we do know that he offered to trade Virginia for the rest. I guess some states are more important to principles than are others.