It was quite the threat to South Carolina. It could prohibit trade traffic and thereby greatly affect their income. Northern newspapers called for the guns to be turned on Charleston, and while Anderson's men were occupying it, they actually discussed turning the cannons on Charleston.
Do you mean John Floyd, Buchanan's Secretary of War, who favored secession and became a Confederate general during the war?
Was he not at the time an official of the Union government?
Besides that, the Confederates were told from other supposedly official sources that Sumter would be turned over to them.
Stephen Douglas was working hand in hand with the railroads to their mutual benefit.
Seems like the railroad administrators were involved in a lot of this sort of corruption. And of course Lincoln was a Corporate Railroad lawyer who worked for these creeps. Even so, bad behavior on the part of one party does not justify the same bad behavior on the part of another party.
That is subjective. Californians - if they seceded - would not agree. They might think that those bases were necessary to their own survival, faced with a powerful, predatory US.
With the US possessing Nuke weapons, those bases would not change their chances of survival at all.
I have addressed that many times, even in this very post. They were organizing a military, stealing federal weapons, and inciting secessionism in other states.
You talk about the weapons in forts on their property, and for which those states likely paid the bulk as if they weren't entitled to their land or what their money had bought in at least equal measure to the North.
And so far as inciting secessionism in other states, the colonists did the same thing. If people have a legal right to leave, and a legal right to speak, then this is the consequence of having such a system. States could chose to leave or not, and if it was in their interest to remain in the Union, they would have done.
You hate New York and California and probably the other Democrat states,
I don't hate the states, or the people in them, per say, I hate that they are now the spearpoints of the socialist juggernaut threatening to take everything away. I believe New York is heavily involved in influencing the government to keep the spending fountain going, and I think the plutocrats there use the media as a tool to keep the Washington DC spending party going.
I think the elite of California are part of this same clique, and collaborate in undermining what is normal and proper in this country.
...and would deny any prerogatives to a government that they have a say in.
They have too much say. They control the media, both News and Entertainment, and I have long believed this is their primary vehicle for manipulating Americans into supporting ideas and causes that are ultimately harmful to both the people and the nation in the long run.
They also have too much influence on government, and this is apart from the huge numbers of representatives their populations allow, and the electoral votes they wield. I think the New York power cartel is intimately associated with the entire bureaucracy in Washington, and use that influence to enact rules and policies that are inimical to people like me.
For some reason, you love the South and will always take its side.
I don't know anything about the South, except that it was hot when I drove through it a couple of times in summers past. I can only go on what I read, and what I read tells me they tend to vote conservative and respect rights I consider important such as the right to keep and bear arms.
I am more in love with the idea that we don't have to stay shackled to the kooks in California or the Crooks in New York and Chicago.
You forgive the Confederates even for trying to destroy the country.
What I see is New York and California destroying the country, and I mean the one i'm living in right now, not 159 years ago.
That would apply even more to California if it seceded.
And so far as inciting secessionism in other states, the colonists did the same thing. If people have a legal right to leave, and a legal right to speak, then this is the consequence of having such a system. States could chose to leave or not, and if it was in their interest to remain in the Union, they would have done.
Different situation. There was a Continental Congress that brought all the colonies together. While some colonies were more radical than others, it wasn't a case of some states trying to turn others against England. Moreover, there were a lot more agitation and more electoral shenanigans in 1860 than in 1775.
I have long believed this is their primary vehicle for manipulating Americans into supporting ideas and causes that are ultimately harmful to both the people and the nation in the long run.
Manipulating Americans into supporting ideas and causes that are ultimately hostile by to the people and the nation in the long run? That was certainly true of Davis and the Fire-Eaters.
What I see is New York and California destroying the country, and I mean the one i'm living in right now, not 159 years ago.
Yet you have only kind words for the destroyers a century and a half back.