Buchanan was president when The Star of the West was fired upon. He wasn't bound by promises not to reinforce Sumter that Lincoln had not yet made. He was within his rights to send what he liked to the fort.
Dickens's American Notes were based on a trip he took to the US in 1842. Whatever Southern slaveowners might have said to him in an effort to win him over had little or nothing to do with how they or their children would feel 20 years later. Cotton and slaves were in a long boom in the years leading up to the war and that had a lot to do with making planters cling to slavery all the more tightly. Increasing abolitionist agitation and fears of slave uprisings had similar effects.
Dickens may have expressed the opposition to slavery expected of an Englishman after Britain abolished slavery, but he was an admirer of Thomas Carlyle, so his views about race and his sympathies may have been more complicated and tangled than would appear at first sight. He also had no love for the United States and, like many Englishmen of his day, felt some satisfaction when it came to America's troubles.
It is a common human trait to regard "disagrees with what I want to think" as "disproven." We have a difference of opinion on what this Star of the West incident means. I hope we don't have a disagreement on what constitutes the actual facts.
Buchanan was president when The Star of the West was fired upon. He wasn't bound by promises not to reinforce Sumter that Lincoln had not yet made. He was within his rights to send what he liked to the fort.
This is founded on the premise that when the South seceded, those forts constructed to guard their territory still belonged to the people who had absolutely no legitimate use for them. My position is that when they seceded, their territorial integrity should have been respected. Also, Buchanan's secretary of War had told them repeatedly that all the forts would be turned over to them. This makes it a promise of the Buchanan administration.
Dickens may have expressed the opposition to slavery expected of an Englishman after Britain abolished slavery, but he was an admirer of Thomas Carlyle, so his views about race and his sympathies may have been more complicated and tangled than would appear at first sight.
Most people of that era didn't regard black people as their equal. What we regard as racism today, was normal for the majority in that time period. But if you read what Charles Dickens said, he certainly appears to have genuine revulsion for the practice.
He also had no love for the United States and, like many Englishmen of his day, felt some satisfaction when it came to America's troubles.
It may have turned out that the South would have had a far better result simply remaining with England, as was their preference prior to Francis Marion.
Dickens only went as far south as Richmond. So he was hardly a well-versed expert on the whole topic.