Man Born in 1846 Talks About the 1860s and Fighting in the Civil War

https://www.youtube.com ^ | Jul 10, 2022 | Julius Franklin Howell

[ought-six]

“Southerners favored “Jeffersonian” limited government because they didn’t want to be outvoted by Northerners.”

No, Southerners favored “Jeffersonian limited government” because they knew what a dominant government could do, as they had just fought a revolution to rid themselves of such a government. Jeffersonians believed that best government resided locally (i.e., with the states). Hamiltonians believed that best government was a centralized government superior to the states.

“If they had their own country and didn’t have to worry about Northerners, they would naturally develop their own big government and small government parties.”

That is purely your assumption. However, there is no evidence that they would, or did. The CSA Constitution provided the states with more power than the CSA national government. The Preamble to the CSA Constitution sets the stage: “PREAMBLE: We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God — do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.”

Note the very important clause, “...each State acting in its sovereign and independent character...”

As for a national bank, I don’t think Jefferson EVER subscribed to one. Madison opposed a national bank, but later agreed to have one in 1816 in order to pay off the debt of the War of 1812. That bank ended in 1836 under Andrew Jackson. That was the last national bank until 1913 when the big government advocate Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act.

[jmacusa]

Listen little boy the argument in my favor are the Confederacy's own words in it's own constitution regarding the preserving of slavery. I know it's hard little boy but try and keep up.

[x]

That is purely your assumption.

That is what always happens. We didn't want to be governed by Britain in 1776. Soon enough -- or certainly by this point -- we govern ourselves more than Britain ever did. Every free (or semi-free) society tends to divide into a party for more government and a party for less, a court party and a country party.

You could see this split developing in the CSA, even though it did not have official parties. Jefferson Davis and the centralizers quarreled with state governors who wanted to keep more of their own independence. Even before that, South Carolinian elites were as anxious to preserve their own power at home as they were to oppose the federal government, and some thinkers foresaw that an independent South would benefit from and need a strong central government to make the new country a success.

I also mentioned how Southern Democrats overwhelmingly supported Woodrow Wilson's and Franklin Roosevelt's expansion of the federal government's powers. Look around today: Southerners are more supportive of a trade policy that keeps jobs here, rather than sending them abroad. Lincoln was right after all, I guess.

[jmacusa]

Yeah little boy “Old Doughface’’ sent the UNARMED vessel “Far West’’ to resupply the fort but when Beauregard opened fire it quickly left from Ft. Sumter.

[ought-six]

“Listen little boy the argument in my favor are the Confederacy’s own words in it’s own constitution regarding the preserving of slavery. I know it’s hard little boy but try and keep up.”

Nice try, son. Their argument was the preservation of states’ RIGHTS. That was the whole crux of the matter. Yes, it preserved slavery, but so did the US Constitution, which the CSA Constitution copied in almost every respect!

The complaint the Southern states had was that the Union no longer represented the nation created by the US Constitution. It was the old clash between the federalists (most Northern states) and the anti-federalists (most Southern states), and that conflict had been roiling ever since the founding of the USA. The federalists championed federal laws that superseded state laws; the anti-federalists argued that the federal government had no such power under the Constitution (as was specifically addressed in the Tenth Amendment). It wasn’t until July, 1868 — more than three years AFTER the end of the Civil War — with the passage of the 14th Amendment, that the federal government was constitutionally determined to be superior to the states.

So, you see, the Southern states were right: Under the US Constitution as it existed prior to July, 1868, the federal government was NOT superior to the states (although the federalists — almost all of whom were in the Northern states — thought otherwise).

THAT caused the schism; THAT caused the Civil War.

It took a constitutional amendment (the Fourteenth) to enact a law that gave the federal government superiority over the states. That was, in essence, the North telling the South: “We won. And we passed a law after the fact to make it right.”

[ought-six]

“I also mentioned how Southern Democrats overwhelmingly supported Woodrow Wilson’s and Franklin Roosevelt’s expansion of the federal government’s powers.”

That was because they had a (D) after their names. Southerners equated the Republican party with Lincoln and the War.

It’s ironic, that today the Democrats are prevalent in the north, while the Republicans are prevalent in the south.

What’s that old saying? “What was once up, is now down. What was once right, is now wrong.”

That’s why history is so interesting.

[BroJoeK]

ought-six: "So, logically, if the “neo-Confederates” are those believers post-bellum, those who held the same belief prior to 1866, would necessarily be “paleo-Confederates.”
But, logic escapes you, as you are wholly dependent on others to make an argument, hence your habitual employment of cut-and-paste entries."

I can't find where "paleo-Confederate" is even a real term, and logically, if you think about it, there's no reason to ever say "paleo-Confederate", since all that could ever mean is an actual Confederate during the time of the actual Confederacy.
But as Edward Pollard amply demonstrates, what actual Confederates said they believed during the war was often quite different from what those same people said they believed after the Civil War.

ought-six: "I think the reality is much closer to the difference between federalists and anti-federalists, and the conflict that existed between the two since the closing days of the Revolutionary War, rather than just a “Confederate vs. Unionist” or “Rebel vs. Yankee” argument."

I agree that there is a direct line of political-descent from 1788 Jeffersonian anti-Federalists to 1798 Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans (i.e., Kentucky Resolution) to 1861 Democrat-Confederates.
All were opposed to the spirit and letter of the 1787 Constitution as expressed by those who wrote and ratified it.

ought-six: "The Federalist camp thought the national government under the Articles was too weak, and that a new compact (constitution) was needed to correct that defect.
Hence, the US Constitution -– which created yet a new nation — was drafted in 1787.
Only nine states adopted it, effectively seceding from the nation that existed under the Articles (the other four states remained in the nation established under the Articles –- at least for the short term)."

Well... the ninth state to ratify was New Hampshire, on June 21, 1788 -- which technically made the Constitution ratified.
However, Virginia (#10) and New York (#11) both soon after ratified, then the old Congress of the Confederation met, on September 13, 1788, to certify the new Constitution, to set dates for elections and set March 4, 1789 as the date for the new Constitution to become operative and the first Congress to meet.

October 10, 1788 was the last quorum meeting of the old Congress of the Confederation and its last meeting of any kind was March 2, 1789 -- one member and a secretary met to adjourn sine die.

North Carolina (#12) ratified the Constitution on November 21, 1789 and Rhode Island (#13) on May 29, 1790.

ought-six: "Let’s look at the differences that existed between the two:

"FEDERALISTS (Alexander Hamilton; John Jay; et al)

• Pro-North
• Pro-Urban
• ?Pro-Protectionism
• Pro-big and powerful central government
• Pro-Modernization
• Anti-Populist"

No, that's total nonsense, beginning here: 1788 Federalists:

1. George Washington (Virginia, country)
2. John Adams (Massachusetts, city)
3. James Madison (Virginia, country)
4. Benjamin Franklin (Pennsylvania, city)
5. Alexander Hamilton (New York, city)
6. John Marshall (Virginia, country)
7. Charles Pinckney (South Carolina, "city")
8. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (South Carolina, "city")
9. John Jay (New York, country)
10. Rufus King (New York, city)

"Pro-North" -- By my count, of the top 10 1788 Federalists, five were Northern, five were Southern.

"Pro-Urban" -- Not in any meaningful modern sense, since 90% of 1790 Americans were farmers and only 4% lived in the top ten largest cities, of which the largest had only ~30,000 people, hardly even cities!

Note above that I'm listing the Pinckney's as being "city" men, because they're from Charleston, South Carolina, a "city" of 16,000!

"Pro-Protectionism" -- Not always.
In 1789 the first tariff was proposed by Southern Congressman James Madison and opposed by Northerner Alexander Hamilton.
Madison wanted high tariffs to both pay off US war debts and protect American manufacturers.
Hamilton opposed Madison's tariff because it was pro-French and anti-British.
Similar points can be made about the infamous 1828 "Tariff of Abominations".

"Pro-big and powerful central government" -- Not in any meaningful sense by today's standards.
Today government spending is listed as circa 40% of GDP.
But before 1900, Federal spending averaged around 2% of GDP and so "big government" back then might have meant 2.25% while "small government" meant maybe 1.75% -- a distinction which we today would need an economic microscope to see.

"Pro-Modernization" -- Yet another meaningless term, since almost everyone then and now favors "modernization" which benefits them, but is very wary of "modernization" which only benefits their economic or political rivals.

"Anti-Populist" -- Yes, it's true enough that Jefferson's "Democratics" favored expanding the franchise to all men "free, white and 21", property owners or not, and Federalists looked askance at it.
However, Federalists in some states allowed property owning women (i.e., widows) to vote, as well as freed-blacks.
Those practices soon ended when Jefferson's "Democratic" populist ideas took over.

Bottom line: before 1861 it was never, ever, ever, ever strictly about North versus South.

ought-six: "As I have mentioned previously, Abraham Lincoln was a Hamiltonian, and embraced Hamilton’s view of government."

Lincoln was even more a disciple of a slave-owning Southerner named Henry Clay from Kentucky.
And while in Congress, Lincoln made, he thought, a friendship with a slaveholding Georgia politician named Alexander Stephens, who eventually became the Confederate Vice President.
So, it was not always about North versus South.

ought-six: "You have to look at this struggle through those glasses, as that was the dominant conflict between the two camps ever since the founding of the United States.
Both sides saw the nation differently, and both were convinced of the rightness of their positions. A national schism was inevitable."

Except for the massively divisive issue of slavery, that is complete and utter nonsense.
No issue except slavery was strong enough to make otherwise patriotic Americans declare secession from and war on each other.

ought-six: "Remember, even Northern states that decided not to further allow slavery, did not abolish it in toto:
Most of them allowed for slavery to continue until either the deaths of the owners, the slaves’ attainment of a certain age, or some other futuristic timeline.
In other words, it was rare that any Northern state immediately freed any slave."

Exactly right, the abolition model agreed to by virtually every Founding Father was first, restrictions on slavery and then, gradual abolition over time, state by state.
Leaders like Thomas Jefferson proposed abolition of imports of foreign slaves, abolition in the Northwest Territories, and even compensated abolition paid for by Federal Government!
That was our Founders' original intention and it lasted until roughly 1835, when some Southerners began saying that slavery was a positive good thing, that it should never be abolished, that slavery should be expanded into US territories and that slaveholders should be allowed to take their slaves anywhere in the US, without restrictions.

[ought-six]

“Yeah little boy “Old Doughface’’ sent the UNARMED vessel “Far West’’ to resupply the fort but when Beauregard opened fire it quickly left from Ft. Sumter.”

Where to start?

First off, the Far West was a Yellowstone River riverboat that had as its claim to fame the fact it carried the wounded from the Custer fight back to Fort Abraham Lincoln in 1876. Secondly, Beauregard was still in the US Army when the STAR OF THE WEST attempted to resupply and reinforce Sumter.

The steamship STAR OF THE WEST was under contract to the US War Department, and in January, 1861 it was sent to resupply and reinforce Sumter. As it entered Charleston Harbor it was fired upon by forces at Fort Moultrie on the north shore of the harbor and forces from the Citadel on Morris Island on the south shore of the harbor. Beauregard had nothing to do with that, because at the time he was still an officer in the US Army.

In early April, 1861 the Union warships PAWNEE and HARRIET LANE, and the transport BALTIC were ordered to Charleston Harbor to support Sumter. HARRIET LANE arrived first, and on April 11, 1861 fired a shot across the bow of the Nashville. PAWNEE was delayed by weather, and arrived on or about April 13, 1861, just after Sumter had surrendered.

As we all know, on April 12, 1861 Beauregard, having resigned from the US Army, ordered batteries at Morris Island and Fort Moultrie to open fire on Sumter.

[ought-six]

“I can’t find where ‘paleo-Confederate’ is even a real term, and logically, if you think about it, there’s no reason to ever say ‘paleo-Confederate’, since all that could ever mean is an actual Confederate during the time of the actual Confederacy.”

Well, if “neo-Confederate” can be a real term, then necessarily “paleo-Confederate” can also be a real term. Since the appellation “neo-Confederate” has been used to describe post-bellum Southerners (particularly those from 1866 onward, as that is the year of Pollard’s book, the one that has given you all the vapors, and is the foundation of your “Lost Cause” and “neo-Confederate” angst); then “paleo-Confederate” can be applied to pre-1866 Southerners. Personally, I think both labels are non-sensical, but you guys started it, so I responded accordingly.

“But as Edward Pollard amply demonstrates, what actual Confederates said they believed during the war was often quite different from what those same people said they believed after the Civil War.”

Yeah? Show me. You of the habitual cut-and-paste, surely you can cut-and-paste the specifics to support your claim. So, show me.

“I agree that there is a direct line of political-descent from 1788 Jeffersonian anti-Federalists to 1798 Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans (i.e., Kentucky Resolution) to 1861 Democrat-Confederates.”

Yeah, they were anti-federalists; which has been my point.

“All were opposed to the spirit and letter of the 1787 Constitution as expressed by those who wrote and ratified it.”

Hence the need for a Bill of Rights, which sought to remedy some of those concerns.

You disagree with me that the federalists were pro-North and pro-urban. But, they WERE. Hell, the Federalist PARTY began as a national coalition of bankers and businessmen in support of Hamilton’s fiscal policies. These supporters worked in every state to build an organized party committed to a strong and pro-business central government with a nationalist foundation. The hub of business was in the North, in the cities. Hence, the federalists — no matter where they hailed from — supported actions that favored the North, and the cities.

Your inclusion of Madison in your list of federalists needs an asterisk, because he was not a Hamiltonian federalist, and Hamiltonian federalism dominated the platform. Madison is unique because he wrote the Constitution and wanted very much for it to succeed. Thus, he played both sides of the fence trying to make it work.

“’Pro-big and powerful central government’ — Not in any meaningful sense by today’s standards.”

But we’re not talking about today, are we? We’re talking about the late 18th century, and the first half of the 19th century. Aside from perhaps Hamilton and after him, Lincoln, I’d venture to say that EVERYONE of any substance or persuasion back in those days would have rebelled against what our government has become. So, “by today’s standards” is meaningless.

“Bottom line: before 1861 it was never, ever, ever, ever strictly about North versus South.”

But, really, it was. Because the question was how the government and the nation were perceived, and what they were intended to be. It just so happened that the divide on that question pretty much fell along geographical lines: The industrial North on one side and the agricultural South on the other. The industrial North was more federalist, the agricultural South was more anti-federalist.

“No issue except slavery was strong enough to make otherwise patriotic Americans declare secession from and war on each other.”

But the facts don’t support you. For one thing, in the mid-19th allegiance was local; one’s allegiance tended to be more to one’s state than to one’s country. To most people in the mid-19th century, the national identity was an abstract; but their home and state were realities. The vast majority of people never, throughout their lives, ever went outside of their state; and if they did, it wasn’t far. The emigrants, pioneers and gold-seekers among them, were exceptions; but they had no allegiance to a national identity, because for most of them there was no future in it: They decided to move to the Spanish and British lands in the West. Remember, prior to 1848 much of the West was Spanish and later Mexican, and even British.

“...the abolition model agreed to by virtually every Founding Father was first, restrictions on slavery and then, gradual abolition over time, state by state.”

Sounds like states’ rights to me.

“Leaders like Thomas Jefferson proposed abolition of imports of foreign slaves...”

And, do you know who else did? The Confederate States of America. In fact, they did more than just propose it, they actually included it in their constitution!

[HandyDandy]

bkmk

[jmacusa]

Yeah Reb, The Far West was unarmed and Davis, on the 9th ordered his troops to ‘’strike a blow’’. You can change it around all you want Reb the fact remains the South opened fire first.

You f’ing Lost Causer's and your revisnionist bullshit is NEVER going to change the fact the South started the war to preserve slavery so all the pettifogging crap from you Confederates is just that- crap.

Your side lost the war it started, end of story.

[DiogenesLamp]

In early April, 1861 the Union warships PAWNEE and HARRIET LANE, and the transport BALTIC were ordered to Charleston Harbor to support Sumter. HARRIET LANE arrived first, and on April 11, 1861 fired a shot across the bow of the Nashville. PAWNEE was delayed by weather, and arrived on or about April 13, 1861, just after Sumter had surrendered.

You left out the Pocahontas and the Powhatan. The Powhatan was the most significant because Captain Mercer was to be the man who took control of all the other ships and coordinated the attack against the confederates.

These were the public orders. The private secret orders were to relieve Captain Mercer of command, put the ship in the hands of a Lieutenant (two ranks below a captain in that era's ranking system) and secretly sail it to Florida in disguise.

The Confederates only knew of the public orders. The ones saying Mercer was going to arrive in the Powhatan and attack them. It is based on those public orders that they decided to act. If they had known that those ships would arrive and do nothing, they would have given Anderson several more days to evacuate.

Lincoln was a clever bastard. He pulled a dirty trick to get them to open fire first because they thought his attack was imminent.

[ought-six]

“You left out the Pocahontas and the Powhatan. The Powhatan was the most significant because Captain Mercer was to be the man who took control of all the other ships and coordinated the attack against the confederates.”

The POCAHONTAS arrived in Charleston Harbor on April 13, 1861, shortly after the surrender of Sumter. It was likely delayed by the same storm that had delayed PAWNEE. The POWHATAN, from what I recall, had been ordered to Florida.

“These were the public orders. The private secret orders were to relieve Captain Mercer of command, put the ship in the hands of a Lieutenant (two ranks below a captain in that era’s ranking system) and secretly sail it to Florida in disguise.”

There is much speculation and suspicion about this. There is no disagreement that Mercer transferred command of the POWHATAN to another officer, and that it was done shortly after the POWHATAN had set out to sea.

I know Secretary of State William Seward (of “Seward’s Folly” fame) had secretly ordered the POWHATAN to Florida to support Fort Pickens. Union Secretary of the Navy, Gideon Welles, knew nothing of the Seward order, and had included the POWHATAN in the fleet ordered to Charleston Harbor. And, the South knew of this fleet (remember, the South had many spies and “friends” and sympathizers in the North; and, of course, in Virginia and Maryland, and Washington, D.C.). This was clearly an act of aggression on the Union’s part, and the South saw it as such. It is doubtful the South knew of the Seward secret orders to the POWHATAN, though it surely must have been made aware of the Welles’ order.

In any event, there was a significant Union naval force ordered to Charleston Harbor BEFORE Sumter was shelled on April 12, 1861.

[HandyDandy]

I’ll leave you two to sort that out. Meanwhile I will say a prayer to St. Jude for both of you.

(Many years ago I was taught that St Jude was the patron Saint of “hopeless cases”.)

[ought-six]

“I’ll leave you two to sort that out. Meanwhile I will say a prayer to St. Jude for both of you.”

Sort what out? I think DiogenesLamp and I are pretty much in agreement. And the facts support us.

As for St. Jude, I brought him up several days ago to those here on FR who insisted that the first time the term “lost cause” was ever used was in 1866 with Edward Pollard’s book. I pointed out that St. Jude had been the patron saint of lost causes for many generations before Pollard had ever drawn a breath.

[BroJoeK]

ought-six: "the Taiwan Strait is INTERNATIONAL water; Charleston Harbor was not: It was within the boundaries of South Carolina.

"But, let’s take your scenario to its logical conclusion.

"Sailing warships, uninvited, to Charleston Harbor was indeed an act of war against South Carolina; just as the US Navy sending warships to Shanghai Harbor, uninvited, would be an act of war against China.
It would be an act of war even if the US Navy ships didn’t fire any weapons.
Why?
Because the US Navy ships posed a direct THREAT to China itself, and the threat under that scenario IS an act of war."

Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but don't the Chi-Coms claim all of the waters and islands of the South China Sea and Taiwan as their own sovereign territory?
And wouldn't that make American warships in those waters the exact equivalent of Lincoln's "war fleet" sitting outside Charleston harbor?

But if China's First Island Chain is a bit obscure for you, then we can find other examples, notably just 500 miles away from Miami, which is 200 miles closer than Charleston SC from New York City.
Like Confederates in Charleston, SC, Cuba-Coms renounce their formal relationship with the USA as expressed in the 1903 Cuban–American Treaty of Relations.
And just as Confederates claimed the Union Fort Sumter, Cuba-Coms claim the US naval base at Git-mo.
And just as Lincoln ignored ridiculous Confederate claims to Fort Sumter, so the US military today ignores ridiculous Cuba-Com claims to Git-mo.

And despite the Chi-Com claims in the South China Sea & Taiwan, and the Cuba-Com claims to Git-mo, the US navy & other military move freely in & around those regions, AND THERE IS NO WAR because our enemies have not attacked us.
Unlike Confederates at Fort Sumter.

ought-six: "Yes, in response to the acts of war presented by Union forces.
Remember, Sumter was an incomplete fort when South Carolina seceded from the Union in December, 1860.
But, within days of secession Major Anderson, in command of Union forces at Fort Moultrie, on the north shore of Charleston Harbor, secretly evacuated Moultrie to garrison Fort Sumter, which was in the middle of Charleston Harbor itself, where he could more effectively interdict any ships into and out of the harbor."
That was Act of War #1.

So there are a number of factual points to make here:

1. Resupplying US forces at Fort Sumter was not an "act of war".

2. US warships sitting in international waters off shore from Charleston was not and "act of war".

3. The previously submerged land on which Fort Sumter was built had been signed over to the United States by the state of SC on December 31, 1836:
   "Resolved, That this state [South Carolina] do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory... "

   Nor did Confederates ever bother to legally challenge US ownership of Fort Sumter.

4. Despite President Buchanan's later denials, in fact, Major Anderson was acting according to his orders from Washington, to move his troops where they were best protected.

5. Nothing in Maj. Anderson's orders authorized him to "effectively interdict any ships into and out of the harbor."

6. There was no "act of war" involved in moving Union troops from one Union fort to another, period.

ought-six: "The Star of the West turned around and steamed out of the harbor.
That was Act of War #2.
South Carolina then demanded that President Buchanan order Anderson to surrender Sumter and evacuate it.
Buchanan’s order that Sumter continue to be supplied and reinforced remained in force.
That was Act of War #3.
When Anderson still refused to leave Sumter, and Lincoln – now president – ordered that Sumter continue to be supplied and garrisoned, South Carolina responded to the continued acts of war."

No Union actions at that time were "Acts of War" any more than today sending US Navy ships to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or through the South China Sea, despite what the local "authorities" there may claim.

ought-six: "Nice try.
As I mentioned above, from Sumter, Anderson could more effectively interdict shipping in Charleston Harbor; shipping that was very much an economic interest, to South Carolina in particular."

Nice try, but Union Maj. Anderson had no orders -- none, zero orders -- to "interdict shipping in Charleston harbor", nor did he ever threaten to, or take actions to.

Nor had there ever been serious Union tariff revenues received from shipping in Charleston harbor.
In 1859 Federal tariff revenues from Charleston totaled about $300,000 or less than 1% of total Federal tariff revenues of nearly $48,000,000.

quoting BJK: "Border State slaves were not at risk from Federal Government, until ratification of the 13th Amendment freed their slaves, in December 1865, eight months after Lincoln was dead & buried."

ought-six : "At which time they [Border State slaves] BECAME at risk?
That is what your comment implies."

Nonsense, the 13th Amendment freed all slaves.
They were not at risk.
Indeed, of the five Border Slave States, three had already freed their own slaves -- Maryland, West Virginia and Missouri.
So, the 13th Amendment only actually freed those few remaining slaves in Kentucky and Delaware.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "They key point is that the Northern [DEMOCRATS] controlled congress and the [DEMOCRATS'] presidency [Buchanan] supported the passage of it.
It means that slavery was something they [DEMOCRATS] would live with, but Independence was not."

Since 1788, slavery was Constitutionally sanctioned, as was abolition.
Corwin did nothing to change that, which is why private citizen Lincoln said nothing to oppose it.

Regardless, the majority of Republicans did oppose Corwin, while Democrats unanimously voted for it.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Lincoln knew full well that they would be "resisted", and in this certain eventuality, their orders were to use force, meaning cannons, against the Confederates."

Lincoln knew "full well" that orders to attack Fort Sumter must come from the top of the Confederate government, which is why he announced to them his intentions to peacefully resupply the fort.
It was Jefferson Davis' choice to start, or not start, war at Fort Sumter.

Davis chose war, and for very good reasons, from his own point of view.

Regardless, Gustavus Fox's plan was to use small boats at night to resupply Fort Sumter, not to "attack Confederates".

So, if Davis wanted peace, he could have kept it.

But Davis chose war.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Somewhere in the list of Northern newspapers commenting about this era there is one that demands the tariff be collected or to turn the guns of all the forts on them."

There may have been as much nonsense published in Northern papers as Southern, but I've seen nothing suggesting Lincoln must attack Charleston to collect its tariffs.
The fact is that total tariffs from Charleston were under $300,000 in 1859 or six-tenths of one percent of total US tariff revenues.

So, events at Charleston had nothing to do with either slavery or economics, but strictly with who owned and could resupply Fort Sumter.
Throughout human history, men have often gone to war over less.

[DiogenesLamp]

In any event, there was a significant Union naval force ordered to Charleston Harbor BEFORE Sumter was shelled on April 12, 1861.

That is exactly my point. That significant Union naval force of warships and a troop carrier was *THE* reason they attacked Sumter.

The public orders said this fleet would attack them. Sumter would put them between two hostile forces, so they had to stop Sumter before the fleet could get there and put them into a crossfire.

They waited until the Harriet Lane showed up. I think they were hoping the ships would not arrive, or that Anderson would evacuate before they did.

The Harriet Lane arriving and firing at the Nashville pretty much told them their time was up. They could be attacked any day after it arrived, so far as they knew.

Lincoln, or course, knew fully well they would not attack because he had ordered the command ship Powhatan down to Pensacola. Lieutenant David Porter was put in command of the ship. Captain Mercer, the officer listed as the one who was going to take command of the force, was relieved of duty just after the launch of the fleet.