Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by Davy Buck
My oh my, what would the critics, the Civil War publications, publishers, and bloggers do if it weren't for the bad boys of the Confederacy and those who study them and also those who wish to honor their ancestors who fought for the Confederacy?
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
The Southern forces then in Fort Moultree fired on the Star of the West and these were the first shots of the Civil War -- against an unarmed civilian ship attempting to supply Fort Sumter.
Where to begin? Let's start with the "unarmed" civilian ship. There were 200 armed troops on board the Star of the West hiding below decks so they wouldn't be seen. If was an expedition to reenforce Fort Sumter, not just resupply it. From Vol. I, Series I, page 131 of the Official Records (my emphasis below):
HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY,
New York, January 5, 1861.
Major T. H. HOLMES,
Eighth Infantry,
Superintendent Recruiting Service, Fort Columbus:
SIR: By direction of the General-in-Chief, you will detach this evening two hundred of the best-instructed men at Fort Columbus, by the steamship Star of the West, to re-enforce the garrison at Fort Sumter, South Carolina.
They will be furnished with arms, and, if possible, one hundred rounds of ammunition per man. Orders will be given to the proper officers of the staff department to furnish one hundred stand of spare arms and subsistence for three months.
The officers assigned to duty with the detachment are Lieuts. C. R. Woods, Ninth Infantry; W. A. Webb, Fifth Infantry; C. W. Thomas, First Infantry, and Asst. Surg. P. G. S. Ten Broeck, Medical Department, all of whom will report for duty to Major Anderson, commanding Fort Sumter.
Yours,
L. THOMAS.
Now for the "first shots of the war" claim of your post. Perhaps what you posted is just Yankee history. The day before the Star of the West entered South Carolina's territorial waters, US guard(s) fired at a group of locals trying to enter Fort Barrancas in Florida.
From Wikipeadia (I know, it's Wikipedia):
His decision to abandon Barrancas was hastened when, around midnight of January 8, 1861, his guards repelled a group of local men intending to take the fort. Some historians suggest that these were the first shots fired by United States forces in the Civil War.
But there is more than Wikipedia. From Guardians of the Gulf, subtitled Pensacola Fortifications 1698-1980, by James C and Irene S Coleman, page 39:
... Slemmer began to consolidate arms at Fort Barrancas, and on January 8 had moved part of his company from barracks into Fort Barrancas. ... About midnight on the eighth a group of men approached the fort and failing to answer when challenged, were fired upon by the guard. ... These were the first shots fired by Federals in the Civil War.
Nice little book. I bought it at Fort Pickens a few days ago.
the FACTS are that those people on this forum who constantly carp/complain/gripe about my typing are usually UNknowledgeable about the WBTS and have nothing else to say.
free dixie,sw
this is called HUBRIS & STUPIDITY on your part.
you have LIED about so many subjects for so long that evidently you cannot tell truth from LIES.
laughing AT you, LIAR.
free dixie,sw
and such a CONSTANT, shame-LESS, LIAR that another FReeper had to "vouch for" your service in the US armed forces, since NOBODY would believe your claims otherwise???
free dixie,sw
Great googly-moogly! Give it a rest - it’s the 4th of July for cripessake!
YOU said: “It was a sarcastic answer to an idiotic question. What do you mean ‘who paid for it’? The federal government, of course. The budgets for the Navy Department and the War Department covered it. You want to imply that Lincoln violated the Constitution by appropriating money for the resupply effort instead of Congress. Such an implication is too ludicrous to deserve a reasonable answer.”
Are you quite sure of that?
Some "historians"? I doubt that.
"A group of local men intending to take the fort."??!!
On January 8, 1861 -- are you kidding me?
On January 8, 1861, by ANY definition of the Civil War you wish to imagine, Fort Barrancas in FLORIDA was Federal property, and any attempt to take it was simple lawlessness -- not Civil War.
Why is this absolutely true? Because Florida did not secede until January 10.
Now, back to the Star of the West. Let me again make the key points here:
And that's the key point: from day one the South was not willing to negotiate peacefully to resolve such issues, but instead attacked them with military force.
Southern sympathizer President Buchanan took the South's use of force against Star of the West as an excuse to retreat and do nothing.
President Lincoln, by contrast, intended to match force with force, if necessary. But in the end he also withdrew those ships, having accomplished nothing to help Fort Sumter.
No historians, huh? The book I quoted lists the following as having helped prepare the manuscript:
- The curator and assistant curator of the Pensacola Historical Museum
- The historian of the Pensacola Historical Society
- The president of the Pensacola Historical Society
- The chief of interpretation, Florida District, Gulf Coast National Seashore
- District historian, Florida District, Gulf Coast National Seashore
- Park technicians at Fort Pickens and Fort Barrancas
On January 8, 1861 -- are you kidding me?
Consider that forts and armories were being taken all over the South before the official secession of the states.
- Jan 3rd - US Ft Pulaski & Ft Jackson, Savannah, seized by Georgia
- Jan 4th - US Ft Morgan, Mobile, seized by Alabama
- Jan 5th - Alabama troops seize Forts Morgan & Gaines at Mobile Bay
- Jan 6th - Florida troops seize Federal arsenal at Apalachicola
- Jan 7th - Florida troops takeover Ft Marion at St Augustine
- Jan 10th - Ft Jackson & Ft Philip are taken over by LA state troops
Why was this happening? Here is the reason given by Harpers Weekly on Jan 12, 1861 [Link]:
Senator Toombs received a dispatch on 3rd from Governor Brown, of Georgia, stating that he had ordered the Georgia troops to occupy Fort Pulaski to prevent the Federal troops from taking it until the meeting of their Convention. Neither Fort Jackson nor the arsenal had been taken, and the Governor gave no intimation that he intended to take them. The Governor issued the order to occupy Fort Pulaski for the reason that he had learned that the Administration had given orders to reinforce all the forts in the South. Other forts have undoubtedly been taken for the same reason. The President, it is understood, did issue such an order, but it was afterward revoked.
Secession was not outlawed in the Constitution. Indeed, three of the original 13 states said in their ratification documents that they had the right to resume their own governance. Having just thrown off one tyrannical government, they were leery of having to fight their way free again.
And that's the key point: from day one the South was not willing to negotiate peacefully to resolve such issues, but instead attacked them with military force.
After they seceded, South Carolina sent their own delegation to President Buchanan offering to negotiate for forts, etc., and their share of the national debt. From correspondence to Buchanan from the South Carolina Commissioners, Dec 28, 1860:
Sir: -- We have the honor to transmit to you a copy of the full powers from the Convention of the people of South Carolina, under which we are "authorized and empowered to treat with the Government of the United States for the delivery of the forts, magazines, light-houses, and other real estate with their appurtenances, within the limits of South Carolina, and also for an apportionment for the public debt and for a division of all the property held by the Government of the United States, of which South Carolina was recently a member, and generally to negotiate as to all other measures proper to be made and adopted in the existing relation of the parties, and for the continuance of peace and amity between this Commonwealth and the Government at Washington."
Old Pennsylvanian Buchanan ignored them. Earlier he correctly said that the Federal Government did not have the right to prevent secession by force, but he sent an armed ship into South Carolina's territorial waters later anyway. I suppose the South, who believed they had the Constitutional right to secede, was not willing to have a foreign power occupy forts throughout their land to dominate harbors and with them control the commercial lifeline of the South.
Sorry, I meant to list the source of those fort seizure dates. That information came from historyorb.com.
- Jan 3rd - US Ft Pulaski & Ft Jackson, Savannah, seized by Georgia
Georgia seceded on January 19
- Jan 4th - US Ft Morgan, Mobile, seized by Alabama
Alabama seceded on January 11
- Jan 5th - Alabama troops seize Forts Morgan & Gaines at Mobile Bay
Alabama seceded on January 11
- Jan 6th - Florida troops seize Federal arsenal at Apalachicola
Florida seceded on January 10
- Jan 7th - Florida troops takeover Ft Marion at St Augustine
Florida seceded on January 10
- Jan 10th - Ft Jackson & Ft Philip are taken over by LA state troops "
Louisiana seceded on January 26
You understand, I suppose, the debate here is: "who started it?" -- was it a "war of northern aggression" or a "war of southern rebellion"?
Seems to me the data you've provided us proves my point -- that it was a "war of southern rebellion," since in every case you cite, the fort was seized BEFORE the state had even seceded.
So there's no legal definition even conceivable to assert those forts were somehow SOUTHERN property before a state seceded.
Further, the use of force was made by the South against Federal property with no resistance from the North. This cannot be "northern agression."
You quote Harper's Weekly saying the Georgia governor seized Fort Pulaski "to prevent federal troops from taking it."
Say what? Were there no troops already IN the fort? And is that not an act of armed rebellion, especially BEFORE secession?
Obviously, the South WAS in rebellion even before it seceded, and was determined to use military force in situations where the Founding Fathers had spent years in patient negotiations, after the war, to remove British forces from the United States.
"Secession was not outlawed in the Constitution."
But rebellion, insurrection and domestic violence are outlawed in the Constitution. Peaceful secession, where both parties negotiate and agree to terms may be one thing. Use of military force against the United States is something else altogether.
You are being deceptive and absurd. The data given by Klein is based on the Official Records, and you have been given three sources to support that...including your favorite--"The Official Records". Klein flatly states that there were varying numbers on the original troop counts and what eventually arrived at Ft. Sumter and Ft. Pickens. Here is what he quotes:
http://books.google.com/books?id=9y4OAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA5-PA49&lpg=RA5-PA49&dq=fort+sumter+baltic+atlantic+lane&source=bl&ots=A51jNWXB3e&sig=vtLf-caZrA0i5FdJ1c1Up0WAl8Q&hl=en&ei=wZxQSunTC8GJtgeIpeSzBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
If you have trouble with the count, you will see it is 11 ships and 1400 men and troops according to this official record.
But this is off the point, which was your denial that there was ever a "secret" effort on Lincoln's part to deceive the Confederate leaders, which I have shown you is completely false.
Yes, in both Charleston and Pensacola, the Union military had contracts to deliver foodstuffs on a regular schedule. I saw it documented that the Union payments were behind by six months in Pensacola. I wonder if they were behind payment in Charleston too.
Yes, and they will use all sorts of fallacious arguments, misdirections, and misrepresentations. When will we get some interesting facts?
Is it my imagination, but aren't you contriving an infallible relationship? That would be exaggeration on a grand scale.
An exaggeration of the post that is not supported, and only designed to be a straw man that you will attack.
Another lame reply, sir.
You said: “Rather an overstatement”
But you do not deny it, now do you? Mischaracterization does not refute the point.
You stated: "Another overstatement"
You are wrong. I have documented that the US Treasury was trying to sell bonds that month. Some New York ship owners and suppliers, fearful that the Ft. Sumter expedition might negative affect the bond sales, began to question their involvement in making this possible. One delayed his decision to rent out his ships, one financier withdrew his support of the Ft. Sumter invasion, and others charged exorbitant rates for ship rentals.
Overstatement...only if you do not know the facts.
You would like to characterize the post as that, but you forgot Lincoln's speech:
"The power confided to me, will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts..."
What Wise said does not have any relevance to pre-war shipping patterns.
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.