Replies

"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."

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:

Star of the West was a hired civilian ship sent by President "dough-face" (meaning southern sympathizer) Buchanan, who had announced the federal government would do nothing militarily to stop secession, but would defend federal property.
It carried supplies and reinforcements for Fort Sumter. Remember, before December 26, Fort Sumter had no troops or supplies to speak of, since it was brand new. Then Major Anderson transferred his force of around 100 men from nearby Fort Moultree to Fort Sumter. So the Star of the West carried the first official military supplies and troops to Fort Sumter.
Firing on the Star of the West was the South's first clear demonstration they intended to fight rather than seek a peaceful secession.

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.

Some "historians"? I doubt that.

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.