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.
- 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.