Replies

I don't know what document Fredriksen is referring to here, however, the eventual necessity of war was laid down in January, when South Carolina demanded Fort Sumter's surrender, declared any resupply tantamount to war, and President Buchanan told South Carolina's envoys Sumter would not be surrendered. So absent some negotiated deal then, war was simply a matter of when the Union decided it must resupply Major Anderson.

Fredriksen was your erroneous source for the Harriet Lane landing troops for Fort Pickens on April 8th wasn't it?

Governor Pickens offered to provide provisions for Fort Sumter back in January as I remember. Anderson refused to accept them.

[rustbucket]: Defense of the harbor would have certainly involved defending against bombardment from Fort Sumter.

[BroJoeK]: Now that is nonsense, and you know it. Fort Sumter was not attacking anyone, or demanding anyone's surrender. Only the South was demanding Sumter's surrender, and declaring attempts to resupply it tantamount to war.

Anderson threatened to fire on ships in the harbor from Fort Sumter. Seems to me defense of the harbor might require shooting at the pirates occupying Fort Sumter.

[rustbucket]: Gamble was acquitted.

[BroJoeK]: As was Aaron Burr 60 years earlier. And Burr's trial for treason was also based on attempted secession, the charges brought by none other than President Jefferson. I'd say this tells us exactly what Jefferson REALLY believed about secession.

As I remember, Burr told some people he was going to invade Washington although his main focus appeared to be carving off a western chunk of the US and/or perhaps taking Texas from Mexico. He was not the people of a state formally (and legally) seceding.

So, was Davis guilty of treason? Seems pretty clear he "levied War against" the United States, doesn't it?

Davis was no longer a citizen of the United States and was thus not guilty of treason.

from 2,191 rustbucket: "Fredriksen was your erroneous source for the Harriet Lane landing troops for Fort Pickens on April 8th wasn't it? "

I'm not prepared to say that Fredriksen just wholesale makes cr*p up to stick in his book. Indeed, I'd be more inclined to suspect the opposite: your secession-friendly web sites are highly likely to "forget" to mention historical facts exculpatory to the Union.

"Governor Pickens offered to provide provisions for Fort Sumter back in January as I remember. Anderson refused to accept them."

General Beauregard and Major Anderson were old friends, and treated each other with respect.

April 7: "To increase pressure on Major Anderson, General Pierre GT Beauregard forbids any further communications between Fort Sumter, Charleston Harbor and the shore."

rustbucket: "Anderson threatened to fire on ships in the harbor from Fort Sumter. Seems to me defense of the harbor might require shooting at the pirates occupying Fort Sumter."

And your source and context for this claim is what?

rustbucket: "As I remember, Burr told some people he was going to invade Washington although his main focus appeared to be carving off a western chunk of the US and/or perhaps taking Texas from Mexico. He was not the people of a state formally (and legally) seceding."

There is no "formal" or "legal" secession provided for in the Constitution. However, it does provide ENUMERATED powers for dealing with insurrection, rebellion, "domestic violence," treason, and those invading or making war against the United States.

"Davis was no longer a citizen of the United States and was thus not guilty of treason."

The Constitution's definition of "treason" does not actually require US citizenship. Regardless, from the beginning of the war, President Lincoln was determined to be as lenient toward the South as possible. Grant's surrender terms to Lee were typical of Lincoln's spirit.