HIGHLY IMPORTANT NEWS: The Fort Question to be Decided Immediately; FORT SUMPTER TO BE EVACUATED; THE REPUBLICAN COURT (3/11/1861)

New York Times archives – Times Machine ^ | 3/11/1861

[Homer_J_Simpson]

WASHINGTON, Sunday, March 10.

The question of reinforcing Fort Sumpter has been under consideration in the Cabinet, and it is understood that the question whether or no it is not desirable to withdraw all the troops, except two or three men, rather than incur the bloodshed which will probably occur before troops and supplies are put into it, is now to be decided.

The immediate necessity of settling this question grows out of the fact that there is only a limited supply of bread at Fort Sumpter, but plenty of salt meat, and that it must either be re-supplied or abandoned very soon. The question has been under discussion in high military circles for several days.

Gen. SCOTT advises that reinforcements cannot now be put in without an enormous sacrifice of life. Of course his views on the subject, cannot be known officially to the public, but he is understood to say that we have neither military nor naval force at hand sufficient to supply the fort against the threatened opposition, which it would require twenty thousand men to overcome. Besides, if it should initiate civil war, in addition to uniting the South and overwhelming the Union sentiment there in the waves of passion, it would require two hundred and fifty thousand Government soldiers to carry on the struggle, and a hundred millions of money to begin with. In such an event, twenty thousand men would be needed to preserve Washington and the Government archives.

The general impression here on the streets is that the Administration has determined on withdrawing the troops from Fort Sumpter, leaving only one Corporal, two men and the Stars and Stripes, compelling the chivalry to capture the fort after all.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: ""Resupply mission" is a political lie.
It was a belligerent attack mission with warships, and it's purpose was to create an incident so as to justify an armed response."

It's just a little "too soon" on Homer's time scale to get deep into the various factors surrounding Fort Sumter -- they will be on us soon enough.

In the mean time, FRiend, I'll suggest some reading to learn a few facts beyond the range of your current historical theories:

Why Did Jefferson Davis Start the War?

"First of all, Jefferson Davis was not a fool, nor was he an idiot.
He had a first-class mind with decades of political experience.
A West Point graduate, a hero of the Mexican War, and a former Secretary of War, Davis did not take the issue of going to war lightly, and he wouldn't make the decision to go to war on a whim, or simply because his pride was wounded.
The viewpoint that Lincoln maneuvered Davis into firing on Fort Sumter presupposes a Jefferson Davis with no such intellectual abilities.
It presupposes a master strategist Lincoln and a Davis with no strategic forethought or abilities at all.
After all, the confederates had plenty of warning about the resupply effort from Crawford, Roman, and Forsyth, who were reporting back to Davis from Washington nearly every day.

Let's look at the situation Davis was in..."

Davis chose war for reasons that seemed to him and others entirely sufficient.
We'll soon see what those reasons were...

[DiogenesLamp]

The response "Might makes right" is at least the most honest response in this sort of discussion.

[DiogenesLamp]

In the mean time, FRiend, I'll suggest some reading to learn a few facts beyond the range of your current historical theories:

Why Did Jefferson Davis Start the War?

Subjective premise right there in the title. A more objective premise would be entitled "Who started the war?"

I usually don't bother reading articles with a biased premise advertised in their title, but I will take a look at this one.

[M Kehoe]

Hey Professor, my great uncle had the idea of reinforcing Ft. Sumter by hot air balloon.

He was a brevet captain in the Army (Union). Sorry guys.

Died at the battle of the Little Big Horn.

Well, that is the family lore passed down.

Guess his name?

The one who posts is a clue...

5.56mm

[DiogenesLamp]

So I read it. It left out every piece of information which contradicted it's biased premise. Particularly important was the telegram from Secretary of War walker telling Beauregard that there was no need to attack the fort if Anderson would simply inform them of the day he intended to evacuate the facility. It fails to mention that in the absence of Lincoln war fleet steaming toward Charleston, nothing at all would have happened as Anderson had already written the evacuation order and was about to tell the confederates of his intentions.

Also left out was any mention of the nature of the belligerent war fleet then approaching Charleston with orders to attack if the confederates interfered with their efforts to put men and supplies into the fort.

Ft. Sumter was a particular threat to Charleston because the idea of using those cannons to destroy Charleston had been advanced before, and everyone was aware of the danger it would pose if allowed to remain in hostile hands.

[ctdonath2]

Yup. That’s what all history & politics comes down to: might makes right, aka by right of conquest.

[rxh4n1]

Expanding slavery into the Territories was the Right they were talikng about.

[ops33]

Interesting, the original New York Times has the name of the fort spelled incorrectly.

[Homer_J_Simpson]

Interesting, the original New York Times has the name of the fort spelled incorrectly.

There is a lot confusion about the spelling. I have seen letters from Lincoln and William T. Sherman where they spell it with a "p". Before long they will learn to get it right.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Just as much as Fort Ticonderoga was the property of the British Government.
Some would argue that since the United States seceded from the Union of Crowns, the property became ours, but clearly you are a person that believes the land should remain the property of the British."

Those "some", along with DiogenesLamp, would be arguing utter nonsense.
The American seizure of Fort Ticonderoga (May 10, 1775) came a year before the 1776 Declaration of Independence, but is still the seventh listed battle of the American Revolutionary War, coming after Lexington, Concord and the Siege of Boston's beginning.
Seizure of Fort Ticonderoga came after years of increasing military hostilities against Americans, after Brits effectively revoked Massachusetts' charter of self-government and after Britain's Parliament declared Americans in Rebellion

No sequence of events remotely similar to 1776 existed in 1860, and to suggest otherwise is simply to lie about American history.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "That, and they discovered there wasn't a lot of use for slaves in the North east.
Other than making their fortunes transporting slaves, the Northeast really didn't have much use for them."

Rubbish!
In 1790 there were over 40,000 slaves in Northern states, notably in New York, New Jersey & Pennsylvania, but also in Connecticut, Rhode Island and New Hampshire.
At the same time there were nearly 30,000 freed-blacks living in every Northern state, again notably in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut & Rhode Island.
In every census after, the numbers of slaves fell and freed-blacks increased.
That had nothing to do with how "useful" they were and everything to do with laws intended to gradually abolish slavery in Northern states.

DiogenesLamp: "Slaves were worth today's equivalent of 100,000 dollars only because they could produce high demand goods like cotton."

Actually, depending on how you calculate it, a slave who sold for $1,000 in 1860 was equivalent to about $500,000 today, or up to $5,000,000 as a percentage of today's GDP.
Slavery was really, really Big Business back then.

DiogenesLamp: "There is absolutely nothing a slave could be used for in the Western territories that would equate to the value he could produce in the plantation farms, and very few people would try to use them in the territories when they could make a lot more money in the cotton producing areas of the nation."

And yet, and yet... there were some slaves in every state & territory where the practice was legal, regardless of whether they grew cotton or not.
These slaves were used in any number of non-cotton related industries -- they built thousands of miles of railroads, they dug millions of dollars of gold & silver, they cut timber in forests, they were "hired-out" in construction of major buildings & homes, they worked in iron foundries casting cannons for war, they worked in harbors moving product on & off ships, they grew & harvested not just cotton, but also sugar and tobacco among other produce, not to mention tens of thousands of personal servants to wealthy whites.

The real truth of this matter is there were very few jobs African slaves could not, or did not, perform except, except, except when abolition laws prevented them.

DiogenesLamp: "As has been pointed out before, the Wikipedia entry on "New Mexico territory" when New Mexico territory extended all the way from Texas to California, states that there were not more than a dozen slaves in the entire region."

And yet... and yet... in 1859, New Mexico's legislature passed the Act for the Protection of Slave Property, and in 1862 it was estimated New Mexico had at least hundreds, if not thousands of Indian slaves.
There were also hundreds of Indian & African slaves in Utah territory and, at some points, thousands in California.

None of these slaves worked on cotton plantations.

DiogenesLamp: "There was simply nothing worthwhile for which they could be used in the territories that would pay better than what they could be used for on the plantations."

And yet... and yet... many thousands of slaves were "hired-out" for work in many jobs, from construction & factories to mining & logging, not to mention as personal servants for wealthy whites.

DiogenesLamp: "You also left out a very prominent reason why they didn't want slaves in the territories.
They hated black people, and they didn't want them around.
This is why states like Illinois passed all sorts of horrible laws to keep black people out of their state."

Rubbish!
European Americans in those days didn't "hate black people" any worse than many other groups including Native Americans, Asians, Mexicans, Irish Catholics, and indeed Southern Europeans -- all were discriminated against at some times & places.

But all not just survived but at least somewhat prospered & grew in numbers.
You mentioned again Illinois -- it's a good example where despite "Black Codes" the population of freed-blacks in Illinois grew at the fastest pace of any state in the Union between 1820 and 1860!
So, regardless of official laws, freed African Americans were not completely unwelcomed in Illinois during Abraham Lincoln's lifetime.

DiogenesLamp: "The powers that be in Washington DC didn't care about any of this.
They wanted to keep control of congress because they were very successfully exploiting the South to line their own pockets and they wished to continue doing so."

From 1800 until secession in 1861 the "powers that be" in Washington, DC, were entirely Southern slaveholding Democrats and their Northern Doughfaced sympathizers.
So Washington did what Southern slaveholders wanted it to do, period, end of discussion.

This is where "the powers that be" in Washington, DC, lived before 1861:

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The response "Might makes right" is at least the most honest response in this sort of discussion."

Only for people taught as children to hate America and most especially, to loathe & despise the Republicans who defend us.

For anybody else, a more fair assessment of the United States has always been: "right makes might".
Being right makes us stronger, being wrong nearly always defeats us.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Subjective premise right there in the title.
A more objective premise would be entitled 'Who started the war?' "

Nonsense, the choice for war at Fort Sumter belonged strictly to Jefferson Davis, he was not "forced" to do anything.
So, why Davis decided on war is a matter of great historical interest.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Ft. Sumter was a particular threat to Charleston because the idea of using those cannons to destroy Charleston had been advanced before, and everyone was aware of the danger it would pose if allowed to remain in hostile hands."

Possibly, but it was strictly Jefferson Davis' choice to "reduce" Fort Sumter by military force.
So exactly why Davis chose military force is the issue addressed by that Civil War link.

[DiogenesLamp]

Not worth responding to.

[DiogenesLamp]

Pretty picture. The rest is too long to read.

[DiogenesLamp]

Corwin Amendment?

[DiogenesLamp]

Except for the fact they weren't going to do that until Lincoln sent that fleet of warships. You keep ignoring that telegram sent by Secretary Walker to Beauregard telling him that he didn't have to destroy the fort.

[DiogenesLamp]

So look where we are at right now. We have a corruption cartel which stole an election from the rightful President and this cartel is mostly made up of powerful men from the Northeastern portion of the country in collusion with Washington DC.

They fomented deliberate racial violence to help them in elections and they are painting anyone as a "racist" if they disagree about controlling the border, or spending 1.9 trillion dollars most of which has nothing to do with Covid, but all of which is likely to filter through their businesses and their pockets.

How long have these evil conniving Northeastern men been steering the public narrative about race?

Why are they doing it?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Not worth responding to."

Right, true to form, DiogenesLamp has no interest in historical facts & truth, only in his own hate-America propaganda lies.

Sad.