THE WAR COMMENCED: The First Gun Fired by Fort Moultrie Against Fort Sumpter; Spirited Return from Major Anderson’s Guns; THE RELIEF FLEET OFF THE HARBOR (4/13/1861)

New York Times archives – Times Machine ^ | 4/13/1861

[BroJoeK]

"Now, may the USA likewise retake Portland, Seattle, and other sites of Antifa insurrections."

;-)

[BroJoeK]

ctdonath2: "The final point of nuance: was the island CSA property (from which Union troops were to be driven from), or USA property (to be seized as a threat to an important harbor)?"

Obviously, the answer depends on your point of view.
As Jefferson Davis wrote of Fort Sumter to CSA Gen. Bragg, on April 3, 1861:

"There would be to us an advantage in so placing them that an attack by them would be a necessity, but when we are ready to relieve our territory and jurisdiction of the presence of a foreign garrison that advantage is overbalanced by other considerations."

Davis considered Fort Sumter a "foreign garrison", but as early as February 1861, outgoing Democrat President Buchanan announced publicly Fort Sumter would not be surrendered without a fight.
So normal laws of "ownership" devolved into which side could seize & hold it.

There are many historical analogies, including the US naval base at Guantanamo, Cuba, and the Brits at Gibraltar, Spain.
These show that such disputes don't necessarily have to result in war, but that, as Jefferson Davis wrote, was "overbalanced by other considerations".

[Rebelbase]

What are the odds of that happening?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "That's because the propaganda was put out by the same lying sources from Washington DC and New York that recently said..."

If that's true, then why did Confederate newspapers report the same thing?
Were Confederates taking their orders from Washington and New York?

[Rebelbase]

The man who fired the first shot at Fort Sumter, Edmund Ruffin.

Also known as the Father of Soil Science. He pioneered the application of calcareous marl from swamps onto tired and worn out soils to increase fertility and lower Ph.

Ruffin was the epitome of a die-hard confederate and killed himself rather than live under yankee rule. His last diary entry prior to death:

"And now, with my latest writing & utterance, & with what will (be) near to my latest breath, I hereby repeat & would willingly proclaim my unmitigated hatred to Yankee rule – to all political, social, & business connection with Yankees, & to the perfidious, malignant, & vile Yankee race."

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "What about that?..."

DiogenesLamp: "What about that?..."

Jefferson Davis understood perfectly well what was happening.
As he wrote to CSA Gen. Bragg on April 3, 1861:

"There would be to us an advantage in so placing them that an attack by them would be a necessity, but when we are ready to relieve our territory and jurisdiction of the presence of a foreign garrison that advantage is overbalanced by other considerations. "

In that same letter Davis was equally sanguine about Fort Pickens:

"The case of Pensacola then is reduced [to] the more palpable elements of a military problem and your measures may without disturbing views be directed to the capture of Fort Pickens and the defence of the harbor.
You will soon have I hope a force sufficient to occupy all the points necessary for that end.
As many additional troops as may be required can be promptly furnished."

So Davis already knew firing the first shots was not a good idea, but he didn't care, due to "other considerations".
That's why Davis ignored his own Secretary of State, Robert Toombs accurate warning on April 9:

""Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North.
You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death.
It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal."[19]"

But Davis already knew war was coming, having written to his close personal friend, former Democrat President Franklin Pierce in January 1861:

"When Lincoln comes in he will have but to continue in the path of his predecessor to inaugurate a civil war"
[Jefferson Davis to Franklin Pierce, 20 Jan 1861]"

Davis well knew, but didn't care because war for him was based on "other considerations".

[BroJoeK]

DiognesLamp: "For the purpose of denying them their constitutional rights after they had been beaten by the 4 times larger manpower of the Northern states, they were regarded as having "left" the United States."

Nonsense, but former Confederate states were regarded, factually, as having left Congress and so Congress set certain conditions for their return.
And since most post-war Southern states were then dominated by Republican voters, they were happy to comply.

That willing compliance lasted until roughly 1876, when Reconstruction ended and Southern Democrats again seized power in former Confederate states, imposing Black Codes, segregation and voting restrictions on non-Democrats for most of the next 100 years.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "They don't call it the Gulf of Tonkin Incident for nothing.
I meant to say the Fort Sumter Incident."

But Jefferson Davis understood perfectly well what he was doing, and the advantage going to the side which did not fire the first shots.
But, as he told CSA Gen. Bragg on April 3, 1861, that advantage was "overbalanced by other considerations" in Davis' own mind.

That's why Davis ignored his Secretary of State Toombs' accurate warning not to start civil war at Fort Sumter.

[ctdonath2]

Guantanamo Bay is a tempting analogy, but insufficient. “Perpetual lease to USA” is written into the Cuban constitution (backed of course by implied right of conquest). Debatable origins, yes, but there it is.

Your very interesting quote indicates CSA recognized Fort Sumpter (the island) as USA property (being built out of ocean for the sole purpose as foundation for a U.S. fort occupied by U.S. military). Debatable, yes, though its origins were well known and not overtly contravened. Change of ownership was clearly intended via right of conquest, which ultimately failed at great cost.

I consider “by right of conquest” a legitimate stance ... though consider “if you strike at the king, do not miss.”

[DiogenesLamp]

If that's true, then why did Confederate newspapers report the same thing?

Did they know about the war fleet? The Confederate military may have known about it, but did newspaper people?

My point remains valid that I have gone through most of my life never having heard that Lincoln sent warships which were intended to attack the Confederates. Never heard of it.

Why are historians afraid to mention this very salient fact?

[DiogenesLamp]

Original land grant stated that the fort was to be utilized for the defense of Charleston. US government did not keep it's word on constructing it. South Carolina legislature later made another land grant without conditions.

[BroJoeK]

ctdonath2: "Guantanamo Bay is a tempting analogy, but insufficient. “Perpetual lease to USA” is written into the Cuban constitution (backed of course by implied right of conquest).
Debatable origins, yes, but there it is."

"Cuban constitution"?
What "Cuban constitution"?
The one imposed by the Castro's on the Cuban people?
I don't think so.

And that makes the analogy with Fort Sumter exact -- old government is overthrown, new government refuses to recognize old government's agreements, demands return of properties, under threat of war -- that's what happened.

The difference is the new Cuban government has never dared attack Americans at Guantanamo, just as Spain has not attacked the Brits at Gibraltar.
However, consider similar circumstances in the former Soviet Republics of Georgia and Ukraine's Crimea & eastern provinces -- like Jefferson Davis, Vladimir Putin felt no restraints on his ambitions "to relieve our territory and jurisdiction of the presence of a foreign garrison."
And how long will it be before the Chi-coms use those same claims to possess disputed islands in the South China Sea, and even Taiwan?

ctdonath2: "Change of ownership was clearly intended via right of conquest, which ultimately failed at great cost.
I consider “by right of conquest” a legitimate stance ... though consider “if you strike at the king, do not miss.”"

But our Lost Causers here are not satisfied with "right of conquest" to justify Jefferson Davis' orders to "reduce" and take Fort Sumter.
In their minds it's necessary to claim that Confederates had a lawful right to Fort Sumter (as a consequence of secession), and the Union only held it by "right of conquest", which Davis lawfully ordered to end.

But I've seen no law anywhere, ever, which said that just because a government (as opposed to, say, administration) changes, every property of the former government suddenly, magically, becomes property of the new government.
Claims otherwise then are simply "might makes right" and/or "right of conquest".

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Did they know about the war fleet?
The Confederate military may have known about it, but did newspaper people?"

Of course they did, it was widely reported in newspapers as it happened.
You can read those reports yourself on these threads!

DiogenesLamp: "My point remains valid that I have gone through most of my life never having heard that Lincoln sent warships which were intended to attack the Confederates.
Never heard of it."

You never heard it because that version is simply not true, it's just another lie you concocted all by yourself, to justify some inherent need you have to hate the United States and the patriots who defend us.

Those "warships" were ordered not to "attack Confederates", but simply to defend Union transport boats, if necessary, resupplying Union troops in Union Fort Sumter.
Anything else is just your own hateful imagination at work, FRiend.

DiogenesLamp: "Why are historians afraid to mention this very salient fact?"

Historians?
What "historians"?
You mean the school teachers who write textbooks for young children?
Those textbooks leave out some unimportant details and you're going berserk with hatred for the United States because of that?

Seriously, FRiend, you need to rethink this.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp on Fort Sumter: "Original land grant stated that the fort was to be utilized for the defense of Charleston.
US government did not keep it's word on constructing it."

South Carolina originally ceded all the Charleston Harbor forts to the United States in 1805.
Then again, "in 1836, South Carolina officially ceded all 'right, title and, claim' to the site of Fort Sumter to the United States.[6]"

Construction on Fort Sumter began in 1829.
Seventy thousand tons of granite were transported from New England to build up the artificial island.

Between roughly 1830 and 1860 the US government spent over $1 million per year constructing two dozen coastal & other forts.
Of that money, 2/3 was spent in Southern states, including on Fort Sumter.

[ctdonath2]

Confirms my case: “Satisfactory explanations being made, the formal cession to the United States of all right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory was made on the 17th day of December, 1836.”

Issue ceded formally by South Carolina, land literally built out of ocean by US military, paid for out of federal treasury, occupied exclusively by US troops. Other forts on natural lands abandoned. SC attempted to conquer, engaging the whole South in war, without success.

[DiogenesLamp]

Those "warships" were ordered not to "attack Confederates", but simply to defend Union transport boats, if necessary, resupplying Union troops in Union Fort Sumter.

Firstly, it was not possible to protect the transport boats. I won't bother going into details about the Confederate preparations to deal with those, but there would have been absolutely zero transport boats getting through.

Secondly, you are being dishonest in your claims that a group of warships were benign in their intentions. Their very orders say to use all the force at their command to exert Lincoln's will on the Confederates.

Lincoln would lock up newspaper people who would dare challenge his account of events. Lincoln said it was a "supply" mission, and all the citizens cowed by his willingness to lock up dissenters simply parroted his claim.

The clear and objective truth is that these were Warships and their mission was belligerent, not peaceful.

[DiogenesLamp]

Now apply your same standard to all the British forts in North America.

[BroJoeK]

ctdonath2: "...land literally built out of ocean by US military, paid for out of federal treasury, occupied exclusively by US troops...
SC attempted to conquer, engaging the whole South in war, without success."

Built out of ocean on 70,000 tons of granite shipped from New England!

Totally agreed except, of course, the order to "reduce" Fort Sumter came from Jefferson Davis himself, not the state of South Carolina, a minor technicality, perhaps.

[BroJoeK]

DiognesLamp: "Firstly, it was not possible to protect the transport boats.
I won't bother going into details about the Confederate preparations to deal with those, but there would have been absolutely zero transport boats getting through."

Sure, that's your opinion, but Fox's plan was to send in small boats at night, under conditions of poor visibility, when shore batteries would be ineffective.
Now, if you suppose the "Confederate navy" would have attacked those small boats, then you do actually understand why Lincoln also sent serious warships.

Finally, Capt. Fox did try twice to reach Fort Sumter on April 12 but was turned back -- not by Confederates -- but by bad weather and Rattlesnake Shoals.
He intended to try again the night of the 13th, but by then Maj. Anderson had surrendered.

DiognesLamp: "Secondly, you are being dishonest in your claims that a group of warships were benign in their intentions.
Their very orders say to use all the force at their command to exert Lincoln's will on the Confederates."

That's not what those orders said, it's just your own hated-filled concoction.
In fact, the Union orders said, in effect: no first use of force, but if resisted do what's necessary to reinforce Fort Sumter.

DiognesLamp: "Lincoln would lock up newspaper people who would dare challenge his account of events.
Lincoln said it was a "supply" mission, and all the citizens cowed by his willingness to lock up dissenters simply parroted his claim."

The basic facts, including Lincoln's orders, were published widely almost as soon as they happened.
The distinction between "resupply" and "reinforce" was made clear from the beginning, though average Americans would hardly see a real difference.

The key fact is that Americans didn't need to be "tricked" because they understood full well what was happening.
Jefferson Davis said it himself:

"There would be to us an advantage in so placing them that an attack by them would be a necessity, but when we are ready to relieve our territory and jurisdiction of the presence of a foreign garrison that advantage is overbalanced by other considerations."

Davis well knew he was starting war, but he didn't care.

DiognesLamp: "The clear and objective truth is that these were Warships and their mission was belligerent, not peaceful."

The Union's mission was 100% peaceful unless Jefferson Davis decided to start civil war at Fort Sumter, which he did, not because of Union warships, but for "other considerations".

[ctdonath2]

By right of conquest.

Had CSA won at Gettysburg, they’d own Fort Sumpter.
But they didn’t.