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

[Homer_J_Simpson]

CHARLESTON, Friday, April 12.

The ball has opened. War is inaugurated.

The batteries of Sullivan's Island, Morris Island, and other points, were opened on Fort Sumpter at 4 o'clock this morning.

OUR CHARLESTON DISPATCHES.

Fort Sumpter has returned the fire, and a brisk cannonading has been kept up. No information has been received from the seaboard yet.

The military are under arms, and the whole of our population are on the streets. Every available space facing the harbor is filled with anxious spectators.

CHARLESTON, Friday, April 12.

The firing has continued all day without intermission.

Two of Fort Sumpter's guns have been silenced, and it is reported that a breach has been made in the southeast wall.

The answer to Gen. BEAUREGARD'S demand by Major ANDERSON that he would surrender when his supplies were exhausted, that is, if he was not reinforced.

Not a casualty has yet happened to any of the forces.

Of the nineteen batteries in position only seven have opened fire on Fort Sumpter, the remainder are held in reserve for the expected fleet.

Two thousand men reached this city this morning and embarked for Morris Island and the neighborhood.

CHARLESTON, Friday, April 12.

The bombardment of Fort Sumpter continues.

The Floating Battery and Stephens Battery are operating freely, and Fort Sumpter is returning the fire.

It is reported that three war vessels are outside the bar.

CHARLESTON, Friday, April 12.

The firing has ceased for the night, but will be renewed at daylight in the morning, unless an attempt is made to reinforce, which ample arrangements have been made to repel.

[ctdonath2]

Jefferson Davis acted, as a chief executive does, on delegated behalf of the aggregate states - including South Carolina for this case.

[BroJoeK]

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

Our FRiend DiogenesLamp here fancies he has a clever argument comparing Union troops in Fort Sumter to, say, British troops at Fort Ticonderoga in 1775.
But differences between them include: long before the 1775 battles of Lexington & Concord, the Siege of Boston and the Capture of Fort Ticonderoga, the Brits had already:

1. Imposed a long series of Intolerable "Coercive" Acts -- "...a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism..."

2. Passed Restraining Acts against American trade.

3. Abolished American self-government, replaced it by direct British rule.

4. Proclaimed Americans in rebellion -- effectively a Declaration of War.

5. Seized American military supplies near Boston.

Nothing remotely resembling such events happened in 1860, or 1861 before Fort Sumter.

[DiogenesLamp]

By right of conquest.

If your argument is "Might makes right." Then laws or morality don't actually matter at all.

This mindset justifies slavery. I think slavery is wrong even when the laws say it is right, and by the same understanding of this concept of "natural law" that the Founders advocated for justifying their own independence from England, so too should the land belong to the people who reside upon it.

This is in fact what Abraham Lincoln said in his 1848 speech justifying the Independence of Texas from Mexico.

[DoodleDawg]

The day a recognized sovereign nation attacked the United States of America.

Recognized by whom?

[DoodleDawg]

Lincoln would lock up newspaper people who would dare challenge his account of events.

Which ones?

[DiogenesLamp]

Our FRiend DiogenesLamp here fancies he has a clever argument comparing Union troops in Fort Sumter to, say, British troops at Fort Ticonderoga in 1775. But differences between them include: long before the 1775 battles of Lexington & Concord, the Siege of Boston and the Capture of Fort Ticonderoga, the Brits had already:

Imposed a long series of Intolerable "Coercive" Acts -- "...a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism..."

Passed Restraining Acts against American trade.

Abolished American self-government, replaced it by direct British rule.

Proclaimed Americans in rebellion -- effectively a Declaration of War.

Seized American military supplies near Boston.

Very amusing that you can't see the similarities.

Imposed a long series of Intolerable "Coercive" Acts -- "...a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism..."

You don't get to declare what *OTHER* people consider a long train of abuses and usurpations. So far as the Southerners were concerned, they had been experiencing a long train of abuses and usurpations.

Passed Restraining Acts against American trade.

Navigation Act of 1817 pretty much handed a monopoly to New England based shipping companies carrying trade between Europe and the US. Southern companies were driven out of business by it's provisions and the subsidies paid to New England shipping companies. This was very much a "Restraining Act" against Southern trade.

Abolished American self-government, replaced it by direct British rule.

Union forces disenfranchised all white people and created governments made up of nothing but Carpetbaggers and former slaves. They "abolished American self-government" and made all the states puppets of Washington DC.

Proclaimed Americans in rebellion -- effectively a Declaration of War.

Lincoln proclaimed Southerners in "rebellion". It was a lie, but he would lock up anyone who contradicted his claim that people holding elections and voting to secede was a "rebellion."

Seized American military supplies near Boston.

Lincoln's forces seized everything they owned. Destroyed a lot of it, and gave away more to their cronies and allies.

[ctdonath2]

By USA, as far as I can discern: abandoned all military installations without fight nor serious complaint, being positioned upon natural lands of the CSA states.

[ctdonath2]

You impute a position not held, then proceed to attack the straw man.

Otherwise you’re responding to someone else; please direct responses accordingly.

[DiogenesLamp]

Pardon me, but "By right of conquest." sounds to my ears exactly like "might makes right."

If there is a strawman lurking about, I can't see it.

[M Kehoe]

Good evening Professor.

Isn’t it odd how 160 years has not cooled the passions of the descendants of each side?

5.56mm

[DoodleDawg]

By USA, as far as I can discern: abandoned all military installations without fight nor serious complaint, being positioned upon natural lands of the CSA states.

Debatable, but not germane to the question. You called the Confederacy a 'recognized sovereign nation'. Recognized by whom?

[ctdonath2]

Get your ears checked then. There’s a difference.

[ctdonath2]

As I said earlier, it was a charitable concession to the “states’ rights” perspective, a la “for sake of argument”. I don’t have to perfectly agree with you; I’m making a point, and bickering over that side issue is unhelpful.

[Homer_J_Simpson]

I am reminded of the days in 1941/2011 when we had a long-running debate going about what FDR knew and what did he do about it regarding Pearl Harbor. I don’t remember anyone being convinced that the opposing side had a point.

[DiogenesLamp]

Get your ears checked then. There’s a difference.

Could it be that my ears are fine, and perhaps you are hearing things?