You'll notice Davis said "Armed insurrection began ..." and there's good reason for that. If a police officer commandeers a vehicle to chase fugitives it's not a casus belli. If state officials start attacking federal troops, it's going to have serious repercussions.
I've got David Detzer's Allegiance: Fort Sumter, Charleston, and the Beginning of the Civil War in front of me. He describes the transfer but I can't find your incident, unless you mean this: "The skipper of the rented schooners sensed what the signal meant and tried to prevent Hall from taking the boats to Sumter, but Hall and a sergeant shoved the captain into the hold and took off, arriving shortly after Seymour."
So they rented a boat, and used others of their own, and the captain balked when he found out what they were doing. More broken agreements from the South Carolinians.
The South Carolinians verbally explained that any shift of troops by Anderson from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter would violate their proposal. Buchanan said that his policy was to maintain the status quo but that he couldn't pledge anything. He said that it was a "matter of honor among gentlemen."
From Klein: "All parties went away believing a bargain had been struck, without knowing exactly what the bargain was, who the parties to it were, and what its precise terms were."
"Informal truce" indeed! It's a fine agreement when no one knows what they're agreeing to? Buchanan says he can't pledge anything, and they assume he's promised them something?
There's something more than a bit surreal about Congressmen demanding that the President acquiesce in the seizure of American military installations. Detzer notes Buchanan's long diplomatic experience, something the militants should have taken into account.
I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. The idea that state officials could declare themselves independent and start giving ultimatums to the federal government overnight is so far from experience and understanding that it's hard to take it seriously.
You're the one retailing that fantasy. Secession was another creature entirely, and transacted at the level of the People determining their own fate, as they had, and have, every right to do.
Or will you now join your compeer in insisting that there is a superordinating principle or entity that has the right and power to tell the People the limits of their freedom and authority? And that that entity has a name and a face?
Armed insurrection? South Carolina was independent by that point in time with a bunch of foreign facilities in its midst.
... I can't find your incident, unless you mean this: "The skipper of the rented schooners sensed what the signal meant and tried to prevent Hall from taking the boats to Sumter, but Hall and a sergeant shoved the captain into the hold and took off, arriving shortly after Seymour."
That's it. My description is roughly similar.
It is a case of hijacking, IMO. Hijack -- "To seize control of (a moving vehicle) by use of force, especially in order to reach an alternate destination." So, you are basically arguing that if I charter a plane, I can legitimately overpower the pilot and have him take me someplace other than where he contracted to take me?
More broken agreements from the South Carolinians.
I believe the ship in this case was contracted to take women and children and supplies over to Fort Johnson, not Sumter. In any event, a ship's captain has absolute command of his vessel, unless, of course, it is hijacked. Was maritime law different back then?
"Informal truce" indeed! It's a fine agreement when no one knows what they're agreeing to? Buchanan says he can't pledge anything, and they assume he's promised them something?
I gather that the Southern congressmen and senators were livid about Anderson's move to Sumter, telling Buchanan that Anderson's move breaking the December 10th agreement (Buchanan's "honor among gentlemen") would result in war. Anderson's move did lead to war eventually, of course, although there were so many other potential powder kegs that something else could have easily started the conflict. Perhaps even unruly Charlestonians might have invaded hard-to-defend Fort Moultie (Anderson's reason for moving to Sumter) and started the war. Who knows?
A similar Buchanan truce to maintain the status quo was in place at Fort Pickens. In April, the federal naval officer in charge of Pensacola refused to obey an order coming from Winfield Scott to offload troop reinforcements at Fort Pickens because it violated the truce. Lincoln had to send a special messenger to get the Pensacola officer to realize Lincoln intended to violate the truce. This happened about the same day that Chew informed Governor Pickens of Lincoln's latest ploy concerning Sumter.
As I've mentioned on these threads, I fault Davis for not holding the status quo at Sumter.
The idea that state officials could declare themselves independent and start giving ultimatums to the federal government overnight is so far from experience and understanding that it's hard to take it seriously.
Secession is not outlawed by the Constitution, your earlier argument notwithstanding. The issue at hand was not "ultimatums." The issue was whether you wished to be the one to start a war. The congressmen urged Buchanan to hold the status quo and negotiate about the fort. Apparently, he did not disagree.
It sounds like you would have started a war come what may.
I don't think this discussion is going anywhere.
Agreed. Why don't we cease and desist? We've beat this subject to death.