The Constitution requires that any tariff be uniform in all the states. Did the delegates from southern states who helped write the Constitution just forget that?
And are you saying that Major Anderson and his 65 men laid seige to the 7,000 rebel troops in Charleston?
Walt
Yes Walt, and that is precisely the grievance with the Morrill tariff - it violated the spirit of the Constitution by excessively burdening the south to the north's advantage.
Book, Chapter, and Verse Walt. Please show how your northern compatriots faithfully complied with the sentiment you hold as truth.
And are you saying that Major Anderson and his 65 men laid seige to the 7,000 rebel troops in Charleston?....Walt
A coastal artillery fort has only one military purpose and that is to deny passage to ships passing within the range of it's guns.
A traditional siege entails an attempt to cut off all routes into the besieged city or fortress with the ultimate purpose of forcing a surrender. Fort Sumter had no power to "besiege" Charleston or anything else.
Whoever controlled Fort Sumter, however, had the power to either "defend" Charleston from a seaborne attack by enemy warships or to establish a maritime "blockade" of Charleston by denying passage to merchant shipping.
Major Anderson and his 85 men (not 65) had no power to "besiege" Charleston but they did have the power to establish a maritime "blockade" of Charleston if they so desired.
As Anderson had made no attempt to establish such a blockade, the prudent Confederate course of action would have been to swallow a little bit (or a lot - depending on your point of view) of territorial pride and do nothing until such a blockade was actually attempted.