Posted on 03/07/2010 1:18:34 PM PST by BigReb555
Do you remember the 1961 weekly television series, entitled “The Americans?”
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Forgetting about Anderson's men fighting with a ship's captain on December 26, overpowering him, and sailing the ship to Fort Sumter with men and supplies? Or perhaps you don't think hijacking/piracy is aggression.
Yet that hadn't been preceded or followed by a whole scale attack on the fort. Yet that hadn't been preceded or followed by a whole scale attack on the fort. And had Lincoln landed food at Sumter as he stated was his intention, what would have changed? Would the threat to the confederacy grown? No. If Sumter wasn't enough of a threat to bombard into surrender in January then how could that change in April?
Silly question. South Carolina was basically alone at that point and couldn't stand off the North by itself. It would take a good deal of time, of course, to prepare enough men and ammunition a successful attack on the fort. Anderson had spiked the guns of Fort Moultrie when he left, so those guns were not usable by the Charlestonians. And besides, the South Carolina wanted to separate from the US peacefully if it could.
And had Lincoln lied and landed troops as well as supplies, would the confederacy been in danger? No. A few hundred men could not have taken the city, and while the forces in Sumter might, might, have blocked Charleston harbor, but that was far from the busiest port in the confederacy. New Orleans was five to eight times busier, and even Mobile exported more. Eighty percent of confederate exports and almost ninety five percent of their imports entered at ports other than Charleston. Exports could easily have been sent out through Savannah and the amount of imports was so small that even if those could not have been directed to Savannah or Jacksonville as well, the amount was a mere 1/20th of the total. So there was no economic threat had Lincoln kept the fort; the confederacy would have gone on without any problems.
The Confederates basically had no effective navy to face the Northern Navy, so it couldn't have stopped a blockade of its ports including those you mentioned. It took some time for the North to move ships into position and add new ships to their blockade fleet. The South had only limited ship building capability.
Fort Sumter was the first step. The Northern navy took captured forts at the mouths of the Savannah River, the Mississippi, Pensacola Bay, effectively blocking ports upriver and the Pensacola naval yard. Blockade runners could and did get through the federal blockade, of course, but Scott's Anaconda plan to strangle the South with a blockade worked. The South did not get its anticipated income from imports and sales of cotton. And as for Lincoln's pledge to collect the tariffs, how do you imagine he could have done that with Sumter alone? Ships didn't pay tariffs there, they paid them where they landed the goods. Lincoln could have blustered all he wanted, no tariffs would have been collected unless South Carolina allowed it. So your claim that an act of aggression on the part of Lincoln, real or perceived, caused the South to act in return just isn't supported. There was no threat that hadn't been in place for months. What really changed?
A normal commercial ship wasn't equipped to fight a Northern navy blockade ship firing at it. The commercial would either have paid the Northern tariff or not tried to run the blockade in the first place. the latter was the case except for fast, silent blockade runners that ran into and out of a blockaded port at night.
I erred in that Fort Moultrie had at least some guns up and functional when the Star of the West tried to get to Sumter. Moultrie fired at the Star as did a battery manned by Citadel cadets. If ammunition supplies were as limited as I think they might have been, South Carolina might not have been able to effectively bombard Sumter.
Nice data-filled post.
Preaching to the choir on this, my friend. Davis wagered that a 15 state confederacy would beat the U.S. He badly underestimated his opponent. In the end he got an 11 state confederacy and lost.
Considering that Anderson made his move in the face of a very real threat that his post would be stormed by the Charleston mob and/or militia then one could still say that the aggression was on the Southern side. But instead of going to extremes on just what constitutes the first act of aggression and who first performed it, I'd like to concentrate on identifying just what it was that rendedered the last act of aggression - bombarding the fort - necessary. You say it was Lincoln who forced Davis to resort to war. How?
Silly question. South Carolina was basically alone at that point and couldn't stand off the North by itself.
It didn't stop them from seizing Moultrie and Castle Pinkney and the Charleston Armory. It didn't stop them from driving off the Star of the West. Obviously they were prepared for a fight and had enough arms and munitions for that. If Sumter was such a threat then why not begin bombarding it, if for no other reason than the keep their heads down? Doing nothing in the face of such aggression as you claim retaining Sumter makes you appear weak, doesn't it?
Anderson had spiked the guns of Fort Moultrie when he left, so those guns were not usable by the Charlestonians.
They got them working in time to shoot at the Star of the West, didn't they?
And besides, the South Carolina wanted to separate from the US peacefully if it could.
Then bombarding a fort is an odd way of doing it.
The Confederates basically had no effective navy to face the Northern Navy, so it couldn't have stopped a blockade of its ports including those you mentioned. It took some time for the North to move ships into position and add new ships to their blockade fleet. The South had only limited ship building capability.
I think you're getting ahead of yourself. There was no blockade of Charleston, or any other port. Had Lincoln been able to land supplies - and even if he landed troops - there still wouldn't have been a blockade. The blockade didn't begin until the war started. So if Davis bombarded Sumter because he feared blockade then he certainly got things backwards.
So what really tipped the scales and forced Davis to resort to war?
What Charleston mob? Surely you have documentation of one, right? Anderson had received assurances from the mayor and prominent Charlestonians that everything would be done to prevent an assault by a mob [Source: Klein]. When did a mob assault Moultrie?
Remember our earlier discussion on another thread where Anderson had been very upset by receiving instructions dictated by Buchanan that "it is neither expected nor desired that you should expose yourself or that of your men in a hopeless conflict in defense of the forts." [See: Link]. This greatly restricted Anderson's options compared to the unauthorized comments that Buell had told him, But Anderson moved from Moultrie anyway and thereby violated Buchanan's agreement with the South Carolinians. Governor Pickens referred to Anderson's move as the first act of hostility.
It didn't stop them from seizing Moultrie and Castle Pinkney and the Charleston Armory. It didn't stop them from driving off the Star of the West. Obviously they were prepared for a fight and had enough arms and munitions for that.
In practicality, properties in a sovereign country remain in foreign hands only at the pleasure of the sovereign country. You don't think SC was a sovereign country at that time; they certainly did.
With 200 northern troops hiding below decks, the Star of the West was not exactly a peaceful vessel coming into the harbor. As I remember, it was warned off by a picket boat, then shots across its bow, then by shots aimed at the ship. SC controlled entrance to their harbor.
If Sumter was such a threat then why not begin bombarding it, if for no other reason than the keep their heads down? Doing nothing in the face of such aggression as you claim retaining Sumter makes you appear weak, doesn't it?
Prudent might be a better word. Why didn't we attack China over seizing of an American airplane or North Korea for seizing the Pueblo? In some cases, diplomacy can resolve such issues.
They got them working in time to shoot at the Star of the West, didn't they?
As I acknowledged earlier in my post 62.
I think you're getting ahead of yourself. There was no blockade of Charleston, or any other port. Had Lincoln been able to land supplies - and even if he landed troops - there still wouldn't have been a blockade. The blockade didn't begin until the war started. So if Davis bombarded Sumter because he feared blockade then he certainly got things backwards.
How else other than a blockade (and using the fort to enforce the blockade) was Lincoln to keep his promise of collecting Southern tariff revenue? Besides, if Southern tariff revenue were a small as you have repeatedly said on these threads, why would Lincoln say he was going to take it in the first place? Certainly if it were as tiny as you claim Lincoln could afford to let the South go without significant harm to the North. Maybe it wasn't so tiny after all.
So what really tipped the scales and forced Davis to resort to war?
Is there an echo in here? Been there, answered that.
We have Anderson's report to the Adjutant General's Office dated December 27, 1860: Link. We have Detzer's account of the information Anderson received from men like James Pettigru warning him that his command was in danget, which he related in "Allegiance: Fort Sumter, Charleston, and the Beginning of the Civil War". There's a considerable amount of evidence showing that Anderson feared for the safety of his command, and had reason to.
But Anderson moved from Moultrie anyway and thereby violated Buchanan's agreement with the South Carolinians.
Buchanan didn't think so. Link. He denies that Anderson's move was illegal and refused to order him to vacate Sumter.
In practicality, properties in a sovereign country remain in foreign hands only at the pleasure of the sovereign country. You don't think SC was a sovereign country at that time; they certainly did.
Legally, the forts were the property of the United States, and only an act of Congress could change that. No such act was passed so the South Carolina authorities illegally seized property that wasn't their's.
With 200 northern troops hiding below decks, the Star of the West was not exactly a peaceful vessel coming into the harbor. As I remember, it was warned off by a picket boat, then shots across its bow, then by shots aimed at the ship. SC controlled entrance to their harbor.
So why was that not enough to trigger a war, but a supply effort 3 months later was?
Prudent might be a better word. Why didn't we attack China over seizing of an American airplane or North Korea for seizing the Pueblo? In some cases, diplomacy can resolve such issues.
It didn't take Davis long to toss diplomacy right out the window, did it? He was willing to wait three months for Buchanan to dither, but just over a month after Lincoln was inaugurated he decided war was appropriate. What changed his position?
How else other than a blockade (and using the fort to enforce the blockade) was Lincoln to keep his promise of collecting Southern tariff revenue?
You're suggesting that a blockade - something that had not been mentioned, threatened or contemplated by Lincoln - was the last act of aggression that drove Davis over the edge and into war? That's simply too far fetched to accept.
Besides, if Southern tariff revenue were a small as you have repeatedly said on these threads, why would Lincoln say he was going to take it in the first place?
The South could have enacted no tariff or a tariff of a thousand percent and it would have made not one bit of difference to U.S. imports. Lincoln mentioned collecting tariffs. He also mentioned delivering the mail and appointing office-holders. He was detailing all the major acts of government which he planned on continuing since he still considered the seven rebellious states part of the U.S. There was nothing special about tariff collections except that the government did it.
The tariff was not a factor in Lincoln's opposition to the Southern acts of secession. He believed their actions to be illegal and the states still to be part of the U.S. Had South Carolina said, "Let us go and we'll still pay your tariff" then Lincoln's reactions would not have changed one bit.
Is there an echo in here? Been there, answered that.
Not really, no. You've been all over the board suggesting tariffs...no blockade...no, maybe something else as the cause. But you've offered no evidence at all at what Davis believed was that last act of aggression that drove him to war, and made Lincoln responsible for all that happened. Could it be that Davis didn't agree with you?
I asked for evidence of a mob. Your link doesn't mention that any mob formed to attack Moultrie. What Anderson was acting on was his fear that if one came it could easily take over Moultrie.
[rb]: But Anderson moved from Moultrie anyway and thereby violated Buchanan's agreement with the South Carolinians.
[ns]: Buchanan didn't think so. Link. He denies that Anderson's move was illegal and refused to order him to vacate Sumter.
Buchanan's reply that you linked to was made public. In it he does not seem to recall his earlier response when he was confronted by Southerners about Anderson's move:
"My God! Are calamities ... never to come singly! I call God to witness -- you gentlemen better than anybody else know that this is not only without but against my orders. It is against my policy." [Sources: Klein, Days of Defiance, page 170; Tilly, Lincoln Takes Command, page 110]
Anderson no longer believed he had orders to make that move. If he thought he already had such approval, he wouldn't have wired Washington on December 22 saying:
I think that I could, however, were I to receive instructions so to do, throw my garrison into that work [Sumter], but I should have to sacrifice the greater of my stores as it is now too late to attempt their removal. [Link]
Anderson got no instructions to make the move in response to his December 22 telegram. Apparently, Anderson sent his December 22 telegram to Washington after he had received the instructions that Floyd relayed from Buchanan on December 21. Those December 21 instructions had frustrated Anderson and limited what he could do. I linked to his response to the December 21 instructions earlier. Buchanan sloughed over the December 21 telegram in his public response you linked to. Perhaps he said one thing in his public pronouncements and another in private.
Legally, the forts were the property of the United States, and only an act of Congress could change that. No such act was passed so the South Carolina authorities illegally seized property that wasn't their's.
As long as South Carolina remained in the Union, the forts remained the property of the Union. Their status was much less clear once South Carolina seceded.
It didn't take Davis long to toss diplomacy right out the window, did it? He was willing to wait three months for Buchanan to dither, but just over a month after Lincoln was inaugurated he decided war was appropriate. What changed his position?
You sound like a reporter repeatedly asking basically the same question over and over hoping the responder will make an error. See my earlier reply.
The South could have enacted no tariff or a tariff of a thousand percent and it would have made not one bit of difference to U.S. imports. Lincoln mentioned collecting tariffs.
No difference, huh?. Imports to the Port of New York (by far the largest port for imports) averaged about $20,000,000 a month throughout 1860. They started out at $26,000,000 in January 1861, but the last six months averaged about $10,000,000 a month. [Source: Port of NY import figures for each month from 1860 to 1864 in Appleton's Annual Cyclopedia for the Year 1865]
I also refer you to an old post of mine to you about the inflation adjusted value of US imports relative to the 1860 values [Link].
The tariff was not a factor in Lincoln's opposition to the Southern acts of secession.
Wasn't it Lincoln who famously asked "what about my revenues?" or words to that effect before the Sumter attack?
Not really, no. You've been all over the board suggesting tariffs...no blockade...no, maybe something else as the cause. But you've offered no evidence at all at what Davis believed was that last act of aggression that drove him to war, and made Lincoln responsible for all that happened. Could it be that Davis didn't agree with you?
I said on this thread I didn't know what caused Davis to attack the fort, or have you forgotten?
Read the two sources I cited.
Anderson no longer believed he had orders to make that move.
Then he must have changed his mind. In his message to the AGO on December 27 he refers to "my solemn duty to move my command from a fort which we could not probably held longer than fourty-eight to sixty hours, to this one where my power of resistance is increased to a very great degree."
As long as South Carolina remained in the Union, the forts remained the property of the Union. Their status was much less clear once South Carolina seceded.
Based on what rule of law?
No difference, huh?. Imports to the Port of New York (by far the largest port for imports) averaged about $20,000,000 a month throughout 1860. They started out at $26,000,000 in January 1861, but the last six months averaged about $10,000,000 a month.
You don't suppose the war had something to do with that? Or are you suggesting that all those imports which used to go to New York were now flowing into Southern ports? If that is the case, why didn't the go there before the war broke out?
Wasn't it Lincoln who famously asked "what about my revenues?" or words to that effect before the Sumter attack?
It has been alleged. But at the end of the day why should Lincoln have risked war over the 5% to 7% of the federal revenue provided by Southern imports?
I said on this thread I didn't know what caused Davis to attack the fort, or have you forgotten?
With respect, no you have not. This whole conversation began with your quote, ""The aggressor in war is not the first who uses force, but the first who renders force necessary." I asked what the act of aggression was that made force necessary on the part of Davis and his regime and you really haven't been able to point to what the tipping point was.
Where's the mob?
[rb]: Anderson no longer believed he had orders to make that move.
[ns]: Then he must have changed his mind. In his message to the AGO on December 27 he refers to "my solemn duty to move my command from a fort which we could not probably held longer than fourty-eight to sixty hours, to this one where my power of resistance is increased to a very great degree."
He refers to his "duty," not to any order to move.
Based on what rule of law?
South Carolina was no longer bound by the US Constitution after they seceded. They offered to purchase the forts (or at least Fort Sumter) from the US in January or February 1861 but were rebuffed. Isn't possession nine tenths of the law?
You don't suppose the war had something to do with that? Or are you suggesting that all those imports which used to go to New York were now flowing into Southern ports? If that is the case, why didn't the go there before the war broke out?
Deja vu. From a link I posted to you in post 68:
Thomas Prentice Kettell published Southern Wealth and Northern Profits in 1860. It broke down the distribution of imports to regions by consumption. For 1859, it calculates Southern consumption of imports as $106,000,000, Western consumption as $63,000,000, and Northern consumption of imports as $149,000,000. Kettell bases the split among regions on Treasury figures from 1856.
The consumer is the one who ends up paying the tariff, even though the tariff might have been collected in New York upon distribution of the goods from New York warehouses. In addition to tariffs on the foreign goods they purchased, Southerners were essentially paying the tariff to Northern manufactures for the goods whose prices were propped up by the tariff. Kettell calculated that the South purchased $240,000,000 of Northern goods in 1859.
I also refer you to Link to my old post 857. That old thread from 857 to 876 addresses the effect of the tariff on trade and New York import firms. From the New York Herald of March 2, 1861 as quoted in that post 857:
The effect of these two tariffs, then, upon our trade with the best, and most reliable part of the country will most disastrously be felt in all the Northern cities. We learn that even now some of the largest houses in the Southern trade in this city, who have not already failed, are preparing to wind up their affairs and abandon business entirely. The result of this as regards the value of property, rents, and real estate, can be readily seen. Within two months from this time it will probably be depreciated from twenty to forty percent.
Here's data on the change in the value of imports at the Port of New York from 1860 to 1861 on a monthly basis [Source of the data that went into my calculation: the 1865 Appleton's]:
Month ... % change from 1860 to 1861
Jan ..... 23.5
Feb ..... -15.6
Mar ..... -22.8
Apr ..... -12.3
May ..... -11.5
Jun ..... -34.0
Jul ..... -40.0
Aug ..... -65.7
Sep ..... -55.1
Oct ..... -49.2
Nov ..... -37.5
Dec ..... -54.8
That Confederate blockade of the Port of New York was really effective, wasn't it?
But at the end of the day why should Lincoln have risked war over the 5% to 7% of the federal revenue provided by Southern imports?
See my points in this post above.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.