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?