Posted on 03/10/2013 8:19:44 AM PDT by BroJoeK
Ten Neo-Confederate Myths (+one)
In fact, a study of the earliest secessionists documents shows, when they bother to give reasons at all, their only major concern was to protect the institution of slavery.
For example, four seceding states issued "Declarations of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify Secession from the Federal Union".
These documents use words like "slavery" and "institution" over 100 times, words like "tax" and "tariff" only once (re: a tax on slaves), "usurpation" once (re: slavery in territories), "oppression" once (re: potential future restrictions on slavery).
So secession wasn't just all about slavery, it was only about slavery.
In fact, secessionists biggest real complaint was that Washington was not doing enough to enforce fugitive slave laws in Northern states.
Mississippi's Declaration is instructive since it begins by explaining why slavery is so important:
It goes on to complain that the Federal Government is not enforcing its own Fugitive Slave laws, saying that anti-slavery feeling:
In fact, the Compromise of 1850 shifted responsibility for enforcing Fugitive Slave laws from northern states to the Federal Government, so this complaint amounts to a declaration that Washington is not powerful enough.
In fact, no where in the Founders' literature is the 10th Amendment referenced as justifying unilateral, unapproved secession "at pleasure".
Instead, secession (or "disunion") is always seen as a last resort, requiring mutual consent or material usurpations and oppression.
For example, the Virginia Ratification Statement says:
James Madison explained it this way:
"It is the nature & essence of a compact that it is equally obligatory on the parties to it, and of course that no one of them can be liberated therefrom without the consent of the others, or such a violation or abuse of it by the others, as will amount to a dissolution of the compact.
Applying this view of the subject to a single community, it results, that the compact being between the individuals composing it, no individual or set of individuals can at pleasure, break off and set up for themselves, without such a violation of the compact as absolves them from its obligations."
In fact, the 1860 Republican platform only called for restricting slavery from territories where it did not already exist.
And Lincoln repeatedly said he would not threaten slavery in states where it was already legal.
In fact, neither out-going President Buchanan nor incoming President Lincoln did anything to stop secessionists from declaring independence and forming a new Confederacy.
And Buchanan did nothing to stop secessionists from unlawfully seizing Federal properties or threatening and shooting at Federal officials.
Nor did Lincoln, until after the Confederacy started war at Fort Sumter (April 12, 1861) and then formally declared war on the United States, May 6, 1861.
In fact, no Confederate soldier was killed by any Union force, and no Confederate state was "invaded" by any Union army until after secessionists started war at Fort Sumter and formally declared war on May 6, 1861.
The first Confederate soldier was not killed directly in battle until June 10, 1861.
In fact, from Day One, Confederacy was an assault on the United States, and did many things to provoke and start, then formally declared war on the United States.
From Day One secessionists began to unlawfully seize dozens of Federal properties (i.e., forts, armories, ships, arsenals, mints, etc.), often even before they formally declared secession.
At the same time, they illegally threatened, imprisoned and fired on Federal officials -- for example, the ship Star of the West attempting to resupply Fort Sumter in January 1861 -- then launched a major assault to force Sumter's surrender, while offering military support for secessionist forces in a Union state (Missouri) .
And all of that was before formally declaring war on the United States.
After declaring war, the Confederacy sent forces into every Union state near the Confederacy, and some well beyond.
Invaded Union states & territories included:
In every state or territory outside the Confederacy proper, Confederate forces both "lived off the land" and attempted to "requisition" supplies to support Confederate forces at home.
Secessionists also assaulted the United states by claiming possession of several Union states and territories which had never, or could never, in any form vote to seceed.
So bottom line: the Confederacy threatened every Union state and territory it could reach.
In fact, there are remarkably few records of civilians murdered or raped by either side, certainly as compared to other wars in history.
But "pillaging" is a different subject, and both sides did it -- at least to some degree.
The Union army was generally self-sufficient, well supplied from its own rail-heads, and seldom in need to "live off the land."
In four years of war, the best known exceptions are Grant at Vicksburg and Sherman's "march to the sea".
In both cases, their actions were crucial to victory.
By contrast, Confederate armies were forced to "live off the land" both at home and abroad.
Yes, inside the Confederacy itself, armies "paid" for their "requisitions" with nearly worthless money, but once they marched into Union states and territories, their money was absolutely worthless, and so regardless of what they called it, their "requisitions" were no better than pillaging.
Perhaps the most famous example of Confederate pillaging, it's often said, cost RE Lee victory at the Battle of Gettysburg: while Lee's "eyes and ears" -- J.E.B. Stuart's cavalry -- was out pillaging desperately needed supplies in Maryland and Pennsylvania, Lee was partially blind to Union movements and strengths.
In fact, only one crime is defined in the US Constitution, and that is "treason".
The Constitution's definition of "treason" could not be simpler and clearer:
The Constitution also provides for Federal actions against "rebellion", "insurrection", "domestic violence", "invasion" declared war and treason.
So Pro-Confederate arguments that "there was no treason" depend first of all on the legality of secession.
If their secession was lawful, then there was no "treason", except of course among those citizens of Union states (i.e., Maryland, Kentucky & Missouri) which "adhered to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort".
But the bottom line is this: in previous cases -- i.e., the Whiskey Rebellion -- once rebellion was defeated, rebels were all released or pardoned by the President of the United States.
And that pattern, first established by President Washington, was followed under Presidents Lincoln and Johnson.
In fact, lawful secession by mutual consent could be 100% constitutional, if representatives submitted and passed such a bill in Congress, signed by the President.
Alternatively, states could bring suit in the United States Supreme Court for a material breach of contract and have the Federal government declared an "oppressive" or "usurping" power justifying secession.
But Deep-South slave-holders' unilateral, unapproved declarations of secession, without any material breach of contract issues, followed by insurrection and a declaration of war on the United States -- these our Founders clearly understood were acts of rebellion and treason -- which the Constitution was designed to defeat.
That leads to the larger question of whether our Pro-Confederates actually respect the Constitution as it was intended or, do they really wish for a return to those far looser, less binding -- you might even say, 1960s style "free love" marriage contract -- for which their union was named: the Articles of Confederation?
But consider: the Confederacy's constitution was basically a carbon copy of the US Constitution, emphasizing rights of holders of human "property".
So there's no evidence that Confederate leaders were in any way more tolerant -- or "free love" advocates -- regarding secession from the Confederacy than any Union loyalist.
Then what, precisely, does the allegation of "statism" mean?
The truth is, in this context, it's simply one more spurious insult, and means nothing more than, "I don't like you because you won't agree with me."
Poor baby... ;-)
Plus, one "bonus" myth:
No, no, no way...
Yes, FDR could be the O-man's political daddy, and his political mother those 1960s radicals like, well, his mother.
And one of his grandparents is well known: his intellectual maternal grandpa is Karl Marx.
But the other grandpa is certainly not Lincoln.
Rather, it is Lincoln's evil doppelganger, the other tall thin President born in Kentucky: Jefferson Davis.
How can that be?
Well, here's my list -- both Obama and Davis are/were:
Grant’s and Sherman’s wholesale regional massacres were not the work of a small-scale group of irregulars, as with the Lawrence event—rather part of national policy.
Thanks for the link.
At Arlington, many of the slaves were of mixed blood, probably many of them Lee’s relatives by marriage. But under VA law, and its even more peculiar PC descendant, a half-white, half-black man is all black. Just like our Fearless Leader.
I don’t know if it’s entirely accurate to say “the first thing he did” was to set up a whipping post, but it certainly seem that the Custis family didn’t operate their slave family in a very business-like way. To fulfill his obligations as the executor of the will, Lee had to use the resources of the estate to make it productive enough to pay the legacies and debts.
Which meant he was forced to crack down on the slaves, including instituting whipping. Such brutality is the natural and inevitable consequence of the institution, not necessarily an indication of the evil in the heart of the slaveowner.
It seems apparent that Bobby Lee didn’t see the slaves he controlled as being real people in the same sense he and his family and fellow officers were people. In fact, come to think of it slavery requires a form of sociopathy to function.
To the March 4 date included in your timeline, and with a nod to your tagline, here are a few words from Lincoln’s First Inaugural:
“...to collect the duties and imposts...”
According to Lincoln’s own words it was about money. Again, this was on March 4, 1861. Money. Keep the taxes flowing...or else.
Also, the USSC court set the April 19 date in your timeline as the beginning date of hostilities. The May 6 document declares a state of war exists and the USSC decision to use April 19 verifies this.
Care to provide names and dates for these massacres?
Of course that's right, but it was an entirely self-inflicted "shut-out".
It happened only because Southern Democrat "Fire-Eaters" walked out of the Democrat convention, refused to support its nominee, and then formed their own party with your namesake as their candidate.
And my opinion is: that was all done deliberately, in order to produce a Republican victory, which would then justify Fire-Eaters' claims that secession was necessary.
“There is at least as much evidence to support the thesis that the Civil War was a states’ rights issue as there is to prop up this PC notion that it was all about slavery.”
You aren’t supposed to know any of that. Keep repeating: It wuz all ‘bout slavery. Toe the line, Comrade. LOL!
“You seem to have left out some significant milestones. Accidental?”
No accident. BroJo has been schooled on all of this many times. There are comments on this thread which mention Massachusetts; BroJo would be well advised to get a clue and start thinking about those posts. Ah, the things he doesn’t know, or perhaps he does know and is fast and furiously ignoring it.
Don’t have time to school him on MA right this minute. Maybe soon.
And for a later date maybe a post on what Yankees (not to be confused with the good folks of states north of Mason and Dixon’s line) were up to with slavery (gasp!) in Louisiana and Cuba. Tsk, tsk, tsp.
The point is - the South wasn’t necessary. For anything. Lincoln’s victory proved that they could entirely be ignored when making policy. Even if Douglas had won Illinois, California and Oregon, because of the splits of the vote - even if the Democrats were all one party, they could not win. It simply was not possible due to the 85 electoral votes for New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania, combined.
And what about the majority of the state which was disenfranchised? If we throw even those adult male voters who weren't allowed the vote because of slavery or race, what would that do to the results?
DustyMoment: "Not true. Lincoln leased a merchant cargo ship, NOT a US Navy ship to attenpt to bring supplies to Ft. Sumter."
I know it's easy to get confused, but there were actually two separate attempts to resupply Fort Sumter, the first under President Buchanan in January, the second under Lincoln in April.
Both efforts were repulsed by secessionists' cannon fire.
When you're talking a single civilian resupply ship, that was the Star of the West, which arrived near Fort Sumter on January 8.
Originally planned as a naval ship, a last minute change to civilian transport, Star of the West was believed less provocative and more likely to succeed.
It didn't work.
Fortunately, Sumter's commander, Major Anderson believed he had enough supplies and so there was no immediate crisis.
But the day after Lincoln's inauguration (March 4), Anderson suddenly changed his mind and announced his supplies were only adequate until mid-April.
Lincoln pondered the problem for a month, then decided to send a multi-ship resupply operation.
Lincoln sent adequate advance notification to South Carolina Governor Pickens, but in all this time, Pickens had been pushing Confederate President Davis to seize Fort Sumter by military force.
And Davis had already ordered preparations, even before Lincoln's inauguration.
On learning of Lincoln's resupply ships, Davis immediately ordered Sumter be taken by military force.
The bottom line is this: Sumter was lawfully Federal property housing US Army troops.
Both efforts to resupply it were totally legitimate, and Confederate actions first firing on Star of the West in January, then seizing the fort in April, were acts of rebellion or war.
The US never sued in USSC claiming secession was not within States rights - did it? the Fed Gov would have been plaintiff in the USSC.
Was there an injunction issued prior to secession of any State? The executive branch was not surprised by these actions.
Did the executive branch even file for an injunction?
If not Why not?
Don’t you think that would have been superior to issuing orders to arrest state legislators?
I'm going on the information I have.
The vote on April 29 was 53 to 13 against secession, it was a freely given vote, no coercion, no arrests, and still then no penalty of law for declaring secession.
Plus it pretty well reflects the fact that 88% of Maryland families did not own slaves, and corresponds to the two-to-one ratio of Maryland soldiers for the Union versus Confederacy.
So, to produce a majority for secession, 21 votes needed to change.
How many Maryland legislators were arrested in September?
According to this source (the only one I could find), the number was "several".
Well, "several" was not enough to change the majority, much less prevent a quorum in September, 1861.
So all the information I have says Maryland chose legitimately to be a Union state.
Do you have other information?
Resistance in the face of tyranny.
They've probably had to spend plenty of hours waiting in line while cashiers chatted with the patrons in front of them, so once again, you're more or less.
A year or two ago I was trying to check some books or movies out of my local library. The librarian was chatting -- she had a pronounced Southern accent -- with the patron in front of me for what felt like a good long time.
Finally, the patron took her items and moved away from the desk. I pushed my items across the counter to the librarian, expecting them to be checked out.
The librarian goes on talking to the patron for a while longer, and when she finally checks out my items she says, "That was so rude! I was talking to her. Do you know how rude you were?!"
I wanted to say something, but figured I'd better let it go. I couldn't think of anything on the spur of the moment anyway.
Looking back, maybe it has to do with multi-tasking. A librarian or store clerk or cashier in the North might want to carry on a long conversation with a friend or coworker (if they were young and undisciplined enough), but she or he would probably be able to take care of another patron while this was going on.
The librarian in my case, probably thought she was being kindly and devoting her whole attention to one patron, even if it meant inconveniencing people in back and making them wait longer than they had to.
Anyway, if you think Northerners are rude or pushy, consider what they may have to put up with if they've moved South.
My interpretation is: until the 1860 election, Southern Democrats were the majority within the majority Democrat party, and slave-holders were the majority within Southern Democrats.
It was called the "Slave Power" because the Constitution's 3/5 slave representation rule gave the South many more votes than their white population would otherwise justify.
So the Southern Slave Power majority more-or-less ruled the Federal government from the Founding of the Republic in 1788 until 1860.
Then "Fire Eaters" split their majority Democrats into two small regional parties, and engineered Republican Lincoln's victory.
To me the reason is obvious: Fire Eaters had long advocated secession, and engineering Lincoln's victory was their way of getting average Southern voters to support them.
Fire Eaters cared nothing about legal fine points of a Constitutional secession.
Indeed, imho, secessionists wanted war -- a Second Revolution -- as the best way to unite the new Confederacy behind their leadership.
Naturally, they expected a quick victory.
Today's political situation is very different.
I'll start here. No, the munitions argument is not a German propaganda lie. First, when the ship was initially sunk, there was the explosion from the torpedo. Then, witnesses reported a second explosion from inside the ship.
Recent examinations of the wreckage have shown conclusively that there were munitions aboard the ship in direct violation of the treaty. There were supposed to be NO munitions aboard any passenger ship in order to get safe passage from the German subs.
Again, the letter to the governor explained the resupply would be limited.
(From "civilwarhome.com")
The fact of the evacuation of Fort Moultrie by Major Anderson was soon communicated to the authorities and people of Charleston, creating intense excitement. Crowds collected in streets and open places of the city, and loud and violent were the expressions of feeling against Major Anderson and his action ... [The governor of the State was ready to act in accordance with the feeling displayed.] On the morning of the 27th, he dispatched his aide-de-camp, Col. Johnston Pettigrew, of the First South Carolina Rifles, to Major Anderson. He was accompanied by Maj. Ellison Capers, of his regiment. Arriving at Fort Sumter, Colonel Pettigrew sent a card inscribed, "Colonel Pettigrew, First Regiment Rifles, S.C. M., Aide-de-Camp to the Governor, Commissioner to Major Anderson. Ellison Capers, Major First Regiment Rifles, S.C. M." . . . Colonel Pettigrew and his companion were ushered into the room. The feeling was reserved and formal, when, after declining seats, Colonel Pettigrew immediately opened his mission: "Major Anderson," said he, "can I communicate with you now, sir, before these officers, on the subject for which I am here?" "Certainly, sir," replied Major Anderson, "these are all my officers; I have no secrets from them, sir." The commissioner then informed Major Anderson that he was directed to say to him that the governor was much surprised that he had reinforced "this work." Major Anderson promptly responded that there had been no reinforcement of the work; that he had removed his command from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter, as he had a right to do, being in command of all the forts in the harbor. To this Colonel Pettigrew replied that when the present governor (Pickens) came into office, he found an understanding existing between the previous governor (Gist) and the President of the United States, by which all property Within the limits of the State was to remain as it was; that no reinforcements were to be sent here, particularly to this post; that there was to be no attempt made against the public property by the State, and that the status in the harbor should remain unchanged. He was directed also to say to Major Anderson that it had been hoped by the governor that a peaceful solution of the difficulties could. have been reached, and a resort to arms and bloodshed might have been avoided; but that the governor thought the action of Major Anderson had greatly complicated matters, and that he did not now see how bloodshed could be avoided; that he had desired and intended that the whole matter might be fought out politically and without the arbitration of the sword, but that now it was uncertain, if not impossible.
To this Major Anderson replied, that as far as any understanding between the President and the governor was concerned, he had not been informed; that he knew nothing of it; that he could get no information or positive orders from Washington, and that his position was threatened every night by the troops of the State. He was then asked by Major Capers, who accompanied Colonel Pettigrew, "How?" when he replied, "By sending out steamers armed and conveying troops on board ;" that these steamers passed the fort going north, and that he feared a landing on the island and the occupation of the sand-hills just north of the fort; that 100 riflemen on these hills, which commanded his fort, would make it impossible for his men to serve their guns; and that any man with a military head must see this. "To prevent this," said he earnestly, "I removed on my own responsibility, my sole object being to prevent bloodshed." Major Capers replied that the steamer was sent out for patrol purposes, and as much to prevent disorder among his own people as to ascertain whether any irregular attempt was being made to reinforce the fort, and that the idea of attacking him was never... entertained by the little squad who patroled the harbor.
Major Anderson replied to this that he was wholly in the dark as to the intentions of the State troops, but that he had reason to believe that they meant to land and attack him from the north; that the desire of the governor to have the matter settled peacefully and without bloodshed was precisely his object in removing his command from Moultrie to Sumter; that he did it upon his own responsibility alone, because he considered that the safety of his command required it, as he had a right to do. "In this controversy," said he, "between the North and the South, my sympathies are entirely with the South. These gentlemen," said he (turning to the officers of the post who stood about him), "know it perfectly well." Colonel Pettigrew replied, "Well, sir, however that may be, the governor of the State directs me to say to you courteously but peremptorily, to return to Fort Moultrie." "Make my compliments to the governor (said Anderson) and say to him that I decline to accede to his request; I cannot and will not go back." "Then, sir," said Pettigrew, "my business is done," when both officers, without further ceremony or leavetaking, left the fort.
Colonel Pettigrew and Major Capers returned to the city and made their report to the governor and council who were in session in the council chamber of the city hall. That afternoon Major Anderson raised the flag of his country over Sumter, and went vigorously to work mounting his guns and putting the fort in military order. The same afternoon the governor issued orders to Colonel Pettigrew, First regiment of rifles, and to Col. W. G. De Saussure, First regiment artillery, commanding them to take immediate possession of Castle Pinckney and Fort Moultrie. Neither fort was garrisoned, and the officers in charge, after making a verbal protest, left and went to Fort Sumter, and the Palmetto flag was raised over Moultrie and Pinckney. In the same manner the arsenal in Charleston was taken possession of by a detachment of the Seventeenth regiment, South Carolina militia, Col. John Cunningham, and Fort Johnson on James island, by Capt. Joseph Johnson, commanding the Charleston Riflemen. The governor also ordered a battery to be built for two 24-pounders on Morris island, bearing on Ship channel, and his order was speedily put into execution by Maj. P. F. Stevens, superintendent of the South Carolina military academy, with a detachment of the cadets, supported by the Vigilant Rifles, Captain Tupper. This battery was destined soon to fire the first gun of the war. In taking possession of the forts and the arsenal, every courtesy was shown the officers in charge, Captain Humphreys, commanding the arsenal, saluting his flag before surrendering the property.
By the possession of Forts Moultrie and Pinckney and the arsenal in Charleston, their military stores fell into the hands of the State of South Carolina, and by the governor's orders a careful inventory was made at once of all the property and duly reported to him. At Moultrie there were sixteen 24-pounders, nineteen 32-pounders, ten 8-inch columbiads, one 10-inch seacoast mortar, four 6-pounders, two 12-pounders and four 24-pounderhowitzers and a large supply of ammunition. At Castle Pinckney the armament was nearly complete and the magazine well filled with powder. At the arsenal there was a large supply of military stores, heavy ordnance and small-arms. These exciting events were followed by the attempt of the government to succor Major Anderson with supplies and reinforce his garrison.
The supplies and troops were sent in a large merchant steamer, the Star of the West. She crossed the bar early on the morning of January 9, 1861, and steamed up Ship channel, which runs for miles parallel with Morris island, and within range of gulls of large caliber. Her course lay right under the 24-pounder battery commanded by Major Stevens and manned by the cadets. This battery was supported by the Zouave Cadets, Captain Chichester; the German Riflemen, Captain Small, and the Vigilant Rifles, Captain Tupper. When within range a shot was fired across her bow, and not heeding it, the battery fired directly upon her. Fort Moultrie also fired a few shots, and the Star of the West rapidly changed her course and, turning round, steamed out of the range of the guns, having received but little material damage by the fire.
Major Anderson acted with great forbearance and judgment, and did not open his batteries. He declared his purpose to be patriotic, and so it undoubtedly was. He wrote to the governor that, influenced by the hope that the firing on the Star of the West was not supported by the authority of the State, he had refrained from opening fire upon the batteries, and declared that unless it was promptly disclaimed he would regard it as an act of war, and after waiting a reasonable time he would fire upon all vessels coming within range of his guns. The governor promptly replied, justifying the action of the batteries in firing upon the vessel, and giving his reasons in full. He pointed out to Major Anderson that his removal to Fort Sumter and the circumstances attending it, and his attitude since were a menace to the State of a purpose of coercion; that the bringing into the harbor of more troops and supplies of war was in open defiance of the State, and an assertion of a purpose to reduce her to abject submission to the government she had discarded; that the vessel had been fairly warned not to continue her course, and that his threat to fire upon the vessels in the harbor was in keeping with the evident purpose of the government of the United States to dispute the right of South Carolina to dissolve connection with the Union. This right was not to be debated or questioned, urged the governor, and the coming of the Star of the West, sent by the order of the President, after being duly informed by commissioners sent to him by the convention of the people of the State to fully inform him of the act of the State in seceding from the Union, and of her claim of rights and privileges in the premises, could have no other meaning than that of open and hostile disregard for the asserted independence of South Carolina. To defend that independence and to resent and resist any and every act of coercion are "too plainly a duty," said Governor Pickens, "to allow it to be discussed."
What about New Jersey, which also cheated?
(From “civilwarhome.com”)
The fact of the evacuation of Fort Moultrie by Major Anderson was soon communicated to the authorities and people of Charleston, creating intense excitement. Crowds collected in streets and open places of the city, and loud and violent were the expressions of feeling against Major Anderson and his action ... [The governor of the State was ready to act in accordance with the feeling displayed.] On the morning of the 27th, he dispatched his aide-de-camp, Col. Johnston Pettigrew, of the First South Carolina Rifles, to Major Anderson. He was accompanied by Maj. Ellison Capers, of his regiment. Arriving at Fort Sumter, Colonel Pettigrew sent a card inscribed, “Colonel Pettigrew, First Regiment Rifles, S.C. M., Aide-de-Camp to the Governor, Commissioner to Major Anderson. Ellison Capers, Major First Regiment Rifles, S.C. M.” . . . Colonel Pettigrew and his companion were ushered into the room. The feeling was reserved and formal, when, after declining seats, Colonel Pettigrew immediately opened his mission: “Major Anderson,” said he, “can I communicate with you now, sir, before these officers, on the subject for which I am here?” “Certainly, sir,” replied Major Anderson, “these are all my officers; I have no secrets from them, sir.” The commissioner then informed Major Anderson that he was directed to say to him that the governor was much surprised that he had reinforced “this work.” Major Anderson promptly responded that there had been no reinforcement of the work; that he had removed his command from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter, as he had a right to do, being in command of all the forts in the harbor. To this Colonel Pettigrew replied that when the present governor (Pickens) came into office, he found an understanding existing between the previous governor (Gist) and the President of the United States, by which all property Within the limits of the State was to remain as it was; that no reinforcements were to be sent here, particularly to this post; that there was to be no attempt made against the public property by the State, and that the status in the harbor should remain unchanged. He was directed also to say to Major Anderson that it had been hoped by the governor that a peaceful solution of the difficulties could. have been reached, and a resort to arms and bloodshed might have been avoided; but that the governor thought the action of Major Anderson had greatly complicated matters, and that he did not now see how bloodshed could be avoided; that he had desired and intended that the whole matter might be fought out politically and without the arbitration of the sword, but that now it was uncertain, if not impossible.
To this Major Anderson replied, that as far as any understanding between the President and the governor was concerned, he had not been informed; that he knew nothing of it; that he could get no information or positive orders from Washington, and that his position was threatened every night by the troops of the State. He was then asked by Major Capers, who accompanied Colonel Pettigrew, “How?” when he replied, “By sending out steamers armed and conveying troops on board ;” that these steamers passed the fort going north, and that he feared a landing on the island and the occupation of the sand-hills just north of the fort; that 100 riflemen on these hills, which commanded his fort, would make it impossible for his men to serve their guns; and that any man with a military head must see this. “To prevent this,” said he earnestly, “I removed on my own responsibility, my sole object being to prevent bloodshed.” Major Capers replied that the steamer was sent out for patrol purposes, and as much to prevent disorder among his own people as to ascertain whether any irregular attempt was being made to reinforce the fort, and that the idea of attacking him was never... entertained by the little squad who patroled the harbor.
Major Anderson replied to this that he was wholly in the dark as to the intentions of the State troops, but that he had reason to believe that they meant to land and attack him from the north; that the desire of the governor to have the matter settled peacefully and without bloodshed was precisely his object in removing his command from Moultrie to Sumter; that he did it upon his own responsibility alone, because he considered that the safety of his command required it, as he had a right to do. “In this controversy,” said he, “between the North and the South, my sympathies are entirely with the South. These gentlemen,” said he (turning to the officers of the post who stood about him), “know it perfectly well.” Colonel Pettigrew replied, “Well, sir, however that may be, the governor of the State directs me to say to you courteously but peremptorily, to return to Fort Moultrie.” “Make my compliments to the governor (said Anderson) and say to him that I decline to accede to his request; I cannot and will not go back.” “Then, sir,” said Pettigrew, “my business is done,” when both officers, without further ceremony or leavetaking, left the fort.
Colonel Pettigrew and Major Capers returned to the city and made their report to the governor and council who were in session in the council chamber of the city hall. That afternoon Major Anderson raised the flag of his country over Sumter, and went vigorously to work mounting his guns and putting the fort in military order. The same afternoon the governor issued orders to Colonel Pettigrew, First regiment of rifles, and to Col. W. G. De Saussure, First regiment artillery, commanding them to take immediate possession of Castle Pinckney and Fort Moultrie. Neither fort was garrisoned, and the officers in charge, after making a verbal protest, left and went to Fort Sumter, and the Palmetto flag was raised over Moultrie and Pinckney. In the same manner the arsenal in Charleston was taken possession of by a detachment of the Seventeenth regiment, South Carolina militia, Col. John Cunningham, and Fort Johnson on James island, by Capt. Joseph Johnson, commanding the Charleston Riflemen. The governor also ordered a battery to be built for two 24-pounders on Morris island, bearing on Ship channel, and his order was speedily put into execution by Maj. P. F. Stevens, superintendent of the South Carolina military academy, with a detachment of the cadets, supported by the Vigilant Rifles, Captain Tupper. This battery was destined soon to fire the first gun of the war. In taking possession of the forts and the arsenal, every courtesy was shown the officers in charge, Captain Humphreys, commanding the arsenal, saluting his flag before surrendering the property.
By the possession of Forts Moultrie and Pinckney and the arsenal in Charleston, their military stores fell into the hands of the State of South Carolina, and by the governor’s orders a careful inventory was made at once of all the property and duly reported to him. At Moultrie there were sixteen 24-pounders, nineteen 32-pounders, ten 8-inch columbiads, one 10-inch seacoast mortar, four 6-pounders, two 12-pounders and four 24-pounderhowitzers and a large supply of ammunition. At Castle Pinckney the armament was nearly complete and the magazine well filled with powder. At the arsenal there was a large supply of military stores, heavy ordnance and small-arms. These exciting events were followed by the attempt of the government to succor Major Anderson with supplies and reinforce his garrison.
The supplies and troops were sent in a large merchant steamer, the Star of the West. She crossed the bar early on the morning of January 9, 1861, and steamed up Ship channel, which runs for miles parallel with Morris island, and within range of gulls of large caliber. Her course lay right under the 24-pounder battery commanded by Major Stevens and manned by the cadets. This battery was supported by the Zouave Cadets, Captain Chichester; the German Riflemen, Captain Small, and the Vigilant Rifles, Captain Tupper. When within range a shot was fired across her bow, and not heeding it, the battery fired directly upon her. Fort Moultrie also fired a few shots, and the Star of the West rapidly changed her course and, turning round, steamed out of the range of the guns, having received but little material damage by the fire.
Major Anderson acted with great forbearance and judgment, and did not open his batteries. He declared his purpose to be patriotic, and so it undoubtedly was. He wrote to the governor that, influenced by the hope that the firing on the Star of the West was not supported by the authority of the State, he had refrained from opening fire upon the batteries, and declared that unless it was promptly disclaimed he would regard it as an act of war, and after waiting a reasonable time he would fire upon all vessels coming within range of his guns. The governor promptly replied, justifying the action of the batteries in firing upon the vessel, and giving his reasons in full. He pointed out to Major Anderson that his removal to Fort Sumter and the circumstances attending it, and his attitude since were a menace to the State of a purpose of coercion; that the bringing into the harbor of more troops and supplies of war was in open defiance of the State, and an assertion of a purpose to reduce her to abject submission to the government she had discarded; that the vessel had been fairly warned not to continue her course, and that his threat to fire upon the vessels in the harbor was in keeping with the evident purpose of the government of the United States to dispute the right of South Carolina to dissolve connection with the Union. This right was not to be debated or questioned, urged the governor, and the coming of the Star of the West, sent by the order of the President, after being duly informed by commissioners sent to him by the convention of the people of the State to fully inform him of the act of the State in seceding from the Union, and of her claim of rights and privileges in the premises, could have no other meaning than that of open and hostile disregard for the asserted independence of South Carolina. To defend that independence and to resent and resist any and every act of coercion are “too plainly a duty,” said Governor Pickens, “to allow it to be discussed.”
I don’t get what you’re talking about, but the electoral college picks the president, and they went for Lincoln in 1860. Take it up with them.
Then stay the hell out of the South in the first place.
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.