The Fort was constructed for the purpose of defending Charleston Harbor from attack by the British or other Foreign government. When the South became independent, it was no longer the problem of Washington DC to protect Charleston, and so therefore they had no further purpose in being there. The Land belonged to South Carolina before the Union, and it should have reverted back to South Carolina when South Carolina left the Union.
All of Lincoln's cabinet but one told him that the Fort should be evacuated, and all of them recognized that continued occupation of it would cause a war. They told him it would cause a war.
Lincoln's cabinet also informed him that the fort was effectively useless, and if the Confederates allowed him to resupply the fort, it would become an embarrassment in six months when they had men there doing nothing of any value and they had to resupply it again.
I like how you seem to know the mind of the Southern leaders, but pamphlets and news articles from that period show a bunch of fire breathers.
Were they the leaders? I told you about Beauregard because I read the exchanges between him and Anderson and between him and his government, and between Anderson and Washington DC. What loud mouths with no power were saying are of no relevance because they weren't giving anyone orders.
From caning people in Congress,
Charles Sumner deserved it, or did you not read what he said? I suspect you didn't. I would have beaten him bloody myself had he said such a thing to me.
to other acts of violence, like shooting at the “Star of the West”,
Warning shots initially, shots closer to the ship when they didn't seem to heed the warning shots. No serious damage to the ship or crew.
which could also be seen as the first shot of the war.
Incorrect. The First shots of the war were when Union troops fired on Florida Militia who were coming to investigate the noises and lights they were seeing at Fort Pickens in Pensacola. (the Fort had been abandoned for some time, and they noticed activity there) Nobody was hit, but the Union troops shot at them first.
The 1860 Congress was the first one that the North controlled, under Republicans.
That was the year the trouble began in earnest. That was the year they realized they could not protect themselves any longer.
More states were entering the Union free, because that was the right thing to do, and the South would lose its monopoly on power.
They were entering the Union as "free" because of the North Eastern coalition financing a propaganda effort to encourage it, and the North Eastern coalition was financing this effort because it would give them greater power in congress if they could bring more states into their coalition.
Plantation slavery was actually impossible in the western territories, so it was never any threat that there would be any significant amount of slavery in those new states, but if they entered as a "slave" state, they would vote with the Southern coalition, and the North Eastern power block could not allow that to happen.
The debate about expansion of slavery was really a debate about who would control congress. Who controlled congress controlled the power and money of the United States.
It was always about power and control.
You have a great answer for everything, you must have thought this out for a long time.
I agree that there were monetary interests involved, but they were on both sides. It is true that political power was in play, but one side was using men as slaves to prop up their power.
As for Fort Pickens, Florida had not seceded at that time, so that was not Union firing on Rebel, but soldiers firing on a mob. Not part of the war.
You can talk about loudmouths, but I think Edmund Ruffin had the final say in that. Letters between Beauregard and Anderson, although well known, mean nothing. They were not the leaders of the South or North. Sumter meant nothing to the South except as a prize of their secessionist desires. To the North, it was a fig leaf covering a desire to do nothing. The South stripped that fig leaf away and let loose the dogs of war.
Slavery was the evil in our country and God took the final drop of blood in payment for that evil through the war. I believe that the controlling powers in the South wanted their political power more than they cared about the South or their fellow citizens. They were Democrats then and they are Democrats now.
-- Oh, Rhett! The rich Yankees keep telling everybody that "freedom" is better than slavery! What evuh will we do!
-- Don't fret Scarlett, when we get all our tariff money back, they'll all see the light and come running.
-- Oh Rhett, I knew it as all about money and control, after all!
___________
The Land belonged to South Carolina before the Union, and it should have reverted back to South Carolina when South Carolina left the Union.
You really are shameless! The "Land" was a sandbar, which was under water most of the time.
It was donated by the state of South Carolina to the federal government, which built up an island and fort on it:
"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.
Surely, you know that by now. I know you like to lie in wait for people and then hurl massive chunks of your nonsense at them. But if you can't even get this one single thing right and admit it, isn't it time to give it a rest?
The debate about expansion of slavery was really a debate about who would control congress. Who controlled congress controlled the power and money of the United States.
It was always about power and control.
You are like a junior varsity Soviet propagandist, putting "freedom" and "slavery" in quotes, and then claiming that "freedom" is only about wealth and power for the capitalists.
If it was impossible to build a slave economy in the territories (it wasn't), then why should protecting slave interests in Congress outweigh building a free economy for free people that makes use of the available climate and resources?
I suspect that if slavery were legal in the West, slaveowners would find plenty of uses for slaves. You know they would. But if slavery were impossible in those lands, why should the slaveowner's desire for wealth and power prevail over other interests?
You might say it was about self-preservation for the slavers, but at the time, free farmers and workmen and shopkeepers had their own interest in self-preservation -- in living in territories that weren't dominated by rich slaveowners and their followers.