Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: WhiskeyPapa
The quote itself states "I will await the first shot and, if you do not batter us to pieces, we will be starved out in a few days" obviously referring to the scenario that would occur if the battle began. - me

YOU:

Then it still follows that the so-called seceded states did not have to fire a single shot in order to force the capitulation of the fort. All they had to do was to cut off provisions.

1. Potentially, but it's a lot more complex than that. If provisions were cut off (which they were not), there remained the issue of reenforcements in the form of warships sent by Lincoln to forcefully reach, provision, and reenforce the fort. If they had not fired on Sumter, they would have had to fire on Lincoln's warships Harriet Lane, Pawnee, and Pocahontas or else the fort would have been reprovisioned, meaning shots would have been fired anyway.

2. Do I take it then that you are now conceding the point that Sumter was not on the brink of starvation? My main point, which seems (unlike Fort Sumter) unassailed is that Davis had the fort fired on -because- he wanted an incident that would incite the northern tier of slave states to secession, which is what happened.

Quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur.

In the meantime, I think it pertainent to note that Beauregard repeatedly attempted to negotiate the peaceful surrender of the fort and even offered Anderson the opportunity to set the terms. Lincoln ordered Anderson to hold the fort and sent warships to further that purpose. Therefore to suggest that Davis randomly ordered a shot fired to cause an incident when there could have been another way is historically ignorant, overly simplistic, and intellectually dishonest.

205 posted on 12/18/2001 9:18:06 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies ]


To: GOPcapitalist
I wrote:

Then it still follows that the so-called seceded states did not have to fire a single shot in order to force the capitulation of the fort. All they had to do was to cut off provisions.

GOPCapitalist wrote:

1. Potentially, but it's a lot more complex than that. If provisions were cut off (which they were not), there remained the issue of reenforcements in the form of warships sent by Lincoln to forcefully reach, provision, and reenforce the fort.

You can split these hairs all you like. Davis fired on the fort to precipitate action by the northern tier of slave states. Like the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, to which it has been compared, it had the most disastrous outcome imaginable for the slave holders. But then, they weren't very clever, were they?

Walt

214 posted on 12/19/2001 1:20:19 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies ]

To: GOPcapitalist
Lincoln ordered Anderson to hold the fort and sent warships to further that purpose.

Yeah, that's not the least reason that Lincoln is widely considered the greatest president and foremost citizen of the country.

It strikes me SO funny that John Ashcroft, that stout defender of the CSA is now responsible for rooting out treason and sabotage. You are making his job just a bit easier.

Walt

215 posted on 12/19/2001 1:23:15 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies ]

To: GOPcapitalist
If provisions were cut off (which they were not)...

Ah, but they were. By the end of March the confederate government had decided to cut off all supplies being sent to Sumter from Charleston. The order reached Beauregard on April 2.

228 posted on 12/19/2001 6:52:08 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson