Because in the end it boils down to which of the two different viewpoints you hold to. You claim that South Carolina had a right to secede and to sieze federal property within it's borders. Lincoln, on the other hand, said that South Carolina's actions were illegal and that federal property was federal property and would remain so. I agree with that position and so did the Supreme Court in 1869.
So what were South Carolina's motives? Surely none of this came as a surprise to them. On his way to Washington for his inaguration Lincoln had, in speeches in Indanapolis and New Jersey and Philadelphia, made it clear that he intended to hold on to federal property in the south and resupply it if necessary. This was no secret. In private correspondence to Seward and Chase and Winfield Scott and Major Anderson he repeated his intention to hold Sumter if at all possible. The Davis administration had been appointed a month before Lincoln was inagurated so they would have known this. They would also have known that the idea of military force to put prevent secession was not popular with the majority of the Northern press and much of the political leadership. So the south really had the opportunity to wait out Lincoln if they really were interested in a peaceful solution to the crisis. But instead they chose not to. Why not? Again I'll point out that the troops in Sumter were in no position to threaten the confederacy or to harm Charleston much. Shutting the port at Charleston wouldn't have harmned the confederate economy. Indeed, had the troops in Sumter shut down the port that would have placed the onus for the first hostilities on the North and would have weakened Lincoln's political support even further. So the south really had nothing to lose and everything to gain by waiting out Lincoln - if they had really been interested in a peaceful soulution. But many of their actions to date pointed to just the opposite. One of the first acts of the confederate congress had been to vote an army of 100,000 men. An army over 5 times the size of the U.S. Army. An army approved in spite of the fact that not a single hostile act had been committed by the federal government to date. Why the need for such a large army if not to use it? Could it be that the southern leadership felt that a nation born out of the fire of battle would be better equipped to survive? A victorious war with the North would leave ill feelings between the two countries - the North would be the resentful vanquished and the south would be the proud victor. The chances of their ever being a reconciliation between the two countries after that would have been nil. Likewise, the chance of any confederate state deciding that secession had been a mistake and attempting to rejoin the North would also have been nil. The confedate states would have guaranteed northern non-interference as they set about building their nation and, perhaps, expanding it south and west.
So the idea that the south was tricked into war is ludicrous. They got the war that they wanted from the beginning. It just didn't turn out the way that they expected.
Actually, South Carolina had even made attempts to compensate the yankees when they assumed control of fortresses on their land
A more appropriate analogy would be if your neighbor had a shed on his property next to
How would that be an appropriate analogy? It fails you from the get go. In no reasonable way can you honestly assert that the yankees were "neighbors" right "next to" South Carolina. There are 3 states and several hundred miles separating South Carolina from the nearest true northern state, Delaware.
Your neighbor would, quite rightly, refuse to vacate his shed and might, in fact, move more tools into it to make his point.
That's nice and all, but completely inapplicable. The north was not south carolina's "neighbor" in any sense of the word, unless you adopt the absurd position along the lines that your aunt in cleveland is a "neighbor" to you in Atlanta.
You then claim that the shed threatened your flower bed and set fire to it.
Yet another inconsistency. The shed in your analogy was never armed with munitions. Sumter was.
And for that matter, the shed does not militarily control the entrance into your house. Sumter controlled the entrance into the port.
Because in the end it boils down to which of the two different viewpoints you hold to.
In a way, but by way of your analogy, I think any reasonable person can see that I have just demonstrated that it fails the test of application disasterously.
You claim that South Carolina had a right to secede and to sieze federal property within it's borders.
Yep. Especially considering that the north had no use for that property other than to obstruct the flow of commerce into and out of south carolina (yet another thing that your shed did not do to your house, but sumter does to charleston)
I agree with that position and so did the Supreme Court in 1869.
Indeed they did...4 years after the war, during which the union controlled the entire washington government, and 8 years after Lincoln had the justices that issued rulings in disagreement with his policies arrested.
So what were South Carolina's motives? Surely none of this came as a surprise to them. On his way to Washington for his inaguration Lincoln had, in speeches in Indanapolis and New Jersey and Philadelphia, made it clear that he intended to hold on to federal property in the south and resupply it if necessary.
And that precisely was the problem.
This was no secret.
Whoever said it was? The only person who tried that little scheme was Lincoln himself when he disingenuously sent warships under the guise that they were simply bringing food, of which Sumter had more than enough coming in regularly from charleston on which to survive.
In private correspondence to Seward and Chase and Winfield Scott and Major Anderson he repeated his intention to hold Sumter if at all possible.
Yes. He did. And that is precisely the problem. He camped out in south carolina's driveway and refused to move when they kindly asked him to move and fed him dinner. He responded to that kindness by pledging to fight witht he guns inside and inviting in the hick relatives with even more guns, though he simply called them guests and pretended they were there only to bring food though everybody knew otherwise.
The Davis administration had been appointed a month before Lincoln was inagurated so they would have known this. They would also have known that the idea of military force to put prevent secession was not popular with the majority of the Northern press and much of the political leadership.
Yeah, and so did Lincoln. That's why he had the northern press shut down and the northern politicians who were critical put in prison.
So the south really had the opportunity to wait out Lincoln if they really were interested in a peaceful solution to the crisis.
And all the while sit by waiting it out as he stocked their harbor full of guns, soldiers, and warships? Not to mention on top of that, while he did it all disingenuously by claiming it was to bring "food" to the garrison even though everybody knew otherwise. . Why not? Again I'll point out that the troops in Sumter were in no position to threaten the confederacy or to harm Charleston much.
And I'll point out again that I think your assertion to be incorrect, as Sumter could have definately harmed Charleston, and they certainly weren't there to be friends and party. In addition I will point out that they had no business being there other than alterior motives to the detriment of that which they controlled the entrance to.
Shutting the port at Charleston wouldn't have harmned the confederate economy.
Are you sure about that? Under that reasoning, could we also say that if, all of a sudden, I decided to close the port of New Orleans as in right now, that it would not harm the American economy any? Cause if that is the case, why not try it and save all the people who work to get things to that port the effort, since shutting it down won't change anything.
Indeed, had the troops in Sumter shut down the port that would have placed the onus for the first hostilities on the North and would have weakened Lincoln's political support even further.
Exactly. Now take that a step further. If Lincoln absolutely did not want to fire the first shot, and if Lincoln held an unreasonable position that he knew the confederates would NEVER accept (i.e. allowing him to maintain garrisons in their front yard even though his country was hundreds of miles away and had no business being there), what is it that Lincoln could have wanted more than all else? To provoke the other side into firing the first shot.