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.
You continue to make simple errors of fact. I suppose this is due to the fact that you simply are not that familiar with the record.
In point of fact, SC had ceded the property the fort was built on to the federal government in perpetuity.
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 Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.
Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House: T. W. GLOVER, C. H. R.
IN SENATE, December 21st, 1836
Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order: JACOB WARLY, C. S.
The State of South Carolina was no better than common thieves to demand anything of Major Anderson--you have just as much right to force your next door neighbor out of his house at the point of a gun.
Walt
Sumter was also a symbol for Davis and his government as well. Davis was not interested in a peaceful resolution to the situation unless it included southern independence. This is evident by their boycott of the Washington Peace Conference called by Virginia. They sent commissioners to see Lincoln not, as you claim, to offer to pay for the federal facilities they had seized, but to get the Lincoln stamp of approval on the division of the country. And they began mustering an army of 100,000 men - over 5 times the size of the U.S. Army. Davis was also aware of the precarious position that the 7 confederate states were in. He needed Virginia and North Carolina and Tennessee desperately if his country was to survive. But he had a problem. Those states weren't buying his line of baloney. Letcher of Virginia and Johnson of Tennessee were the border south leaders and they supported staying with the Union. Letcher, in fact, was the organizer of the Peace Conference that Davis blew off. Davis needed a spark to ignite a war that he believed - rightly as it turned out - would cause the wavering border south states to come over to the confederate side. He needed a war as badly, or even more so, than you claim Lincoln did.
One voice of reason in all this was Robert Toombs, confederate secretary of state, who warned Davis against his actions. Toombs pointed out, "Friring on that fort will inagurate a civil war greater than any the world has yet seen...At this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North...It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal." If Toombs could see that then why couldn't Davis? Or was it because Davis DID see that and didn't care? He needed war more than he needed Toombs. Why did Toombs believe that it wasn't necessary, seeming to agree with me that the confederates could wait Lincoln out without fear of jeopardizing their security? Why was Toombs afraid about alienating Northern friends while Davis couldn't have cared less? Why indeed, unless Davis only wanted war?
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.
It took until 1869 for the matter to come to the Supreme Court. What is your point? Supreme Court always rules on the legality of actions after the fact. It cannot, by law, issue advisory rulings on pending actions. Your second claim - that Lincoln arrested Supreme Court Justices who didn't agree with him - is clearly wrong and I would like to challenge you to name those that he did arrest.
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.
The commander at Sumter had informed Washington in March that he would have to surrender within 6 weeks if his command was not reprovisioned. What little food was coming from shore ended on the orders of the confederate government on April 2nd. Your claim is false.
...what is it that Lincoln could have wanted more than all else? To provoke the other side into firing the first shot.
And as I pointed out earlier, war was even more important for Davis