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

To: Maelstrom
That was one of the most convoluted posts I have ever read.

For your information, the firing on the Star of the West took place in January 1861, the firing on Fort Sumter took place in April 1861. The blockade (embargo) of southern ports wasn't even presented until May 1861 and wasn't implemented until the summer. So your inference that the embargo (blockade) was a justification for firing on the Star of the West and Sumter doesn't make any sense.

Fort Sumter was US Property and the US had a right to supply and reinforce it since there was no declaration of war. Using your logic, I guess you figure it would be ok if Cuba attacked our base at Guantanamo Bay since it is on Cuban soil and they don't like the US.
361 posted on 10/01/2003 12:14:59 PM PDT by XRdsRev
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies ]


To: XRdsRev
The supply ships were sent to provide a secure, nearly unassailable base at Ft. Sumpter.

The mobilization of troops from Ft. Marcie to Ft. Sumpter was an act of war that could not remain unaddressed.

Federal ships had been in place before that time to ensure that "smugglers" paid tariffs that were collected at the Ft. Marcie "customs house" after they had seceded.

Moreover, there is documentation IN the Library of Congress admitting that Ft. Sumpter was a unignorable provocation of Southern forces. South Carolina wasn't sued for breach of contract. Virginia was, instead, attacked.

There are several points to be made:

1) S. Carolina wasn't Licoln's to bring back into the fold, they were gone before he was in.

2) The mobilization of troops at Ft. Sumpter was the renegging of a promise made by Bucchanan.

3) Lincoln treated the South alternately as a foreign power and as rebellious states to satisfy various arguments as it suited the strength of his argument...and so do most people today.

IF mobilization to Ft. Sumpter was not an act of war, S. Carolina simply waits them out and provisions do not attempt to break the seige.

IF mobilization to Ft. Sumpter was not an act of war, provisions are sent to them through S. Carolina, not in attempt reach them directly.

IF mobilization to Ft. Sumpter was not an act of war, the men therein surrender when fired upon when they have no means (yet) of responding to such fire.

IF mobilization to Ft. Sumpter was not an act of war, firing upon them does not provoke an act of war (See Florida).

Mobilization to Ft. Sumpter required a response. It is a commendation of the patience possessed by Southern forces that it was not bombarded the morning a ship arrived capable of doing so.
366 posted on 10/01/2003 12:29:49 PM PDT by Maelstrom (To prevent misinterpretation or abuse of the Constitution:The Bill of Rights limits government power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | 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