Rob,

I think you might want to re-read ALL of the circumstances surrounding the first shots at Ft. Sumter. There are abler scholars on this forum than I who have considered BOTH sides of that particular issue. They are the ones who have helped me develop my limited knowledge of all the ins and outs of the dynamics of the Civil War.

Let's just say that I don't believe that Sumter was a one-sided affair -- and I do believe that Mr. Lincoln was very crafty in the way that he played it. If I had possessed his political skills, I might have handled it the same way.

I think this is another example of how textbooks and general histories of the Civil War have omitted a lot of details in their coverage of the conflict. This may be due to lack of space or one-sided analysis based on long-held prejudices. I just wish that the general public would become interested enough to look at all sides of what made the Civil War what it was...

(09-09-2012 03:15 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  Neither did Lincoln or Seward. The firing upon Fort Sumter in 1861 was spearheaded by secessionists, of which Booth and Powell etc., supported...one in uniform, the other out.

Best
Rob

The attack on Fort Sumter, was that because the Union were on Confederacy land and refused to get out?

Laurie,

With all due respect, I have read a great deal on Sumter, and I am well aware of what you're talking about. It doesn't hold water.

Best
Rob

---

(09-09-2012 03:36 PM)MaddieM Wrote:  

(09-09-2012 03:15 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  Neither did Lincoln or Seward. The firing upon Fort Sumter in 1861 was spearheaded by secessionists, of which Booth and Powell etc., supported...one in uniform, the other out.

Best
Rob

The attack on Fort Sumter, was that because the Union were on Confederacy land and refused to get out?

No, it was because South Carolinians refused to realize that they were illegally trying to hold onto FEDERAL property.

Best
Rob

(09-09-2012 03:38 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  Laurie,

With all due respect, I have read a great deal on Sumter, and I am well aware of what you're talking about. It doesn't hold water.

Best
Rob

---

(09-09-2012 03:36 PM)MaddieM Wrote:  

(09-09-2012 03:15 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  Neither did Lincoln or Seward. The firing upon Fort Sumter in 1861 was spearheaded by secessionists, of which Booth and Powell etc., supported...one in uniform, the other out.

Best
Rob

The attack on Fort Sumter, was that because the Union were on Confederacy land and refused to get out?

No, it was because South Carolinians refused to realize that they were illegally trying to hold onto FEDERAL property.

Best
Rob

Could you expand on that point, please?

Fort Sumter was a federal fort. It never was the property of South Carolina or the Confederacy. When it was fired upon, and when it surrendered, that was a clear act of rebellion to which Lincoln issued his initial call for troops. It was only after the war was lost, and the Lost Cause took hold, that it somehow became Lincoln's fault.

Best
Rob

(09-09-2012 03:52 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  Fort Sumter was a federal fort. It never was the property of South Carolina or the Confederacy. When it was fired upon, and when it surrendered, that was a clear act of rebellion to which Lincoln issued his initial call for troops. It was only after the war was lost, and the Lost Cause took hold, that it somehow became Lincoln's fault.

Best
Rob

Regardless of the fact that it was built on land that didn't belong to the North? One would suppose that, despite Fort Sumter not belonging to the confederacy, the very fact that it was on land that did belong to confederacy and the refusal therefore to vacate, would be seen as a hostile act of war?

---

(09-09-2012 03:52 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  Fort Sumter was a federal fort. It never was the property of South Carolina or the Confederacy. When it was fired upon, and when it surrendered, that was a clear act of rebellion to which Lincoln issued his initial call for troops. It was only after the war was lost, and the Lost Cause took hold, that it somehow became Lincoln's fault.

Best
Rob

Could Lincoln have anticipated this and wanted this to happen in order to initiate war? It's a very common ploy in warfare.

With due respect MaddieM, your facts are wrong. The land was ceded to the federal government in 1805 by South Carolina and the fort was originally built by the federal government in the 1820s to protect the harbor of Charleston.

Please read this history of the fort which was issued by the National Park Service.

I would also recommend:

Lincoln and the First Shot by Richard Nelson Current, who has in his last chapter a historiographical account of Lincoln and the Sumter crisis. I would also recommend any of a dozen books on the secession crisis. I'm sure they are available in your local library.

Best
Rob

(09-09-2012 04:25 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  With due respect MaddieM, your facts are wrong. The land was ceded to the federal government in 1805 by South Carolina and the fort was originally built by the federal government in the 1820s to protect the harbor of Charleston.

Please read this history of the fort which was issued by the National Park Service.

I would also recommend:

Lincoln and the First Shot by Richard Nelson Current, who has in his last chapter a historiographical account of Lincoln and the Sumter crisis. I would also recommend any of a dozen books on the secession crisis. I'm sure they are available in your local library.

Best
Rob

thank you, that's very kind and helpful of you.

You're very welcome.

Best
Rob

(09-09-2012 04:25 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  With due respect MaddieM, your facts are wrong. The land was ceded to the federal government in 1805 by South Carolina and the fort was originally built by the federal government in the 1820s to protect the harbor of Charleston.

Please read this history of the fort which was issued by the National Park Service.

I would also recommend:

Lincoln and the First Shot by Richard Nelson Current, who has in his last chapter a historiographical account of Lincoln and the Sumter crisis. I would also recommend any of a dozen books on the secession crisis. I'm sure they are available in your local library.

Best
Rob

However.... A state of war often wipes away any past claims of ownership for land or property. So regardless of the history of the place, the fact remains that it was clearly 'reclaimed' as it were. No doubt both sides saw themselves as being in the right. That too, is the nature of war time. Often, land and or property is reclaimed in this way when war breaks out. The history of the place is therefore erroneous in this case, as the confederacy clearly considered it theirs to take.

Quote: A state of war often wipes away any past claims of ownership for land or property.

Only if you win, which the South didn't.

Best
Rob

(09-09-2012 04:49 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  

Quote: A state of war often wipes away any past claims of ownership for land or property.

Only if you win, which the South didn't.

Best
Rob

Yes, but they didn't know that at the time they tried.

Maddie,

You have made excellent points, and your mention of Lincoln possibly forcing the issue by sending supplies to the fort in order to get the State of South Carolina to retaliate is very valid IMO and in the opinion of a number of Lincoln and Civil War experts with whom I have had this discussion - from college classrooms to present.

Also, we need to remember that, prior to the Civil War, many states (including some in the North) did not think of the rights and powers of the Union in the same way that we do today. Many considered themselves sovereign states who could or could not follow federal rules at their discretion. The issue of the right of secession was tested shortly after the Revolutionary War and the establishment of our government. I believe I'm correct that the secession issue first reared its head in northern areas.

It obviously is an issue that still resonates today with some states such as Arizona, that deplore our current handling of certain affairs of state. They will not go to the extreme of seceding, I'm sure; but there's still a questioning of a form of states' rights, IMO.

(09-09-2012 05:36 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Maddie,

You have made excellent points, and your mention of Lincoln possibly forcing the issue by sending supplies to the fort in order to get the State of South Carolina to retaliate is very valid IMO and in the opinion of a number of Lincoln and Civil War experts with whom I have had this discussion - from college classrooms to present.

Also, we need to remember that, prior to the Civil War, many states (including some in the North) did not think of the rights and powers of the Union in the same way that we do today. Many considered themselves sovereign states who could or could not follow federal rules at their discretion. The issue of the right of secession was tested shortly after the Revolutionary War and the establishment of our government. I believe I'm correct that the secession issue first reared its head in northern areas.

It obviously is an issue that still resonates today with some states such as Arizona, that deplore our current handling of certain affairs of state. They will not go to the extreme of seceding, I'm sure; but there's still a questioning of a form of states' rights, IMO.

I don't think any war is ever fair....even the most well intentioned. That is my whole point, going back to the OP... whilst a terrible deed was perpetrated by the conspirators, it was dire times, and harsh actions, and if you are still fighting your perceived good fight, then the assassination, though never condoned, is explainable. Could this deed have been perceived as a defining factor to ending the war?

As Rob pointed out... only if you win.