Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - More confederacy debate, and now it's right across the lawn

jb2000 · 01-12-2005, 07:00 AM

flstf,

Thank you for the further information. The question of whether Ft. Sumter was ever S. Carolina land (as posted by others) is not meaningful. Noone denied that it was a Federal fort, and by the same token, I don't think anyone can argue that it would have made sense, had the South been recognized as independent, for the fort to remain in Federal hands. The fact that it was created by Federal mandate or whatever doesn't change the fact that being in a S. Carolina harbor, for it to not become S. Carolina territory would be untenable.

If it is true that warships were sent to Fort Sumpter, and that this provoked a response by President Davis, then I don't see how this changes the idea that the South, by taking military action to seize the fort, initiated hostilities. The fort was already a military facility, heavily armed and garrisoned. The arrival of warships did not transform it, even if they added to its military strength. Such an addition would seem warranted given the threat that was percieved from Southern forces (and bourne out to well-founded, given events that unfolded).

That negotiations were ongoing, including Federal promises to hand over the fort, only adds to the South's culpability in this matter. As I have cited before, the secession was only declared in January of 1861. Fort Sumpter was seized in IIRC April of 1861. That amount of time is hardly enough to determine that non-violent and/or legal methods had been exhausted to achieve both independence and the hand-over of facilities.

It may well be true that the Federal Government would have not recognized Southern independence, and that any plans for peaceful handover of Fort Sumpter were destined for failure. However, given the time-scale, we will never know, as the South never gave either of those possibilities enough time to come to fruition. In their haste, for whatever reason, they jumped the gun and started a shooting war. For this, they do deserve to be considered the instigators of the shooting war that became the Civil War.

Let me clarify: this does NOT mean that I hold the South solely or fully responsible for the war. The bon-fire had been building for a long time, and a lot of people figured it was an inevitability. On both sides, but especially in the South, there was almost relief upon the start of hostilities, as it was figured they could get started and get it over with. Naturally, both sides saw it as a short war that was coming and that it would be over quickly in their favor. In the above study, I am merely recognizing that it was the South that actually took the action of lighting the match, if you will.

Josh

01-12-2005, 07:00 AM	#98 (permalink)
jb2000 Crazy Location: Allen, TX	flstf, Thank you for the further information. The question of whether Ft. Sumter was ever S. Carolina land (as posted by others) is not meaningful. Noone denied that it was a Federal fort, and by the same token, I don't think anyone can argue that it would have made sense, had the South been recognized as independent, for the fort to remain in Federal hands. The fact that it was created by Federal mandate or whatever doesn't change the fact that being in a S. Carolina harbor, for it to not become S. Carolina territory would be untenable. If it is true that warships were sent to Fort Sumpter, and that this provoked a response by President Davis, then I don't see how this changes the idea that the South, by taking military action to seize the fort, initiated hostilities. The fort was already a military facility, heavily armed and garrisoned. The arrival of warships did not transform it, even if they added to its military strength. Such an addition would seem warranted given the threat that was percieved from Southern forces (and bourne out to well-founded, given events that unfolded). That negotiations were ongoing, including Federal promises to hand over the fort, only adds to the South's culpability in this matter. As I have cited before, the secession was only declared in January of 1861. Fort Sumpter was seized in IIRC April of 1861. That amount of time is hardly enough to determine that non-violent and/or legal methods had been exhausted to achieve both independence and the hand-over of facilities. It may well be true that the Federal Government would have not recognized Southern independence, and that any plans for peaceful handover of Fort Sumpter were destined for failure. However, given the time-scale, we will never know, as the South never gave either of those possibilities enough time to come to fruition. In their haste, for whatever reason, they jumped the gun and started a shooting war. For this, they do deserve to be considered the instigators of the shooting war that became the Civil War. Let me clarify: this does NOT mean that I hold the South solely or fully responsible for the war. The bon-fire had been building for a long time, and a lot of people figured it was an inevitability. On both sides, but especially in the South, there was almost relief upon the start of hostilities, as it was figured they could get started and get it over with. Naturally, both sides saw it as a short war that was coming and that it would be over quickly in their favor. In the above study, I am merely recognizing that it was the South that actually took the action of lighting the match, if you will. Josh __________________ "Don't tell me we're so blind we cannot see that this is my land! I can't pretend that it's nothing to do with me. And this is your land, you can't close your eyes to this hypocracy. Yes this is my land, I won't pretend that it's nothing to do with me. 'Cause this is our land, we can't close our eyes to the things we don't wanna see." - DTH Last edited by jb2000; 01-12-2005 at 07:07 AM..