Hey, O'Bruadair

Bbbob · Sergeant Joined: 28 Apr 2007 Posts: 12

You said this in a previous post:

"The question you need to ask your self is why were they so willing, even eager, to slaughter so many people and expend so much treasure to prevent a peaceful and legal political separation?

When you answer that question you will have the real cause of the war."

Can you spell out the answer for me?

Why didn't they want to let the southern states be? I realize there's a financial situation at stake, but what was it exactly?

Now folks who are defending the north would say that Fort Sumter was a federal owned fort and Lincoln had the right to defend it and was doing so when the South fired upon them and if the South didn't want a war, they shouldn't have fired.

What would you say to people who make that argument?

Thanks in advance.

O'Bruadair · Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 4:24 pm Post subject:

“Why didn't they want to let the southern states be?”

Simple economics.

The South had and has the lion’s share of the natural resources. The South was on a per capita basis the wealthiest par of the nation. The South was paying 80% of the tariff (the main source of federal government revenue).

“Fort Sumter was a federal owned fort”

Fort Sumter was owned by the federal government UNTILL South Carolina peacefully and legally withdrew from the union on 20 December 1860. (Anderson occupied Sumter 6 days later). The moment secession was formalized the fort and all other federal instillations became the property of the State of South Carolina. Remember too that at least 80% of the cost of building Sumter had been paid for by the SOUTH.

Even if the fort its self could somehow be considered federal property consider this: What if you built a house and later found that you did not hold legal title to the land you built on? Want to make a guess who would own the house legally? The landowner of course. Also consider the fact that the South sent peace emissaries to Washington and offered to PAY for any and all federal property in their territory (even though they had already paid for at least 80% of it) and even offered to pay their share of the National Debt.

The federal troops who occupied Sumter (6 days AFTER secession remember?) were not only trespassers they were trespassers with HOSTILE intent. They were in fact foreign troops that had illegally seized State property and were engaging in an ACT OF WAR by simply being there. The CS did not fire on Sumter UNTIL Lincoln tried to send reinforcements. The South in fact had shown great restraint in not firing on Sumter for FOUR months!

Look at it this way: What if after the Declaration of Independence there was a strategic military post occupied by British troops in one of the colonies. Let’s say at Ticonderoga New York. What do you think the colonists would have done? Think they would have had a right to do it?

Nick · Sergeant Major Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 51

[quote="O'Bruadair"]

[quote:8b1b6223f0]
The South had and has the lion’s share of the natural resources.[/quote:8b1b6223f0]

Really?, try looking at a map of natural resources of the USA, this is the same south that could not even provide enough salt for itself right?, was using wood for fuell while the north was burning fossil fuels right?.

[quote:8b1b6223f0]
The South was on a per capita basis the wealthiest par of the nation. The South was paying 80% of the tariff (the main source of federal government revenue).[/quote:8b1b6223f0]

Compete nonsense as usual.

1840 national average $96 1860 national average $128

NEast in 1840 $129-------------------1860 $181
NH,Maine,vermont,NY, RI, Conn, NJ,Pa.
Ncentral in 1840 $65------------------1860 $89
N and SDakota, Minn, Neb,Kans,iowa,Miss,ill,Ind,Ohio Mich

The North 1840 $109 1860 $141

The south 1840 $74 1860 $103

SAtlantic 1840 $66 1860 $84
FL,Ga,Sc, NC,Va,Maryland, Del,W Va

ESouth central 1840 $69 1860 $89
Ky,Tenn, Miss, Ala

WestSouth Central 1840 $151 1860 $184
Okla,Ark,La,Tex

No southern states per capita income had rising above the NE states per capita income, ever since the maths to computate per capita imncome was created.

[quote:8b1b6223f0]
“Fort Sumter was a federal owned fort”[/quote:8b1b6223f0]

All Federal proprety was and still is jointly owned by all states in the union, Ft Sumpter was SC territory since the Federal govwernment had not payed for it or the construction of it to SC as per the land tile transfer of 1812, Ft sumper becomes federal property in 1896, and was not va Fedearl post in 1860 either, and Anderson was unlafull on it, not only without orders, but against order from the US president, he had discretionary orders from Scottg as head of the Us Army to take whatever defensive posistion he deemed best suited "to hold/control" the port of Charelston, Lincoln, before takeing office intrusted Scott to have in palce "all measures to have hold and retake all Federal posts" when he was inugriated, and thats why scott gave anderson the orders he did, and thats why Anderson was in Sumpter, becaus eit controlled charelston

[quote:8b1b6223f0]
Fort Sumter was owned by the federal government UNTILL South Carolina peacefully and legally withdrew from the union on 20 December 1860.[/quote:8b1b6223f0]

Sc satutes at large show sumper to be SC property since the Federal government had yet to pay for its creation or land tile transfer, it had 20 years from 1812 to build tyhe fort and permantly garrison it, otherwise the treaty transfer returns it to SC ownership.

Rest of your post is ok though.

cwalenta999 · Sergeant Major Joined: 17 Mar 2007 Posts: 60

I must say, you guys can take a topic as interesting as Fort Sumter and make it absolutely boring. The whole fun of the Sumter debate doesn't turn around justifications, it actually turns more around the results of the first shots.

The question usually turns around whether the South should've fired those shots. Of course we have the benefit of hindsight and hindsight being 20/20 obviously the answer is no, but its more complex than that!

Now most of us here know that prior to Sumter, there is little impetus shown by the North. On the other side the Upper South still has yet to secede.

Essentially Sumter acts to galvanize the north to war, which of course compels the Upper South to secede when the calls to the governors to raise the militia go out. Pretty dramatic results for a relatively inconsequential battle.

Could it be that this is the most pivotal battle fought where nobody died? (I think somebody dies accidentally)

Ollie439 · Sergeant Joined: 02 May 2007 Posts: 17 Location: Alabama

oh, thhats true, they didn't wanna pay us.

Nick · Sergeant Major Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 51

[quote:2ab248157d="cwalenta999"]

Now most of us here know that prior to Sumter, there is little impetus shown by the North. On the other side the Upper South still has yet to secede.[/quote:2ab248157d]

Yes thats the nother side of the coin, to be really viable, the deep south needs the upper south to join it and leave the Union, both sides got what they wanted from Sumpter, the fire eaters got the fence sitters off the fence and the republicans got a mechanism to swing public support behind measures to use force to settle the issue within a quai legal framework that was sellable to most.

[quote:2ab248157d]
Could it be that this is the most pivotal battle fought where nobody died? (I think somebody dies accidentally)[/quote:2ab248157d]

Well other federal post had been taken by bayonet charge, so the intent was laready there, Gen Twiggs, second highest officer in the army authorised the largest surrender in Us mil history untill Bataan in ww2 when he gave up the SWest and orders 75% of the regular army to surrender to state authoritys and return to the north, when Lincoln took office he had him sacked.