3 ms·

>your extremely selective quoting If you read the article I linked, Anderson took the fort on his own accord. Did you want me to paste the entire article in he

>your extremely selective quoting If you read the article I linked, Anderson took the fort on his own accord. Did you want me to paste the entire article in here or something? What's extremely selective about it? I linked the article. >including the exclusion of what that ruse was required Got any references or anything to explain what you mean? >food shortage that necessitated resupply Anderson took the fort and held it for three months. I'm certain he needed resupply. Did you think the CSA was gonna give him food after he took their fort?

shkkmo 3y ago
It wasn't their fort. It was the property of the US army and was taken by a commander who that article describes as very sympathetic to the southern cause, but honorably loyal to the army. There is no indication that Anderson had any desire to "invade" the south, but rather the opposite. The CSA fired at the Star of the West to prevent resupply of Anderson. The CSA also chose to fire at the fort even though they knew that Anderson would surrender due to lack of food within days. The CSA repeatedly chose violence to take a fort that a they couldn't get through negotiation and thus started a very bloody war. Perhaps that war was inevitable and it clearly stemmed from hostile choices on both sides, but the decision to officially start that war by the CSA was preemptive and absolutely not a response to any invasion.
- Clubber 3y ago
  From the CSA's point of view, it was their fort on their land that the Union not only took but were reinforcing. It was a defensive fort at the mouth of one of their most important eastern seaboard harbors. A fort that if taken would prevent the CSA from getting anything shipped through there, in or out. It was considered an act of war and the CSA retaliated by shelling it for 3 days after they refused to leave, amazingly with no casualties. Interestingly, the CSA commander was a protege of Anderson (who took the fort). You can't just hand wave that away because the CSA were "the bad guys," you have to be able to view both sides of it to fully understand the war, the causes and the affects, not play favorites, and especially not view it through modern eyes. There were no laws banning secession and it was deemed illegal by the SCOTUS ex-post facto. Do you think if the Southern states thought they wouldn't be able to leave the Union when they joined in 1788 they ever would have joined in the first place? Doubtful. >There is no indication that Anderson had any desire to "invade" the south, but rather the opposite. Sure, but that act has obvious consequences. The first battle of the Civil War was Bull Run/Manassas. It was fought in Virginia because the Union troops crossed into the CSA territory to take the capitol. That's an invasion, an invasion that was the consequence of firing on Sumter, which was a consequence of Anderson taking it and Lincoln reinforcing it. Had cooler heads prevailed, we might not have had to lose 700k+ people. Although the Civil War officially began when Confederate troops shelled Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, the fighting didn’t commence in earnest until the Battle of Bull Run, fought months later in Virginia, just 25 miles from Washington D.C. Under public pressure to end the war in 90 days, President Lincoln had pushed the cautious Gen. McDowell to embark on a campaign to capture the Confederate capital in Richmond, but McDowell’s troops were stopped at Bull Run by Brig. Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard’s Rebel forces. The Federals retreated to Washington, where the Lincoln administration retooled for a war that would be waged at great human and financial cost https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/bull-run https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/bull-ru...
  - shkkmo 3y ago
    > From the CSA's point of view, it was their fort on their land that the Union not only took but were reinforcing The union didn't take it, they already possessed it. This is also besides the point because it's hard to imagine that there wouldn't have be similar concerns about Anderson remaining in Moultrie or that there wouldn't have been issues with the numerous other coastal forts in the south that were posses the by the US army. > It was considered an act of war and the CSA retaliated by shelling it for 3 days after they refused to leave That is inaccurate. Anderson refused to leave multiple times without the refusal being taken as an "act of war". The last (4th?) time Anderson actually didn't refuse to leave, but laid out the conditions under which he would leave. Those conditions were found unacceptable so the CSA started a war. > The first battle of the Civil War was Bull Run/Manassas. It was fought in Virginia because the Union troops crossed into the CSA territory to take the capitol. While that could be considered the first battle (depending on your definition of "battle"), there were a number of escalating skirmishes leading up to Bull Run. > That's an invasion, an invasion that was the consequence of firing on Sumter, which was a consequence of Anderson taking it and Lincoln reinforcing it. Had cooler heads prevailed, we might not have had to lose 700k+ people. That's an invasion that happened AFTER the CSA started the war. Thus you simply can't say that the choice to start the war was because of that invasion. There is an argument that the CSA started the war because they feared blockades, but again, that fear lead to preemptive action by the CSA, not responsive action. > There were no laws banning secession and it was deemed illegal by the SCOTUS ex-post facto. It was not "ex-post facto" as no new law was enacted. The SCOTUS interpreted the Consitution and decided that the states had agreed to a "perpetual" union As the case Texas Vs White makes clear: > "It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?" > Do you think if the Southern states thought they wouldn't be able to leave the Union when they joined in 1788 they ever would have joined in the first place? That is not at all clear, because they did clearly agree to join a "perpetual union" when they signed the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. My understanding is that the supreme court decided it is legal for states to leave the union, but they cannot do it unilaterally. You may, of course, disagree with this decision by the Supreme Court and with its interpretation of constitutional law. That does not mean that any new "ex-post facto" law was passed.

shkkmo 3y ago

It wasn't their fort. It was the property of the US army and was taken by a commander who that article describes as very sympathetic to the southern cause, but honorably loyal to the army. There is no indication that Anderson had any desire to "invade" the south, but rather the opposite. The CSA fired at the Star of the West to prevent resupply of Anderson. The CSA also chose to fire at the fort even though they knew that Anderson would surrender due to lack of food within days. The CSA repeatedly chose violence to take a fort that a they couldn't get through negotiation and thus started a very bloody war. Perhaps that war was inevitable and it clearly stemmed from hostile choices on both sides, but the decision to officially start that war by the CSA was preemptive and absolutely not a response to any invasion.

Clubber 3y ago
From the CSA's point of view, it was their fort on their land that the Union not only took but were reinforcing. It was a defensive fort at the mouth of one of their most important eastern seaboard harbors. A fort that if taken would prevent the CSA from getting anything shipped through there, in or out. It was considered an act of war and the CSA retaliated by shelling it for 3 days after they refused to leave, amazingly with no casualties. Interestingly, the CSA commander was a protege of Anderson (who took the fort). You can't just hand wave that away because the CSA were "the bad guys," you have to be able to view both sides of it to fully understand the war, the causes and the affects, not play favorites, and especially not view it through modern eyes. There were no laws banning secession and it was deemed illegal by the SCOTUS ex-post facto. Do you think if the Southern states thought they wouldn't be able to leave the Union when they joined in 1788 they ever would have joined in the first place? Doubtful. >There is no indication that Anderson had any desire to "invade" the south, but rather the opposite. Sure, but that act has obvious consequences. The first battle of the Civil War was Bull Run/Manassas. It was fought in Virginia because the Union troops crossed into the CSA territory to take the capitol. That's an invasion, an invasion that was the consequence of firing on Sumter, which was a consequence of Anderson taking it and Lincoln reinforcing it. Had cooler heads prevailed, we might not have had to lose 700k+ people. Although the Civil War officially began when Confederate troops shelled Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, the fighting didn’t commence in earnest until the Battle of Bull Run, fought months later in Virginia, just 25 miles from Washington D.C. Under public pressure to end the war in 90 days, President Lincoln had pushed the cautious Gen. McDowell to embark on a campaign to capture the Confederate capital in Richmond, but McDowell’s troops were stopped at Bull Run by Brig. Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard’s Rebel forces. The Federals retreated to Washington, where the Lincoln administration retooled for a war that would be waged at great human and financial cost https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/bull-run https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/bull-ru...
- shkkmo 3y ago
  > From the CSA's point of view, it was their fort on their land that the Union not only took but were reinforcing The union didn't take it, they already possessed it. This is also besides the point because it's hard to imagine that there wouldn't have be similar concerns about Anderson remaining in Moultrie or that there wouldn't have been issues with the numerous other coastal forts in the south that were posses the by the US army. > It was considered an act of war and the CSA retaliated by shelling it for 3 days after they refused to leave That is inaccurate. Anderson refused to leave multiple times without the refusal being taken as an "act of war". The last (4th?) time Anderson actually didn't refuse to leave, but laid out the conditions under which he would leave. Those conditions were found unacceptable so the CSA started a war. > The first battle of the Civil War was Bull Run/Manassas. It was fought in Virginia because the Union troops crossed into the CSA territory to take the capitol. While that could be considered the first battle (depending on your definition of "battle"), there were a number of escalating skirmishes leading up to Bull Run. > That's an invasion, an invasion that was the consequence of firing on Sumter, which was a consequence of Anderson taking it and Lincoln reinforcing it. Had cooler heads prevailed, we might not have had to lose 700k+ people. That's an invasion that happened AFTER the CSA started the war. Thus you simply can't say that the choice to start the war was because of that invasion. There is an argument that the CSA started the war because they feared blockades, but again, that fear lead to preemptive action by the CSA, not responsive action. > There were no laws banning secession and it was deemed illegal by the SCOTUS ex-post facto. It was not "ex-post facto" as no new law was enacted. The SCOTUS interpreted the Consitution and decided that the states had agreed to a "perpetual" union As the case Texas Vs White makes clear: > "It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?" > Do you think if the Southern states thought they wouldn't be able to leave the Union when they joined in 1788 they ever would have joined in the first place? That is not at all clear, because they did clearly agree to join a "perpetual union" when they signed the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. My understanding is that the supreme court decided it is legal for states to leave the union, but they cannot do it unilaterally. You may, of course, disagree with this decision by the Supreme Court and with its interpretation of constitutional law. That does not mean that any new "ex-post facto" law was passed.