|View single post by 39th Miss. Walker|
|Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2007 01:58 pm||
39th Miss. Walker
|First of all Ft. Sumter wasn't the helpless speck of dirt and bricks you made it out to be. Anderson had his engineers and laborers working to finish it for many months, ever since her took over command at Moultrie.
Secondly Sumter COMMANDED the harbor, it was hardly inconsequential. At one point Anderson threatened to fire on CS vessels. But Anderson later declined to do so.
I don't use analogies but since some of you love them here is one.
You let someone live in a house on your property. You decide to sell it. Does he have a right to forever stay in the house?
The US invades a country. Takes their land. Forces them into a war. Wins the war and keeps part of the land. What say you?
Before you answer, it wasn't the Civil War. I can tell you of a few wars with the same scenario. You would have thought the US learned from the Mexican American War, they did, might makes right.
You can't sit and believe the US was not as much an aggressor as the South. Both were hard headed and wanted war. They both were spoiling for a fight. The US invaded Virginia.
Further, as for Sumter;
An understanding had been established between the authorities in Washington and the members of Congress from South Carolina, that the forts would not be attacked, or seized as an act of war, until proper negotiations for their cession to the State had been made and had failed; provided that they were not reinforced, and their military status should remain as it was at the time of this understanding, viz., on December 9, 1860. (Confederate Military History Vol. 5)
Anderson further stated " that he could get no information or positive orders from Washington".
The Star of the West with troop re-enforcements was turned back. A second attempt was made by the Federal forces and it was only at this that the CS opened fire on Sumter.
I think if we want to discuss Sumter we should start a new thread. We have gotten off track here.