The Civil War

[denuseri]

Over a hundred years after the Civil War, we’re still fighting it — or at least fighting over its history. Was it over States’ rights? Tariffs and taxes?

Or was it really about Slavery?

On Dec. 24, 1860, delegates at South Carolina’s secession convention adopted a “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.”

It noted “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery” and protested that Northern states had failed to “fulfill their constitutional obligations” by interfering with the return of fugitive slaves to bondage.

Making it prety clear that Slavery, not states’ rights, birthed the Civil War.

South Carolina was further upset that New York no longer allowed “slavery transit.”

In the past, if Charleston gentry wanted to spend August in the Hamptons, they could bring their slaves along with no worries of them being able to seek refuge in the North.

South Carolina’s delegates were outraged when that changed.

In addition, they objected that New England states let black men vote and tolerated abolitionist societies.

According to South Carolina, states should not have the right to let their citizens assemble and speak freely when what they said threatened slavery.

Other seceding states echoed South Carolina.

“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world,” proclaimed Mississippi in its own secession declaration, passed Jan. 9, 1861. “Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. . . . A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.”

Until the Civil War, Southern presidents and lawmakers had dominated the federal government.

During the Post-civil-war Southerners litterally opposed any sort of freedom allowed to former slaves by new laws. They continued to keep people of color in oprressive conditions, in some areas under a state of peonage up to the Civil Rights Era.

During the terrible years after the War, place after place across the South became all-white “sundown towns” some like one not to far from where I live now kept signs up warning blacks that if they were inside city limits after sun down they would be incarcerated, or even killed.

Though that didnt stop armed groups of white males from going out and terrorizing the local blacks while hiding their faces under white sheets whenever they felt like it.

Not to kmention all the things they did to prevent African Americans from voting some of which carry right on to as recent as the latest elections.

“Anything but slavery” explanations of the Civil War started to gain real traction in the South in the 1970's".

To this day Confederate sympathizers successfully float false claims in Southern Schools, along with their preferred name for the conflict: the War Between the States or: The War Aginst Northern Agression.

At the infamous Secession Ball in South Carolina, hosted in December by the Sons of Confederate Veterans, “the main reasons for secession were portrayed as high tariffs and Northern states using Southern tax money to build their own infrastructure,” .

Yet these explanations are flatly wrong.

High tariffs had prompted the Nullification Controversy in 1831-33, when, after South Carolina demanded the right to nullify federal laws or secede in protest, President Andrew Jackson (also a Southerner himself) threatened force.

No state joined the movement, and South Carolina backed down. Tariffs were not an issue in 1860, and Southern states said nothing about them. Why would they? Southerners had written the tariff of 1857, under which the nation was functioning. Its rates were lower than at any point since 1816.

They did however warn in several newspapers accross the South that if "that Abolisionist from Illionis" got elected, there would be war. Most Southern States even went so far as refuse to place Lincoln on the ballot.

Another myth they propogated over their southern shame conserning slavery was that slave were not even owned by the majority of whites in the south.

Indeed, most white Southern families had no slaves. Less than half of white Mississippi households owned one or more slaves, for example, and that proportion was smaller still in whiter states such as Virginia and Tennessee. It is also true that, in areas with few slaves, most white Southerners did not support secession. West Virginia seceded from Virginia to stay with the Union, and Confederate troops had to occupy parts of eastern Tennessee and northern Alabama to hold them in line.

However, two ideological factors caused most Southern whites, including those who were not slave-owners, to defend slavery. Many, looking to the upper class and expecting to join it someday had aspirations promised to them by the upper class as incentive to support them. In 1860, many subsistence farmers aspired to become large slave-owners becuase of this wool being pulled over their eyes by the pruveleged slave owning class. So poor white Southerners supported slavery then, just as many low-income people support the extension of George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy now.

Second and more important, belief in white supremacy provided a rationale for slavery to Southerners...it was one of their main argument in debates against Abolisinist cadidates to public office.

As the French political theorist Montesquieu observed wryly in 1748: “It is impossible for us to suppose these creatures [enslaved Africans] to be men; because allowing them to be men, a suspicion would follow that we ourselves are not Christians.”

Given this belief, most white Southerners — and many Northerners of the era too, — could not envision life in black-majority states such as South Carolina and Mississippi unless blacks were in chains. Political cartoons even showed gangs of blacks attacking and looting farms carrying off white females under one arm with a torch iheld high in the other and the house buring in the background.

Georgia Supreme Court Justice Henry Benning, trying to persuade the Virginia Legislature to leave the Union, predicted race war if slavery was not protected. “The consequence will be that our men will be all exterminated or expelled to wander as vagabonds over a hostile earth, and as for our women, their fate will be too horrible to contemplate even in fancy.”

Thus, secession would maintain not only slavery but the prevailing ideology of white supremacy as well.

The soliders themselves wrote about it in their letters home.


Since the Civil War did end slavery, many Americans think abolition was the Union’s only goal. But the North initially went to war to hold the nation together. It was in a purely reactionary position. Actual Abolition came later. Though many people had abolisionist leanings in the North long before that.

President Lincoln himself even said “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”

However, Lincoln’s own anti-slavery sentiment was widely known at the time. In all of his debates on the way up the political ladder he spent a lot of time discussing it and his political supporters were in large part known abolisionists.

In the same letter where he trys to avoid the pretence of being abolisionist in his goals, he says: “I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.”

He stated several times his wish for the intitution of slavery to fade into disuse as it had allready done in Europe.

However Slavery was hardly on its last legs in 1860.

That year, the South produced almost 75 percent of all U.S. exports. Slaves were worth more than all the manufacturing companies and railroads in the nation. No elite class in history has ever given up such an immense interest voluntarily. Moreover, Confederates eyed territorial expansion into Mexico and Cuba. Short of war, who would have stopped them — or forced them to abandon slavery?

There was even a fist fight right on the floor of congress between two elected officals who were arguing (one for and one against) the inclussion of new slave states in the years precceding the war itself.

In 1860, slavery was growing more entrenched in the South. Unpaid labor makes for big profits, and the Southern elite was growing ever richer. Freeing slaves was becoming more and more difficult for their owners, as was the position of free blacks in the United States, North as well as South. For the foreseeable future, slavery looked to be from the rich white southern elites point of view an absolute nescesity and they would do anything, including going to war to secure it.

[denuseri]

Oh btw I dont intend for this thread to be anything but all encompassing when it comes to anything about the Civil War or the things leading up to it, or its aftermath its fair game ok.

I just figured I would address this paticular issue conserning it head on to start with was all.

[Snark]

War isn't civil. That being said, a civil war is a war fought between two factions over the control of a single government. The altercation in this country was being fought between one side who wished to have nothing to do with the other government, indeed had formed it's own government. The other side was fighting to prevent this. There is nothing in the constitution that I am aware of that prohibited that secession. Only armed force and subsequent occupation by armed federal troops enforced the results of the conflict.

[Newbie 5000]

The Civil War was about all of those things. It was a just cause for the North. We needed to stay together

[thir]

As I have learned it, it was about the North wanting a united nation, while the South wanted independence for themselves, and the slave issue was sort of an excuse.

Slavery apart, it seems to me that the South should have been allowed to be a nation of their own.

[IAN 2411]

I don’t know a lot about the History of the “United States and this thread is a good lesson I suppose. I think just about everyone on the planet knows about the slavery issues, but denu brought up the point that another side of the Civil war was to keep the states together.

The Roman Empire lasted 500 years [Mostly taken by stealth] [Squandered its wealth.]

The British Empire lasted about the same and by all accounts it was even bigger. [Mostly taken by stealth] [Squandered its wealth and in debt once more]

The USSR lasted 50 years and a bit. [Taken by stealth] [Squandered its wealth on defence in case of a war with the west, due to its oil has gone from rags to riches once more as a single state.]

The European Union is in trouble and there is the fear that now because of its size it is near breaking point. [Throwing its wealth away trying to keep member countries heads above water, and now its bank is almost closed for business] [Picked clean.]

The USA, [Partly taken by Stealth], from the date of the declaration of independence has lasted so far 235 years, but how much longer? [Almost 60% of America’s national debt is owned by the Chinese.]

Now taking that one of the main causes of the break up and downfall of Roman Empire, British Empire and the USSR and possibly the European Union was that it was too hard and expensive to police and govern.

Do you think that all that fighting between the North and South was worth the trouble; because if history repeats itself once more there could be disintegration of the USA from the Fed Government via the ballet box?

It is no good sitting back and saying it will never happen, because who would have thought that all this fighting for freedom and democracy in the middle east would ever take place in our lifetime. They are young people deciding the way they want their countries run. On a comparative scale each one of the states in the USA are bigger than most European Countries.

Most of the American disgruntled collage students that leaving collage now are all geared up with the brains to say “We don’t want dinosaurs telling us what to do,” and could vote them out.

I have never seen the UK parliament so full of young people and they are in high places. The students are already telling our dinosaurs in parliament that they are extinct.

I think the main question is in keeping with, what was the point of the Civil War between the north and south and the aftermath.

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

History seems to affirm that slavery was the primary reason for the secession of the South, but not the primary reason for the North to invade. The North (Washington D.C.) was primarily concerned with maintaining the Union, not freeing the slaves. In that light, they succeeded, since the Union was indeed preserved. At least until now.

[denuseri]

I think the north showed a good bit of restraint considering they did not fire the first shots.

We as a people had allready agreed in a constitution, we had banded together against what we came to see as our former tyrants (though admitable many of them did not see themselves in such light and over time we have become best of chums) out of a nessecity to stand together or get picked off one by one by the worlds largest and most powerful military of the time.

The threat of the United States being invaded by foriegn powers was still a very real and ominious presence in the peopls minds of those days,and not only becuase of our past quarrels with the Brittish (who held actual terretory on our northern boarders).
Napolean only sold us the Liousianna purchace becuase he had been forced to abandon his invasion plans to subjectgate first the area of "New France" and then when it suited him the former Colonies. The Austrians were also on the rise as well as the Russians not to mention possible threats from by way of mexico. Allowing the country to be divided at the time and surviving simpley wasnt a foreseably good outcome at the time for eaither side, North or South. Both sides new this and planned for it too, stockpiling arms and requriting men, becuase they new if the south succeeded (like they had allmost done only a short while ago in a similar pattern before Lincoln was even in politics...war wouldnt be able to be averted by another completely onesided compromise).

I like the approach that Ian is taking, history does show a repeated pattern when it comes to these things, and evolution on a mass scale too, as much as history repeats itself (much like in biological evolution) it never quite does it exactly the same way despite following a certian pattern that even the earliest historians recognized.

So why does it seem we as a species seems to be incapable of repeating the cycle?

[Snark]

The federal troops garrisoned on an island in Charleston harbor were just on their way to Pawley's Island for vacation and got lost. The ships outside the harbor were there for the regatta. Everyone from the north knows that the southerners were (and probably still are) a bunch of blood thirsty rednecks just looking to shoot at people. Right?

[Thorne]

The federal troops garrisoned on an island in Charleston harbor were just on their way to Pawley's Island for vacation and got lost.

I once lived in Pawley's Island. Believe me, they were better off in Charleston. Even DURING the attack!

[Snark]

Maybe so...but the Atlantic House was terrific!

[TantricSoul]

I thought this article might be of interest to those of you participating in this thread:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/outloo...6jD_story.html

[Snark]

That is the same article that Denuseri condensed in the first entry to this thread.

[denuseri]

Yep, and there is a great series on the Civil War being aired on PBS as we type.

[denuseri]

And here is something to consider from another contributor named Martian Kelly:

The Civil War lasted from 1861 to 1865 and led to over 618,000 casualties. Its causes can be traced back to tensions that formed early in the nation's history. Following are the top five causes that led to the "War Between the States."

1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.

With Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin in 1793, cotton became very profitable. This machine was able to reduce the time it took to separate seeds from the cotton. However, at the same time the increase in the number of plantations willing to move from other crops to cotton meant the greater need for a large amount of cheap labor, i.e. slaves. Thus, the southern economy became a one crop economy, depending on cotton and therefore on slavery. On the other hand, the northern economy was based more on industry than agriculture. In fact, the northern industries were purchasing the raw cotton and turning it into finished goods. This disparity between the two set up a major difference in economic attitudes. The South was based on the plantation system while the North was focused on city life. This change in the North meant that society evolved as people of different cultures and classes had to work together. On the other hand, the South continued to hold onto an antiquated social order.

2. States versus federal rights.

Since the time of the Revolution, two camps emerged: those arguing for greater states rights and those arguing that the federal government needed to have more control. The first organized government in the US after the American Revolution was under the Articles of Confederation. The thirteen states formed a loose confederation with a very weak federal government. However, when problems arose, the weakness of this form of government caused the leaders of the time to come together at the Constitutional Convention and create, in secret, the US Constitution. Strong proponents of states rights like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were not present at this meeting. Many felt that the new constitution ignored the rights of states to continue to act independently. They felt that the states should still have the right to decide if they were willing to accept certain federal acts. This resulted in the idea of nullification, whereby the states would have the right to rule federal acts unconstitutional. The federal government denied states this right. However, proponents such as John C. Calhoun fought vehemently for nullification. When nullification would not work and states felt that they were no longer respected, they moved towards secession.

3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.

As America began to expand, first with the lands gained from the Louisiana Purchase and later with the Mexican War, the question of whether new states admitted to the union would be slave or free. The Missouri Compromise passed in 1820 made a rule that prohibited slavery in states from the former Louisiana Purchase the latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes north except in Missouri. During the Mexican War, conflict started about what would happen with the new territories that the US expected to gain upon victory. David Wilmot proposed the Wilmot Proviso in 1846 which would ban slavery in the new lands. However, this was shot down to much debate. The Compromise of 1850 was created by Henry Clay and others to deal with the balance between slave and free states, northern and southern interests. One of the provisions was the fugitive slave act that was discussed in number one above. Another issue that further increased tensions was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. It created two new territories that would allow the states to use popular sovereignty to determine whether they would be free or slave. The real issue occurred in Kansas where proslavery Missourians began to pour into the state to help force it to be slave. They were called "Border Ruffians." Problems came to a head in violence at Lawrence Kansas. The fighting that occurred caused it to be called "Bleeding Kansas." The fight even erupted on the floor of the senate when antislavery proponent Charles Sumner was beat over the head by South Carolina's Senator Preston Brooks.

4. Growth of the Abolition Movement.

Increasingly, the northerners became more polarized against slavery. Sympathies began to grow for abolitionists and against slavery and slaveholders. This occurred especially after some major events including: the publishing of Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, the Dred Scott Case, John Brown's Raid, and the passage of the fugitive slave act that held individuals responsible for harboring fugitive slaves even if they were located in non-slave states.

5. The election of Abraham Lincoln.

Even though things were already coming to a head, when Lincoln was elected in 1860, South Carolina issued its "Declaration of the Causes of Secession." They believed that Lincoln was anti-slavery and in favor of Northern interests. Before Lincoln was even president, seven states had seceded from the Union: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.

Notice how every single issue still had slavery at its core? Some will argue item 2 to be a stand alone complex, however they will find even with there, slavery (namely the states right to keep slavery institutionalized) was the main issue.

[Thorne]

Notice how every single issue still had slavery at its core? Some will argue item 2 to be a stand alone complex, however they will find even with there, slavery (namely the states right to keep slavery institutionalized) was the main issue.

While true, these items seem to me to be more rightly named as the causes for secession. The most direct cause of the Civil War was Lincoln's determination to maintain the Union, denying the southern states the right of secession. Lincoln himself admitted that slavery was not an issue with him. Keeping the country whole was.

Which raises an interesting question of more current value: Should states be allowed to secede? If yes, what is the hope for maintaining the nation? Would the US become another Europe, small independent countries, each developing its own language and culture? If no, how do we justify keeping the people of that state subject to laws they do not want? Wouldn't that be just as bad as slavery? After all, the option of boarding a ship or a wagon and moving out to the frontier is no longer feasible. How are the people who feel they are being persecuted by the laws of the country supposed to escape that persecution?

[IAN 2411]

How are the people who feel they are being persecuted by the laws of the country supposed to escape that persecution?

I thought i answered that in my post, they like all free people go to the ballot box.

Be well IAN 2411

[denuseri]

So you think he should have allowed the south to succeed?

[Thorne]

I thought i answered that in my post, they like all free people go to the ballot box.

Be well IAN 2411

Which works fine as long as they are in the majority. But what happens when they aren't allowed to vote, as happened in the South after the Civil War? Though legally given the vote, blacks were "discouraged" from casting those votes, sometimes at the end of a noose.

[Thorne]

So you think he should have allowed the south to succeed?

No, I'm not claiming that. It probably would have destroyed the US as a potential world power. Unfortunately he had to invade what was, as far as I can tell, a legally constituted foreign country to do that.

[denuseri]

He didnt invade anyone at the start, he just didnt role over and surender federal lands. The South did the invading to begin with by attacking Fort Sumter.

The precedent for Federal residing over state was decided upon long before Lincoln got into power.

[Thorne]

He didnt invade anyone at the start, he just didnt role over and surender federal lands. The South did the invading to begin with by attacking Fort Sumter.

The precedent for Federal residing over state was decided upon long before Lincoln got into power.

A matter of semantics, I suppose, or of opinion. South Carolina seceded from the Union before the attack. Since the fort was within the territorial boundaries of the state, the garrison there was technically a foreign occupying force. There was no diplomatic status for the fort, so it could not be considered part of the Union. So the attack could not be called an invasion. Definitely a belligerent act, but not an invasion. The first invasion was the Union's attempt to take Richmond in July 1861, ending at the first Battle of Bull Run (Manassas). This was an actual invasion by Union troops into Confederate territory.

Whether the secession was legal or not is beside the point. The American colonies breaking away from England was not a legal enterprise, certainly not according to English law. The idea of the southern states seceding and forming a new nation is hardly different.

[denuseri]

Only it was legally in the hands of the union.

Though I agree ,whats legal or not at that point doesnt much matter anyways after they started shooting.

The South had no moral high ground to stand on from the begining and it only made matters worse by attacking.

The last time South Carolina tussled with the Federal Gov and threatened sucssession one of their own (Andy Jackson) came down in force with federal troops and they didnt start shooting.

[Thorne]

The South had no moral high ground to stand on from the begining and it only made matters worse by attacking.

They had as much moral grounds as the colonies did in breaking away from England. And attacking Fort Sumter was a necessity, as Charleston's harbor would have been useless with the Federals holding the entrance like that. And the first shots of the war weren't there anyway, but an attack against a Federal ship trying to reinforce the fort in January 1861. When a Union fleet was sent to resupply the fort in April the Confederates had no strategic alternative. They had to have access to the harbor or starve.

[denuseri]

January 1861 -- The South Secedes.

When Abraham Lincoln, a known opponent of slavery, was elected president, the South Carolina legislature perceived a threat. Calling a state convention, the delegates voted to remove the state of South Carolina from the union known as the United States of America.

The secession of South Carolina was followed by the secession of six more states -- Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas -- and the threat of secession by four more -- Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina. These eleven states eventually formed the Confederate States of America.

All of them had been talking about and threatening to go to war if Lincoln or anyone who was not pro-slavery were to be elected. The newspapers of the time were full of quotes about it to numerous to post them all here.

February 1861 -- The South Creates a Government.
At a convention in Montgomery, Alabama, the seven seceding states created the Confederate Constitution, a document similar to the United States Constitution, but with greater stress on the autonomy of each state. Jefferson Davis was named provisional president of the Confederacy until elections could be held.


February 1861 -- The South Seizes Federal Forts.
When President Buchanan -- Lincoln's predecessor -- refused to surrender southern federal forts to the seceding states, southern state troops seized them. At Fort Sumter, South Carolina troops repulsed a supply ship trying to reach federal forces based in the fort. The ship was forced to return to New York, its supplies undelivered.

This action by Buchanan only reafirmed the precedent that was set by previous Presidents when it came to dealing with States that had allready tried to remove themselves from the USA. (Jackson was not the first to deal with this kind of thing eaither btw)

March 1861 -- Lincoln's Inauguration.
At Lincoln's inauguration on March 4, the new president said he had no plans to end slavery in those states where it already existed, but he also said he would not accept secession. He hoped to resolve the national crisis without warfare. Where all the south at the time could talk about was going to war.

April 1861 -- Attack on Fort Sumter.
When President Lincoln planned to send supplies to Fort Sumter, he alerted the state in advance, in an attempt to avoid hostilities. South Carolina, however, as you mentioned saw the fort as too strategic. Robert Anderson, (The forts legal commander of the time)was asked to surrender immediately. Anderson offered to surrender with terms, but his offer was rejected, and on April 12, the Civil War officially began with shots fired on the fort.

[Thorne]

Here's an article posted today that helps to bring this into focus.
A couple of points from the article: For the Confederacy, the war was almost entirely about slavery. Even the issue of States' Rights was mostly about the rights of states to maintain slavery. According to the article, the state of South Carolina wasn't all that interested in the right of the State of New York to deny the right of transit, essentially prohibiting slave owners from bringing their slaves to the state when they came to visit.
But for the Union, slavery was NOT the primary issue. Secession, and maintaining the nation, was. As denuseri notes in her latest post, Lincoln specifically denied that he was going to try to end slavery.

As for Fort Sumter, it is true that historians recognize the bombardment as the official beginning of the war, but events at the time were very muddled and it's difficult to determine where the actual point of no return was crossed.

However, denuseri, one point in the article you quote was misleading. According to Wikipedia (among many other sources):

Union attempts to resupply and reinforce the garrison were repulsed on January 9, 1861 when the first shots of the war, fired by cadets from The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina, prevented the steamer Star of the West, hired to transport troops and supplies to Fort Sumter, from completing the task.

So the first shots of the war occurred before Lincoln even took office, but were NOT fired by South Carolina troops.

But there is controversy there, too. The city of Pensacola, FL contends that the first shot occurred on January 8th, hours before the cadets fired on the Union supply ship. And that it was apparently a blank cartridge!

[denuseri]

Why how odd then that the Charelstonians own press at the time atributed the first shots to their own Palmetto Guard under command of General Beauregard. The Students of the Citidal having been enlisted by him along with all of the other able bodied men of the City and surrounding countryside, were in fact, self professed and recognized to be part of the Confederate military.

Here is an excert from one of the broadsheets of the time:

Dispatches received from Montgomery state that President Davis was considering the propriety of going to Charleston, being satisfied that Fort Sumter was to be the great strategic point where the issue was to be tried as to the power of the Confederate States Government to maintain itself. He and his friends deemed it his duty to be on the ground.

ON 8th inst. Lieutenant Talbot arrived at Charleston from Washington. He had a conference with Governor Pickens and General Beauregard, but was not allowed to communicate with Major Anderson at Fort Sumter. Lieutenant Talbot started back for Washington on 9th. It is understood that the nature of his conference with Governor Pickens and General Beauregard was to obtain permission for an unarmed store-ship to victual the garrison at Fort Sumter. Permission was refused.

It is understood that Lieutenant Talbot then communicated to Governor Pickens the intelligence that supplies would be sent in to Major Anderson peaceably if they could, forcibly if they must. Immense preparations were immediately commenced suitable to the emergency. Orders were issued to the entire military force of the city, held in reserve, to proceed to their stations without delay.

At midnight the community was thrown into a fever of excitement by the discharge of seven guns from Citadel Square, the signal for the assembling of all the reserves ten minutes afterward. Hundreds of men left their beds, hurrying to and fro toward their respective destinations. In the absence of sufficient armories, at the corners of the streets, public squares, and other convenient points, meetings were formed, and all night the long roll of the drum and the steady tramp of the military and the gallop of the cavalry resounding through the city betokened the close proximity of the long-anticipated hostilities. The Home Guard corps of old gentlemen, who occupy the position of military exempts, rode through the city, arousing the soldiers, and doing other duty required by the moment. Hundreds of the citizens were up all night. A terrible thunder-storm prevailed until a late hour. The Seventeenth Regiment, 800 strong, gathered thus in one hour, and left for the fortifications early in the morning.

Four regiments of a thousand men each were telegraphed for from the country. One of these, from Kershaw District, under command of Colonel Rion, was formed with the, understanding not to be called out until the fight was positively at hand. Dr. Gibbs, Surgeon-General, was ordered to prepare ambulances, and make every provision for the wounded, and in all departments was observable the admirable system and discipline with which the State is prepared for this exigency.

On 9th, the floating battery, finished, mounted, and manned, was taken out of the dock and anchored in the cove near Sullivan's Island. All vessels in the harbor received a notification from General Beauregard to keep out of the range of fire between Fort Sumter and Sullivan's Island, on which Fort Moultrie is situated. As a further military necessity, a house situated near one of the batteries erected against the fort, supposed probably to interfere with its efficient working, was blown up.

Charleston telegrams state: Senator Wigfall, of Texas, and Edmund Ruffin, of Virginia (nearly seventy years of age), shouldered muskets and joined the army as privates. Numbers of old men have done the same. Even cripples are anxious to fight, and may be seen riding with the cavalry.

About 1000 troops were sent to the fortifications on 9th. Messrs. Wigfall, Chestnut, Means, Manning, M'Gowan, and Boyleston, have received appointments in General Beauregard's staff. A large number of the members of the Convention, after adjournment, volunteered as privates. About 7000 troops are now at the fortifications.

At noon on 11th Major Anderson was formally summoned, by General Beauregard, the commander of the secession forces, to surrender Fort Sumter. Major Anderson declined compliance, alleging that such a course would be incompatible with his duty to his Government. The people of Charleston were intensely excited on the receipt of this refusal to surrender the Fort. The piers and housetops, and all the places from whence a view of the harbor could be obtained, were thronged with men and women eager to witness the conflict, which was expected momentarily to begin. No hostile shot, however, was fired on either side. But later in the day negotiations were re-opened between the commanders, and pending their conclusion hostilities have of course been postponed. The Federal fleet had not made its appearance off Charleston at last accounts.

The non-arrival of the squadron off Charleston is doubtless due to the heavy gale that has prevailed along the southern coast for the past two or three days. The storm was so severe that a large number of vessels, including several steamers, were obliged to take refuge in Hampton Roads.

On Friday, 12th, at 27 minutes past 4 A. M., General Beauregard, in accordance with instructions received on Wednesday from the Secretary of War of the Southern Confederacy, opened fire upon Fort Sumter. Forts Johnson and Moultrie, the iron battery at Cumming's Point, and the Stevens Floating Battery, kept up an active cannonade during the entire day, and probably during the past night. The damage done to Fort Sumter is stated by the Confederate authorities to have been considerable. Guns had been dismounted, and a part of the parapet swept away.

Major Anderson had replied vigorously to the fire which had been opened upon him, but the Charleston dispatches represent the injury inflicted by him to have been but small. The utmost bravery had been exhibited on both sides, and a large portion of the Charleston population, including five thousand ladies, were assembled upon the Battery to witness the conflict.

Down to our latest advices, the battle had been carried on solely by the batteries of the revolutionists and Fort Sumter. The Harriet Lane, Captain Faunce, the Pawnee, and another United States vessel, were said to be off the harbor, but had taken no part in the conflict. The Harriet Lane is said to have received a shot through her wheel-house.

The opinion prevailed in Charleston that an attempt would be made during the night to reinforce Fort Sumter by means of small boats from the three vessels seen in the offing.

No one had been killed by the fire of Major Anderson, and the casualties among the Confederate troops in the batteries were inconsiderable. There is, of course, no account of the loss, if any, among the garrison of Fort Sumter.

A telegraphic correspondence between the Montgomery War Department and General Beauregard, before the commencement of hostilities, has been published. On April 8 General Beauregard telegraphed that a messenger from President Lincoln had brought word that provisions would be sent to Fort Sumter—peaceably if possible, forcibly if necessary. Mr. Walker, the Secretary of War, replied, on April 10, instructing General Beauregard to demand the immediate evacuation of Fort Sumter, and if this was refused, to proceed to attack the fort in the way he thought best. The demand for surrender was accordingly made by General Beauregard, and Major Anderson replied, April 11, "It is a demand with which I regret that my sense of honor and my obligations to my Government prevent my compliance." He added, also, "I will await the first shot, and if you do not batter us to pieces, we will be starved out in a few days." His answer being sent to Montgomery, the Secretary of War telegraphed back that if Major Anderson would state the time at which he would evacuate the fort, it should not be bombarded. To this Anderson would not consent, and upon his refusal hostilities began. The latest of those dispatches, that from General Beauregard to the Secretary of War, bears date April 12, and was received in New York a few hours after it was sent to Montgomery.



The Confederates themselves at the time pretty clearly are in agreement with modern historians when it comes to calling the begining of the war, exactly where it began. Anything else that may have been happening elsewhere in out of the way places obviously had little if anything signifigant to contribute to the oifficial opening of hostilities between the Confederacy and the Union.

The only muddeling of events seem to be the acts of more contemporary southerners who wish to glorify their ancestory by obfuscating the very well known facts of the day. Facts that are doubley confirmed in their newspapers and letters home and other offical transcripts and legal documnets.

[thir]

Whether the secession was legal or not is beside the point. The American colonies breaking away from England was not a legal enterprise, certainly not according to English law. The idea of the southern states seceding and forming a new nation is hardly different.

That is how I have understood it. And I think the South should have been allowed to break away.

[Thorne]

And I think the South should have been allowed to break away.

I disagree. As harsh as it was to force them to rejoin the Union, anything else could have resulted in a highly fragmented country, with individual states breaking away anytime some state legislature decided it didn't like what was happening in Washington. You then wind up with another Europe, many small nation-states constantly at war with one another.

[IAN 2411]

You then wind up with another Europe, many small nation-states constantly at war with one another.

I would like you to explain that, or are you talking about WW11....let me see that was 67 years ago. I would also like to point out that the Euro Countries might at this moment be arguing with each other, but they will always be a United Europe. Even if the European Union breaks up that is only the Federal part of a United Europe. Meaning just like your Federal Government and the Individual States, if the Federal Government colapses you will still have the United States. I believe i would be correct in saying that the Federal Government is the only thing holding the individual states together now. Dito with Europe. You are arguing in circles.

Be well IAN 2411