New Website on the American Civil War

[ding]

The first act of war between the North and South Carolina was when Anderson moved troops and arms to Sumter. Dec. 26, 1860.

No, the first act of war was not Major Anderson’s move to Fort Sumter on Dec. 26, 1860; that was a strategic repositioning. The official start of the Civil War was the Confederate bombardment of Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861. While Anderson's move escalated tensions, it was considered a, defensive, local action to protect his command.

• Dec. 26, 1860 (Repositioning): Major Robert Anderson moved his small Union garrison from the vulnerable Fort Moultrie to the more secure Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. South Carolina considered this a hostile act because they viewed the fort as theirs, but it was not the first shots or, official, war.
• Jan. 9, 1861 (Early Tension): South Carolina cadets fired on the Star of the West, a civilian ship chartered by the U.S. government to resupply Fort Sumter. This was a direct, violent act but not the full-scale war launch.
• April 12, 1861 (First Act of War): Confederate forces under P.G.T. Beauregard opened fire on Fort Sumter. This bombardment is universally recognized as the beginning of the Civil War.

While tensions surged immediately after Dec. 26, the, formal, shooting war began with the bombardment in April.

 

[rightwinger]

John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry in October 1859 is widely considered a major catalyst that accelerated the start of the American Civil War, though the official war began later in 1861 at Fort Sumter. The 1859 raid significantly intensified sectional tensions, making violent conflict almost inevitable.
Key Details on the Raid and its Role:

• The Event: Abolitionist John Brown and 21 followers seized the federal armory in Harpers Ferry, Virginia (now West Virginia), attempting to spark a slave revolt.
• Impact on the Nation: While many Northerners condemned the raid, the South viewed it as proof that Northerners intended to destroy their way of life, drastically increasing fear and animosity.
• A "Precipitating Incident": Many historians view the raid as the point where tensions became unstoppable, with some arguing the conflict essentially began in 1859 rather than 1861.
• Strategic Importance: Following the 1859 raid, Harpers Ferry remained a critical location, changing hands multiple times during the Civil War, including during the Battle of Harpers Ferry in 1862.

While not the literal first shot of the Civil War, John Brown's raid at Harpers Ferry acted as the spark that ignited the final march to war.

John Brown failed miserably
He never had a chance

What he did was put the fear of a slave revolt in southern slaveholders.
Made them paranoid.

Paranoid to the point of starting a war over it

 

[ding]

This was a violation of the negotiation agreement.

Major Robert Anderson’s December 26, 1860, move to Fort Sumter was considered a violation of a "gentlemen's agreement" or "truce" by South Carolina authorities, who believed President Buchanan promised not to alter the military status quo in Charleston Harbor. While Buchanan did not sign a formal pledge, South Carolina saw it as a broken promise and a hostile, provocative act.
Key Details on the Controversy:

• The "Truce": South Carolina congressmen had requested a pledge from Buchanan to maintain the status quo while secession negotiations were ongoing. Although no formal, written agreement was signed, the South Carolinians understood that they would be notified of any change in policy, which they felt was violated by the surprise move.
• Context of the Move: Anderson, acting on his own initiative due to poor communication with Washington, felt Fort Moultrie was indefensible, leaving his garrison vulnerable to imminent attack after South Carolina seceded on December 20, 1860.
• Southern Perspective: South Carolina Governor Francis Pickens deemed the move a breach of faith, leading to the immediate seizure of federal,, sites such as Fort Moultrie and Castle Pinckney.
• Northern Perspective: While some in the Buchanan administration initially argued Anderson violated his orders, an examination showed he had acted within the discretion given to him to protect his command. The move was viewed in the North as a necessary defensive step.

Ultimately, the move intensified the standoff, transforming a local crisis into a direct confrontation, as confirmed in the history.com article.

 

[rightwinger]

Major Robert Anderson’s December 26, 1860, move to Fort Sumter was considered a violation of a "gentlemen's agreement" or "truce" by South Carolina authorities, who believed President Buchanan promised not to alter the military status quo in Charleston Harbor. While Buchanan did not sign a formal pledge, South Carolina saw it as a broken promise and a hostile, provocative act.
Key Details on the Controversy:

• The "Truce": South Carolina congressmen had requested a pledge from Buchanan to maintain the status quo while secession negotiations were ongoing. Although no formal, written agreement was signed, the South Carolinians understood that they would be notified of any change in policy, which they felt was violated by the surprise move.
• Context of the Move: Anderson, acting on his own initiative due to poor communication with Washington, felt Fort Moultrie was indefensible, leaving his garrison vulnerable to imminent attack after South Carolina seceded on December 20, 1860.
• Southern Perspective: South Carolina Governor Francis Pickens deemed the move a breach of faith, leading to the immediate seizure of federal,, sites such as Fort Moultrie and Castle Pinckney.
• Northern Perspective: While some in the Buchanan administration initially argued Anderson violated his orders, an examination showed he had acted within the discretion given to him to protect his command. The move was viewed in the North as a necessary defensive step.

Ultimately, the move intensified the standoff, transforming a local crisis into a direct confrontation, as confirmed in the history.com article.

If Sumter could be taken, Moultrie was indefensible
Moving to a more secure location is not an act of war

Attacking Ft Sumter was

 

[ding]

If Sumter could be taken, Moultrie was indefensible
Moving to a more secure location is not an act of war

Attacking Ft Sumter was

The key point was that Anderson made the move AFTER South Carolina seceded from the union; not before.

 

[rightwinger]

The key point was that Anderson made the move AFTER South Carolina seceded from the union; not before.

More reason to protect your troops
Point is that Anderson did not attack S Carolina troops

 

[bdtex]

I have finally created a new website on the American Civil War. My site presents a view of the Civil War that is rarely discussed in our history books, a view that steers a middle course between the pro-Southern Lost Cause narrative and the standard pro-Northern narrative that dominates our history books.

The American Civil War: An Alternative View

How often will it be updated?

 

[bdtex]

The above is why I don't involve myself in general CW discussions.

Participate when and where you wish and ignore the rest.

 

[bdtex]

For those who might be interested, in the last few days I have added a great deal of content to my new Civil War website.

What about your own generated content? Will we be seeing of that like a blog? My primary interest is military history. The politics of secession and reconstruction don't interest me much.

 

[Quantrill]

Incorrect.

Maybe stop getting your history from white supremacists websites.

Provide the proof that my information comes from white supremacist websites. Which websites, and what have I said that indicates any white supremacy?

You are the dumbass in glasses.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

What about your own generated content? Will we be seeing of that like a blog? My primary interest is military history. The politics of secession and reconstruction don't interest me much.

Then why portray Jefferson Davis with your user name?

Quantrill

 

[bdtex]

Then why portray Jefferson Davis with your user name?

Quantrill

Mexican War veteran 1846-1847, Secretary Of War from 1853-1857, Commander-in-Chief of Confederate forces. Little military history there wouldn't you say?

 

[Quantrill]

Mexican War veteran 1846-1847, Secretary Of War from 1853-1857, Commander-in-Chief of Confederate forces. Little military history there wouldn't you say?

Commander-in-Chief of Confederate forces is political. You cannot be interested in military history and discount Jefferson Davis as President of the Confederate States and the ordeals he suffered at the hands of Yankee persecutors during the Reconstruction.

In the United States, who is the Commander In Chief of the armed forces?


Quantrill

 

[bdtex]

In the United States, who is the Commander In Chief?

Lincoln

 

[Quantrill]

Lincoln

He is dead. Good riddance.

Again, In the United States, who is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces?

Quantrill

 

[bdtex]

Commander-in-Chief of Confederate forces is political. You cannot be interested in military history and discount Jefferson Davis as President of the Confederate States and the ordeals he suffered at the hands of Yankee persecutors during the Reconstruction.

Military discussion can be separated from political discussion. If someone can't bring themself to do that, for whatever reason, I choose not to engage. You and anyone else are free to make their own choice(s).

 

[bdtex]

Again, In the United States, who is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces?

The President

 

[Quantrill]

Military discussion can be separated from political discussion. If someone can't bring themself to do that, for whatever reason, I choose not to engage. You and anyone else are free to make their own choice(s).

That is bullshit. You can't separate political discussion from military discussion when political events always precede military involvement.

Then, when the president, be it U.S.A. or C.S.A. is commander in chief of the armed forces, there is no separation.

The President

Exactly. Making him part, the major part, of military discussion.

Quantrill

 

[bdtex]

About all I concern myself with anymore is the war in my AO and what I can dig-up concerning my ancestors who fought in it as part of the 33rd Virginia Inf..

33rd Virginia Infantry Regiment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

BTW....Happy Lee/Jackson Day.

There's now a pretty big Lee/Jackson Day event in Lexington,VA. I hope to be able to attend some year in my retirement.

 

[bdtex]

That is bullshit. You can't separate political discussion from military discussion when political events always precede military involvement.

That's your choice. I choose to disengage. Good day sir.