First, as a ground rule, I will not term the "War of 1861" as "The American Civil War" in this piece. I will not use "War of Northern Aggression", though I find it more truthful... nor will I use "War Between the States", as personally I believe it was a war between the southern states and the northern federal government.
The anniversary of the shelling of Fort Sumter is coming in a couple months - the 12th of April at approximately 0320 (3:20 am to you who aren't on a 24 hour clock). Fort Sumter is widely recognized as the first battle of the War of 1861. Why is Sumter the topic of discussion? Mostly because I wanted to reiterate MBV's sentiment that we have no new Fort Sumter, and perhaps explain why he (and I) feel that way.
A brief history for those who don't spend all day reviewing it: Fort Sumter was a fort in Charleston, South Carolina harbor. It was almost completed in 1861 when Lincoln was elected President of the United States on his abolitionist platform, the election that virtually guaranteed secession. In February of 1861, first South Carolina and then six other states did secede. Most of the forts and other federal properties within the 7 states of the Confederacy were surrendered to the Confederacy. Although the older fort in Charleston harbor (Fort Moultrie) was surrendered, Fort Sumter was not. As a matter of fact, the garrison of Fort Moultrie fled to Fort Sumter as Sumter offered virtually no avenue of ground based assault.
Sumter was besieged, a supply ship turned away, and then finally, on orders from the Confederacy, the commander of the South Carolina Militia ordered the shelling of Fort Sumter, starting at 0320 on the 12th of April. A truce was given the next afternoon, and the fort was surrendered to the Confederacy on the afternoon following, the 14th of April.
What's so important about Sumter? It is not that it was the opening battle in a war of four years that would claim over half a million lives. The opening battle could have been anywhere. It is not that the first casualties of the war were caused by accident, not the actual battle. This fact is very little known - most people don't realize that Sumter was surrendered after the bombardment produced zero casualties on either side!!!
It is the fact that it turned many against the Confederacy. As the Confederacy's Secretary of State, Robert Toombs, warned, attacking Fort Sumter preemptively would "lose us every friend at the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest. ... Legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary. It puts us in the wrong. It is fatal." Toombs could not have been more correct. Certainly, it was a catalyst for a few other states to join the Confederacy.. But it was a catalyst for many "fence-sitters" to side with the north, who looked like the victims of Confederate aggression...
This is the same thing that MBV is saying when he calls for no new Fort Sumters. The Threepers cannot be guilty of causing the first blood. We must be (and be seen as) righteous and above suspicion. They (the PTB) need to be clearly seen as aggressors. They need to be seen as the oppressors. They need to be seen as the ones in violation of the Constitution and in violation of Natural Law.
Which is, to say, that they (the PTB) need to be seen as they are...
The anniversary of the shelling of Fort Sumter is coming in a couple months - the 12th of April at approximately 0320 (3:20 am to you who aren't on a 24 hour clock). Fort Sumter is widely recognized as the first battle of the War of 1861. Why is Sumter the topic of discussion? Mostly because I wanted to reiterate MBV's sentiment that we have no new Fort Sumter, and perhaps explain why he (and I) feel that way.
A brief history for those who don't spend all day reviewing it: Fort Sumter was a fort in Charleston, South Carolina harbor. It was almost completed in 1861 when Lincoln was elected President of the United States on his abolitionist platform, the election that virtually guaranteed secession. In February of 1861, first South Carolina and then six other states did secede. Most of the forts and other federal properties within the 7 states of the Confederacy were surrendered to the Confederacy. Although the older fort in Charleston harbor (Fort Moultrie) was surrendered, Fort Sumter was not. As a matter of fact, the garrison of Fort Moultrie fled to Fort Sumter as Sumter offered virtually no avenue of ground based assault.
Sumter was besieged, a supply ship turned away, and then finally, on orders from the Confederacy, the commander of the South Carolina Militia ordered the shelling of Fort Sumter, starting at 0320 on the 12th of April. A truce was given the next afternoon, and the fort was surrendered to the Confederacy on the afternoon following, the 14th of April.
What's so important about Sumter? It is not that it was the opening battle in a war of four years that would claim over half a million lives. The opening battle could have been anywhere. It is not that the first casualties of the war were caused by accident, not the actual battle. This fact is very little known - most people don't realize that Sumter was surrendered after the bombardment produced zero casualties on either side!!!
It is the fact that it turned many against the Confederacy. As the Confederacy's Secretary of State, Robert Toombs, warned, attacking Fort Sumter preemptively would "lose us every friend at the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest. ... Legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary. It puts us in the wrong. It is fatal." Toombs could not have been more correct. Certainly, it was a catalyst for a few other states to join the Confederacy.. But it was a catalyst for many "fence-sitters" to side with the north, who looked like the victims of Confederate aggression...
This is the same thing that MBV is saying when he calls for no new Fort Sumters. The Threepers cannot be guilty of causing the first blood. We must be (and be seen as) righteous and above suspicion. They (the PTB) need to be clearly seen as aggressors. They need to be seen as the oppressors. They need to be seen as the ones in violation of the Constitution and in violation of Natural Law.
Which is, to say, that they (the PTB) need to be seen as they are...
No comments:
Post a Comment