Confederacy. They did not presume to take upon themselves the duty of dividing the navy among the States, notwithstanding it was the common property of all the States. In the excitement of the times, it would have been pardonable conduct to have brought their ships to the defence of the States; but their delicate sense of honor, and a sailor's duty to the government whose commission he bore, required that he should divest himself of every selfish motive before he returned his commission to the Federal government. In the light of such honorable conduct, the petty malice with which Secretary Welles was actuated, when he endeavored to stigmatize these officers with having "deserted the service," reacts with more effect against the character of the Secretary than against the conduct of these officers.

The forts, arsenals, etc., situated in and attached to the soil of the States, had all been conveyed to the United States, with the reservation of the State's right of re-entry and occupation, when the forts, etc., ceased to be used for the defence of the State. The property was held in trust for all the States, as a means of defending all, through the avenues of commerce in the particular State. Hence, when the State, in which the fort, arsenal and dock-yard was situated, withdrew from the Union, the purposes of the trust ended, and she resumed her right and jurisdiction over the fort. The money expended in improving the fort was, of course, to have been returned to the United States in the settlement of accounts between the seceded States and the United States;1 and that was one of the objects of the diplomatic mission of Messrs. Forsyth and Crawford to the government at Washington, in March, 1861.

Every act of the seceded States had been peaceful, and there was no occasion for war until the authorities at Washington put in practice their new scheme or theory invented by President Lincoln: that he would re-occupy and hold the forts in the seceded States. The little garrison at Sumter could not have effected the result of the issue between the Confederate States and the United States, whether it yielded under the pressure of a want of supplies, or was delivered to South Carolina under the constitutional view that it belonged to that State. But Major Anderson and his little command offered an excellent opportunity for the application of the new theory to re-occupy and hold the forts, etc.-and, better, it could be so managed as to make the Confederates States fire the first gun. 2

1 The Provisional Constitution of the Confederate States provided that:

"The government hereby instituted shall take immediate steps for the settlement of all matters between the States forming it and their other late confederates of the United States, in relation to the public property and public debt at the time of their withdrawal from them; these States hereby declaring it to be their wish and earnest desire to adjust everything pertaining to the common property, common liabilities, and common obligations of

that Union, upon the principles of right, justice, equity and good faith."-Stat. at Large, Prov. Gov't, C. S A., pp. 27, 28.

2 The New York Herald of April 5, 1861, said: "We have no doubt Mr. Lincoln wants the Cabinet at Montgomery to take the initiative by capturing the two forts in its waters, for it would give him the opportunity of throwing upon the Southern Confederacy the responsibility of commencing hostilities. But the country and posterity will hold him just as responsible as if he struck the first blow."

It is no part of our purpose to trace the course of that devious and disgraceful diplomacy which, in Washington City, during March and April, 1861, was running both above and below the surface-the Secretary of State promising peace and the evacuation of Sumter, and the Secretaries of War and Navy preparing military and naval expeditions to force the firing of the first gun upon the Confederates. Secretary Welles, in the Galaxy for November, 1870, told the story of the double and triple negotiations by which the war was inaugurated, and a few extracts will fully sustain us in saying that war, and not peace, was the object of the Washington authorities. Mr. Welles says:

"Mr. Seward from the commencement doubted not only the practicability of reinforcing Sumter, but the expediency of any attempt to provision the garrison, therein differing from every one of his colleagues, though in perfect accord with General Scott. The subject in all its aspects was less novel to him than the rest of us, and from some cause his conclusions were wholly unlike the others. If not indifferent, he had none of the zeal which inspired his colleagues, but seemed to consider it an unimportant or settled question. The insurgents had possession of Fort Moultrie, Castle Pinckney, and, in fact, all the defences of Charleston; what benefit, he asked, could we derive from retaining this isolated fortress, if it were possible to do so?"

Mr. Welles was one of those colleagues whose "zeal," not born of wisdom, circumvented the patriotic and pacific purposes of Mr. Seward. Indeed, the Galaxy article on "Fort Sumter," when read between the lines, is a covert and insidious impeachment of Mr. Seward's loyalty to the Republican purpose of forcing war upon the South, hence Mr. Welles further says:

"The Secretary of State was the only member of the Cabinet who did not cordially concur in these conclusions (to reinforce and provision Fort Sumter), and he could not successfully controvert them. He did not, however, give his earnest approval, but, in acquiescing, reiterated what he had previously urged: that the attempt, if made, would prove a failure; that the failure would strengthen the secessionists and weaken the government; that in the attitude of parties it would be received as the commencement of hostilities, would foreclose all measures of reconciliation, and place the Administration in a wrong and false position."

Mr. Welles, writing in the spirit of a partisan rather than in that of a statesman, admits that the "political necessities demanded the attempt to reinforce Sumter. The subsequent events demonstrated the wisdom of Seward; and Mr. Welles, in attempting to impeach the party fidelity of Mr. Seward, demonstrates the efforts of the latter to keep faith with his plighted word to the Governor of South Carolina, that the situation at Sumter should not be changed. The Galaxy article, notwithstanding it uncovers much that was hidden and unknown of the doings about Sumter, also discloses that the opening of the war by the South was the object for which all but Seward, and, perhaps, Mr. Lincoln, were playing in their desperate game prior to the assault upon Fort Sumter.

The object of Mr. Lincoln and his party was accomplished: the first gun was fired by the Confederates. In the excitement which followed, men did not remember that between nations the aggressor is not he who first uses force, but he who first makes force necessary. The scheme, or rather the trick, succeeded, by which the North was to be aroused and angered into war. The "blood-letting" policy avowed by Mr. Z. Chandler' had been successfully shifted to the South, and yet had been the means of arousing the North. The "Peace Čonvention" had "ended in thin smoke," as Mr. Chandler desired, by having delegates of the "stiff-backed" sort sent to Washington to defeat every effort at peace and reunion.

66

The recital of the facts, as they existed at the South in 1861, establishes beyond controversy that no preparation for war had been made by any Southern State prior to secession-that not one of the States desired war-that there ought not to have been war-and that there would not have been war, except to save the Republican party from rupture." The facts of the times" and the acts of men cannot be covered up from the search and exposure of the historian, who, when he comes to write the causes of the terrible war of 1861-5, must discover and expose those who, to secure themselves in the possession of political place, deliberately played with the excited passions and feelings of the hour, to involve the country in war, and dissolved the Union, so that its reconquest would perpetuate their party ascendancy, or that the loss of the Southern States would deprive their political opponents of the great bulk of their strength, and thus secure for themselves the possession of power in either the reconstructed Union or in the dismembered and divided Northern part.

The State of South Carolina adopted her Ordinance of Secession on Dec. 20th, 1860. Major Anderson complicated the difficulties of a peaceful arrangement by evacuating Fort Moultrie and occupying Fort Sumter on Dec. 25th; but his act was not without material aid to South Carolina, for he left behind him all the guns of Fort Moultrie. This was the first supply of munition of war obtained by South Carolina. It is no part of the purpose of this work to discuss whether Major Anderson did wrong in abandoning Fort Moultrie-the fact gives the information of how South Carolina was able to girdle Sumter with her batteries and compel its surrender. After Major Anderson occupied Sumter, the South Carolina authorities occupied both Fort Moultrie and Castle Pinckney, Fort Johnson, and the United States arsenal in Charleston.

In pursuance of her purpose and in preparation for the defence of her soil, the Governor of South Carolina, on the 30th December, 1860, informed Commander T. T. Hunter. United States Lighthouse Inspector at Charleston, that he could depart the State, but prohibited him from removing any property of

1 Letter to Gov. Austin Blair, Feb. 11, 1861. 2 Z. Chandler, Feb. 11, 1861.

the United States from the buoy-shed. On the 1st of January, the Governor forbade the removal of vessels belonging to the lighthouse establishment from Charleston, but the Inspector (Commander Hunter) was allowed to leave by land. On the 8th, the removal of the light-vessel at Rattlesnake Shoals, off the harbor of Charleston, was reported to the Lighthouse Board, and the board was informed that the three tenders in the harbor of Charleston had been seized by the authorities of South Carolina.

The information of the removal of buoys and a light-ship at Rattlesnake Shoals, on Morris Island, and at the entrance of Charleston Harbor, was made public, January 26, 1861, by Raphael Semmes, then the Secretary to the U. S. Lighthouse Board.

The U. S. revenue cutter Wm. Aiken was lying at Charleston and was a first-class boat of ninety tons; she was ready for service and was armed with one forty-two pounder pivot gun, and her crew, on a war footing, numbered thirty men. She was seized by the State authorities, and with the steam cutter Gray, purchased by the authorities, were the first ships in the navy of South Carolina.

Mississippi passed her Ordinance of Secession on January 9. 1861, and made provisions for a State army, and appointed Hon. Jefferson Davis her Major General to command her army, and authorized such measures as were practicable to obtain the arms necessary for it. The State had few serviceable weapons, and no establishment for their manufacture or repair. Her authorities seized the fort on Ship Island, and the U. S. Hospital on the Mississippi River.

Florida seceded on January 10, 1861, and on the 12th the navy-yard, Forts Barrancas, McRea, and Marion, and the arsenal at St. Augustine, were seized. It is said that the Chatahoochee arsenal contained 500,000 rounds of musket cartridges, 300,000 rifle cartridges, and 50,000 pounds of gunpowder. The coast survey schooner F. W. Dana was also taken possession of.

Alabama seceded on January 11, 1861, and took possession of Fort Morgan, containing about 5,000 shot and shell, also Mt. Vernon arsenal, containing 20,000 stand of arms, 1,500 barrels of powder (150,000 pounds), some pieces of cannon and a large amount of munitions of war. The revenue cutter Lewis Cass, and the tender Alert, belonging to the lighthouse establishment, were seized at Mobile by order of the commanding officer of the State troops at Fort Morgan. On the 21st, T. Sanford, Collector of the Customs at Mobile, notified Commander Handy that he, " in the name of the sovereign State of Alabama, takes possession of the several lighthouses within. the State, and all appurtenances pertaining to the same." Mr. Sanford had resigned his commission as U. S. Collector on the 12th of the same month.

On the 1st of February, Commander Handy transmitted to Washington a copy of a letter addressed to R. T. Chapman, late of the U. S. navy, by T. Sandford, Collector, appointing him Lighthouse Inspector in place of Commander Handy, to whom the appointment was tendered by the authorities of Alabama, but who refused to accept it.

Georgia seceded on Jan. 18, 1861, and seized Forts Pulaski and Jackson, and the arsenal at Augusta, containing two twelve-pounders, two cannons, 22,000 muskets and rifles, and large stores of powder, balls, grape, etc., and U. S. steamer Ida.

On the 6th of February, the keeper of the St. Simon's light, near Darien, Ga., reported that his light had been obscured by a party of persons claiming authority from the State; but the light was not extinguished.

On the 8th, Capt. W. H. Whiting, of the United States. Engineers, reported that possession had been taken of his office, furniture, etc., in Savannah, by the authorities of the State.

Louisiana seceded on Jan. 26, 1861, and seized Forts Jackson and St. Philip, on the Mississippi, and Fort Pike, on Lake Ponchartrain, and the arsenal at Baton Rouge. The latter contained 50,000 small arms, 4 howitzers, 20 pieces of heavy ordnance, 2 batteries, 300 barrels of powder. At Bellville iron-works the armament of the revenue cutter Lewis Cass was stored, and that was also obtained by the State.

On Jan. 14, 1861, the United States barracks below New Orleans, which was being used as a hospital, was taken possession of by the Louisiana authorities. But this seizure, though, in one sense, of a military character, was rather an embarrassment than an aid to war, since all it contained was 216 invalids and convalescent patients. The removal of the sick patients was requested by Capt. C. M. Bradford, which request being reported by Collector F. H. Hatch to Secretary of the Treasury, John A. Dix, the latter telegraphed Jan. 27, 1861, to "remonstrate with the Governor against the inhumanity of turning the sick out of the hospital," and that telegraph was followed by a letter, which, with many variations on the duty of humanity, protested against the request of Capt. Bradford. All of which was needless, as the Governor had before their receipt ordered the sick to be left unmolested, and Collector Hatch was informed that his protest was unnecessary, as "the authorities would never have exercised the least inhumanity towards these patients; for, if the barracks had been required for the use of the troops Louisiana has been compelled to raise for her protection and defence, her charity hospitaljustly the glory and pride of her munificence, into whose portals the afflicted of all nations can enter without money and without price-would have amply provided for their wants. In closing this communication, I am constrained to observe, in reply to the remark in your letter of the 28th, that you 'fear no public property is likely to be respected'; that, in compliance with