Posted on 03/20/2011 6:47:46 AM PDT by ml/nj
As to the link provided, I wonder how long it took them to copy/paste the US Constitution (with the notable addition of the perpetual right to own other human beings) onto an otherwise blank page?
Now there was some “conventional wisdom” LOL
That is a misrepresentation of his orders, and you know that. Shame on you.
But I assume you are referring to Mr. Doubleday's account of the crossing from Moultrieville to Ft. Sumter.
Don't you find it fascinating that Anderson was successful in moving his entire command, as well as supplies, wives, trunks, boxes, etc., out of Ft. Moultrie during the late afternoon, through the entire town, down to the docks to three schooners and a series of rowboats? And then sailing and rowing over to Ft. Sumter and Johnson.
All of this involved passing Confederate soldiers stationed on the island and sentry ships in the harbor.
What sleight of hand!
What Doubleday says is that their entire movement drew no fire which proves the point that Anderson was not threatened, and had no reason remove himself, thus completely disobeying the intent of the War Department and becoming President-elect Lincoln's political and military focal point.
Thank you, and best wishes to you too.
No doubt. I don't know of any human who could be totally categorized in a single sentence. However, I was not addressing the totality of these men, only their respective attitudes towards the institution of slavery. Would you mind pointing out where I was inaccurate in either sentence?
The South was extremely clear that it seceded because Lincoln was elected. Since he had not been inaugurated when the CSA was formed, it obviously wasn't any action he had taken as President, but more because of what southerners thought his attitudes towards slavery would be.
Do you disagree?
As I said, neither could be used for generalizations such as found in your sentence 3 since they represented only themselves, which was subject to change. Therefore, no absolute truth with which to contrive your next statement.
"If there was no difference between these two positions, why did the southern states feel compelled to secede to protect their peculiar institution when Lincoln was elected?"
Three problems. 1. "If there was no difference". That cannot be used as absolute truth.
2. "...why did the southern states feel compelled to secede to protect....".
That statement has not been proved, nor can it be used with the first two. It forms a non-sequitur.
And 3. "...to protect their peculiar institution...".
Also an unproven premise leading to a false conclusion.
"The South was extremely clear that it seceded because Lincoln was elected."
You are thinking that is what happened in Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee?
Now, this may seem to be laborious, but you deal in a great number of careless assumptions and false conclusions.
Just trying to help there.
Really? Here's what his orders said:
But you are to hold possession of the forts in this harbor, and if attacked you are to defend yourself to the last extremity. The smallness of your force will not permit you, perhaps, to occupy more than one of the three forts, but an attack on or attempt to take possession of either one of them will be regarded as an act of hostility, and you may then put your command into either of them which you may deem most proper, to increase its power of resistance. You are also authorized to take similar defensive steps whenever you have tangible evidence of a design to proceed to a hostile act.
It doesn't prove anything of the sort.
Then, according to the records, since his actions were to be predicated on Confederate action, would you supply the date and time of the assault on Ft. Moultrie.
Well, let's put our minds to it, and try to figure out exactly what happened.
To begin,
1. Doubleday documents the movement of the entire garrison, (see his numbers) family members, personal items and all, out to the docks (see his description).
Can you agree with that part of his narrative?
2. Next, he mentions that they encountered and peacefully passed Confederate troops.
Still with me and Mr. Doubleday?
3. Next he describes the loading of 3 schooners and some row boats. Did you see that?
4. Then, after some other details concerning sentry boats, manned with Confederate troops, he says they arrived at Ft. Sumter.
So, in summary, Mr. Doubleday affirms that there was no military action against their movements out of the fort, over to the docks, the embarkation, or the row over to Ft. Sumter. There were no Confederate troops at the gates of Ft. Sumter, nor any prohibiting their entrance.
Now what about that do you find proving that the Union garrison was under attack?
Your claim from #203 was, "What Doubleday says is that their entire movement drew no fire which proves the point that Anderson was not threatened (which Doubleday's account shows they were), and had no reason remove himself (which they most assuredly did), thus completely disobeying the intent of the War Department and becoming President-elect Lincoln's political and military focal point (which evidence shows wasn't true). Other than that I'd say we were in general accord ;-)
Doubleday mentions the general surprise that many expressed at finding Anderson, a Kentuckian, not as amenable to the insurrectionists as they imagined or expected. He also confirms that Anderson considered himself a professional soldier, and duty bound.
In #210 you assert, "Next, he mentions that they encountered and peacefully passed Confederate troops." That is not at all what Doubleday says. He says:
"It was about sunset, the hour of the siesta, and fortunately the Charleston militia were taking their afternoon nap. We saw nobody, and soon reached a low line of sea-wall under which were hidden the boats in charge of the three engineers, for Lieutenants Snyder and Meade had been sent by Floyd to help Captain Foster do the work on the forts."
In your point #4 you assert, "Then, after some other details concerning sentry boats, manned with Confederate troops, he says they arrived at Ft. Sumter." which totally glosses over the peril in which they found themselves.
Before we get to that let's allow the author to set the scene. Doubleday:
"Bands of secessionists were now patrolling near us by day and night. We were so worn out with guard-duty-watching them-that on one occasion my wife and Captain Seymour's relieved us on guard, all that was needed being some one to give the alarm in case there was an attempt to break in. Foster thought that out of his several hundred workmen he could get a few Union men to drill at the guns as a garrison in Castle Pinckney, but they rebelled the moment they found they were expected to act as artillerists, and said that they were not there as warriors. It was said that when the enemy took possession of the castle, some of these workmen were hauled from under beds and from other hiding-places.
The day before Christmas I asked Major Anderson for wire to make an entanglement in front of my part of the fort, so that any one who should charge would tumble over the wires and could be shot at our leisure. I had already caused a sloping picket fence to be projected over the parapet on my side of the works so that scaling ladders could not be raised against us. The discussion in Charleston over our proceedings was of an amusing character. This wooden fraise puzzled the Charleston militia and editors; one of the latter said, "Make ready your sharpened stakes, but you will not intimidate freemen."
Why am I bothering to include this testimony? Because you won't. Because it doesn't comport with your agenda.
Imagine being an American soldier, on duty in an American city, amidst your neighbors and fellow countrymen. Now imagine those countrymen suddenly announcing themselves your sworn enemies. Imagine going from a respected soldier to hated interloper. That is the predicament Anderson and his troops found themselves in.
Imagine suddenly finding yourself in hostile territory surrounded by increasingly belligerent townspeople. You have your orders but they don't include open warfare on these countrymen. But you do have orders, and they are clear:
... you are to hold possession of the forts in this harbor, and if attacked you are to defend yourself to the last extremity. The smallness of your force will not permit you, perhaps, to occupy more than one of the three forts, but an attack on or attempt to take possession of any one of them will be regarded as an act of hostility, and you may then put your command into either of them which you may deem most proper to increase its power of resistance. You are also authorized to take similar steps whenever you have tangible evidence of a design to proceed to a hostile act.
Moultrie isn't defensible and would leave your charges exposed to these increasingly hostile townsfolk. Events are spiraling out of control and in the absence of fresh orders Anderson repairs to the new fortifications of Sumter. Now any reasonable person can plainly see that this doesn't give him any appreciable, tactical advantage over the locals, but it does lessen the immediate likelihood of conflict and combat. If indeed the insurrectionists succeeded with their rebellion Sumter wouldn't be held for long at any rate, so Anderson isn't setting up for some decisive win scenario - he is buying time for his troops.
Look at what Doubleday said next:
"The next morning Charleston was furious. Messengers were sent out to ring every door-bell and convey the news to every family. The governor sent two or three of his aides to demand that we return to Moultrie. Anderson replied in my hearing that he was a Southern man, but that he had been assigned to the defense of Charleston Harbor, and intended to defend it.... From December 26th until April 12th we busied ourselves in preparing for the expected attack, and our enemies did the same on all sides of us. Anderson apparently did not want reinforcements, and he shrank from civil war. He endured all kinds of hostile proceedings on the part of the secessionists, in the hope that Congress would make some compromise that would save slavery and the Union together."
Unlike Pickens and Beauregard,Anderson wasn't seeking conflict and confrontation, he was 1. following his orders, and 2. Seeking a non-violent solution. Imprudence and arrogance on the part of impetuous southerners is what ignited the tinderbox of war.
I understand that this doesn't fit your narrative or agenda, but it is the truth of what occurred.
Would like to read the two pages..
Now for the rest of the story (/Paul Harvey voice)...
Buell's verbal authorization was countermanded by Buchanan. When Buchanan learned of Buell's instructions to Anderson, he had Secretary Floyd send instructions that countered them. From "Don Carlos Buell: most promising of all," by Stephen Douglas Engle; see pages 61 and 62 [Link]:
"When Anderson received the Secretary's latest words of guidance, he became furious. Buell's message had allowed Anderson to decide for himself when and how to act. Now the Administration was drawing back."
If Anderson thought he already had approval from Buell to move to Sumter, he wouldn't have subsequently wired Washington on December 22 saying [Link, my emphasis below]:
I think that I could, however, were I to receive instructions so to do, throw my garrison into that work [Sumter], but I should have to sacrifice the greater of my stores as it is now too late to attempt their removal.
Anderson never received the instructions he asked for on December 22 to move his garrison.
Buchanan's reaction after leaning than Anderson had moved into Sumter was as follows [Sources: Klein, "Days of Defiance," page 170; Tilly, "Lincoln Takes Command," page 110; emphasis mine]:
"My God! Are calamities ... never to come singly! I call God to witness -- you gentlemen better than anybody else know that this is not only without but against my orders. It is against my policy."
PeaRidge, I think we went over all the above and more in the past with non-seq. non-seq's earth shaking ultimate argument back was, "Absolute nonsense."
Dwight Eisenhower was asked for his birth certificate when running for president. No birth certificate had been issued when he was born, but one was subsequently prepared and court papers signed by a witness to Ike's Denison, Texas birth. These papers were provided to those seeking the documentation.
See: Link and a 1952 newspaper article reporting it: Link to 1952 article..
I cannot know if it is the same since yours failed, but I did a google phrase search and found an account of it.
"What Doubleday says is that their entire movement drew no fire which proves the point that Anderson was not threatened (which Doubleday's account shows they were)
You did not give evidence of that.
"and had no reason remove himself (which they most assuredly did)
You gave no evidence of this.
And according to your post of Doubleday's account, they saw no one?
So where was the threat?
After all that, and in summary where is your evidence of:
1. "...if attacked...",
2. "... an attack on or attempt to take possession of any one of them...",
3 "...whenever you have tangible evidence of a design to proceed to a hostile act.
Of course you did.
There was no assault on Ft. Moultrie, at least until it was abandoned by Anderson, whereupon the South Carolinians did seize it (and since it wasn't actually their property, it really WAS a seizure). But Anderson's orders didn't tell him that he had to wait for an all-out assault. His orders of December 11 told him that he need only "have tangible evidence of a design to proceed to a hostile act" and that he had in abundance. Pickens threat to put state troops into Sumter, the armed patrol boats who, when asked what they were doing, responded "you'll find out in a week" warnings that civic leaders would try to control the mob, but that the forts would be theirs "one way or another" (Klein, 152), and provided Anderson with plenty of evidence of design.
But that's not what the orders Anderson received on December 22 said. Here it is:
SIR: In the verbal instructions communicated to you by Major Buell, you are directed to hold possession of the forts in the harbor of Charleston, and, if attacked, to defend yourself to the last extremity. Under these instructions, you might infer that you are required to make a vain and useless sacrifice of your own life and the lives of the men under your command, upon a mere point of honor. This is far from the President's intentions. You are to exercise a sound military discretion on this subject.There's no revocation of Anderson's authority to move to the most defensible position, only a statement that, if attacked and unable to hold out out, he is empowered to surrender.It is neither expected nor desired that you should expose your own life or that of your men in a hopeless conflict in defense of these forts. If they are invested or attacked by a force so superior that resistance would, in your judgment, be a useless waste of life, it will be your duty to yield to necessity, and make the best terms in your power.
This will be the conduct of an honorable, brave, and humane officer, and you will be fully justified in such action. These orders are strictly confidential, and not to be communicated even to the officers under your command, without close necessity,
Very respectfully,
JOHN B. FLOYD."
Anderson never received the instructions he asked for on December 22 to move his garrison.
And the lack of direction from Washington left him with his original orders and his initiative as a United States officer trying to protect his command.
Buchanan's reaction after leaning than Anderson had moved into Sumter...
Yeah, well there's little doubt that Buchanan wasn't exactly on top of the situation. But it's noteworthy that Buchanan refused to order Anderson to return to Moultrie and within a few days had order the Star of the West to reinforce him, so it couldn't have been that directly opposed to anything Buchanan wanted. Mostly what Buchanan wanted was to go home before the shooting started.
It is neither expected nor desired that you should expose your own life or that of your men in a hopeless conflict in defense of these forts. If they are invested or attacked by a force so superior that resistance would, in your judgment, be a useless waste of life, it will be your duty to yield to necessity, and make the best terms in your power.
By moving to Sumter, Anderson had placed his men in a basically hopeless, isolated position defending a fort, greatly angered the population around him, and made achieving peace that much more difficult. This was exactly what Buchanan did not want him to do, and Floyd's order had made clear.
If Anderson was afraid of rumors of being attacked by a mob at Moultie before (despite assurances from Charleston leaders that they would disperse such a mob if one were to appear), what did he expect to result from sneaking past the SC picket ship at dusk, overpowering a SC ship's captain, hijacking his boat, and charging workmen at Sumter with fixed bayonets?
Here’s how South Carolinians reacted to Anderson's move to Sumter. From page 8 of the Jan. 1, 1861, New York Times, reporting an article from the Charleston Courier of Dec. 28, 1860. (Italics as reported in the Times):
The newspaper offices were besieged, the hotel halls were thronged, and even the grave and serious gentlemen composing the State Convention shared in the general excitement. On all hands anger and indignation was expressed at the supposed perfidious conduct of the Federal authorities, at whose instance it was first thought the movement was made. The people were greatly incensed at the idea of a willful breach of those assurances of non action which had been volunteered by the Government at Washington and upon which so much reliance and confidence had been placed by the entire population, that every impulse to take the necessary precautions for their own safety had been restrained.
Instinctively men flew to arms. Orders were immediately issued to the following Companies to hold themselves in readiness for service: Washington Light Infantry, Capt. C. H. Simonton; Carolina Light Infantry, Capt. B. G. Pinckney; Meagher Guards, Capt. Ed. McCready, Jr.; altogether forming a portion of the Regiment of Rifles, commanded by Col. J. J. Pettigrew and Major Ellison Capers; also, to the Marion Artillery, Capt. J. G. King; Lafayette Artillery, Capt. J. J. Pope, Jr.; Washington Artillery, Capt. G. H. Walter; German Artillery, Capt. C. Nohrden; all under command of Lieut. W. G. De Saussure; Adjutant, Jas. Simmons, Jr.; Sergeant-Major, E. Prioleau Ravenel; Quartermaster-Sergeant, J. R. Macbeth; Surveyor, A Barbot: Surgeons, P. Gervais Robinson and Middleton Mitchel. Also, the Palmetto Guard, Capt. Thomas Middleton, and Cadet Riflemen, W. S. Elliot.
All the military forces thus ordered out promptly obeyed the summons, and the streets were soon enlivened by the appearance of individual members of the different organizations in their uniforms.
Anderson really escalated tensions by his move and put his president in a difficult position. Another article from that issue of the Times quoted from the Courier as saying:
Maj. Robert Anderson, U. S. A., has achieved the unenviable distinction of opening civil war between American citizens by an act of gross breach of faith.
There's no revocation of Anderson's authority to move to the most defensible position, only a statement that, if attacked and unable to hold out out, he is empowered to surrender.
The word "invested" in Floyd's cable means enclosed or surrounded. Sumter quickly became surrounded by a determined, if not outright angry, superior force. Was that not Anderson's fault? Could he not see what would happen? Anderson's move also caused great dissension in Buchanan's cabinet and resulted in Buchanan having to go back on his word to South Carolinians. Buchanan's promise to South Carolinians to maintain the status quo in the forts was discussed in those contentious cabinet meetings. Buchanan did not deny in those cabinet meetings that he had made those promises according to two of his Northern cabinet members.
But it's noteworthy that Buchanan refused to order Anderson to return to Moultrie …
If you'll remember, several Northern members of Buchanan's cabinet threatened to resign if Buchanan ordered Anderson back to Moultrie. Buchanan had already lost two cabinet members in early December. Two others were leaving or would leave the cabinet under suspicion of corruption (one later defended himself successfully against those charges in court, IIRC). Thus, if Buchanan ordered Anderson back to Moultrie he would have lost six or seven cabinet members in the space of a month. His government basically would have collapsed.
… within a few days had order the Star of the West to reinforce him [Anderson], so it couldn't have been that directly opposed to anything Buchanan wanted.
Not that I trust Buchanan’s public statements particularly, but he did state to Congress in December 1860 that there was no authority in the Congress or any arm of the Federal Government to coerce states. However, events and the cabinet putsch overcame his recognition of the historical limits on the powers of the central government. This resulted in the Star of the West incident. Buchanan later also secretly sent reinforcements to Fort Pickens, but he backed off ordering them into the fort when their mission became publicly known and he was told it would result in a shooting war.
I think in the end, Buchanan was happy to leave the question of war and coercion to Lincoln, who did not shirk from taking actions that were sure to lead to war despite the Constitutional Convention having voted against the coercion of states. Just my opinion.
The acting President seems to think that the people of Bengazi were just reading poetry when Qadaffi decided to begin attacking them with tanks and planes.
So I wonder: How do the provocations of the Southerners at Fort Sumter and maybe elsewhere compare to the provocations of the anti-Qadaffi rebels?
ML/NJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.