IIRC, he said he would hold, occupy, and possess the forts. What exactly did that mean? Much of the language in his inaugural speech was ambiguous. Here are some editorials about the inaugural speech:
The Mobile (AL) Register:
… his language leaves it doubtful whether he will even attempt to execute the laws “so far as practicable.” … There is the same impenetrable fog about what he says concerning the holding of public property and collection of duties.
The New Orleans Picayune:
These passages in the inaugural are susceptible of a construction just the opposite of peace. … he would be compelled to send upon us obnoxious strangers enough to make mince pies of the southern people and cook them over their blazing dwellings.
The New York News: The inaugural is not satisfactory; it is ambiguous, and we fear the Republicans, even while professing the most peaceful intentions. Coercion could not have been put in a more agreeable form; it reads like a challenge under the code, in which an invitation to the field is veiled in the most satisfactory syllables.
The New York Day Book:
In other words, though you do not recognize me as President, I shall not molest you if you will pay taxes for the support of my government. We must have your money, that we cannot bring ourselves to decline, and if you do not let us have it peacefully, why, we shall be compelled to take it from you by force; in which case you, not we, will be the aggressors. This means coercion and civil war and nothing else.
… he would be compelled to send upon us obnoxious strangers enough to make mince pies of the southern people and cook them over their blazing dwellings.
Funny how that is about what happened. And here I had never thought of the old Times-Picayune as anyone's font of clairvoyance. <wink>