Ownership of Ft. Sumter

[unionblue]

Battalion,

Again, thank you for stating the obvious, again.

Now that you have listed the ships and armament, will you list why they did not enter the harbor? How effective was their use of weapons against Charleston? When did they fire on the city? Southern batteries? Other military works? etc? What was the actual, military effect on the Ft. Sumter situation?

Unionblue

[trice]

These are the "gunboats" Battalion has listed in the expedition to Ft. Sumter:

The Thomas Freeborn was a sidewheel steamer built in Brooklyn and completed in 1861. She was hired as a steam tug for the expedition but never left New York because of difficult negotiations with her owners. She was purchased into Federal service on May 7 and armed then. Not a gunboat.

The Uncle Ben was a Lake Erie steam tug, chartered by the US and sent ahead to Charleston on April 7. It was not a "gunboat". A severe storm forced it to put into Wilmington NC, where it was taken by secessionists (an illegal act). The secessionists converted her into a gunboat.

The Yankee was another private vessel chartered to come along as a tug, leaving NY on April 8.

The tug Yankee stopped at Norfolk Navy Yard on the way back, where she helped evacuate that post, towing the USS Cumberland out on April 20. She then proceeded to New York Navy Yard. With communications to Washington broken, Fox got Cornelius Vanderbilt (who had just offered his yacht to the government) and one of the DuPonts to assist him in outfitting the Yankee as a dispatch and escort vessel, the work being done at the New York Navy Yard, which is when, it seems, she was armed with 2 guns. Fox then sailed for the Chesapeake on April 26.

Regards,
Tim

[MobileBoy]

Alright well maybe I'm understanding this wrong,but if the federal government failed to fulfill its contractual obligations to pay South Carolina for the fort then they had no legal title to Fort Sumpter.If that's the case then how can it be wrong for the South Carolinians to demand removal of an armed force from its property?

[Hanny]

unionblue

Originally Posted by Unionblue

And the objection of these warships showing up to resupply Ft. Sumter enabled the South to fire on it?.

lets ask Lincoln shall we and see what he thought, im assuming its this issue of intent you have been thinking off and commenting on. Indiana State legislature on 12 February 1861: "What is 'invasion'? Would the marching of an army into South Carolina, without the consent of her people, and with hostile intent toward them be 'invasion'? I certainly think it would, and it would be 'coercion' also if South Carolinians were forced to submit."

And then perhaps the delgates at Chicago Convention which nominated Abraham Lincoln in 1860:
Resolved, 1. That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions, according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

Or maybe Seward "[The President] would not be disposed to reject a cardinal dogma of theirs, namely, that the Federal Government could not reduce the seceding States to obedience by conquest, even although he were disposed to question that proposition. But in fact the President willingly accepts it as true. Only an imperial or despotic government could subjugate thoroughly disaffected and insurrectionary members of the State. This Federal Republican system of ours is, of all forms of government, the very one most unfitted for such a labour.

Or lastly Congress who voted down Lincolns force bill request to use force agianst the Secession states."If he had withdrawn the garrison in Ft Sumpter on the principles of mil neccessity and in obeidience to what appeared to be the will of Congress refusing to pass the force bill, this state (NC) and Tenn and the other Slave States which had not passed ordinaces of secession, would have stood up for the Union." J Worth (Future Gov) May 17 1861

You are aware that Davis authorised the mil to reduce the fort because the fleet was sent in the first place, this choice is taken well before the fleet arrives, i see a reasonable use of force to resolve an issue, which also comes pinciply to one of trust, Davis and others simply trusted Lincoln to be acting to return them to the Union, not acting for seperation, not acting to fullfill his minsters assurances on evacuation of Sumpter, not staying in Moutrie in the first palce and moving without prior agreement to Sumpter in the first place, hardly evidence of good faith, and non hostile intent, from one point of view and from the other, the use of force changes the qustion from one of constitional right of secesion to one of insurection at least and an act of war at best, depending on your pov.

Why was the earlier firing on the Star of the West any different then?, not enough starving men on board perhaps for ther papers to sell enough copies on? or how about Twiggs ( 2nd highest officer in the US Army, broken by Lincoln later for doing so) surrendering the highest % of the US Army in your nations history to the secesionist government in Texas, if you want to start a war you have ample reasons to do so already, but the outgoing Pres did not believe it was his problem to solve, the Republicans can sort out their own mess pretty much sums him up, what you dont have yet is a stage managed event to unite/expand your section and convince the vast majority that the extreme posistion of no secesion can exist or be allowed to exist/ or secesssion is the only answer to the circamstances, both sides were looking for that event by then, the time was ripe for it, Sumpter just happened to fit the bill, whereas Forts Moutrie, Pickeny, Palaski, Jackson, st Phillip, Pike, McRae, Barrancus had not.

Originally Posted by Unionblue

It is your contention, along with others, this justified a true threat to South Carolina, Charleston, the South as a whole? I know the details on the resupply effort, just as South Carolina and Charleston knew. So how did this fort and its small garrison rate being fired upon and thus starting a war that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives?.

My contention is that Davis and the CSA claimed the rights of a sov people applied to them, that includes the right to act in proportion to the mode of threat percieved by them, this includes the rights of secession, nullification and interposistion. They, as a last resort, re possed an unlawfull ocupation of their legal property without causing a loss of life. They had sent a commision to effect a full and final monerty settlement for outstounding satte debts to the Union, and establish full diplomatic status between the CSA and the Union, this was denied by Lincoln, the threat therfore becomes not of how to settle the issue peacfully between sov partys, because the new admistration does not recognise or treat with the CSA as such, nor can it without breaking with what it means to be a Republican for that matter, but one of how do you react to a denial of your sov status, and being treated as insurectionlist subject to loss of life liberty and property.

Lincoln did not believe the extent of secesionist went beyond a few 000s people, who would be quickly overwhelmed in a 30 day police action, he certainly did not get what he wanted, because what he thought was not based on reality.

Originally Posted by Unionblue

Or was there another reason to 'sprinkle blood' upon the faces of the people of the South? Did Davis and his new 'government' need to have a blatant act of violence to forward its goals?

Davis had achieved one of his goals already he had established a new nation, founded on Republican principles of the consent to be governed, he just had a problem with a dictator who disagreed that this new nation should exist, you know like the Spainish declined to acept the Dutch as a sov nation, former SU and all those pesky East Europeans, China and Taiwan/Tibet, the Holy Roman Empire, Athenian leugue and so on in history whenever a people have sought the right to govern by consent or leave a Union. To further those goals, he did indeed want to remove states from the USA and include them in the CSA, and Sumpter offerd him an oportunity to do so, and he took it.
Davis certainly wanted to increase the membership of this new Union, just as Lincoln wanted to end its existance, what each did needs to be seen in this light. Lincoln in a sense called Davis bluff over the resupply, he judged that he could not lose, either the supply gets through and the adminstaration appears strong and resolute and the CSA weak and backing down on its threats, or it does not and he gains support because the other guy fires on someone starving, which of course he was not, but makes a much better rallying call in the newspapers to unite behind the President, so the one who initiates a blatent act for the purpose of uniting public opinion is not only Davis but Lincoln as well, who needed to unite opinion behind him, before he could reduce the states in secesion. Those states had already achieved this and can only expand their numbers by actions taken by others, firing on Sumpter does not unite opinion in those Southern states, they had already been united, what they required was expansion of numbers of states, and Lincoln gave them that, because he fataly misread the extent of conditional Unionism, he though a few 000s hot heads were controlling the majority and the whole shooting match would be over before Congrtess reconveined to hear him expalin how he had saved the Union. And lets not forget that slavery was not what was being used to sell the use of force but Union.
Back then afronted men sought redresse not by sending court orders and expensive lawyers to do their bidding, they beat them sensless in Congress, they shot each other down, war was rather a popular sport for the settlment of grievences, US had perhaps forgotten that wars can be easier to start than to control the extent to which they run.

Originally Posted by Unionblue

Sorry, Anderson and his men, were under the impression, QM report notwithstanding, that they were in a bad position and they could not hold out with out resupply. The garrison was small, the majority of the cannon pointed in directions that would bring no or little harm to the city, and Anderson, in spite of being provoked, restrained his men from returning fire, doing his best not to break the peace.

Short answer, no, the facts do not support or lead one by logical progresion to that viewpoint, the amount of supply determines the temporal period the post can be sustained, the choice by the Northern Press to focus of the resupply part of the message gives emphasis where it is not warrented, (no fleet sent equates to no supply problems as the status qou remains in effect with no supply difficulties) which will logicaly lead you to a wrong conclusion, namely that the post requires foodstuff. If the mil posistion is so bad, its not because of a lack of foodstuf, how comes the Union tries and fails to take the fort and eventually stops because it cant be done as the posistion is to strong, ergo only the question of supply determied in Sumpter could be reduced using the WBTS actual history to guide as to this start of the art fortification, which you accept i would presume, and that it was reduced only because a relief fleet that was not required, was sent, breaking again, an existing agreement between the two sides, and on that Anderson had no input other than to say dont send it, and when it was sent they then found themselves in a bad position, but not one of his own making, and he does say that he will surrender unless ordered not to, or resuppied, not both and important point in trying to fathom his mindset.
Things were not as you describe, excpet perhaps after supplies were cut of from SC and then only in respect of food supply, they were in the condition described by Anderson and Doubledays and others reports instead at any given time, perhaps your confusing northern newspaper acounts of the time?, or just thinking post cut of from SC supplies. The Northern press certainly painted a bleak/bad posistion, untill supplies were stopped from SC they had full supplies and a stock of 35 days when that occured, thats at full rations and at half ration, that would have given Anderson the ability to remain for a considerable period, its also worth noteing the CSA report on the bombrdment and its effects, the results of Union attempts to take or pass the fort during the war, it defied all attempts at being taken and gave out considerable punishment to any ships in the harbour and was never taken, Munition rations, 300 barrels of powder, was in the Fort, and 36 pieces to use it, which A Doubleday (in charge of the three gunnery details) report shows 93 barrels used to retun fire on Charelston and CSA Battys, "They had a great advantage over us as their fire was concentrated on the Fort, which was the centre of the circle, while ours was diffused over the circumfrance."


Edit
Chopped of last post.
Just some Madison for you to pick at, ponder, on, or ignore, while i get back to the point, Lincoln had turned back the clock to secesion itself, and was starting over, he did not acept it to be be the case and was moving acordingly, and regardless of the de facto posistion, intended to end it. Davis saw that clearly by then.
But what would be a likly outcome if no further secesions occur, and Sumpter slumbers on unresolved, and no use of force, is the deep South a viable economic and political entity?, does it pose an economic rival that will dramaticly effect Union imports/exports and so on, well who knows, but it certainly looks like one to me.
Lincoln probably saw an economic threat and a future political threat (states leaving opens the door to states moving between either Union as and when it suits them, and issues with mainnting the Pacific region in the Union) and not much of a mil threat, and concluded mil action is the answer, Davis probably came to the same conclusion but from a different calculus.

[Hanny]

[quote=Unionblue]
Lincoln could have directed Fox, Seward, Cameron, fill in blank here, to stuff Sumter with hardtack and saltpork and in what way did this constitute a threat to the South? Even if an extra 200 green, hardly-trained troops managed to be off-loaded into the fort, again, where was the military threat? As you said, 'peaceable secession' had taken place, South Carolina and others had declared it so. But no military move against any territory taken over by those seceded states had been touched. Why was it so important for the South to fire on Ft. Sumter? Even if hell was freezing over, would not it have been better for the South to just wait?[/qoute]
Well there was the plan to stop and detain all ships and collect the USA Revenue from them, using Sumpter as one of the bases, thats a threat of some significance, and an important part of "its about the economy stupid" argument as one of the causes of the war. At the conclusion of the cabinet meeting LIncoln also had orders cut to place USA naval warships to be be at the disposal of the revenue service to collect taxes of shore as part of his if they dont fire policy, to commence collecting imort taxes from ships as the enter the Union, also this presents its not about ceorcion of the state of SC, but inforcing the revenue laws of the Union, for which we require the Forts, not to launch attacks on states from, (unless that becomes a really good idea) but to enforce the revenue laws as i promised at the innaugrial to do, so the threat was also one of economic strangulation instead of the 20% or so lower tariff free market as expected. Thats also a threat of some consideration.
No he could not do as you suggest, because he could not convince them to do so and did it on his authority because no consensus to do this existed in cabinet is the answer to why the chain of command was not followed and why Lincolns name appears ofn the orders and not the lawfull chain of command as is required by mil law to make an order lawfull, requiring you to follow it. Further the Powhatan, under the command of Lieutenant David D. Porter, sailed under disguise. In a letter to the Secretary of the Navy dated 11 May 1861, Lincoln personally assumed the responsibility "for any apparent or real irregularity... in connection with that vessel." Not only was her name painted out, as Captain Montgomery C. Meigs mentioned in a letter to William Seward, but she was flying the flag of Great Britain "so that she deceived those who had known her." All this decption just breed distrust of his message that the fleet would only deliver supplies, not evacuate as had been originally agreed and was expected.
Its the posistion of the new adminstartion that secession can not exist in the first place thats missing from you line of thought, Lincon denied it could exist, (part of Republican party manifesto) that makes them insurectlists acording to him and treated as such, he refused to treat with the Southern delegates and broke the legal agreement that Buchanon had put into place because thats how he percieved them, the deep South had seceded on the premise that the future government had fallen into hostile hands and could not be tusted, the existing one acepted this posistion while not liking it, it acepted the AG of the USA opinion that secesion was not unconstitional and that the law of the land did not grant the President the lawfull right to use force to prevent it, nor use the 1795 Militia act to do anything about it, Lincoln takes office gets the same opinion and sacks the AG and apoints one who says the oposite, just as VA had passed an ordinace of secesion in 1856, if Republicans are elected we shall secede, because we cannot have Union with such a party, and embarkes on an armaments procurement spending spree, VMI getting up to date Arty to play with for instance.
Lincoln sending a fleet to Sumpter proved the deep Souths point, and since they had been waiting quite long for a promised evacuation, instead they got "I am directed by the President of the United States to notify you to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only; and that if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms or ammunition, will be made, without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the Fort." they then acted, they had been waiting since 15 Feb for Sumpter to be evacuated as agreed by Seward to Campbell who told Campbell the order has been made to evacuate. Just as Madison said you could, because you were Sov states in vol compact. Even Republicans were not of one mind on secesion, "Who is the judge in the last resort of the violation of the Constitution of the United States by the enactment of a law? Who is the final arbiter, the General Government or the States in their sovereignty? Why, sir, to yield that point is to yield up all the rights of the States to protect their own citizens, and to consolidate this government into a miserable despotism." B Wade from the floor on Congress, and earlier "If they [the Southern people] do not feel interested in upholding this Union — if it really entrenches on their rights — if it endangers their institutions to such an extent that they cannot feel secure under it — if their interests are violently assailed by the means of this Union, I am not one of those who expect that they will long continue under it. I am not one of those who ask them to continue in such a Union. It would be doing violence to the platform of the party to which I belong. We have adopted the old Declaration of Independence as the basis of our political movements, which declares that any people, when their Government ceases to protect their rights, when it is so subverted from the true purposes of government as to oppress them, have the right to recur to fundamental principles, and if need be, to destroy the Government under which they live, and to erect upon its ruins another conducive to their welfare. I hold that they have this right. I will not blame any people for exercising it, whenever they think the contingency has come. I certainly shall be an advocate of that same doctrine whenever I find that the principles of this Government have become so oppressive to the section to which I belong, that a free people ought not longer to endure it.... I hope the Union will continue forever. I believe it may continue forever. I see nothing at present which I think should dissolve it; but if other gentlemen see it, I say again that they have the same interest in maintaining this Union, in my judgment, as we of the North have. If they think they have not, be it so. You cannot forcibly hold men in the Union; for the attempt to do so, it seems to me, would subvert the first principles of the Government under which we live."
James Madison, in Elliott, ibid., pages 114-115
"Who are parties to it? The people — but not the people as composing one great body; but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties: were it, as the gentleman [Henry] asserts, a consolidated government, the assent of a majority of the people would be sufficient for its establishment, and as a majority have adopted it already, the remaining States would be bound by the act of the majority, even if they unanimously reprobated it: were it such a government as is suggested, it would be now binding on the people of this State [Virginia], without having had the privilege of deliberating upon it; but, sir, no State is bound by it, as it is, without its own consent. Should all the States adopt it, it will be then a government established by the thirteen States of America, not through the intervention of the Legislatures, but by the people at large. In this particular respect the distinction between the existing and proposed governments is very material. The existing system has been derived from the dependent, derivative authority of the Legislatures of the States, whereas this is derived from the superior power of the people."
James Madison, in Elliott, ibid., pages 549
(the resolution was on who could decalre statues unconstitional)
"the reolution presuposes that dangerous powers may not only be usurped and executed by other Departments but that the judiciary departmenet may also excercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constition, and consequently that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constition, to Judge for themselves wether the compact has been dangerously violated as well as by another, by the judiciary as well as the executive or by the legilature."
Madison, Federalist Papers, Number XXXIX.
"The Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals comprising one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State — the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution will not be a national, but a federal act.
That it will be a federal, and not a national act, as these terms are understood by objectors, the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority; in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States, as evidences of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these has been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its voluntary act."

"When resort can be had to no common superior, the parties to the compact must themselves be the rightful judges, whether the bargain has been pursued or violated."

31st May, 1787, Madison declared that "the use of force against a State would be more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked, as a dissolution of all previous compacts; a union of States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction." Again, on the 8th June, he observed: "Any government formed on the supposed practicability of using force against the unconstitutional proceedings of the States, would prove as visionary and fallacious as the government of Congress."
In one of the debates in the New York State Convention, Hamilton made use of these words: "To coerce a State would be one of the maddest projects ever devised. No State would ever suffer itself to be used as the instrument of coercing another.
Madison during nullification.
"that acts of Congress in violation of the Constition are absolutly void is an undeniable posistion. it does not whoever consist with respect and forebearance due from a confedertae State towards the genersl government to fly in open resistance upon any infraction of the Constition. The mode and energy of the oposistion should always conform to the nature of the vioaltion, the intention of the authors and the extent of the injury inflicted and the dertermination to persist in it and the dabger of delay. But in the case of deliberate dangerous and palpable infractions of the Constition, effecting the Sovreignity of a state and the libertys of its people, it is not only the right but the duty of a state to interpose its authority for their protection, in a manner best calculated to secure that end. When emergencys occur which are either beyond the reach of judicial tribunals, or too pressing to admit to delay incident to their forms, States which have no common unmpire, must be their own judges and execute their own descisions. It will thus be proper for the severall States to await the ultimmate disposal of the obnoxouse measures recommended by the Sec Of war, or pending befor Congress and so as to use their power acordingto the character thses measures shall finally asume, as effectivlly to protect their own Sovriegnty and the rights and libertys of their citizens."
J Marshall
"We are threatened with the loss of our liberties by possible abuse of power, notwistanding the maxim that those who give power may take it away. It is the people who give power and can take it back. Who shall restrain them?they are the master who give it and of whom their servents hold it."

Jefferson of course would have agreed with Madison.
"Now, if a partnership between persons is purely voluntary, and subject to the will of its members severally, how much more so is one between sovereign States? and it follows that, just as each, separately, in the exercise of its sovereign will, entered the Union, so may it separately, in the exercise of that will, withdraw therefrom. And further, the Constitution being a compact, to which the States are parties, "having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode of measure and redress," as declared by Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison in the celebrated resolutions of '98, and the right of secession irresistibly follows."
Just some Madison for you to pick at, ponder, on, or ignore, while i get back to the point, Lincoln had turned back the clock to secesion itself, and was starting over, he did not acept it to be be the case and was moving acordingly, and regardless of the de facto posistion, intended to end it. Davis saw that clearly by then.
But what would be a likly outcome if no further secesions occur, and Sumpter slumbers on unresolved, and no use of force, is the deep South a viable economic and political entity?, does it pose an economic rival that will dramaticly effect Union imports/exports and so on, well who knows, but it certainly looks like one to me.
Lincoln probably saw an economic threat and a future political threat (states leaving opens the door to states moving between either Union as and when it suits them, and issues with mainnting the Pacific region in the Union) and not much of a mil threat, and concluded mil action is the answer, Davis probably came to the same conclusion but from a different calculus.

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by Unionblue

Or was there another reason to 'sprinkle blood' upon the faces of the people of the South? Did Davis and his new 'government' need to have a blatant act of violence to forward its goals?

Davis had achieved one of his goals already he had established a new nation, founded on Republican principles of the consent to be governed, he just had a problem with a dictator who disagreed that this new nation should exist, you know like the Spainish declined to acept the Dutch as a sov nation, former SU and all those pesky East Europeans, China and Taiwan/Tibet, the Holy Roman Empire, Athenian leugue and so on in history whenever a people have sought the right to govern by consent or leave a Union. To further those goals, he did indeed want to remove states from the USA and include them in the CSA, and Sumpter offerd him an oportunity to do so, and he took it.
Davis certainly wanted to increase the membership of this new Union, just as Lincoln wanted to end its existance, what each did needs to be seen in this light. Lincoln in a sense called Davis bluff over the resupply, he judged that he could not lose, either the supply gets through and the adminstaration appears strong and resolute and the CSA weak and backing down on its threats, or it does not and he gains support because the other guy fires on someone starving, which of course he was not, but makes a much better rallying call in the newspapers to unite behind the President, so the one who initiates a blatent act for the purpose of uniting public opinion is not only Davis but Lincoln as well, who needed to unite opinion behind him, before he could reduce the states in secesion. Those states had already achieved this and can only expand their numbers by actions taken by others, firing on Sumpter does not unite opinion in those Southern states, they had already been united, what they required was expansion of numbers of states, and Lincoln gave them that, because he fataly misread the extent of conditional Unionism, he though a few 000s hot heads were controlling the majority and the whole shooting match would be over before Congrtess reconveined to hear him expalin how he had saved the Union. And lets not forget that slavery was not what was being used to sell the use of force but Union.
Back then afronted men sought redresse not by sending court orders and expensive lawyers to do their bidding, they beat them sensless in Congress, they shot each other down, war was rather a popular sport for the settlment of grievences, US had perhaps forgotten that wars can be easier to start than to control the extent to which they run.

Originally Posted by Unionblue

Sorry, Anderson and his men, were under the impression, QM report notwithstanding, that they were in a bad position and they could not hold out with out resupply. The garrison was small, the majority of the cannon pointed in directions that would bring no or little harm to the city, and Anderson, in spite of being provoked, restrained his men from returning fire, doing his best not to break the peace.

Short answer, no, the facts do not support or lead one by logical progresion to that viewpoint, the amount of supply determines the temporal period the post can be sustained, the choice by the Northern Press to focus of the resupply part of the message gives emphasis where it is not warrented, (no fleet sent equates to no supply problems as the status qou remains in effect with no supply difficulties) which will logicaly lead you to a wrong conclusion, namely that the post requires foodstuff. If the mil posistion is so bad, its not because of a lack of foodstuf, how comes the Union tries and fails to take the fort and eventually stops because it cant be done as the posistion is to strong, ergo only the question of supply determied in Sumpter could be reduced using the WBTS actual history to guide as to this start of the art fortification, which you accept i would presume, and that it was reduced only because a relief fleet that was not required, was sent, breaking again, an existing agreement between the two sides, and on that Anderson had no input other than to say dont send it, and when it was sent they then found themselves in a bad position, but not one of his own making, and he does say that he will surrender unless ordered not to, or resuppied, not both and important point in trying to fathom his mindset.
Things were not as you describe, excpet perhaps after supplies were cut of from SC and then only in respect of food supply, they were in the condition described by Anderson and Doubledays and others reports instead at any given time, perhaps your confusing northern newspaper acounts of the time?, or just thinking post cut of from SC supplies. The Northern press certainly painted a bleak/bad posistion, untill supplies were stopped from SC they had full supplies and a stock of 35 days when that occured, thats at full rations and at half ration, that would have given Anderson the ability to remain for a considerable period, its also worth noteing the CSA report on the bombrdment and its effects, the results of Union attempts to take or pass the fort during the war, it defied all attempts at being taken and gave out considerable punishment to any ships in the harbour and was never taken, Munition rations, 300 barrels of powder, was in the Fort, and 36 pieces to use it, which A Doubleday (in charge of the three gunnery details) report shows 93 barrels used to retun fire on Charelston and CSA Battys, "They had a great advantage over us as their fire was concentrated on the Fort, which was the centre of the circle, while ours was diffused over the circumfrance."

[trice]

Originally Posted by Hanny

... 300 barrels of powder, was in the Fort, and 36 pieces to use it, which A Doubleday (in charge of the three gunnery details) report shows 93 barrels used to retun fire on Charelston and CSA Battys, "They had a great advantage over us as their fire was concentrated on the Fort, which was the centre of the circle, while ours was diffused over the circumfrance."

Hanny,

Like most things in history, it wasn't quite like all this.

For example, because Ft. Sumter was not a fully-functional and stocked post when occupied, there were gaping holes in what was available there. One of them was in bags for powder. They ran out, and had used the shirts of the men to stitch up what they could. They had been firing very slowly and deliberately -- not using most of their guns and particularly not the guns on the upper tier that would have been most effective -- by Anderson's orders. If the fight had continued much longer, they would have had no more bags for powder to fire the guns.

At that point, they could have tried to use loose powder to fire the guns, I suppose. That would be very dangerous and likely to lead to disaster through accident. But for practical purposes, they would not be able to fire back any more.

Also, comparing the Union attempts to take the fort in the Civil War with the attack on Ft. Sumter in 1861 is like comparing apples to ... well, grapes. It isn't even close to the same situation Anderson faced. He was alone and unsupported, with no hope of relief. Under the Confederates, the Ft. could be resupplied and reinforced, it was supported by thousands of other troops and a harbor full of other batteries, etc.

Regards,
Tim

[ole]

Appreciated the post, Hanny. Well worth saving and re-reading.
Ole

[ami]

again, don't see any problem...

[johan_steele]

Brought to the fore for the Ft Sumter discussion. Amazing how easily used is the search feature.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://civilwartalk.com/forums/showt...ghlight=Sumter

http://civilwartalk.com/forums/showt...ghlight=Sumter

http://civilwartalk.com/forums/showt...ghlight=Sumter

http://civilwartalk.com/forums/showt...ghlight=Sumter

http://civilwartalk.com/forums/showt...ghlight=Sumter