Proposed Invasion of Charleston harbor by the North

George Purvis said:
I haven't changed positions my position has remained the same throughout. Now you see I know what you are trying to do is to mirrow me and put up a summary of events. The truth is it is a good effort, however it distorts.
Facts still remains --

1. Right or wrong SC thought they had a claim on forts in Charleston.
2. There was truce between the US and CSA which Anderson broke and later a truce between Anderson and SC.
3. Anderson states he moved without orders or authorization. He had been assured no attack would be made on his command as long as he stayed at Moultrie.
4. Anderson's last verbal orders were Dec. 11, 1860; I have posted written orders dated Dec. 21, 1860.
5. He did the one thing he should not have done and that was to move to Sumter.
6. What you are trying to do is twist facts. At the time Anderson moved to Sumter there was an agreement that such action would not be taken by either side, the Confederates could have easily went to Sumter first, they controlled the harbor. Once Anderson moved to Sumter, in December 26, 1860, the opening of tensions started in earnest, The Star of the West incident happened Jan. 9, 1861, and then the truces of no hostile actions came into play and remained in effect until Lincoln planned his invasion fleet. No don't you find it strange Anderson need supplies and re-enforcements within a two week span when no hostilities had been declared???

BTW I do understand orders haveing served in the US Navy.

GP
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4
Click to expand...

Where to start with your distortion of history...
1) You have posted no evidence of such a claim while I have posted a bill passed by S. Carolina giving away all their rights and title to the land
2) The first truce that you spoke of had ending a clause of the date that the state seceeded, you might want to actually read it, but beyond that point, the truce was against reinforcing the forts.. As Anderson stated he simply moved his current troops around he wasn't rienfroced and as commander of al the forts he had every right to.. While at the same time S. Carolina moved troops around the fort and made threats to seize it..The second truce you spoke of was broken again by the Confederates when they fired on a flagged American vessel, and no that wasn't the Star of the West..
3) Anderson never stated he moved without authorization, he said he wasn't ordered to move to Sumter..Stop distorting the facts to meet your agenda.
4) I can't help if you can't understand what the orders mean...Perhaps you post the part where you think it states that he has to stay at Moultrie..
5) Moultire was indenfensible and he was being threatened, even Confederate officers told him it was the right move to make.. The Confederates were just ****** that he got the jump on them..
6) There was no such agreement, and the S. Carolina was planning on seizing Sumter if there represenatives were turned down in Washington after the state seceeded.No hostilities except for Star of the West? Again you need to do some more research on this subject...

If you served in the service then you should know the difference between general orders and special orders..After Bucannon saw the orders that were given to Anderson he demanded that they be modified so that Anderson wouldn't have to experience a blood bath if he was attacked, as his honor would require him to fight to the last.. So they gave him an out to surrander to avoid this, thats what the second order was that you posted.. It did not countermand the other order giving him authoriaztion to move...

You speak of this grand invasion fleet which held a total of 200 green recruits which would used to reinforce the fort only if hostilites commenced, while ignoring the thousands of troops that the Confederates had in place...Typical....
 
George Purvis said:
I haven't changed positions my position has remained the same throughout. Now you see I know what you are trying to do is to mirrow me and put up a summary of events. The truth is it is a good effort, however it distorts.
Facts still remains --

1. Right or wrong SC thought they had a claim on forts in Charleston.
2. There was truce between the US and CSA which Anderson broke and later a truce between Anderson and SC.
3. Anderson states he moved without orders or authorization. He had been assured no attack would be made on his command as long as he stayed at Moultrie.
4. Anderson's last verbal orders were Dec. 11, 1860; I have posted written orders dated Dec. 21, 1860.
5. He did the one thing he should not have done and that was to move to Sumter.
6. What you are trying to do is twist facts. At the time Anderson moved to Sumter there was an agreement that such action would not be taken by either side, the Confederates could have easily went to Sumter first, they controlled the harbor. Once Anderson moved to Sumter, in December 26, 1860, the opening of tensions started in earnest, The Star of the West incident happened Jan. 9, 1861, and then the truces of no hostile actions came into play and remained in effect until Lincoln planned his invasion fleet. No don't you find it strange Anderson need supplies and re-enforcements within a two week span when no hostilities had been declared???

BTW I do understand orders haveing served in the US Navy.

GP
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4
Click to expand...

"After an anxious night for Davis and his colleagues, Walker telegraphed to Beauregard the next morning, April 12:What was Major Anderson's reply to the proposition contained in my dispatch of last night?"

"The anxiety was lessened a little when the mail brought a fat envelope from Governor Pickens. No longer could there be the slightest doubt that the recent notice to the governor, purported from Lincoln, veritably had come from him. Here was proof. Governor Pickens enclosed letters which Anderson had dispatched to Washington but which the Confederate authorities had seized. In one of these letters, from Anderson to his superiors in Washington, he acknowledged receipt of the communication, telling him that an expedition was on the way to Sumter.

"(It is just as well, for Anderson's reputation in the North, that this letter did not get to Washington. In it Anderson expressed surprise and chagrin. He predicted "most disastrous results" throughout the country. He went on to say: "my heart is not in the war which I see is to be thus commenced." So wrote the man whom Northerners soon were to
hail as the first hero of the war's first battle!)"

Source: Richard N. Current, Lincoln And The First Shot, pp. 152-153.

GG Grandfather John M. Carlisle -- Chaplain 7th SC Inf.
GG Uncle James H. Carlisle – signer of SC Ordinance of Secession
G Grandfather Nathaniel L. McCormick—Private, Battery E 40th [3rd] N C Artillery
G Grandfather Thomas M. Bolton – Private, Co. G 19th Va. Inf.
G Uncle Dougald McCormick--Private Co. D 46th NC Inf.
G Uncle Duncan McCormick – Private, NC Home Guard
G Uncle Alexander Mc Cormick –1st Sgt, Co. B 6th Ms Inf.
G Uncle Murdoch McCormick—Private, Ms Home Guard
G Uncle James W. Bolton – Private, Co. B (Rives) Nelson Light Artillery (Va.), 1864 Co. G, 19th Va. Inf.
G Uncle Albert G. Bolton – Private, Co. F 27th Va. Inf.
G Uncle Alexander H. Bolton – Private, Co. D 7th Va. Inf.
G Uncle Lindsey C. Bolton – Private, Co. B. 1st Va. Reserves
G Uncle Thomas D. Boone – Captain,. Co. F 1st NC Inf.
G. Uncle James D. Boone -- Quartermaster sergeant, Co. F 1st NC Inf.
G Uncle James W. Boone -- Private, Co. D 59th (4th Cav.) NC, 1st NC Inf. Co. F
G Uncle Peter Lindsey Breeden—Captain, Co. E, 4th SC Cav.
G Uncle A.J. Breeden – Private, Co. E. 4th SC Cav.
Cousins –Daniel McKinnon, Luther McKinnon, John N. McKinnon, McKay McKinnon, Murdoch McKinnon -- all privates in Company E 40th (3rd) NC artillery [heavy]
 
unionblue said:
Who owned Ft. Sumter question has been plowed so many times we're starting to show bedrock.

The fort was clearly federal property and it was resolved long before April, 1861.

Anderson had permission to move his forces and he had that permission in writing and they were signed off by Secretary of War Floyd.

Nitpicking don't make it untrue.

Unionblue
Click to expand...


Post these written orders.

Fact of the matter is it doen't matter who you think owned Fort Sumter. It matters who South Carolina and The United States thougt who had legal cliam to the fort in 1861. It was a disputed claim.

Here is a writen exchange between the two parties,giving the position of both parties. Gives you fellows somethinghto cherry pickand put your spin to. My position -- neither is right neither is wrong ---- it is what what happened.

Mr. Buchanan's Administration on the Eve of the Rebellion.
Pages 198 - 203

"SIR : At the time of the separation of the State of South Carolina from the United States, Fort Sumter was, and still is, in the possession of troops of the United States, under the command of Major Anderson. I regard that possession as not consistent with the dignity or safety of the State of South Carolina, and have this day [it was the day previous] addressed to Major Anderson a communication to obtain from him the possession of that fort by the authorities of this State.

The reply of Major Anderson informs me that he has no authority to do what I required, but he desires a reference of the demand to the President of the United States. Under the circumstances now existing, and which need no comment by me, I have determined to send to you Hon. I. W. Hayne, the Attorney-General of the State of South Carolina, and have instructed him to demand the delivery of Fort Sumter, in the harbor of Charleston, to the constituted authorities of the State of South Carolina. The demand I have made of Major Anderson, and which I now make of you, is suggested by my earnest desire to avoid the bloodshed which a persistence in your attempt to retain possession of that fort will cause, and which will be unavailing to secure to you that possession, but induce a calamity most deeply to be deplored. If consequences so unhappy shall ensue, I will secure for this State, in the demand which I now make, the satisfaction of having exhausted every attempt to avoid it.

"In relation to the public property of the United States within Fort Sumter, the Hon. I. W. Hayne, who will hand you this communication, is authorized to give you the pledge of the State that the valuation of such property will be accounted for
by this State, upon the adjustment of its relations with the United States, of which it was a part."



"WAR DEPARTMENT, February 6, 1861. ★

"SIR: The President of the United States has received your letter of the 31st ultimo, and has charged me with the duty of replying thereto.

"In the communication addressed to the President by Governor Pickens, under date of the 12th January, and which accompanies yours now before me, his Excellency says: 'I have determined to send to you the Hon. I. W. Hayne, the Attorney- General of the State of South Carolina, and have instructed him to demand the surrender of Fort Sumter, in the harbor of Charleston, to the constituted authorities of the State of South Carolina. The demand I have made of Major Anderson, and which I now make of you, is suggested because of my earnest desire to avoid the bloodshed which a persistence in your attempt to retain the possession of that fort will cause, and which will be unavailing to secure to you that possession, but induce a calamity most deeply to be deplored.' The character of the demand thus authorized to be made appears (under the influence, I presume, of the correspondence with the Senators to which you refer) to have been modified by subsequent instructions of his Excellency, dated the 26th, and received by yourself on the 30th January, in which he says: 'If it be so that Fort Sumter is held as property, then, as property, the rights, whatever they may be, of the United States, can be ascertained, and for the satisfaction of these rights the pledge of the State of South Carolina you are authorized to give.' The full scope and precise purport of your instructions, as thus modifled, you have expressed in the following words: 'I do not come as a military man to demand the surrender of a fortress, but as the legal officer of the State--its attorney-general--to claim for the
State the exercise of its undoubted right of eminent domain, and to pledge the State to make good all injury to the rights of property which arise from the exercise of the claim.' And lest this explicit language should not sufficiently define your position, you add: 'The proposition now is that her [ South Caro-lina's] law officer should, under authority of the Governor and his council, distinctly pledge the faith of South Carolina to make such compensation, in regard to Fort Sumter and its appurtenances and contents, to the full extent of the money value of the property of the United States, delivered over to the authorities of South Carolina by your command.' You then adopt his Excellency's train of thought upon the subject, so far as to suggest that the possession of Fort Sumter by the United
States, 'if continued long enough, must lead to collision,' and that 'an attack upon it would scarcely improve it as property, whatever the result; and if captured, it would no longer be the
subject of account.'

" The proposal, then, now presented to the President, is simply an offer on the part of South Carolina to buy Fort Sumter and contents as property of the United States, sustained by a declaration, in effect, that if she is not permitted to make the purchase she will seize the fort by force of arms. As the initiation of a negotiation for the transfer of property between friendly governments, this proposal impresses the President as having assumed a most unusual form. He has, however, investigated the claim on which it professes to be based, apart from the declaration that accompanies it. And it may be here remarked, that much stress has been laid upon the employment of the words
'property' and 'public property' by the President in his several messages. These are the most comprehensive terms which can be used in such a connection, and surely, when referring to a fort or any other public establishment, they embrace the entire and undivided interest of the Government therein.

"The title of the United States to Fort Sumter is complete and incontestable. Were its interest in this property purely them.' I can add nothing to the explicitness of this language, which still applies to the existing status.

"The right to send forward reënforcements when, in the judgment, of the President, the safety of the garrison requires them, rests on the same unquestionable foundation as the right to occupy the fortress itself. In the letter of Senator Davis and others to yourself, under date of the 15th ultimo, they say: 'We
therefore think it especially due from South Carolina to our States --to say nothing of other slaveholding States--that she should, as far as she can consistently with her honor, avoid initiating hostilities between her and the United States or any other power;' and you now yourself give to the President the gratifying assurance that ' South Carolina has every disposition to preserve the public peace;' and since he is himself sincerely animated by
the same desire, it would seem that this common and patriotic object must be of certain attainment. It is difficult, however, to reconcile with this assurance the declaration on your part that 'it is a consideration of her [ South Carolina's] own dignity as a sovereign, and the safety of her people, which prompts her to
demand that this property should not longer be used as a military post by a government she no longer acknowledges,' and the thought you so constantly present, that this occupation must lead to a collision of arms and the prevalence of civil war. Fort Sumter is in itself a military post, and nothing else; and it would seem that not so much the fact as the purpose of its use should give to it a hostile or friendly character. This fortress is
now held by the Government of the United States for the same object for which it has been held from the completion of its construction. These are national and defensive; and were a public enemy now to attempt the capture of Charleston or the destruction of the commerce of its harbor, the whole force of the batteries of this fortress would be at once exerted for their protection. How the presence of a small garrison, actuated by such a spirit as this, can compromise the dignity or honor of South Carolina, or become a source of irritation to her people, the President is at a loss to understand. The attitude of that garrison, as has been often declared, is neither menacing, nor defiant,
nor unfriendly. It is acting under orders to stand strictly on the defensive; and the government and people of South Carolina must well know that they can never receive aught but shelter from its guns, unless, in the absence of all provocation, they should assault it and seek its destruction. The intent with which this fortress is held by the President is truthfully stated by Senator Davis and others in their letter to yourself of the 15th
January, in which they say: 'It is not held with any hostile or unfriendly purpose toward your State, but merely as property of the United States, which the President deems it his duty to
protect and preserve.'

"If the announcement so repeatedly made of the President's pacific purposes in continuing the occupation of Fort Sumter until the question shall have been settled by competent authority, has failed to impress the government of South Carolina, the forbearing conduct of his administration for the last few months should be received as conclusive evidence of his sincerity. And if this forbearance, in view of the circumstances which have so severely tried it, be not accepted as a satisfactory pledge of the peaceful policy of this administration toward South Carolina,
then it may be safely affirmed that neither language nor conduct can possibly furnish one. If, with all the multiplied proofs which exist of the President's anxiety for peace, and of the earnestness with which he has pursued it, the authorities of that state shall assault Fort Sumter, and peril the lives of the handful of brave and loyal men shut up within its walls, and thus plunge our common country into the horrors of civil war, then
upon them and those they represent must rest the responsibility.

"Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
"J. HOLT
"Secretary of War.



GP
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4
 
George Purvis said:
Post these written orders.

Fact of the matter is it doen't matter who you think owned Fort Sumter. It matters who South Carolina and The United States thougt who had legal cliam to the fort in 1861. It was a disputed claim.

Here is a writen exchange between the two parties,giving the position of both parties. Gives you fellows somethinghto cherry pickand put your spin to. My position -- neither is right neither is wrong ---- it is what what happened.

Mr. Buchanan's Administration on the Eve of the Rebellion.
Pages 198 - 203

"SIR : At the time of the separation of the State of South Carolina from the United States, Fort Sumter was, and still is, in the possession of troops of the United States, under the command of Major Anderson. I regard that possession as not consistent with the dignity or safety of the State of South Carolina, and have this day [it was the day previous] addressed to Major Anderson a communication to obtain from him the possession of that fort by the authorities of this State.

The reply of Major Anderson informs me that he has no authority to do what I required, but he desires a reference of the demand to the President of the United States. Under the circumstances now existing, and which need no comment by me, I have determined to send to you Hon. I. W. Hayne, the Attorney-General of the State of South Carolina, and have instructed him to demand the delivery of Fort Sumter, in the harbor of Charleston, to the constituted authorities of the State of South Carolina. The demand I have made of Major Anderson, and which I now make of you, is suggested by my earnest desire to avoid the bloodshed which a persistence in your attempt to retain possession of that fort will cause, and which will be unavailing to secure to you that possession, but induce a calamity most deeply to be deplored. If consequences so unhappy shall ensue, I will secure for this State, in the demand which I now make, the satisfaction of having exhausted every attempt to avoid it.

"In relation to the public property of the United States within Fort Sumter, the Hon. I. W. Hayne, who will hand you this communication, is authorized to give you the pledge of the State that the valuation of such property will be accounted for
by this State, upon the adjustment of its relations with the United States, of which it was a part."



"WAR DEPARTMENT, February 6, 1861. ★

"SIR: The President of the United States has received your letter of the 31st ultimo, and has charged me with the duty of replying thereto.

"In the communication addressed to the President by Governor Pickens, under date of the 12th January, and which accompanies yours now before me, his Excellency says: 'I have determined to send to you the Hon. I. W. Hayne, the Attorney- General of the State of South Carolina, and have instructed him to demand the surrender of Fort Sumter, in the harbor of Charleston, to the constituted authorities of the State of South Carolina. The demand I have made of Major Anderson, and which I now make of you, is suggested because of my earnest desire to avoid the bloodshed which a persistence in your attempt to retain the possession of that fort will cause, and which will be unavailing to secure to you that possession, but induce a calamity most deeply to be deplored.' The character of the demand thus authorized to be made appears (under the influence, I presume, of the correspondence with the Senators to which you refer) to have been modified by subsequent instructions of his Excellency, dated the 26th, and received by yourself on the 30th January, in which he says: 'If it be so that Fort Sumter is held as property, then, as property, the rights, whatever they may be, of the United States, can be ascertained, and for the satisfaction of these rights the pledge of the State of South Carolina you are authorized to give.' The full scope and precise purport of your instructions, as thus modifled, you have expressed in the following words: 'I do not come as a military man to demand the surrender of a fortress, but as the legal officer of the State--its attorney-general--to claim for the
State the exercise of its undoubted right of eminent domain, and to pledge the State to make good all injury to the rights of property which arise from the exercise of the claim.' And lest this explicit language should not sufficiently define your position, you add: 'The proposition now is that her [ South Caro-lina's] law officer should, under authority of the Governor and his council, distinctly pledge the faith of South Carolina to make such compensation, in regard to Fort Sumter and its appurtenances and contents, to the full extent of the money value of the property of the United States, delivered over to the authorities of South Carolina by your command.' You then adopt his Excellency's train of thought upon the subject, so far as to suggest that the possession of Fort Sumter by the United
States, 'if continued long enough, must lead to collision,' and that 'an attack upon it would scarcely improve it as property, whatever the result; and if captured, it would no longer be the
subject of account.'

" The proposal, then, now presented to the President, is simply an offer on the part of South Carolina to buy Fort Sumter and contents as property of the United States, sustained by a declaration, in effect, that if she is not permitted to make the purchase she will seize the fort by force of arms. As the initiation of a negotiation for the transfer of property between friendly governments, this proposal impresses the President as having assumed a most unusual form. He has, however, investigated the claim on which it professes to be based, apart from the declaration that accompanies it. And it may be here remarked, that much stress has been laid upon the employment of the words
'property' and 'public property' by the President in his several messages. These are the most comprehensive terms which can be used in such a connection, and surely, when referring to a fort or any other public establishment, they embrace the entire and undivided interest of the Government therein.

"The title of the United States to Fort Sumter is complete and incontestable. Were its interest in this property purely them.' I can add nothing to the explicitness of this language, which still applies to the existing status.

"The right to send forward reënforcements when, in the judgment, of the President, the safety of the garrison requires them, rests on the same unquestionable foundation as the right to occupy the fortress itself. In the letter of Senator Davis and others to yourself, under date of the 15th ultimo, they say: 'We
therefore think it especially due from South Carolina to our States --to say nothing of other slaveholding States--that she should, as far as she can consistently with her honor, avoid initiating hostilities between her and the United States or any other power;' and you now yourself give to the President the gratifying assurance that ' South Carolina has every disposition to preserve the public peace;' and since he is himself sincerely animated by
the same desire, it would seem that this common and patriotic object must be of certain attainment. It is difficult, however, to reconcile with this assurance the declaration on your part that 'it is a consideration of her [ South Carolina's] own dignity as a sovereign, and the safety of her people, which prompts her to
demand that this property should not longer be used as a military post by a government she no longer acknowledges,' and the thought you so constantly present, that this occupation must lead to a collision of arms and the prevalence of civil war. Fort Sumter is in itself a military post, and nothing else; and it would seem that not so much the fact as the purpose of its use should give to it a hostile or friendly character. This fortress is
now held by the Government of the United States for the same object for which it has been held from the completion of its construction. These are national and defensive; and were a public enemy now to attempt the capture of Charleston or the destruction of the commerce of its harbor, the whole force of the batteries of this fortress would be at once exerted for their protection. How the presence of a small garrison, actuated by such a spirit as this, can compromise the dignity or honor of South Carolina, or become a source of irritation to her people, the President is at a loss to understand. The attitude of that garrison, as has been often declared, is neither menacing, nor defiant,
nor unfriendly. It is acting under orders to stand strictly on the defensive; and the government and people of South Carolina must well know that they can never receive aught but shelter from its guns, unless, in the absence of all provocation, they should assault it and seek its destruction. The intent with which this fortress is held by the President is truthfully stated by Senator Davis and others in their letter to yourself of the 15th
January, in which they say: 'It is not held with any hostile or unfriendly purpose toward your State, but merely as property of the United States, which the President deems it his duty to
protect and preserve.'

"If the announcement so repeatedly made of the President's pacific purposes in continuing the occupation of Fort Sumter until the question shall have been settled by competent authority, has failed to impress the government of South Carolina, the forbearing conduct of his administration for the last few months should be received as conclusive evidence of his sincerity. And if this forbearance, in view of the circumstances which have so severely tried it, be not accepted as a satisfactory pledge of the peaceful policy of this administration toward South Carolina,
then it may be safely affirmed that neither language nor conduct can possibly furnish one. If, with all the multiplied proofs which exist of the President's anxiety for peace, and of the earnestness with which he has pursued it, the authorities of that state shall assault Fort Sumter, and peril the lives of the handful of brave and loyal men shut up within its walls, and thus plunge our common country into the horrors of civil war, then
upon them and those they represent must rest the responsibility.

"Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
"J. HOLT
"Secretary of War.



GP
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4
Click to expand...

So how can I spin it any better then they did in Washington...
"The title of the United States to Fort Sumter is complete and incontestable. "
 
wilber6150 said:
Why don't you post the part where Im laughing about Lincoln outsmarting the Confederates, go ahead I'll wait...Look carefully, as I have no sense of humor when it pretains to events that led to a war that ripped this nation apart..So I must have had an out of body experience and would really like to see what I wrote without remembering it...
Click to expand...

I might if I do do an easy serach on this forum. If you are denying that such a thread exists I'll spend the time to repost it here. Granted you may not have been a part but the thread is posted.

GP
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4
 
George Purvis said:
I had read somewhere on this page that the Federal government "owned' Fort Sumter. That is not true according to this agreement --

"South Carolina in 1805 (Statutes at Large, Volume V, p. 501) provided as follows in regard to the cessions in Charleston Harbor:"

"That, if the United States shall not, within three years from the passing of this act, and notification thereof by the governor of this State to the Executive of the United States, repair the fortifications now existing thereon, or build such other forts or fortifications as may be deemed most expedient by the Executive of the United States on the same, and keep a garrison or garrisons therein, in such case this grant or cession shall be void and of no effect."

Work was being done on Sumter as Anderson's men took control.

George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4
Click to expand...

Does this jog your memory....Its a cherry picked item that has nothing to do with Sumter...
 
CSA Today said:
"After an anxious night for Davis and his colleagues, Walker telegraphed to Beauregard the next morning, April 12:What was Major Anderson's reply to the proposition contained in my dispatch of last night?"

"The anxiety was lessened a little when the mail brought a fat envelope from Governor Pickens. No longer could there be the slightest doubt that the recent notice to the governor, purported from Lincoln, veritably had come from him. Here was proof. Governor Pickens enclosed letters which Anderson had dispatched to Washington but which the Confederate authorities had seized. In one of these letters, from Anderson to his superiors in Washington, he acknowledged receipt of the communication, telling him that an expedition was on the way to Sumter.

"(It is just as well, for Anderson's reputation in the North, that this letter did not get to Washington. In it Anderson expressed surprise and chagrin. He predicted "most disastrous results" throughout the country. He went on to say: "my heart is not in the war which I see is to be thus commenced." So wrote the man whom Northerners soon were to
hail as the first hero of the war's first battle!)"

Source: Richard N. Current, Lincoln And The First Shot, pp. 152-153.

GG Grandfather John M. Carlisle -- Chaplain 7th SC Inf.
GG Uncle James H. Carlisle – signer of SC Ordinance of Secession
G Grandfather Nathaniel L. McCormick—Private, Battery E 40th [3rd] N C Artillery
G Grandfather Thomas M. Bolton – Private, Co. G 19th Va. Inf.
G Uncle Dougald McCormick--Private Co. D 46th NC Inf.
G Uncle Duncan McCormick – Private, NC Home Guard
G Uncle Alexander Mc Cormick –1st Sgt, Co. B 6th Ms Inf.
G Uncle Murdoch McCormick—Private, Ms Home Guard
G Uncle James W. Bolton – Private, Co. B (Rives) Nelson Light Artillery (Va.), 1864 Co. G, 19th Va. Inf.
G Uncle Albert G. Bolton – Private, Co. F 27th Va. Inf.
G Uncle Alexander H. Bolton – Private, Co. D 7th Va. Inf.
G Uncle Lindsey C. Bolton – Private, Co. B. 1st Va. Reserves
G Uncle Thomas D. Boone – Captain,. Co. F 1st NC Inf.
G. Uncle James D. Boone -- Quartermaster sergeant, Co. F 1st NC Inf.
G Uncle James W. Boone -- Private, Co. D 59th (4th Cav.) NC, 1st NC Inf. Co. F
G Uncle Peter Lindsey Breeden—Captain, Co. E, 4th SC Cav.
G Uncle A.J. Breeden – Private, Co. E. 4th SC Cav.
Cousins –Daniel McKinnon, Luther McKinnon, John N. McKinnon, McKay McKinnon, Murdoch McKinnon -- all privates in Company E 40th (3rd) NC artillery [heavy]
Click to expand...

Anderson never wanted Fox to come as he thought it would start a war, everything Anderson tried to do was with the intentions of avoiding a civil war..
 
wilber6150 said:
Where to start with your distortion of history...
1) You have posted no evidence of such a claim while I have posted a bill passed by S. Carolina giving away all their rights and title to the land
2) The first truce that you spoke of had ending a clause of the date that the state seceeded, you might want to actually read it, but beyond that point, the truce was against reinforcing the forts.. As Anderson stated he simply moved his current troops around he wasn't rienfroced and as commander of al the forts he had every right to.. While at the same time S. Carolina moved troops around the fort and made threats to seize it..The second truce you spoke of was broken again by the Confederates when they fired on a flagged American vessel, and no that wasn't the Star of the West..
3) Anderson never stated he moved without authorization, he said he wasn't ordered to move to Sumter..Stop distorting the facts to meet your agenda.
4) I can't help if you can't understand what the orders mean...Perhaps you post the part where you think it states that he has to stay at Moultrie..
5) Moultire was indenfensible and he was being threatened, even Confederate officers told him it was the right move to make.. The Confederates were just ****** that he got the jump on them..
6) There was no such agreement, and the S. Carolina was planning on seizing Sumter if there represenatives were turned down in Washington after the state seceeded.No hostilities except for Star of the West? Again you need to do some more research on this subject...

If you served in the service then you should know the difference between general orders and special orders..After Bucannon saw the orders that were given to Anderson he demanded that they be modified so that Anderson wouldn't have to experience a blood bath if he was attacked, as his honor would require him to fight to the last.. So they gave him an out to surrander to avoid this, thats what the second order was that you posted.. It did not countermand the other order giving him authoriaztion to move...

You speak of this grand invasion fleet which held a total of 200 green recruits which would used to reinforce the fort only if hostilites commenced, while ignoring the thousands of troops that the Confederates had in place...Typical....
Click to expand...

I laid out the facts either you don't agree fine. You can't prove me wron so the next best thing is to resort to an attack on me and snide remarks. I am not surprised.

GP
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4
 
CSA Today said:
"After an anxious night for Davis and his colleagues, Walker telegraphed to Beauregard the next morning, April 12:What was Major Anderson's reply to the proposition contained in my dispatch of last night?"

"The anxiety was lessened a little when the mail brought a fat envelope from Governor Pickens. No longer could there be the slightest doubt that the recent notice to the governor, purported from Lincoln, veritably had come from him. Here was proof. Governor Pickens enclosed letters which Anderson had dispatched to Washington but which the Confederate authorities had seized. In one of these letters, from Anderson to his superiors in Washington, he acknowledged receipt of the communication, telling him that an expedition was on the way to Sumter.

"(It is just as well, for Anderson's reputation in the North, that this letter did not get to Washington. In it Anderson expressed surprise and chagrin. He predicted "most disastrous results" throughout the country. He went on to say: "my heart is not in the war which I see is to be thus commenced." So wrote the man whom Northerners soon were to
hail as the first hero of the war's first battle!)"

Source: Richard N. Current, Lincoln And The First Shot, pp. 152-153.

GG Grandfather John M. Carlisle -- Chaplain 7th SC Inf.
GG Uncle James H. Carlisle – signer of SC Ordinance of Secession
G Grandfather Nathaniel L. McCormick—Private, Battery E 40th [3rd] N C Artillery
G Grandfather Thomas M. Bolton – Private, Co. G 19th Va. Inf.
G Uncle Dougald McCormick--Private Co. D 46th NC Inf.
G Uncle Duncan McCormick – Private, NC Home Guard
G Uncle Alexander Mc Cormick –1st Sgt, Co. B 6th Ms Inf.
G Uncle Murdoch McCormick—Private, Ms Home Guard
G Uncle James W. Bolton – Private, Co. B (Rives) Nelson Light Artillery (Va.), 1864 Co. G, 19th Va. Inf.
G Uncle Albert G. Bolton – Private, Co. F 27th Va. Inf.
G Uncle Alexander H. Bolton – Private, Co. D 7th Va. Inf.
G Uncle Lindsey C. Bolton – Private, Co. B. 1st Va. Reserves
G Uncle Thomas D. Boone – Captain,. Co. F 1st NC Inf.
G. Uncle James D. Boone -- Quartermaster sergeant, Co. F 1st NC Inf.
G Uncle James W. Boone -- Private, Co. D 59th (4th Cav.) NC, 1st NC Inf. Co. F
G Uncle Peter Lindsey Breeden—Captain, Co. E, 4th SC Cav.
G Uncle A.J. Breeden – Private, Co. E. 4th SC Cav.
Cousins –Daniel McKinnon, Luther McKinnon, John N. McKinnon, McKay McKinnon, Murdoch McKinnon -- all privates in Company E 40th (3rd) NC artillery [heavy]
Click to expand...

Excellent!!!! Lest we forget.

GP
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4
 
wilber6150 said:
So how can I spin it any better then they did in Washington...
"The title of the United States to Fort Sumter is complete and incontestable. "
Click to expand...


Like you just did.

I laid both sides, it appears you are completely dismissing SCs . Why????

Now the agreenment stayed in place until Lincoln came into office and attempted his forced invasion of Sumter. He planned the invasion while a peace delegation waited to meet with him to try and resolve the issue. His actions resulted in the deaths of 500,000+- AMERICANS.

GP
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4
 
wilber6150 said:
So how can I spin it any better then they did in Washington...
"The title of the United States to Fort Sumter is complete and incontestable. "
Click to expand...
Yeah, good ol' Judge Holt. Whatever he says you can take it to the bank. Honest as the day is long.

Did you see the Conspirator?
 
"The aggressor in a war is not the first to use force but the first to make force necessary."

Alexander Stephens
 
George Purvis said:
Like you just did.

I laid both sides, it appears you are completely dismissing SCs . Why????

Now the agreenment stayed in place until Lincoln came into office and attempted his forced invasion of Sumter. He planned the invasion while a peace delegation waited to meet with him to try and resolve the issue. His actions resulted in the deaths of 500,000+- AMERICANS.

GP
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4
Click to expand...

Now your true agenda comes out....Its all Lincolns fault...S. Carolina gave all rights to Sumter, and signed away the deed..You seem to beleive its ok to cut off men from their supplies and paint the mission of ships bringing supplies as an invasion.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Whitworth Riflemen around Charleston
Replies
1
Views
198
gary
Mike Griffith
If I Had Been President of the CSA Instead of Jefferson Davis
Replies
12
Views
456
OhioUnion
C
Alternate TL: Slave Army Assembled to stop Sherman in late 1864
2
Replies
29
Views
30
steve59p
C
Longstreet refuses to not go west after Chancellorsville
Replies
14
Views
93
Piedone
J
Member Review William Howard Russell, My Diary North and South
2
Replies
20
Views
379
JerryD

Similar threads

Tompre
Proposed revolving Turret at Grand Gulf. Report of General John Bowen
2
Replies
21
Views
364
7th Mississippi Infantry
JeffBrooks
Opinions on Proposed New Vicksburg Visitor Center
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
1K
Rusk County Avengers
A
  • Question Question
Mobile, Savannah, Charleston and Wilmington why so late?
Replies
1
Views
2
J. Stanley

Learn About Us
►About CivilWarTalk
►Contact the Webmaster
►Meet the Staff
►Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
►Register
►Browse Forums
►View Today's Discussions
►Search the Forum
Get Help
►FAQ
►Student Guide
►Forum Rules & Etiquette
►Copyright / DMCA

      Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top