Fort Sumter

"The 6th Massachusetts was a Volunteer organization (just like the 8800 raised in South Carolina)...not a regular militia unit (conscripts)."

joha said:
Conscripts? Please read what Conscript means; Mass had no Conscripts in 1861, nor did any CS state

Every State was required to have a militia...and it wasn't voluntary-

Militia Act of 1792

"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia..."

...- in effect conscripts

The militia described above and volunteer militia are not the same.


joha said:
4 ships of the US Navy, 18 guns... only two legit warships and 200 replacement for the Fort... sorry; but that is not a serious threat to 3700 armed men in the city.

Heavy Guns:

47 Confederate against a potential 64 Federal

Confederate batteries..............47

Four Federal warships..............16

(Infantry is not much use against a ship with eight 9-inch guns)

Fort Sumter...........................48 (only 21 used)

One transport with 200 re-enforcements for Fort Sumter.



~

...but you are partially correct-

Whether the mission to relieve Sumter was a success or not...the primary objective was -as indicated by Lincoln's own words- to provoke a war.
 
Originally Posted by Battalion
Baltimore, Md., and several incidents in St. Louis, Mo.

trice said:
Battalion, you seem to like to distort events into unrecognizable one-sided accounts, and you do so frequently.
....
Tim

I haven't posted any "account"...only stated that 250 civilians were killed and wounded...which is correct.
 
Every State was required to have a militia...and it wasn't voluntary-

Militia Act of 1792
"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia..."
...- in effect conscripts

The militia described above and volunteer militia are not the same.

Technically, until I was 45, I was considered militia as "militia" is still essentially what that act stated. In the event that whatever state I was living in at the time had been invaded, I'd be called-up (conscripted) to dig and wait for an invasion. This is the extent of it.

The militia described above and volunteer militia are not the same. And that's exactly what is in play. The 6th Massachusetts was not militia called up. It was volunteers. There seems to be a difficulty in differentiating between "militia" who likely didn't know they were militia, and people who volunteered to go where their state government sent them.

We're playing fast and loose with the word "militia." SC had militia as well, but they weren't counted among the volunteer groups -- also called state militia -- who filled the 8,835. A group of soldiers from any given area is called militia into accepted and received (have I used that before) into service of a larger body.

I haven't posted any "account"...only stated that 250 civilians were killed and wounded...which is correct.
Nor have you come anywhere near close to showing the killing a wounding of 250 civilians.
Ole
 
ole said:
Technically, until I was 45, I was considered militia as "militia" is still essentially what that act stated. In the event that whatever state I was living in at the time had been invaded, I'd be called-up (conscripted) to dig and wait for an invasion. This is the extent of it.

The militia described above and volunteer militia are not the same. And that's exactly what is in play. The 6th Massachusetts was not militia called up. It was volunteers. There seems to be a difficulty in differentiating between "militia" who likely didn't know they were militia, and people who volunteered to go where their state government sent them.

We're playing fast and loose with the word "militia." SC had militia as well, but they weren't counted among the volunteer groups -- also called state militia -- who filled the 8,835. A group of soldiers from any given area is called militia into accepted and received (have I used that before) into service of a larger body.

The 8835 in South Carolina had volunteered on the same (or similar) basis as the 6th Mass.

Nor have you come anywhere near close to showing the killing a wounding of 250 civilians.
Ole

............................................Killed......Wounded
Pratt St., Baltimore, Md................12...........?.....(estimated as high as 100 k.& w.)
Camp Jackson, St. Louis, Mo..........28.........100
Olive Street(?)......"........"..............?...........?
Walnut Street......."........"............10............?
Total.........................................50+.......100+

Killed & Wounded:
100 + 128 + (10+) = 238+

Satisfied?

Based on the number killed (50) there could be easily 200 wounded.
 
Battalion said:
The 8835 in South Carolina had volunteered on the same (or similar) basis as the 6th Mass.

No, they had not volunteered on that basis.

The 6th Mass was organized as part of the Massachusetts Militia in January of 1861. They were called out as Militia by the governor of the state on April 15 in response to President Lincoln's call for 75000 Militia for ninety days on that date. They served the required ninety days, and were relieved from duty (July 29, 1861) and mustered out of service (August 2, 1861).

The 10 regiments of the South Carolina Volunteers were not part of the South Carolina Militia. They were part of the South Carolina Army, authorized by the South Carolina legislature on December 17, 1860. This was an entirely new and separate organization. The men in it enlisted for a 12-month term of service These two SC organizations -- the Militia and the Army -- existed side-by-side.

In addition, the South Carolina legislature created 2 units of Regulars (1 artillery, 1 infantry) on January 28, 1861. These were also part of the Army -- not the Militia -- and are not included in the Volunteer command of General Bonham. These were also long-term enlistments.

Most or all of these SC units were later transferred to the Provisional Army of the Confederacy (I think all, but have not checked). They were still serving there in 1862 when the Confederate government passed the conscription law, retroactively extending their term of service indefinitely. As far as I know, the surviving units served until the end of the war in 1865, when the SC Army and the Confederate Army dissolved/surrendered.

Since they were never part of the South Carolina Militia, how do you defend your position?

Tim
 
ole said:
Technically, until I was 45, I was considered militia as "militia" is still essentially what that act stated. In the event that whatever state I was living in at the time had been invaded, I'd be called-up (conscripted) to dig and wait for an invasion. This is the extent of it.

Technically, what we have today is not governed by the 1792 and subsequent Militia Acts. That all changed after the Spanish-American War when Congress passed the Dick Act. It was modified in the 1950s for the Cold War and in the 1970s for the All-Volunteer Army.

The main reason for the Dick Act was that the Spanish-American War had uncovered a lot of problems, and the Federals wanted them fixed. The states balked at the cost. The Dick Act started a series of deals over the next century where the Federal government paid for most of the bill, but got greater control and authority over the state forces in return.

Essentially, the various state National Guard and other forces are now the "organized militia". The rest of the masses of age 18-45 citizens are now the "unorganized militia". I believe the various state guard units such as the "Massachusetts Volunteer Militia" that changed its name to the "Massachusetts State Guard" this year are included in the "organized militia" along with the National Guard. In Massachusetts, the two organizations are HQ'd in the same building.

Regards,
Tim
 
Battalion said:
The militia described above and volunteer militia are not the same.

You think so? Then please post some source detailing what the term "Massachusetts Volunteer Militia", in use since at least 1805, actually means. Also, since the South Carolina Volunteers were part of the South Carolina Army and not the South Carolina Militia, why are you calling them Militia?

Tim
 
Battalion said:
Heavy Guns:

47 Confederate against a potential 64 Federal

Confederate batteries..............47
Four Federal warships..............16
(Infantry is not much use against a ship with eight 9-inch guns)
Fort Sumter...........................48 (only 21 used)

One transport with 200 re-enforcements for Fort Sumter.

Your numbers don't seem to bear out at all.

Colonel Ripley, SC Army, commanding on one side of Ft. Sumter, says in his report that he had 46 guns and 4 mortars, set up in various places. There are 30 guns in Fort Moultrie alone. That total is more than the 47 you are saying the Confederates had. It does not seem to include those emplaced on Morris Island or anywhere else. Would you please give us some detail on how you came to this "47 Confederate against a potential 64 Federal" figure? It appears to be woefully inadequate to me.

BTW, why do you say the several thousand Confederate infantry are of no use, while you magnify importance of the 200 reinforcements aboard the transport?

Also BTW, why make a big deal about the number of guns that were never used at Ft. Sumter? The essential issues that prevented them from being used were 1) the shortage of men in Anderson's command so that the guns could not be manned and 2) the ammo problem (not enough prepared shot-bags, and not enough cloth to make more (The troops were sewing shot bags out of shirts, but obviously they would not get many that way).

Tim
P.S., the troops commanded by Ripley are the men of the 1st SC Artillery, part of the Regulars established by the SC legislature on January 28, 1861. That would mean several hundred men to man 50 heavy guns and mortars. They are not included in the 10 infantry regiments/8835 men of the Volunteers described in Gist's report to Bonham in early March. The guns on Morris Island were under a different commander and the men manning them came from the 4th Brigade of Militia, a force also not included in the Volunteers.
 
Battalion said:
Originally Posted by Battalion
Baltimore, Md., and several incidents in St. Louis, Mo.

I haven't posted any "account"...only stated that 250 civilians were killed and wounded...which is correct.

Come now, Battalion. You presented that as something outrageous, as if it were an deliberate massacre. The truth is that civilians were assaulting troops moving through their city, and that Confederate sympathizers were trying to incite Missouri and Maryland into revolt at the time, including the supplying of arms to both. That the bloodshed in the riots is regrettable is certainly true. It is also true that *you* should acknowledge the nefarious manipulations of the Confederate and Virginia governments that played a large part in making this happen.

Tim
 
trice said:
No, they had not volunteered on that basis.

The 6th Mass was organized as part of the Massachusetts Militia [Volunteer Militia] in January of 1861. They were called out as Militia by the governor of the state on April 15 in response to President Lincoln's call for 75000 Militia for ninety days on that date. They served the required ninety days, and were relieved from duty (July 29, 1861) and mustered out of service (August 2, 1861).

The 10 regiments of the South Carolina Volunteers were not part of the South Carolina Militia. They were part of the South Carolina Army, authorized by the South Carolina legislature on December 17, 1860. This was an entirely new and separate organization. The men in it enlisted for a 12-month term of service These two SC organizations -- the Militia and the Army -- existed side-by-side.

Perhaps I should re-word:..."both were in the military service of their state on the basis of volunteers"...

I was not referring to duration of service.
 
Battalion said:
Perhaps I should re-word:..."both were in the military service of their state on the basis of volunteers"...

I was not referring to duration of service.

Battalion,

I suspect that you need is to simply look at the difference clearly.

The Sixth Massachusetts was merely a collection of men who volunteered to organize as a unit within the state Militia and were later called to service as part of that Militia.

On December 17, 1860 -- three days before secession -- the South Carolina legislature passed a new law establishing a force of long-term Volunteers to serve for a term of 12 months. The ten regiments/104 companies/8835 men Gist reports to Bonham (who reports that figure to Jefferson Davis of the Confederacy) in early March were organized under this Act. Bonham was appointed to fill the command slot authorized in that Act. There was no equivalent Massachusetts legislation.

Tim
 
trice said:
Your numbers don't seem to bear out at all.

Colonel Ripley, SC Army, commanding on one side of Ft. Sumter, says in his report that he had 46 guns and 4 mortars, set up in various places. There are 30 guns in Fort Moultrie alone. That total is more than the 47 you are saying the Confederates had. It does not seem to include those emplaced on Morris Island or anywhere else. Would you please give us some detail on how you came to this "47 Confederate against a potential 64 Federal" figure? It appears to be woefully inadequate to me.

The 47 is from a Federal report.

trice said:
BTW, why do you say the several thousand Confederate infantry are of no use

The infantry were to be used against a supposed landing of Federal troops (a landing on the shore...not the ones destined for Fort Sumter)...as it turns out the Feds had no such plan.

trice said:
while you magnify importance of the 200 reinforcements aboard the transport?

The 200 were not infantry.

trice said:
Also BTW, why make a big deal about the number of guns that were never used at Ft. Sumter? The essential issues that prevented them from being used were 1) the shortage of men in Anderson's command so that the guns could not be manned and 2) the ammo problem (not enough prepared shot-bags, and not enough cloth to make more (The troops were sewing shot bags out of shirts, but obviously they would not get many that way).

Fort Sumter....48 guns....85 men.......How many of the 48 could they use?

Fort Sumter with 200 re-enforcements:

....................48 guns...285 men......same question
 
trice said:
Battalion,

I suspect that you need is to simply look at the difference clearly.

The Sixth Massachusetts was merely a collection of men who volunteered to organize as a unit within the state Militia and were later called to service as part of that Militia.

On December 17, 1860 -- three days before secession -- the South Carolina legislature passed a new law establishing a force of long-term Volunteers to serve for a term of 12 months. The ten regiments/104 companies/8835 men Gist reports to Bonham (who reports that figure to Jefferson Davis of the Confederacy) in early March were organized under this Act. Bonham was appointed to fill the command slot authorized in that Act. There was no equivalent Massachusetts legislation.

Tim

You have the laws passed by the Mass. legislature at hand?
 
47 Confederate against a potential 64 Federal

Confederate batteries..............47

Four Federal warships..............16
Note: a battery is not one gun. In the field, a battery was typically at least four guns, usually six, and occasionally 8. Can't swear that the same was true in shore batteries, but 47 batteries does not equal 47 guns.
 
Fort Sumter....48 guns....85 men.......How many of the 48 could they use?

Fort Sumter with 200 re-enforcements: ....................48 guns...285 men......same question
If each of the two hundred was carrying 20 powder bags, quite a lot.

Why is a discussion of SC troops devolving into a quibble about the guns of Fort Sumter? Or, for that matter, what does the number of SC troops have to do with Charleston at all?
 
Battalion said:
The 47 is from a Federal report.

Would you list it, please? And why use Federal reports that would be guesses instead of Confederate reports that would be accurate? Since you are referring to the OR, you have both. Why make this choice?

Battalion said:
The infantry were to be used against a supposed landing of Federal troops (a landing on the shore...not the ones destined for Fort Sumter)...as it turns out the Feds had no such plan.

Actually, you have previously referred to the Federal plan. We discussed it months ago, so you know that part of the plan involved landing to disable the batteries if necessary. The Confederate infantry would have been very useful in that case, and they were also used to add men to the artillery to work the batteries.

Battalion said:
The 200 were not infantry.

Battalion said:
Fort Sumter....48 guns....85 men.......How many of the 48 could they use?
Fort Sumter with 200 re-enforcements:
....................48 guns...285 men......same question

Very few in any case. 285 men is what, less than half the wartime expected garrison?

Tim
 
Anderson's move to Fort Sumter was NO violation of his orders, as Buell himself said, and as the Secretary of State, Jeremiah Black, said [See David Detzler, _Allegiance: Fort Sumter, Charleston, and the Beginning of the Civil War,_ p. 140].

His orders said, "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." [OR Series I, Vol 1, p. 90]

The militia drills and movements seen by Anderson were tangible evidence of "a design to proceed to a hostile act," i.e., an attack on Fort Moultrie. Buell left Charleston with the idea that Anderson would eventually have to move to Fort Sumter:

"Major Buell had remained over Sunday in Charleston, and became impressed with the feeling manifested. There was no noisy demonstration, but 'there was everywhere evidence,' he thought, 'of a settled purpose.' The determination to obtain possession of the forts was with them as fixed as the act of secession itself.

"All the indications and all the information he could obtain convinced him 'that Fort Sumter would be seized, with or without the State authorities, unless the Government should ocupy it,' and these considerations largely influenced him in his interpretation of the instructions of the Secretary of War, and which were expressed in the memorandum order.

"He thought, too, that 'it was evident Fort Moultrie would any day be liable to assault and reduction unless Sumter was occupied by a Government garrison,' and he thought that Anderson 'fully realized the fact.'

"After some suggestions to Anderson, 'all looking to the contemplated transfer of his command,' Major Buell returned at once to Washington with a copy of the memorandum he had given to him." [Samuel W. Crawford, _The Genesis of the Civil War: The Story of Sumter, 1860-61,_ p. 74]

"Buchanan asked what exact orders Anderson had at Moultrie. Floyd wasn't sure and had to send for his files to refresh his memory. He told the president that he had sent Major Don Carlos Buell to see Anderson and assess matters. From this visit had come a memorandum, dated December 11, summarizing instructions given verbally. Anderson was to avoid any at that might provoke aggression and make no hostile move, but he was also to 'hold possession of the forts,' and if attacked, he should defend himself 'to the last extremity.' Almost as an afterthought Buell acknowledged that Anderson had too few men to hold all the forts. An attack on any one of them would be regarded as an act of hostility, and he was authorized to concentrate his men into any one of the forts.

"After hearing the instructions, Buchanan objected to the sentence calling for defense to the last extremity. Black insisted that a memorandum was not good enough; formal instructions were needed. He drafted a new version telling Anderson to exercise 'sound military discretion on this subject. 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.' A compliant Floyd signed the message, and it was sent by courier to Anderson." [Maury Klein, _Days of Defiance: Sumter, Secession, and the Coming of the Civil War,_ pp. 148-149]

Here's the message sent to Anderson:

WAR DEPARTMENT,
Washington, December 21, 1860.
Major ANDERSON,
First Artillery, Commanding Fort Moultrie, S.C.:
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.
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. [OR, Series I, Vol 1, p. 103]

Now, it's true the southern members of the cabinet, such as Floyd, believed it was against orders. And Buchanan's relative unfamiliarity with the orders, along with the protests of Jefferson Davis and RMT Hunter, caused his confusion.

But former Attorney-General Black was clear.

"Floyd spotted Major Don Carlos Buell. 'This is a very unfortunate move of Major Anderson,' Floyd said to him. 'It has made war inevitable.'

" 'I do not think so, sir,' answered Buell. ' ...I think that it will tnd to avert war, if war can be averted.'

"Floyd was not convinced. As the meeting dragged on into evening, he blasted Anderson. 'It is evident,' he read from a paper in a quavering voice, '... that the solemn pledges of this Government have been violated by Major Anderson. ... One remedy only is left, and that is to withdraw the garrison from the harbor of Charleston altogether. I hope the President will allow me to make that order at once. This order ... can alone prevent bloodshed and civil war.' When he finished, Thompson and Thomas supported him, while Black, Holt, and Stanton staunchly defended Anderson. Toucey as usual said little. The suggestion astonished Buchanan; even in his weakest moments the idea if withdrawal had not entered his mind.

"Black was livid. He sent for the recent order he had drafted for Floyd, read it aloud, and insisted that Anderson had acted 'in precise accordance with his orders.' He shook the order in Floyd's face and shouted, 'There never was a moment in the history of England when a minister of the Crown could have proposed to surrender a military post which might be defended, without bringing his head to the block!' Floyd's indignation pulled him up out of his chair, forcing Buchanan to restore order. Amid an uneasy calm the president conceded that the order seemed to give Anderson leeway to exercise his own discretion against any tangible evidence of a proposed attack on him. Nothing he had herd justified ordering Anderson back to Moultrie." [Ibid., pp. 170-171]

"Major Anderson believed that he had such tangible evidence. What he heard were the almost daily threats that his position would be attacked; and these threats became more numerous and more positive after the State had passed the Ordinance of Secession. He knew that he could not long defend himself. What he saw was the nightly watch upon him lest he should transfer his command to the stronger and safer position of Fort Sumter. It was this latter action on the part of the State authorities--wholly in violation of any agreement that might have been made--that impressed him beyond all others and mainly influenced his actions." [Samuel W. Crawford, _The Genesis of the Civil War: The Story of Sumter, 1860-61,_ p. 100]

Regards,
Cash
 
Moving this to the right thread.

Hanny said:
nope war dept has it there are 3 federal posts in charelston, you hav einvented sumpter as being another one mmaking it 4, since all the orderes refewr to the 3 federal forts, your basleless invention is exposed as lie.

Your ignorance abounds. In late 1860, Fitz-John Porter made an inspection tour of the US Federal forts in Charleston Harbor:

[begin quote]
WASHINGTON, D. C., November 11, 1860.

Colonel S. COOPER,

Adjutant-General, Washington City:

SIR: In compliance with instructions from the Secretary of War of the 6th instant, I inspected the fortifications and troops in Charleston Harbor, and have now the honor to report as follows:

FORT MOULTRIE.

This post is garrisoned by Companies E and H, First Artillery, and the regimental band is quartered there.

State of the command.

Field and staff.-Bvt. Colonel John L. Gardner, lieutenant-colonel First Artillery, commanding; Asst. Surg. Samuel W. Crawford, medical department.

Company officers.-Captain Miner Knowlon, Company H, absent sick since August 1, 1850; Captain Abner Doubleday, commanding Company E; Bvt. Captain Truman Seymour, first lieutenant, commanding Company H; First Lieutenant Otis H. Tillinghast, regimental quartermaster, and acting adjutant at regimental headquarters, absent since May 29, 1860; First Lieutenant Theodore Talbot, Company H; First Lieutenant Jefferson C. Davis, Company E; Second Lieutenant Samuel Breck, Company E, on duty at the Military Academy since September 13, 1860; Second Lieutenant Norman J. Hall, Company H, acting assistant quartermaster and acting assistant commissary of subsistence since September 1, 1860, and post adjutant.

Enlisted men.-Band and staff, 9 musicians, 1 hospital steward, 1 ordnance sergeant absent.

Companies E and H, for duty, 36; on extra or daily duty, 12; sick, 4; in arrest or confinement, 11; absent in confinement, 2. Total, 64. Present at inspection, 30; artillery drill, 21; infantry drill, 23; comprising all who, in the opinion of the commanding officer, could with propriety and safety be taken from other duties.

The officers-Lieutenant Talbot in delicate health excepted-are in good health, and capable of enduring the fatigues incident to any duty that may be demanded of them. They are sober, intelligent, and active, and appear acquainted with their general duties, perform them with some exceptions punctually and promptly, and all are anxious to give the commanding officer the aid to which he is entitled.

The non-commissioned officers and privates appear intelligent and obedient, but not move with an alacrity and spirit indicating the existence of a strict discipline.

* * * *

A portion of the work, interior and exterior, is necessarily encumbered by material being used in repairing parapets, beds for guns, and arranging for the defense of the fort. In other respects the police of the post is good.

* * * *

The hospital storehouses are outside the forts. All are old frame buildings, highly inflammable, and not secured by the presence or watchful eye of a sentinel from the acts of evil-disposed persons. An incendiary could in a few minutes destroy all the supplies and workshops of the command.

Lieutenant hall states that he has some difficulty in procuring suitable four and pork in Charleston, sometimes having to return the former, while the latter cannot at times be purchased. He has about two months' supply of provisions for the present command.

* * * *

The ungraded state of the fort invites attack, if such design exists, and much discretion and prudence are required on the part of the commander to restore the proper security without exciting a community prompt to misconstrue actions of authority. I think this can be effected by a proper commander, without checking in the slightest the progress of the engineers in completing the works of defense. Any interference with that labor would probably rouse suspicions and crate excitement. All could have been easily arranged several weeks since, when the danger was foreseen by the present commander. Now much delicacy must be practiced. The garrison is weak, and I recommend that a favorable opportunity be taken to fill up the companies with the best-drilled recruits available.

* * * *

The following events, which transpired the day I arrived at Fort Moultrie, I deem proper to report here, as I have orally heretofore, as they relate to an act of unusual importance, tending to indicate the inflammable and impulsive state of the public mind in Charleston-to a great extend characteristic of the feeling manifested throughout the State-and necessity for prudence and judgment on the part of the commanding officer in all transactions which may bear upon the relations of the Federal Government to the State of South Carolina, and of the Army to our citizens. I regard it especially important to refer to them, as Colonel Gardner informed me he should make no report.

The military storekeeper has at the arsenal in the city a large number of arms and quantity of ammunition, which, fearing it might fall into improper hands, he desired to secure to the United States, and under counsel from Colonel Gardner he packed them up and held in readiness to be shipped to Fort Moultrie whenever Colonel Gardner should send for them. Availing himself of an approved requisition for paints, lacquers, 7c., needed at the post, he sent Captain Saymour to the city for the supply and other articles that the military storekeeper might wish to have stored at the post, and thus secured in case of negro insurrections. The owner of the wharf refused permission to ship them. A crowd collected, and suspecting an attempt on the part of the Government ot smuggle (it being late in the evening, or after dark) arms, ammunition, &c., from the city, to be used against it, or to prevent their use by citizens in case of disturbances, would not permit the property to be carried away.

FORT SUMTER.

Fort Sumter is not completed, and is now occupied by the Engineers, under the direction of Lieutenant Snyder (Captain Foster being absent), who has employed upon it some hundred and ten men. A portion of the armament is mounted, but for its defense a few regular soldiers, to overawe the workmen and to control them, only would be necessary at present. The lower embrasures are closed, and if the main gate be secured a storming-party would require ladders twenty feet in length to gain admission. No arms are here, and I doubt if they would be serviceable in the hands of workmen, who would take the side of the stronger force present. Unless it should become necessary I think it advisable not to occupy this work so long as the mass of engineer workmen are engaged in it. The completion of those parts essential for the accommodation of a company might be hastened. The magazine contains thirty-nine thousand four hundred pounds of powder. The number of guns on hand is seventy-eight, consisting of 8 and 10 inch columbiads, 8-inch sea-coast howitzers, 42-pounder guns, and 32 and 24-pounders, with carriages, shot, shell, implements, &c.

CASTEL PINCKNEY.

Castle Pinckney commands Charleston, and its armament is complete. Here the powder belonging to the arsenal in the city is stored. A company can be accommodated here, while a small force under an officer would secure it against surprise or even a bold attack of such enemies likely to undertake it. It is under the charge of an ordnance sergeant, who keeps everything in as good order as possible. The quarters and magazine require repairs. Under present circumstances I would not recommend its occupation.

I am, colonel, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

F. J. PORTER,

Assistant Adjutant-General.
[end quote] [OR, Series I, Vol I, pp. 70-72]

Fort Sumter was one of the Federal Forts recognized by the US Government. What happened to Fort Johnson, you may ask?

As Capt. John Foster, Chief Engineer, shows in his report, Fort Johnson was too dilapidated.

[begin quote]
Extracts from annual report (October 1, 1861) of Captain John G. Foster, U. S. Corps of Engineer.

* * * * * *

Castle Pinckney, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.-Some necessary repairs were commenced upon this work in December, 1860, but before these were completed the fort was seized by the troops of the State of South Carolina, on the 27th of December.

Lieutenant R. K. Meade, Corps of Engineers, who was in the immediate charge, was suffered to leave with the workmen; but all the public property in the fort was taken possession of, including the mess property and one month's provisions for the Engineer force. The armament of the fort was all mounted, except two or three guns on the barbette tier and one 42-pounder in the casemate tier. The carriages were in good order, and pretty good. The magazine was well furnished with implements, and also contained some powder. The fort was repaired three years ago, and was generally in excellent condition, one of the cisterns only wanting repairs.

Fort Johnson, Charleston, South Carolina.-The barracks and quarters were in such bad order as to be almost uninhabitable, and a large sum would be needed to repair them. The position was taken possession of by the State troops on the 2nd of January, 1861. A small battery of three guns was soon after built, adjoining the barracks.

Fort Sumter, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.-Vigorous operations were commenced on this fort in the month of August, 1860, with the view of placing it in a good defensive position as soon as possible. The casemate arches supporting the second tier of guns were all turned; the granite flagging for the second tier was laid on the right face of the work; the floors laid, and the iron stairways put up, in the east barracks; the traverse circles of the first tier of guns reset; the bluestone flagging laid in all the guns' rooms of the right and left faces of the first tier; and the construction of the embrasures of the second tier commenced at the time the fort was occupied by Major Anderson's command, on the 26th of December, 1860. The fears of an immediate attack, and disloyal feelings, induced the greater portion of the Engineer employes to leave at this time. But those that remained, fifty-five in number, reduced towards the end of the investment to thirty-five, were made very effective in preparing for a vigorous defense.

The armament of the fort was mounted and supplied with maneuvering implements; machicoulis galleries, splinter-proof shelters, and traverses were constructed; the openings left for the embrasures of the second tier were filled with brick and stone and earth, and those in the gorge with stone and iron and lead concrete; mines were established in the wharf and along the gorge; the parade was cleared, and communications opened to all parts of the fort and through the quarters.

The fort was bombarded on the 12th and 13th of April by the rebels, and evacuated by Major Anderson's command on the 14th of April. During the bombardment, the officers' quarters were set on fire by hot shot from the rebel batteries, and they, with the roofs of the barracks, were entirely consumed. The magazines were uninjured by the fire. The bombardment dismounted one gun, disabled two others, and ruined the stair towers and the masonry walls projecting above the parapet. No breach was effected in the walls, and the greatest penetration made by successive shots was twenty-two inches. Nearly all the material that had been obtained to construct the embrasures of the second tier, to flag this tier and the remainder of the first tier, and to finish the barracks, was used up in the preparations for defense.

Fort Moultrie, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.-The work of preparing this fort for a vigorous defense commenced in August, 1860, and was diligently prosecuted up the day of its evacuation, December 26, 1860. In this time the large accumulation of sand, which overtopped the scarp wall on the sea front, was removed to the front and formed into a glaciis; a wet ditch, fifteen feet wide, dug around the fort; two flanking caponieres of brick built, to flank with their fire the three water fronts; a bastioned for musketry constructed at the northwest angle; a picket fence built around the fort, bordering the ditch, and protected by a small glacis; merlons constructed on the whole of the east front; communication opened through the quarters, a bridge built, connecting them with the guard-house, and the latter looppholed for musketry, so as to serve for a citadel.

Means were also furnished to transport Major Anderson's command, and such public property as could be removed before the occupation of Fort Moultrie by the rebels, to Fort Sumter. Before evacuating the fort, the guns were spiked, the gun carriages on the front looking towards Fort Sumter burned, and the flagstaff cut down. A considerable quantity of Engineer implements and materials were unavoidably left in the fort.

Respectfully submitted.

J. G. FOSTER,

Captain, Engineers.
[end quote] [Ibid., pp. 4-5]

Hanny said:
really secesion in 1860 is unconstional, you can show me case law that this is so in 1860?, or are you a liar?.

You're the only one who has a problem with the truth. See the thread on legality of secession for the answer. This one is about Fort Sumter.


Hanny said:
Not the acount anderson himslef gave,nor the reason he gave for moving on his own responsoblity.

You're lying again.

[begin quote]
FORT SUMTER, S. C., December 26, 1860-8 p.m. (Received A. G. O., December 29.)

COLONEL: I have the honor to report that I have just completed, by the blessing of God, the removal to this fort of all of my garrison, except the surgeon, four non-commissioned officers, and seven men. We have one year's supply of hospital stores and about four months' supply of provisions for my command. I left orders to have all the guns at Fort Moultrie spiked, and the carriages of the 32-pounders, which are old, destroyed. I have sent orders to Captain Foster, who remains at Fort Moultrie, to destroy all the ammunition which he cannot send over. The step which I have taken was, in my opinion, necessary to prevent the effusion of blood.

Respectfully, your obedient servant,

ROBERT ANDERSON,

Major, First Artillery, Commanding.

Colonel S. COOPER, Adjutant-General.
[end quote] [Ibid., p. 2]
 
[begin quote]
FORT SUMTER, S. C., December 27, 1860.

(Received A. G. O., December 31.)

COLONEL: I had the honor to reply this afternoon to the telegram of the honorable Secretary of War in reference to the abandonment of Fort Moultrie. In addition to the reasons given in my telegram and in my letter of last night, I will add as my opinion that many things convinced me that the authorities of the State designed to proceed to a hostile act. Under this impression I could not hesitate that it was my solemn duty to move my command from a fort which we could not probably have held longer than forty-eight or sixty hours, to this one, where my power of resistance is increased to a very great degree. The governor of this State sent down one of his aides to-day and demanded, "courteously, but peremptorily," that I should return my command to Fort Moultrie. I replied that I could not and would not do so. He stated that when the governor came into office he found that there was an understanding between his predecessor and the President that no re-enforcements were to be sent to any of these forts, and particularly to this one, and that I had violated this agreement by having re-enforced this fort. I remarked that I had not re-enforced this command, but that I had merely transferred my garrison from one fort to another, and that, as the commander of this harbor, I had a right to move my men into any fort I deemed proper. I told him that the removal was made on my own responsibility, and that I did it because we were in a position that we could not defend, and also under the firm belief that it was the best means of preventing bloodshed. This afternoon an armed steamer, one of two which have been watching these two forts, between which they have been passing to and fro or anchored for the last ten nights, took possession by escalate of Castle Pinckney. Lieutenant Meade made no resistance. He is with us to-night. They also took possession to-night of Fort Moultrie, from which I withdrew the remainder of my men this afternoon, leaving the fort in charge of the overseer of the men employed by the Engineer Department. We have left about one month's and a half of provisions in that fort; also some wood and coal and a small quantity of ammunition. We are engaged here to-day in mounting guns and in closing up some of the openings for the embrasures-temporarily closed by light boards, but which would offer but slight resistance no persons seeking entrance. If the workmen return to their work, which I doubt, we shall be enabled in three or four days to have a sufficient number of our guns mounted, and be ready for anything that may occur.

I am, colonel, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

ROBERT ANDERSON,

Major, First Artillery, Commanding.

Colonel S. COOPER, Adjutant-General.
[end quote] [Ibid., pp. 3-4]


Hanny said:
Nope ist a fact, you just dont like it.

Just another of your lies, not a fact.


Hanny said:
No i am a factually correct you just dont like.

Wrong as usual.

Hanny said:
as usual anyone who disagress with you is wrong, explain the follwing on the US Government, every state elect bling deaf and dumb senators as the constition allows them to do, just how much government do you think gets done?.

Your writing is so semi-literate nobody can tell what you're asking.

The fact is that these things were owned by the Federal Government. The states had no ownership whatsoever. Any claim they did is based on ignorance.


Hanny said:
since the same law s apply to the creation of any Union and any treatuy organisation again im perfectly correct,

Wrong as usual. You have no clue whatsoever of what you're talking about. The same laws do NOT apply. The United States is a nation with a Constitution and a government. NATO is a treaty organization, not a nation. It has no government. With every post you prove your arguments deserve no respect whatsoever.

Hanny said:
and since paterson and other FF were explicit there were not creating a nation, but a Union of states, again im perfectly correct.

Again, you're full of bovine scatology. Patterson's plan, by the way, was rejected.

Docr. FRANKLIN rose with a speech in his hand, which he had reduced to writing for his own conveniency, and which Mr. Wilson read in the words following.
Mr. President
I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right-Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison."
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe ****her that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects & great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength & efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress & confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administred.
On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.-
He then moved that the Constitution be signed by the members and offered the following as a convenient form viz. "Done in Convention by the unanimous consent of the States present the 17th. of Sepr. &c-In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names."
This ambiguous form had been drawn up by Mr. G. M. in order to gain the dissenting members, and put into the hands of Docr. Franklin that it might have the better chance of success. [James Madison, _Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787,_ 17 September 1787]
 
Committee rose & Mr. GHORUM made report, which was postponed till tomorrow, to give an opportunity for other plans to be proposed. The report was in the words following:
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF WHOLE ON Mr. RANDOLPH'S PROPOSITIONS
1. Resd. that it is the opinion of this Committee that a National Governmt. ought to be established, consisting of a supreme Legislative, Executive & Judiciary.
2. Resold. that the National Legislature ought to consist of two branches.
3. Resd. that the members of the first branch of the National Legislature ought to be elected by the people of the several States for the term of three years, to receive fixed Stipends by which they may be compensated for the devotion of their time to public service, to be paid out of the National Treasury: to be ineligible to any office established by a particular State, or under the authority of the U. States, (except those peculiarly belonging to the functions of the first branch), during the term of service, and under the national Government for the space of one year after its expiration.
4. Resd. that the members of the second branch of the Natl. Legislature ought to be chosen by the individual Legislatures, to be of the age of 30 years at least, to hold their offices for a term sufficient to ensure their independency, namely, seven years, to receive fixed stipends by which they may be compensated for the devotion of their time to public service to be paid out of the National Treasury; to be ineligible to any office established by a particular State, or under the authority of the U. States, (except those peculiarly belonging to the functions of the second branch) during the term of service, and under the Natl. Govt. for the space of one year after its expiration.
5. Resd. that each branch ought to possess the right of originating Acts
6. Resd. that the Natl. Legislature ought to be empowered to enjoy the Legislative rights vested in Congs. by the Confederation, and moreover to legislate in all cases to which the separate States are incompetent; or in which the harmony of the U. S. may be interrupted by the exercise of individual legislation; to negative all laws passed by the several States contravening in the opinion of the National Legislature the articles of Union, or any treaties subsisting under the authority of the Union.
7. Resd. that the rights of suffrage in the 1st. branch of the National Legislature, ought not to be according to the rule established in the articles of confederation but according to some equitable ratio of representation, namely, in proportion to the whole number of white & other free citizens & inhabitants, of every age sex and condition, including those bound to servitude for a term of years, & three fifths of all other persons, not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians not paying taxes in each State:
8. Resolved that the right of suffrage in the 2d. branch of the National Legislature ought to be according to the rule established for the first.
9. Resolved that a National Executive be instituted to consist of a single person, to be chosen by the Natil. Legislature for the term of seven years, with power to carry into execution the national laws, to appoint to offices in cases not otherwise provided for-to be ineligible a second time, & to be removeable on impeachment and conviction of malpractices or neglect of duty-to receive a fixed stipend by which he may be compensated for the devotion of his time to public service to be paid out of the national Treasury.
10. Resold. that the Natl. Executive shall have a right to negative any Legislative Act, which shall not be afterwards passed unless by two thirds of each branch of the National Legislature.
11. Resold. that a Natl. Judiciary be established, to consist of one supreme tribunal, the Judges of which to be appointed by the 2d. branch of the Natl. Legislature, to hold their offices during good behaviour, & to receive punctually at stated times a fixed compensation for their services, in which no increase or diminution shall be made, so as to affect the persons actually in office at the time of such increase or diminution.
12. Resold. that the Natl. Legislature be empowered to appoint inferior Tribunals.
13. Resd. that the jurisdiction of the Natl. Judiciary shall extend to all cases which respect the collection of the Natl. revenue, impeachments of any Natl. Officers, and questions which involve the national peace & harmony.
14. Resd. that provision ought to be made for the admission of States lawfully arising within the limits of the U. States, whether from a voluntary junction of Government & territory or otherwise, with the consent of a number of voices in the Natl. Legislature less than the whole.
15. Resd. that provision ought to be made for the continuance of Congress and their authorities and privileges untill a given day after the reform of the articles of Union shall be adopted and for the completion of all their engagements.
16. Resd. that a Republican Constitution & its existing laws ought to be guaranteed to each State by the U. States.
17. Resd. that provision ought to be made for the amendment of the Articles of Union whensoever it shall seem necessary.
18. Resd. that the Legislative, Executive & Judiciary powers within the several States ought to be bound by oath to support the articles of Union.
19. Resd. that the amendments which shall be offered to the confederation by the Convention ought at a proper time or times after the approbation of Congs. to be submitted to an Assembly or Assemblies recommended by the several Legislatures to be expressly chosen by the people to consider and decide thereon. [James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, 13 June 1787]
 
Back
Top