How Did Major Anderson help ignite the Civil War?

Old_Glory

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Location
NC
I also conceded that I needed to alter my statement to. US government (to include Lincoln), as opposed to solely the Lincoln Administration.

Buchanan and his administration told Major Anderson to keep his backside in Fort Moultrie. Anderson decided he had better ideas like moving to Sumter. What could go wrong? Go ahead and throw him in their as well.

The crux of Anderson's error came when he moved to Ft. Sumter and damaged Ft. Moultrie intentionally before he left. The guns were destroyed and the ammunition was set on fire which was visible throughout the city.

“I spiked the guns and destroyed the carriages to keep the guns from being used against us.”

Major Anderson speaking about leaving Ft. Moultrie
Major Robert Anderson and Fort Sumter, 1861 by Eliza McIntosh Clinch Anderson Lawton, pg. 6
 
Last edited:
That is not what the orders said. Anderson was instructed only to move if he was in danger and had evidence his men were going to be killed. He had nothing.
Thanks for your response.
Are you and I reading the same orders?
Let's review:
You posted "Instructions from President Buchanan presented to Major Anderson at Fort Multrie [sic]":
You are carefully to avoid every act which would needlessly tend to provoke aggression. and for that reason you are not, without necessity, to take up any position which could be construed into the assumption of a hostile attitude; but you are to hold possession of the forts in this harbor, and, if attacked, you are to defend yourself to the last extremity. The smallness of your force will not permit you, perhaps, to occupy more than one of the three forts; but an attack on or attempt to take possession of either 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.​
The political history of the United States of America, during the great rebellion, By Edward McPherson pg. 31
You posted "His Direct Orders"
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.
ORDNANCE OFFICE,
Washington, December 21, 1860.​
In summary, Anderson was to "hold possession of the forts in the harbor of Charleston", "avoid every act which would needlessly tend to provoke aggression", "if attacked, to defend yourself to the last extremity". Because of "the smallness of your force" it may not be possible to defend all three installations. "Any attack on or attempt to take possession of either 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'. Further, Anderson was not required to wait to be attacked: "You are also authorized to take similar steps whenever you have tangible evidence of a design to proceed to a hostile act."
Finally, Anderson was not required to sacrifice his command, but "to exercise a sound military discretion on this subject."
Regardless of what Buchanan and Floyd said afterward, they clearly gave Anderson the leeway to defend the installations as he saw fit. As a good soldier, he knew his best chance of achieving his mission was- as had been suggested to him in his orders- to defend the strongest position, a position of his choice. He was told not to threaten the South Carolina authorities but authorized to determine when his command was threatened and act accordingly.
Major Anderson operated entirely within his orders.
 
Vote Here:
That is not what the orders said. If it was, then why were President Buchanan and Secretary Floyd so upset?
Thanks for your response.
It is difficult for any of us to know with certainty why Buchanan and Floyd were upset. However, we do know that whatever they felt after the fact as evidenced by their remarks, speeches, letters or reports is immaterial and smacks of attempts to avoid blame and make Anderson a scapegoat.
 
Vote Here:
It may have been willful (and authorized) destruction of government property, but nothing more.

As Doubleday realized, the major’s stubborn sense of military honor had trumped his political sympathies. To save his force from ignominious surrender, he would defy the express wishes, if not the explicit commands, of his own superiors in Washington, who wished to do nothing that might offend the aggrieved South. (Anderson, ever the careful West Point academic, had discovered a slight ambiguity of phrasing in the orders that could serve as a loophole.) He would also defy the local secessionist authorities, who had put Moultrie under round-the-clock watch, with armed steamers patrolling the channel between the two forts, under orders to stop or sink any vessel carrying Union soldiers to Sumter.

So now Anderson and his little garrison – barely six dozen officers and men – were crossing just that stretch of water. He had left a small detachment back at Moultrie, manning six heavy cannons. These were loaded, primed and pointed at the channel, ready to fire at any rebel vessel intercepting the troops.

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/25/the-night-escape/
Adam Goodheart

That sounds extremely aggressive to me and not even remotely in his orders.
 
Vote Here:
Yes! The South took it as a declaration of War! Especially when Doubleday made a midnight surprise raid with bayonets!

(Sigh!) This oft-repeated fantasy has been shown, when in context of events, why this happened and was not a declaration of war.
 
Last edited:
Vote Here:
Anderson was instructed only to move if he was in danger and had evidence his men were going to be killed. He had nothing. And there was no mention of giving him authority to destroy property.
Thanks for your response.
How detailed do you think his orders should have been? Remember, neither Buchanan nor Floyd had a direct line to Anderson. They had to delegate conduct of the day-to-day operation and emergencies that might arise to Major Anderson. Their orders, therefore, were broad, but with guidance, trusting in his judgment.
The orders did not order him to wait for attacking infantry with scaling ladders or for incoming artillery rounds before deciding how and where best to defend the installations entrusted to him. And he most certainly wasn't expected to wait until some of the men in his command were shot or killed before deciding.
Was he specifically ordered to spike any abandoned guns and burn abandoned gun carriages? No. Neither was he ordered not to. That was a decision he made based on his judgment as a trained, experienced military professional. And it was the right decision.
 
Vote Here:
No Union solider died in the fight for it after the shooting started.
Thanks for your response.
"No, Mrs. Glory, you weren't attacked and robbed. Yes, you are battered and bruised and missing your purse and jewelry, but you are still alive. So let's just forget the whole thing. It didn't happen."
The fortunate fact that no one was killed "in the fight" is immaterial.
 
Vote Here:
You are carefully to avoid every act which would needlessly tend to provoke aggression. and for that reason you are not, without necessity, to take up any position which could be construed into the assumption of a hostile attitude;


Explain to me how Anderson followed this order directly from the President of the United States. Anderson did the exact opposite of this.​
 
Vote Here:

Explain to me how Anderson followed this order directly from the President of the United States. Anderson did the exact opposite of this.​

Well, if we understand what the orders are saying, we can see the falseness of the above claim. A position that could be construed as assumption of a hostile attitude would be something on the order of manning the parapets with loaded guns pointed at the citizens of Charleston as they go about their daily business. Moving to a fort that is part of his command which makes it harder for a hostile force to attack him is the exact opposite of assuming a hostile attitude.
 
Vote Here:
Thanks for your response.
"No, Mrs. Glory, you weren't attacked and robbed. Yes, you are battered and bruised and missing your purse and jewelry, but you are still alive. So let's just forget the whole thing. it didn't happen."
The fortunate fact that no one was killed "in the fight" is immaterial.

Are you serious?
 
Vote Here:
That sounds extremely aggressive to me and not even remotely in his orders.
Thanks for your response.
Some of us today, in the comfort of our easy chairs, knowing full well the outcome of decisions made over 150 years ago are certainly free to characterize those decisions and actions however we like. But like it or not, agree or disagree, Anderson had a responsibility to decide what to do and did it.
Aggressive? That is in the eyes of the beholder. We know, for example, that the local newspapers objected when soon after taking command he made repairs to Fort Moultrie. What was their complaint? He had his men clear away sand dunes that had been swept up high against the walls!
Clearly, anything Anderson did was liable to be looked upon as "aggressive" or threatening by some locals.
Did his orders tell him to repair his installations? No. But having his command in fighting shape was unquestionably his responsibility.
 
Vote Here:
Anderson ticked off Floyd by moving to Sumter without orders. I would say he was made to write the above OR.
If he did, that's Floyd's problem. Anderson was entrusted with all three installations and empowered to decide how best to defend them. Under the hostile circumstances and after assessing the relative strengths and weaknesses of his positions, he was fully justified in moving to the one that could be best defended.
 
Vote Here:

Explain to me how Anderson followed this order directly from the President of the United States. Anderson did the exact opposite of this.​
Thanks for your response.
I believe I already have. To repeat: the orders left the crucial decision-making to Anderson. That particular line leaves it for him to decide whether an action is provocative or will be construed by someone else as aggressive or is unnecessary.
Why don't you tell us why you believe he did the opposite?
 
Vote Here:
No one had been harmed up to that point.

Try that defense in a court of law. Explain to the judge that you shouldn't be convicted and sentenced to 4 or more years in prison for felonious assault even though you pulled a gun or knife on someone, you didn't harm him or better yet, explain that you shouldn't be convicted to life in prison for assault with intent to commit murder even though you shot at the victim, you missed him and no harm was done.
 
Vote Here:
Back
Top