Proposed Invasion of Charleston harbor by the North

I have read that and I do believe the Confederates would be firing and I do believe that the Union would have to get to the fort to transfer supplies into the fort, unless they were going to give them to the Confederates to distribute to the Yankees, And remember the part that Lincoln said..........No force would be used unless peaceful transfer of supplies was not allowed ? Turns out no force was used at all by the fleet. Fox's plan was fairly good but it failed, which it really didn't need to succeed....The whole mission was a rouse. You should broaden your reading selection.

Thanks.....


Some good sources are....

Storm Over Sumter By Roy Meredith
The Siege of Charleston By E. Milby Burton
Reminiscences Of Forts Sumter And Moultrie In 1860-1861 By Abner Doubleday
The First Shot At Fort Sumter By Edmund Ruffin
The History Of The Fall Of Fort Sumter - The Genesis Of The Civil War By Samuel Wylie Crawford
The Flag Replaced On Sumter - A Personal Narrative By William Arnold Spicer
The Historic Guns Of Fort Sumter And Moultrie By Mike Ryan
The Bombardment Of Fort Sumter - 1861 By Oliver Lyman Spaulding
Diary Of Gideon Welles - Secretary Of The Navy Under Lincoln 3 Vols.
The Civil War At Charleston
Allegiance: Fort Sumter, Charleston, and the Beginning of the Civil War By David Detzer
Days of Defiance: Sumter, Secession, and the Coming of the Civil War By Maury Klein
First Blood: The Story of Fort Sumter By W. A. Swanberg
And many of the Lincoln books !!!!

Respectfully,

William
Thanks for the list butI've actually own the majority of those books and theres not one that says anything more then we've been discussing here..Except the one by Ruffian might have to check out the book by that scoundrel :wink:
And the mission wasn't a rouse as Lincoln had every intention of trying to hold onto the fort, as he wasn't sure that they were going to be able to hold on to Pickens. The decesion for war was in Confederates hands, Lincoln had to send supplies to the troops as he could not just stand still and let them be starved into submission or show weakness by evacuating with a gun to his head..He was sending relief to the fort and told the Confederates that, the decesion to fire was entirely up to them..Now did it play out to his benefit, sure it did.. By firing on the fort it roused the silent North and got them geared up for war..
 
Well I might modify your phrase and change war to crisis.. As it was the Sumter crisis that benefitted both sides at the conclusion of it...

If you modify what I posted, it is not what I posted.

War is like a dance, takes 2 to tango.

Lincoln and His Admirals by Craig L. Symonds P35
In the end. however. the crucial step was Lincoln's decision to send formal notification to South Carolina's governor that the expedition was en route, for it threw the burden of decision making onto Jefferson Davis. In receipt of that notice. Davis had to either acquiesce in Anderson‘s rcsupply or assume the responsibility of the first blow. His order t0 Beauregard to open fire on Fort Sumter allowed Anderson to emerge from the crisis as a martyr and galvanized the North for the war to come. As Welles wrote his son a few days afterward: “Our seeming misfortune proved to be [a] blessing. The firing on Sumter electrified the heart nation.“ Quite possibly, Lincoln had this outcome in mind all along, but he also knew that he had been lucky rather than skillful in it, and aware of that. he was unwilling that Seward. Welles, Fox. Porter. or anyone else should shoulder any blame for the confusion.“
 
Thanks for the list butI've actually own the majority of those books and theres not one that says anything more then we've been discussing here..Except the one by Ruffian might have to check out the book by that scoundrel :wink:
And the mission wasn't a rouse as Lincoln had every intention of trying to hold onto the fort, as he wasn't sure that they were going to be able to hold on to Pickens. The decesion for war was in Confederates hands, Lincoln had to send supplies to the troops as he could not just stand still and let them be starved into submission or show weakness by evacuating with a gun to his head..He was sending relief to the fort and told the Confederates that, the decesion to fire was entirely up to them..Now did it play out to his benefit, sure it did.. By firing on the fort it roused the silent North and got them geared up for war..

Yes, I agree Lincoln had to send supplies............To send supplies into a besieged fort is, in the eyes of the Confederacy, an act of war. The decision to fire was made by the Confederacy, who gave them this opportunity ? Lincoln, by sending in supplies, an act he had to do. It played out to both sides benefit at that time...........Davis needed the attack to bring in the Upper South, which it did.........Lincoln needed the attack to gain full Northern support, which it did........Lincoln's war came..............I call it a rouse because......it was an act to have the Confederacy be the aggressors.........I call it a rouse because........1. The supplies were never landed..........2. The fleet never attacked.....The orders were..........1. To land the supplies peacefully if allowed..........2. If not allowed to land the supplies peacefully, then the fleet was to use force....neither was accomplished...........and Lincoln's war came........The scoundrel Ruffian's book is ok, nothing great...Sorta like those Northern scoundrels..(Seward, Welles, Stanton, Blair, Sherman.......Lincoln) Expired Image Removed

Respectfully,

William
 
Yes, I agree Lincoln had to send supplies............To send supplies into a besieged fort is, in the eyes of the Confederacy, an act of war. The decision to fire was made by the Confederacy, who gave them this opportunity ? Lincoln, by sending in supplies, an act he had to do. It played out to both sides benefit at that time...........Davis needed the attack to bring in the Upper South, which it did.........Lincoln needed the attack to gain full Northern support, which it did........Lincoln's war came..............I call it a rouse because......it was an act to have the Confederacy be the aggressors.........I call it a rouse because........1. The supplies were never landed..........2. The fleet never attacked.....The orders were..........1. To land the supplies peacefully if allowed..........2. If not allowed to land the supplies peacefully, then the fleet was to use force....neither was accomplished...........and Lincoln's war came........The scoundrel Ruffian's book is ok, nothing great...Sorta like those Northern scoundrels..(Seward, Welles, Stanton, Blair, Sherman.......Lincoln) Expired Image Removed

Respectfully,

William

It is a bit of a stretch that "Lincoln needed the attack to gain full Northern support, which it did.." It is rather an unintended consequence. It could have gone the the other way with universal condemnation for starting a war. The correct assertion was that that Lincoln did not have the political capital to start a war. He would accept war if it came.

If there was a fatal unintended consequence, it was Davis who united the North in a manner fatal to his cause, but unlike Lincoln, Davis assumed the North would not unite and would acquiesce and give the South independence upon the demonstration of force at Fort Sumter. While Lincoln stumbled into his good fortune, Davis assumed the cliff was not there.

So while there was a tango, Jefferson Davis issued the invite and led.
 
HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY, Washington, D. C., April 4, 1861.

Lieutenant Colonel HENRY L. SCOTT, A. D. C., New York:

SIR: This letter will be landed to you by Captain G. V. Fox, ex-officer of the Navy, and a gentleman of high standing, as well as possessed of extraordinary nautical ability. He is charged by high authority here with the command of an expedition, under cover of certain ships of war, whose object is to re-enforce Fort Sumter.

To embark with Captain Fox you will cause a detachment of recruits, say about two hundred, to be immediately organized at Fort Columbus, with a competent number of officers, arms, ammunition, and subsistence. A large surplus of the latter-indeed, as great as the vessels of the expedition can take-with other necessaries, will be needed for the augmented garrison of Fort Sumter.

The subsistence and other supplies should be assorted like those which were provided by you and Captain Ward of the Navy for a former expedition. Consult Captain Fox and Major Eaton on the subject, and give all necessary orders in my name to fit out the expedition, except that the hiring of vessels will be left to others.

Some fuel must be shipped. Oil, artillery implements, fuses, cordage, slow-march, mechanical levers, and gins, &c., should also be put on board.

Consult, also, if necessary, confidentially, Colonel Tompkins and Major Thornton.

Respectfully, yours,
WINFIELD SCOTT.
 
EADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY, New York, April 6, 1861.

Lieutenant CHARLES R. WOODS,
Ninth Infantry, Act. Supt. East. Dept., R. S., Fort Columbus, N. Y.:

SIR: The General-in-Chief desires that two hundred recruits from Fort Columbus be at once organized into two companies, and held in readiness for embarkation on Monday next, the 8th instant.

A proper proportion of non-commissioned officers will be included in the detachment, which must be fully supplied with arms, ammunition, and subsistence.

First Lieutenant Edward McK. Hudson, Fourth Artillery, First Lieutenant R. O. Tyler, Third Artillery, and Second Lieutenant C. W. Thomas, First Infantry, are assigned to duty with the recruits.

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

H. L. SCOTT,
 
EADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY, New York, April 6, 1861.

Lieutenant CHARLES R. WOODS,
Ninth Infantry, Act. Supt. East. Dept., R. S., Fort Columbus, N. Y.:

SIR: The General-in-Chief desires that two hundred recruits from Fort Columbus be at once organized into two companies, and held in readiness for embarkation on Monday next, the 8th instant.

A proper proportion of non-commissioned officers will be included in the detachment, which must be fully supplied with arms, ammunition, and subsistence.

First Lieutenant Edward McK. Hudson, Fourth Artillery, First Lieutenant R. O. Tyler, Third Artillery, and Second Lieutenant C. W. Thomas, First Infantry, are assigned to duty with the recruits.

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

H. L. SCOTT,


Thanks, so was it recruits of the 3rd, 4th artillery and the 1st infantry or raw recruits under 1st Lt. Hudson, 1st Lt. Tyler, and 2nd Lt. Thomas ? IIRC I read some where were they were raw recruits, but I am not sure.


Just read in Fox.....The recruits were of no earthly use because they were undrilled........

Respectfully,

William
 
Last edited:
Thanks, so was it recruits of the 3rd, 4th artillery and the 1st infantry or raw recruits under 1st Lt. Hudson, 1st Lt. Tyler, and 2nd Lt. Thomas ? IIRC I read some where were they were raw recruits, but I am not sure.


Just read in Fox.....The recruits were of no earthly use because they were undrilled........

Respectfully,

William
I'm not sure that those were the unit designations but were the units that they pulled the LT's from.. In one of these endless Sumter threads I knew myself or someone else posted which units they were..I thought the other men were Regular US artillerymen but could be mistaken on that...

Yeah I don't see what use the recruits would have been unless they were just going to be there to man the walls against a landing..In the artillery duel, the green troops might have been more hinderance then help..
 
Another question, why was it made public that the garrison of Fort Sumter was starving and that they had food to last only until April 15th? They were allowed to buy food from Charleston until April 7th.

Was this some kind of propaganda to influence the Northern and world opinion that the evil southerners were starving the poor garrison to death?

In the letter from "Old Fuss and Feathers" (Winfield Scott) back to President Lincoln, he claims that on March 11, there was enough pork for 48 more days, which would be 17 more days past the April 12th reduction of the fort, and 26 more days of hard bread, flour and rice, which would be running him shy unless they half-rationed, like they were doing their coffee. I think they also left some supplies at Moultrie when they left, and I recall there being an account of "23 more days of comfortable subsistence" mentioned by Anderson, himself, but that actual original escapes me just now, and I can not locate it.

http://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/panel/this_date/1864-12-04?q=node/25261

At any rate, the Confederate DF Jamison had already attempted to provided 200 pounds of fresh beef. And then, there is this:

Page 151 Chapter I. CORRESPONDENCE, ETC.-UNION.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF WAR, Charleston, January 21, 1861.
Major ROBERT ANDERSON:
SIR: In offering to permit you to purchase in this city, through the instrumentality of an officer of the State, such fresh supplies of provisions as you might need, his excellency the governor was influenced solely by considerations of courtesy; and if he had no other motive for refusing to any of your garrison free access to the city to procure such supplies, he would have been moved by prudential reasons for the safety of your people, in preventing a collision between them and our own citizens. As to the manner of procuring your supplies, his excellency is indifferent whether it is done by the officer referred to, or whether your market supplies are delivered to you at Fort Johnson by the butcher whom you say you have before employed. It is only insisted on that the supplies, if sent, shall be carried over in a boat under an officer of the State who takes to Fort Johnson your daily mails. His excellency desires me to say that he willingly accedes to your request as to the women and children in Fort Sumter, and that he will afford every facility in his power to enable you to remove them from the fort at any time and in any manner that will be most agreeable to them.
I am, sir, respectfully, yours,
(D. F. Jamison)
Page 152
FORT SUMTER, S. C., January 22, 1861.
Hon. D. F. JAMISON,,
Executive Office, Department of War, Charleston:
SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of the 21st instant, and to express my gratification at its tenor. I shall direct my staff officer to write to the contractor in reference to his supplying us with beef, and will communicate with you as soon as the necessary preliminaries are arranged, in order that you may then, if you please, give the requisite instructions for carrying them into effect. Be pleased to express to his excellency the governor my thanks for the kind and prompt manner in which he gave his consent to the proposed transfer of the women and children of this garrison. As there are on Sullivan’s Island the families of two of our non-commissioned officers, with their furniture, &c., and also a quantity of private property [including some musical instruments-not public property] belonging to this command, which the first commander of Fort Moultrie, Colonel De Saussure, sent me word he had collected and placed under lock and key, it will be necessary to permit the two non-commissioned officers to go to the island to assist in moving their families, &c. The lighter, it occurs to me, which will be needed to take the families to the steamer, had better go to the island for the property there before coming for the women and children here. As we are all very desirous of guarding against causing any unnecessary excitement, it will afford me great pleasure to have everything done in the most quiet way possible. I shall, consequently, cheerfully govern myself, as far as possible, by the views and wishes of his excellency in reference to this matter, and will be pleased to hear from you what they are. It is my wish, if the weather prove favorable, to ship the families in the Saturday steamer, or the first one after that day.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ROBERT ANDERSON,
Major, First Artillery, Commanding.

At any rate, and no matter, the whole tone of all the dispatches from that time period shows a rather amicable relationship between Anderson and Beauregard, with the exception of those times when immediate duty on either side gets in the way, and causes one or the other to stiffen in his language towards that other.

I would say that you are right about the political misdirection in the newspapers. There was an element with whom President Lincoln intimates that he was attempting to contact, in his subsequent after-action letter to that 'Captain' GV Fox, whom Anderson claimed may have been the catalyst for the throwing in of supplies. The falling of a federal installation, whose falling did more good than it otherwise could have, leaves me chilled with what his meaning really means.
 
In the letter from "Old Fuss and Feathers" (Winfield Scott) back to President Lincoln, he claims that on March 11, there was enough pork for 48 more days, which would be 17 more days past the April 12th reduction of the fort, and 26 more days of hard bread, flour and rice, which would be running him shy unless they half-rationed, like they were doing their coffee. I think they also left some supplies at Moultrie when they left, and I recall there being an account of "23 more days of comfortable subsistence" mentioned by Anderson, himself, but that actual original escapes me just now, and I can not locate it.

http://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/panel/this_date/1864-12-04?q=node/25261

At any rate, the Confederate DF Jamison had already attempted to provided 200 pounds of fresh beef. And then, there is this:

Page 151 Chapter I. CORRESPONDENCE, ETC.-UNION.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF WAR, Charleston, January 21, 1861.
Major ROBERT ANDERSON:
SIR: In offering to permit you to purchase in this city, through the instrumentality of an officer of the State, such fresh supplies of provisions as you might need, his excellency the governor was influenced solely by considerations of courtesy; and if he had no other motive for refusing to any of your garrison free access to the city to procure such supplies, he would have been moved by prudential reasons for the safety of your people, in preventing a collision between them and our own citizens. As to the manner of procuring your supplies, his excellency is indifferent whether it is done by the officer referred to, or whether your market supplies are delivered to you at Fort Johnson by the butcher whom you say you have before employed. It is only insisted on that the supplies, if sent, shall be carried over in a boat under an officer of the State who takes to Fort Johnson your daily mails. His excellency desires me to say that he willingly accedes to your request as to the women and children in Fort Sumter, and that he will afford every facility in his power to enable you to remove them from the fort at any time and in any manner that will be most agreeable to them.
I am, sir, respectfully, yours,
(D. F. Jamison)
Page 152
FORT SUMTER, S. C., January 22, 1861.
Hon. D. F. JAMISON,,
Executive Office, Department of War, Charleston:
SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of the 21st instant, and to express my gratification at its tenor. I shall direct my staff officer to write to the contractor in reference to his supplying us with beef, and will communicate with you as soon as the necessary preliminaries are arranged, in order that you may then, if you please, give the requisite instructions for carrying them into effect. Be pleased to express to his excellency the governor my thanks for the kind and prompt manner in which he gave his consent to the proposed transfer of the women and children of this garrison. As there are on Sullivan’s Island the families of two of our non-commissioned officers, with their furniture, &c., and also a quantity of private property [including some musical instruments-not public property] belonging to this command, which the first commander of Fort Moultrie, Colonel De Saussure, sent me word he had collected and placed under lock and key, it will be necessary to permit the two non-commissioned officers to go to the island to assist in moving their families, &c. The lighter, it occurs to me, which will be needed to take the families to the steamer, had better go to the island for the property there before coming for the women and children here. As we are all very desirous of guarding against causing any unnecessary excitement, it will afford me great pleasure to have everything done in the most quiet way possible. I shall, consequently, cheerfully govern myself, as far as possible, by the views and wishes of his excellency in reference to this matter, and will be pleased to hear from you what they are. It is my wish, if the weather prove favorable, to ship the families in the Saturday steamer, or the first one after that day.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ROBERT ANDERSON,
Major, First Artillery, Commanding.

At any rate, and no matter, the whole tone of all the dispatches from that time period shows a rather amicable relationship between Anderson and Beauregard, with the exception of those times when immediate duty on either side gets in the way, and causes one or the other to stiffen in his language towards that other.

I would say that you are right about the political misdirection in the newspapers. There was an element with whom President Lincoln intimates that he was attempting to contact, in his subsequent after-action letter to that 'Captain' GV Fox, whom Anderson claimed may have been the catalyst for the throwing in of supplies. The falling of a federal installation, whose falling did more good than it otherwise could have, leaves me chilled with what his meaning really means.
The atmosphere of allowing Anderson and his men to gain supplies had changed dramatically from Jan to April..You are correct that there was about two weeks worth left to the garisson, which was something that Doubleday complained about.. But, you are overlooking the fact that by this time the civilian contractors in the engineering department were also drawing supplies from the garissons diminishing food stores as well..
 
And there is the crux. And my point, as well. It all depends on who is making the opinion. No, they are not the same, but yes, it is the same entity. And for that reason we can not depend upon it to set legislative precedent, such as 'deciding the legality of Secession.' That is the job of our legislature; one that it has ever shirked.

If we place an importance upon one court composition of jurors, yet not another... how them can SCOTUS mean anything to anyone, at all, by virtue of its existence as an art form? We will always have to be seeing who the actors were at that time before we can give it any credibility, or not. Because at no time do any elected figures come into the playing field as neutrals; they all have a letter after their names, and are owned by a faction of the voters, however slim the majority that elected them to power.

By the time of Texas v. White, we have three Texas entities; The Original, the Seceded Confederate, and the Newly-Formed Federally-Approved Permanent Union version. Three different versions of the same state. We also have two different ideas in the same political party about what Texas 'was' when it was 'not wearing blue.' The Radicals are swinging from the Lincolnian idea of "Let the Unionist Minority of Each State Up Easy" by calling them a majority whole... by ignoring anything that was not Unionist (i.e., the Confederates) -

- all the way down to treating them all as "Captured Provinces, Dragged Back in Kicking and Screaming" in order to give the Congress ten years of plunder while they "Reconstruct" each state.

The latter would appear to have actually been the case, as the third version of Texas was not the original version of Texas - as such as Philip Sheridan would never have been consulted in the formation of the original, nor would any of the leaders who were selected have been selected in the original. Thus, Chase is wrong. Change has occurred, and the Union had indeed been violated irreparably.

Chief Justice Chase, however, says that the state has not changed since the Articles of Confederation; that in order to enforce the perpetuity thing, the Articles are a more perfected Union under the Constitution... and so, Texas was in the hands of the politically-insanely-incorrect, or what Justice Grier called, in his dissent of Texas V. White (there were two others in dissension, as well), as being seen as having been done 'while under the disease of an insanity."

Chase is incorrect. The Original Texas did change when it went Confederate, and that would then make Three Texases, and not merely the One Texas Unchanged that Chase desires to infer... because it changed a third time when it was Permanently Unionized.

Original Texas is Confederate Texas. Original Texas seceded, which is also why Present Texas is not Original Texas. Confederate Texas was the result of Original Texas seceding from the Union, whether it was recognized defacto, or not.

Present Texas has been told they can not think that way, any longer, about Secession, and so they don't. Thus, we have Three Texaii, or Texases.

But actually, we have only two; Southern Sovereign Turned Confederate Texas and Forced Union Northern Owned Captured Province Texas. In others words, the two political parties who went to Civil War with each other...

... and now, we have justices who are divided by these very same politics, as well. (Grier was a doughface).

And you want to see about getting a 'ruling' based on 'law' from these guys?

It gets even better.

Aside from Texas v. White not being 'unanimous,' again it smacks of a might makes right situation. Rather like the Union victory. Numbers shall decide morality, and righteousness, in every case.


And we have not yet even begun to discuss the bonds, and who owes what to whom, and why, and for how much??? We are not even out of 'discovery' (compulsory disclosure), yet!

Now, none of this is based upon anything in the United States Constitution. None of it. It is all political, and use-justified, and militarily-derived from the war.

The Constitution, written in the negative, as are all law books (Thou Shalt Not) says nothing about Secession, unilateral or otherwise. The Constitution confers no such power to decide the legality of Secession by inference or by decree by any version of the United States Supreme Court. It confers no power of Judicial Review.

Thus, this is the opinion of a Sitting Political Party, just as Dred Scott was the opinion of a Sitting Political Party. And it has about as much morality, and legal morality, as well.

As always, it was the Legislature's job to consider Secession, and to put it up for an Amendment, one way or the other. It is not the job of a president, (who actually chooses the political party justices!) And as always, the Legislature choked, and chokes, and continues to choke. It refuses to do its duty, and chooses rather to allow some executive to compromise his integrity, for votes, or else to allow some judiciary to clean up a mess intended for its own members.

And so this is why I say that the SCOTUS is here today, gone tomorrow, and set up by a political faction in control of the force of arms in its decrees... which means it can also be undone, in the same such manner.
This thread is related to Sumter, please start a new thread if you want to wonder off topic.
posted as mod
 
Taken in context with the rest of the letter and with other things Lincoln has said prior to this, I would paraphrase it this way:

"The cause of the country is that we will not surrender any more federal property to the secessionists, at least not without a fight. And if a fight is to result, as it seems the secessionists desire, I have vowed that we would not fire the first shot. You, Captain Fox, have made a daring and dangerous attempt to peacefully provision Fort Sumter, which, if successful, would have allowed us to continue to hold the fort. Due to circumstances for which you are in nowise responsible, the attempt failed. While I understand this is a great source of annoyance to you, let it be no small consolation that at least we did not fire the first shot."
As always, brass--you make things so very clear. Thank you.
 
If warships entered the harbor(s), without warning and a war ensued (regardless if was for a provisional supply mission) would certainly take a calculated follow-up proclamation, considering the perception of a dominant aggressor was reality.
There was warning given, and beseiging a fort and shooting at ships carrying the flag of that fort is usually a sign that war has all ready ensued...
 
Back
Top