Sumter Provocation

Link works for me.http://www.enotes.com/topic/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter it refers to the primary source held here,http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/m/moawar/text/waro0001.txt How do you know its not a primary source if the link wont open?.

Its a cite that appears in most book btw.

OR gives us 109 and when, ( already posted in thread) it gives us 55 and when, and 43 and when, and i used the 43 for period when they were there, and you claimed i was wrong.

You refered to Swanberg book earlier, it uses the 43 for March and April, citeing the OR.

The answers to your question have not only been given here, but are present in the works you have, and have misued.

The remaining personnel were 68 noncommissioned officers and privates, eight musicians, and 43 noncombatant workmen.http://www.enotes.com/topic/Battle_o...r#cite_note-13

Thats the link you pasted it does not work, why did you list a different one in your response.. But anyway I played around with the address and found where it went, its a semi-wikipedia summary of the battle that refers to another secondary source...The Swanberg book does also state 43, ( so I guess by writing this you realize that you were wrong by saying Shane was making up his information) but it also doesnt state the OR..The book your secondary source uses as a reference also doesn't show a primary source...So until someone can show me some sort of documentation I will stick with the figure that was reported by then men that were there...
 
where i refered to Anderson report, already provided, stateing he was.

There are also OR's and diary accounts of Anderson and others complaining that the merchants weren't fulfilling their side of the bargain by selling food to the fort.I haven't seen anything which shows ANderson being pleased with the amount of food he was getting in the mid march time frame.
 
I could care less what the answer is as long as it's an answer and as long as it's correct.

You asked a question, i gave the answer to the question you asked.

But when you spew out a bunch of garbage and say "the answer's in there somewhere, you go and find it", I call Walter Matthau.

Well thats because the question has already been asked and anwsered and my repeating it will serve no purpose other than to increase the infractions awarded to me for doing so.
 
KeyserSoze's last post is well taken. The infatuation of B Peach, et al., on the tendentious supply, side-issue, says very little concerning the status of SC and csa claims to independence. Which, in fact, is the main issue of the crisis of the Union forts in Charleston Harbor.
As I have already stated the south was looking for any excuse to eliminate all aspects of Federal authority from within its borders, and if the supply issue would have been inadequate, to forcing the surrender of all federal authority in SC and the confederacy, Davis was perfectly capable(and willing) to find another.
 
WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., April 4, 1861.
Major ROBERT ANDERSON, U. S. Army:
SIR: Your letter of the 1st instant occasions some anxiety to the President.
On the information of Captain Fox he had supposed you could hold out till the 15th instant without any great inconvenience; and had prepared an expedition to relieve you before that period.
Hoping still that you will be able to sustain yourself till the 11th or 12th instant, the expedition will go forward; and, finding your flag flying, will attempt to provision you, and, in case the effort is resisted, will endeavor also to re-enforce you.
You will therefore hold out, if possible, till the arrival of the expedition.
It is not, however, the intention of the President to subject your command to any danger or hardship beyond what, in your judgment, would be usual in military life; and he has entire confidence that you will act as becomes a patriot and soldier, under all circumstances.
Whenever, if at all, in your judgment, to save yourself and command, a capitulation becomes a necessity, you are authorized to make it.
Respectfully,
SIMON CAMERON, Secretary of War.
http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/sources/recordView.cfm?Content=001/0235

This doesn't seem to me to be a letter sent by an administration sending a fleet behind a smoke screen of trying to bring supplies to men..It appears that the administration was genuinely taken by surprise by Anderson's April 1 letter..Again, these communiques about food shortages are all dated before April 7, when the CSA officially shut the door on supplies, though it would appear that this pipeline was already closed...
 
http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/sources/recordView.cfm?Content=001/0235

This doesn't seem to me to be a letter sent by an administration sending a fleet behind a smoke screen of trying to bring supplies to men..It appears that the administration was genuinely taken by surprise by Anderson's April 1 letter..

Come on, Will. You know the drill by now. Take every 3rd word, spell it backwards, merge the first 3 letters of one word with the last 2 letters of the word before it, and it says "Whoopdedoo, we're gonna start us a shootin' war!!"
 
As Lincoln intimated at his First Inaugural , there could be no provocation in his acting in complete conformationn with the Constitution and its laws. If SC(or group of other states) believed him to be breakking or not conforming to that Constitution or its laws, legal remedy was provided within that instrument and laws. Which both law and common sense, required first choice, before insurrection and war.
 
As Lincoln intimated at his First Inaugural , there could be no provocation in his acting in complete conformationn with the Constitution and its laws. If SC(or group of other states) believed him to be breakking or not conforming to that Constitution or its laws, legal remedy was provided within that instrument and laws. Which both law and common sense, required first choice, before insurrection and war.
I agree completely.
 
I aplogise for not putting names to post, busy server has prevented me from using this thread all day.

I bet I know why the confusion on "Sumter" and "Sumpter" spelling, especially among notherners. People in South Carolina, even today, pronounce it with the "P". It's part of our accent.

May be, but since both are used it matters not. Color is still colour. Spelling was not universaly/nationaly taught the same way in 1860, and could explain why the Fort was refered to North and South with both terms of spelling, the educated Chestnut used Sumter, the education NEw York times used sumpter.

Sumter is pronounced either Sumptuh in the low country or Sumpter in the upstate.

Intresting, but our problem was not that there are two equally valid ways to spell a word, but being told there is only one.


You seem to be saying that Scott revised his estimate that the fort has enough supplies for 6 to 10 months..

Hi you may have missed the last dozen pages or so so ill try and sumarise as i go.

In Scotts first answer for POTuS he gave 40 days supply at full rations. He then expands his thinking for POTUS to show that to go to Sumpter and relive it meansa lengthy campaign, 6-10 months to effect. Anderson had asked if he should go to half rations. So 80 not 40 days. Even at half rations Sumper is starved out in 80 days, less than half the period Scott thinks required. He again advises let the Fort go. But Scotts letter does not take into acount the level of supplies Anderson is in reciet of from 17 March onwards. Its this increase in Anderson supply that is of interst, as it shows when normal or half rations would now last if no intervention takes place to disrupt its delivery.


Another OR expands on Scotts thoughts....


General Scott, in his reply to the question addressed to him by the President, on the 12th instant, what amount of means and of what description, in addition to those already at command, it would require to supply and re-enforce the fort, says: I should need a fleet of war vessels and transports which, in the scattered disposition of the Navy [as understood], could not be collected in less than four months; 5,000 additional regular troops and 20,000 volunteers; that is, a force sufficient to take all the batteries, both in the harbor [including Fort Moultrie], as well as in the approach or outer bay. To raise, organize, and discipline such an army [not to speak of necessary legislation by Congress, not now in session] would require from six to eight months. As a practical military question the time for succoring Fort Sumter with any means at hand had passed away nearly a month ago. Since then a surrender assault or from starvation has been merely a question of time.

This states that the force needed to lift the seige would take six to eights months to create and by that time the fort would have been captured by assault or the garrison starved out.. I dont see anything that shows Scott revising his estimate on the amount of food the fort contains...
http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/sources/...ntent=001/0197

Yes i started with that on post 242, and was Scott`s initial answer, 6-8 months,m which he later increases in time to 6-10. Ressupply as an option ended a month ago. Reusuply now is not an option.

Its these not options from Scott as well as the projected end of supply that im intrested in.


FORT SUMTER, S. C., March 17, 1861.
Hon. D. F. JAMISON, Executive Office, Department of War:
SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 15th instant in reply to mine of the 13th to his excellency the governor.
I hasten to ask you to refer to my letter to his excellency, and you will see that I did not solicit any modification of his original permission about receiving supplies of fresh meat and vegetables. I am satisfied with the existing arrangement, and only called attention to a reported interference of it. I thank you for your promise in reference to the property of Captain Foster.

This refers to Anderson from then on being in reciept of full supply from the contractor who supplied his command when at Moultrie. Anderson supply consumption now halves from when he had no such acess to SC markets and contractor. DC is aware of this.

What Wilber and i dispute is what it all means, we have a QM report for a number of time periods, anda know number in Sumpter, so we can show how much supply is present and consumed, the effect the ability to draw from SC/Contractor had on supply leveles, and the effect it had when removed in April. Since gaining this supply increase anderson supply problems go away, but only while those circumstances exist, its why those circumstances change that is also in dispute.

One view is that they were starving and had to have the supplies.
One view is that they were not and the relief force being sent caused the supplies to be witheld which caused the lack of supplies in April.


The garrison transferred from Fort Moultrie consisted of seven officers, seventy-six enlisted men, and forty-five women and children. There were three officers, one enlisted man, two hundred and five laborers, and one woman at Fort Sumter. One hundred and fifty of the laborers were discharged within a few days, and the women and children were shipped to New York early in February, 1861, leaving at this date a garrison consisting of ten officers, seventy-five enlisted men, and fifty-five laborers. There has been and is an ample supply of water and a sufficiency of fuel, principally in the shape of lumber, flooring, and gun carriages.

Yes we have that already, Wilber thinks they are still there in March and April, and if so that means the SC supply was larger, not smaller than i gave and is counter intuative to his claim.



Where in that post was anything showing Anderson was satistified with the amount of supplies that he was receiving?

That would be Anderson report gavin it in post 242, 259, linked to http://www.scribd.com/doc/47900588/The-Starvation-Crisis-at-Fort-Sumter-in-1861-Part-1 when a similar question was asked.

I covered this earlier here is a quick re fresh

On January 24, 1861, Major Anderson had his grocery list made and forwarded toMr. Daniel McSweeney. FORT SUMTER, January 24, 1861.
Mr. Daniel McSweeney:
SIR:
I am directed by Major Anderson, commanding this post, toascertain whether you will furnish such fresh beef and vegetables asmay be required here; the beef upon the terms of the contract underwhich you supplied Fort Moultrie; the vegetables to be purchased byyou for us at fair market prices;
the whole to be delivered as hitherto, fourtimes in ten days, at some wharf in Charleston, for transportation to FortJohnson, where it will be received by this garrison. This arrangement, whichhas been approved by the governor of South Carolina, it is desired shall gointo effect immediately, and if you consent to it, you can send 184 pounds of fresh beef at a time, at such hour and wherever Quartermaster-General Hatch(120 Meeting street) may advise you. Of the vegetables you will be furtherdirected. Please ackuowledge the receipt of this as soon as possible, in order,if necessary, that other arrangements may be made. Respectfully, your obedient servant,T. SEYMOUR, Captain, U. S. Army. [O.R. Ser 1, Vol 1, Ch 1, p. 154]

This was the items Anderson refers to as being satisfied with on March 17.


B Peach,

While I sincerely appreciate all the time and effort you have expended to show your side of the recent debate, I must confess, you have not convinced me of the fact that the resupply effort in any way represents a pure provocation by Lincoln to get Confederate forces to fire the first shot of the Civil War.

But thank you for an interesting presentation.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Your welcome. Of course lincolns motives are very difficlt to acertain, he played Douglas nicly in debate to get to be POTUS, i believe he played an equally shrewd game here, but while it got him what he wanted from it, it also gave SC what it wanted, and both got more than they ever wanted asa result.

http://americancivilwar.com/authors...ln-Instigated-War/The-Buried-Fact-Record.html

Also there is Lincolns own comment on his actions.

According to the Browning's diary, ( Lincolns Sec) Lincoln explained that "he himself conceived the idea, and proposed sending supplies, without an attempt to reinforce giving notice of the fact to Gov Pickens of S. C. The plan succeeded. They attacked Sumter-- it fell, and thus, did more service than it otherwise could."




Thats the link you pasted it does not work, why did you list a different one in your response.. But anyway I played around with the address and found where it went, its a semi-wikipedia summary of the battle that refers to another secondary source...The Swanberg book does also state 43, ( so I guess by writing this you realize that you were wrong by saying Shane was making up his information) but it also doesnt state the OR..The book your secondary source uses as a reference also doesn't show a primary source...So until someone can show me some sort of documentation I will stick with the figure that was reported by then men that were there...

I had provided extracts from this starting from my first post in the thread, he asked for it again, and i linked to it http://www.scribd.com/doc/47900588/The-Starvation-Crisis-at-Fort-Sumter-in-1861-Part-1 he asked for it again and i copy pasted it from that post to here, there to here, missing of the end of the HTML link, thats why it did not work, as posting the same thing gets mopre likly to increase a copy paste error.


In March he claims my maths is wrong from 43 civilians, it should be 55. All are on full rations in March. Full rations comsumption is derived from prior months consumption of Sumpter stock only, as no SC provisions allowed. So we hav ethe prior months consumption asa known.

If i used 55 civilians instead of 43 in March, when they are in reciept of SC supplies,the number of mouths consuming the same rations held in Sumpter increases, as it is the same number being divided by a now larger number. This will produce an increase in consumptionm from SC to bring consumption back to normal ration, as the now increased consumption from 43 to 55 increases the shortfall that can only have come from SC.

That kind of maths increases the amount that was brought in from sumpter, to meet full rations, not decrease it.

But hey ho, lets use 55 as you dont like the number who surrender, btw that Crawford who it cities in the work, is the Crawford who was Surgeon General at Sumpter and gives the number who was present as being 43 and is why its in all the books on the subject not 55.




There are also OR's and diary accounts of Anderson and others complaining that the merchants weren't fulfilling their side of the bargain by selling food to the fort.I haven't seen anything which shows ANderson being pleased with the amount of food he was getting in the mid march time frame.

Depends which time of year, in those days there was periods when all had problems finding enough food, second the CS new market economy allowed merchnats a boom time in Charelston that sucked out some items, and there was the rabid to cool treatmnet of yankees by the population in general.

WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., April 4, 1861.
Major ROBERT ANDERSON, U. S. Army:
SIR: Your letter of the 1st instant occasions some anxiety to the President.
On the information of Captain Fox he had supposed you could hold out till the 15th instant without any great inconvenience; and had prepared an expedition to relieve you before that period.
Hoping still that you will be able to sustain yourself till the 11th or 12th instant, the expedition will go forward; and, finding your flag flying, will attempt to provision you, and, in case the effort is resisted, will endeavor also to re-enforce you.
You will therefore hold out, if possible, till the arrival of the expedition.
It is not, however, the intention of the President to subject your command to any danger or hardship beyond what, in your judgment, would be usual in military life; and he has entire confidence that you will act as becomes a patriot and soldier, under all circumstances.
Whenever, if at all, in your judgment, to save yourself and command, a capitulation becomes a necessity, you are authorized to make it.
Respectfully,
SIMON CAMERON, Secretary of War.

http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/sources/...ntent=001/0235

This doesn't seem to me to be a letter sent by an administration sending a fleet behind a smoke screen of trying to bring supplies to men..It appears that the administration was genuinely taken by surprise by Anderson's April 1 letter..Again, these communiques about food shortages are all dated before April 7, when the CSA officially shut the door on supplies, though it would appear that this pipeline was already closed...

Supplies were not all they sending.

April 4, 1861 Lieutenant General Scott sent the following: April 4, 1861 To: Lieut. Col. H.L. Scott, Aide de Camp This will be handed to you by Captain G.V. Fox, an ex-officer of the Navy.He is charged by authority here, with the command of an expedition (undercover of certain ships of war) whose object is, to reinforce Fort Sumter. To embark with Captain Fox, you will cause a detachment of recruits, sayabout 200, to be immediately organized at Fort Columbus, with competentnumber of officers, arms, ammunition, and subsistence, with othernecessaries needed for the augmented garrison at Fort Sumter. Signed: Winfield Scott [O.R. Series 1, Volume 1, Chapter 1, page 236.
WAR DEPARTMENT,
Washington, April 4, 1861.
Capt. G. V. Fox, Washington, D. C.:
SIR: It having been decided to succor Fort Sumter you have been selected for this important duty. Accordingly you will take charge of the transports in New York having the troops and supplies on board to the entrance of Charleston Harbor, and endeavor, in the first instance, to deliver the subsistence. If you are opposed in this you are directed {p.236} to report the fact to the senior naval officer of the harbor, who will be instructed by the Secretary of the Navy to use his entire force to open a passage, when you will, if possible, effect an entrance and place both troops and supplies in Fort Sumter.
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
SIMON CAMERON,
Secretary of War
 
You keep saying 40 days at full rations, when the only food they would have after 26 would have been pork only, which is exactly what they said they were eating on the day they surrandered...You again keep bringing up reports and things from Jan and feb when the shortage in food seemed to start from March on.. By mid March the officers and Anderson had told Lamon, and Fox they were short on supplies.. You still havn't answered the question that if the fort was receiving all these supplies from the city up to the 7th of April, then why is Anderson writing on on the first of April that he could only hold out to the 10th with everyone or the 17th if the contractors are sent away...Andersons letter of March 17 is showing that his supplies are being interferred with.. You keep claiming there is plenty of food and that the fleet being sent is in fact the cause of supplies being shut down thus causing the shortage..Yet, this view doesn't make sense in view of the report of April 1 and what was told to Fox and Laman, and to what was left over in supplies on the 13th when Anderson surrandered..There is no evidence that an abudence of supplies was still coming into the fort from the city in March, everything Anderson writes about in regards to them in this period describes to it being inteferred with...

So Im still left with the 4 possibilities that I had posted earlier in regards to this...

PS The link you provided only describes the situation up to Lincoln being elected.. I will say that the fort was receiving all the food it could use right up to the point Linclon took office. Then after that point is when all the issues from food start occuring, heating up to mid March when you start hearing this from other officers..
 
Now since April 7 was the official date for the order to shut down all supplies and since the officers of the fort were telling people by mid March that they were running short on food, and Anderson states on April 1 that he would be out of food within a couple of weeks then one of these things must be happening:

Anderson and his officers were lying in their offical reports and to vistors to the fort about their food supplies...

or

Anderson didn't know how much was coming into his fort and made a mistake about the food levels

or

Sumter had already had the majority of their outside food source cut off before April 1

or

the majority of the food coming in was being consumed by the civilians and the military men were eating out of their stores...

It still stands then that one of these must be happening
 
I aplogise for not putting names to post, busy server has prevented me from using this thread all day.




FORT SUMTER, S. C., March 17, 1861.
Hon. D. F. JAMISON, Executive Office, Department of War:
SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 15th instant in reply to mine of the 13th to his excellency the governor.
I hasten to ask you to refer to my letter to his excellency, and you will see that I did not solicit any modification of his original permission about receiving supplies of fresh meat and vegetables. I am satisfied with the existing arrangement, and only called attention to a reported interference of it. I thank you for your promise in reference to the property of Captain Foster.

This refers to Anderson from then on being in reciept of full supply from the contractor who supplied his command when at Moultrie. Anderson supply consumption now halves from when he had no such acess to SC markets and contractor. DC is aware of this.

Anderson is not saying hes in full supply, hes telling the CSA government hes satisfied with the arrangement that was made , but

only called attention to a reported interference of it
Hes telling them that hes not getting the food per the arrangement...And it must have continued because its only a short time later that Fox arrives and is told that they are short on rations on the 21st, and then the same is told to Lamon a few days later on the 24th.. The supply of food must have decreased even more to cause Anderson to write his April 1 report which surprised Washington and produced Cameron's reply to Anderson..

WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., April 4, 1861.
Major ROBERT ANDERSON, U. S. Army:
SIR: Your letter of the 1st instant occasions some anxiety to the President.
On the information of Captain Fox he had supposed you could hold out till the 15th instant without any great inconvenience; and had prepared an expedition to relieve you before that period.
Hoping still that you will be able to sustain yourself till the 11th or 12th instant, the expedition will go forward; and, finding your flag flying, will attempt to provision you, and, in case the effort is resisted, will endeavor also to re-enforce you.
You will therefore hold out, if possible, till the arrival of the expedition.
It is not, however, the intention of the President to subject your command to any danger or hardship beyond what, in your judgment, would be usual in military life; and he has entire confidence that you will act as becomes a patriot and soldier, under all circumstances.
Whenever, if at all, in your judgment, to save yourself and command, a capitulation becomes a necessity, you are authorized to make it.
Respectfully,
SIMON CAMERON, Secretary of War.


It does not make any sense that if the fort had all the supplies it needed that Anderson would state that he was running out of supplies to two representatives of the government and then write a OR that predicts he will be out of food even faster then he stated to them.. Anderson would have had to known that his statements would make the administration go into action if they wanted to keep the fort..And this action could very well lead to war, which is something that Anderson, a man of pro-Southern sentiment, did not want..So either he was acutely short on rations or he wanted to try to push the country into a war..The latter is ridiculous so we are stuck with the point that he was telling the truth..
 
Hello everyone, I've been away for a week and thought I'd take a little time to catch up with the site. Being a fairly predictable, sensible sort of fellow I started on this thread cause it's on top. I started reading at page 10 and have plowed my way to here. I think I need a nap but I'll give to B. peach the side argument of how many civilians were in the fort at surrender. As to the main bone of contention I didn't come across anything that would cause me to change my basic understanding of what was going on in the fort.
 
Back
Top