Sumter Provocation

[B Peach]

From Crawford... So once the supplies ran out, the bread would last four or five days longer..So what does it mean when the bread runs out? Im giving you quotes from men who were there who say that were short on rations and you keep trying to show they were inncorrect..What OR does Anderson ever speak of being short of powder? Hes talking about the food....

You have men picking glass out of rice to use it, you have an officer keeping an old squashed potaote to eat, yet all these men are fully supplied with food...

You keep asking the same question, when those questions have already been answered. Your new one is not knowing that lack of powder and cartridges forced Anderson to only return fire with 6 guns, and then 1 gun once every 10 mins, stopped all practice fireing to save munitions shortly after arriving, had 93 barrles of powder only, and 700 cartidge bags.

Its also in Andersons and Doubledays official reports.
http://www.archive.org/stream/genesisofcivilwa00incraw#page/434/mode/2up/search/cartridges

 

[B Peach]

looks pretty clear that hes talking about food and not powder here...

Thats right, but thats a different conversation. You canot infer from that that the other statement refers to anything specific, as supplies covers a number of items.

 

[dvrmte]

This is what I'm getting from Peach's posts:

That the relief expedition was not really attempting to relieve Fort Sumter, but to provoke the Southerners into firing on it. If it was a serious relief expedition it would have assisted in the defense of the fort.

That the garrison was not starving.

 

[dvrmte]

I don't see that they were on half rations of anything but bread. I don't see where there pork supply was ever reduced. Am I right that all reports of half rations mention bread?

From Foster:
"The want of provisions would soon have caused the surrender of the fort, but with plenty of cartridges the men would have cheerfully fought five or six days, and if necessary much longer, on pork alone, of which we had a sufficient supply."

 

[B Peach]

And what date did the memo reach the President saying that Anderson was running short on supplies?

Already posted it several times, 4th March.

You are acting like supplies could instantly reach the fort..

4 days in 10 contractor delivers, officers and men free to purchase from the Harbour, one went AWOL during sucha trip,and was held in civilian jail from then on.

The adminastration was informed by Anderson that he couldnt hold out with resupply shortly after the inaugriation, so there had to be ships gathered and plans made to get them there before the food ran out...It would be kind of late to do this once the food had already run out..

Its a few days by boat to Sumpter, 4th March means that Anderson can subsste fora few days, yet its the 29th before orders are given, if supply was really the issue, the relief force would have assembled earlier. We have the QM report for 4th march that show there is ample supplies in store, and that the SC authorities are not preventing the contractors to fill all of anderson request, which have increased his QM stores from the last report to Scott.

Nope, thats not correct. Anderson had already established, with the War Dept aproval, of the contractor meeting all requirment. What happened was a private letter to a friend, in which Anderson told of a lack of supplies, which contradicts his QM report that Scott had a copy off. That friend took it to POTUS. Potus remarked they are not starving.

 

[wilber6150]

I don't see that they were on half rations of anything but bread. I don't see where there pork supply was ever reduced. Am I right that all reports of half rations mention bread?

From Foster:
"The want of provisions would soon have caused the surrender of the fort, but with plenty of cartridges the men would have cheerfully fought five or six days, and if necessary much longer, on pork alone, of which we had a sufficient supply."

Then why are these numerious reports and statements in diaries that the fort was running short on food...

 

[B Peach]

This is what I'm getting from Peach's posts:

That the relief expedition was not really attempting to relieve Fort Sumter, but to provoke the Southerners into firing on it. If it was a serious relief expedition it would have assisted in the defense of the fort.

That the garrison was not starving.

Yes that is my posistion, following one of the three main interpretations of events.

 

[wilber6150]

I don't see that they were on half rations of anything but bread. I don't see where there pork supply was ever reduced. Am I right that all reports of half rations mention bread?

From Foster:
"The want of provisions would soon have caused the surrender of the fort, but with plenty of cartridges the men would have cheerfully fought five or six days, and if necessary much longer, on pork alone, of which we had a sufficient supply."

So the only thing they had left was salt pork, which by two reports was rancid...So its wrong to attempt to resupply these men since they could survive on salt pork? Is that what the President and their Commander in Chief supposed to do...And what happens if something occurs to their only food supply, by then its too late...

 

[B Peach]

I don't see that they were on half rations of anything but bread. I don't see where there pork supply was ever reduced. Am I right that all reports of half rations mention bread?

From Foster:
"The want of provisions would soon have caused the surrender of the fort, but with plenty of cartridges the men would have cheerfully fought five or six days, and if necessary much longer, on pork alone, of which we had a sufficient supply."

No need to reduce it, as the QM has a lot of it, bread went first ( or rather flour to make bread and lack of wood to bake bread)and that only left hard tack, with coffee on half rations to dip it in.

 

[B Peach]

Then why are these numerious reports and statements in diaries that the fort was running short on food...

Because when SC cut of supplies from the gov contractor, stocks were reduced from then, but did not become half rations till the 10th, and most of the refernces you make are from 10-15th, which has zero relavence to if they are starving when lincoln on the 29th March orders the resuply of starving men.

 

[B Peach]

So the only thing they had left was salt pork, which by two reports was rancid...

Salted pork is always rancid, its part of the preservation process.

Back on post 242, i showed that there was still a supply of hard tack as well, which we know was still being issued.

So it wrong to attempt to resupply these men since they could survive on salt pork? Is that what the President and their Commander in Cheif supposed to do...And what happens if something occurs to their only food supply, by then its too late...

On 29th March there was no shortage on anything. It was Lincons actions that cause the shortage later on.

 

[johan_steele]

As I said your track record is that there is nothing too bad for the US soldier. Field Punishment... simply because they were there. Thanks for proving my point.

Odd thing to post, as it has zero refernce to anything i wrote. I guess that half rations for week is bad, but then again it was also standard field punishemnet in the US army.

 

[B Peach]

As I said your track record is that there is nothing too bad for the US soldier. Field Punishment... simply because they were there. Thanks for proving my point.

Actually my point was that the US mil used half rations as a punishment, 5 days of it at sumpter was therfore not out of place or extreme.

Your libel on my track record will be reported.

 

[johan_steele]

Salted pork is always rancid, its part of the preservation process. No, it isn't.
Back on post 242, i showed that there was still a supply of hard tack as well, which we know was still being issued.



On 29th March there was no shortage on anything. It was Lincons actions that cause the shortage later on.

So the period accounts of the men who were actually there is to be discounted because it fails to match the agenda of B Peach. Sorry, I'll take the word, and professionalism, of men such as Doubleday and others who were actually there vs a revisionist eager to slander them 150 years later.

I can't understand the hypocricy I'm seeing here. It's ok to starve out a garrison in peace time? It's somehow a provocation or act of war to resupply a garrison? Coming from a man who claimed to serve 25 years in the RE...

Would it be an act of war or a provocation to resupply the garrison at Gibraltor or Gitmo? How dare a nation take efforst to keep their soldiers rationed.

 

[johan_steele]

Actually my point was that the US mil used half rations as a punishment, 5 days of it at sumpter was therfore not out of place or extreme.

Your libel on my track record will be reported.

Prove that it is libel. I've never seen you put anything but contempt forward for the US soldier.

 

[B Peach]

So the period accounts of the men who were actually there is to be discounted because it fails to match the agenda of B Peach. Sorry, I'll take the word, and professionalism, of men such as Doubleday and others who were actually there vs a revisionist eager to slander them 150 years later.

Actually there acounts i did not dispute, i meerly pointed out the proper context to understand them. Context being something you have no grasp of, all the reports Wilber gave are from after the 10th April.

I have slanderd none of those men, ( not only because slander is the spoken word and what appears in print is libel, but i dont except you to understand words you use) meerly pointed out to wilber that he has not understood what they said very well.

Agenda is to correctly understand the facts, if you have any facts then feel free to include them in your posts.

I can't understand the hypocricy I'm seeing here. It's ok to starve out a garrison in peace time?

Something your forgetting is the facts, no one starved anyone in peacetime. Rations were denied to them from the Terr waters of SC when an invasion of those Terr waters was put in place.

It's somehow a provocation or act of war to resupply a garrison?

US governemnt had entered into a legal agreement not to do so. When it did it crated a just cause for war as a remidy.

Coming from a man who claimed to serve 25 years in the RE...

?.

 

[B Peach]

Prove that it is libel. I've never seen you put anything but contempt forward for the US soldier.

Cite please, i lleave it to the mods to determine if your unsupported asertions break board rules.

 

[johan_steele]

When you can post a link to a post where you have praised the US soldier perhaps I'll revise my view of you. Until then I've seen nothing from you that would revise my views toward you. Have a nice day.

Cite please, i lleave it to the mods to determine if your unsupported asertions break board rules.

 

[wilber6150]

Actually there acounts i did not dispute, i meerly pointed out the proper context to understand them. Context being something you have no grasp of, all the reports Wilber gave are from after the 10th April.

I have slanderd none of those men, ( not only because slander is the spoken word and what appears in print is libel, but i dont except you to understand words you use) meerly pointed out to wilber that he has not understood what they said very well.

Agenda is to correctly understand the facts, if you have any facts then feel free to include them in your posts.



Something your forgetting is the facts, no one starved anyone in peacetime. Rations were denied to them from the Terr waters of SC when an invasion of those Terr waters was put in place.



US governemnt had entered into a legal agreement not to do so. When it did it crated a just cause for war as a remidy.



?.

Anderson reported that he would soon run out of provisions, Lincoln got ships and supplies together to bring them relief before he ran out.. There is no grand evil scheme here,they were trying to reach the fort before they went thru all their food supplies.. If the Confederates would not allow supply ships in then the fort would be wholely dependent on the goodness of the CSA, to allow them to buy food... If the Confederates wanted to stop the Fox's expedition, then all they would have had to do is just allow food to enter... Yet, they didn't.. When they received word from Lincoln the expedition was on its way, why didn't they say turn it back and we will send in food ourselfs.. That would have taken any pretext for the ships to arrive...

 

[wilber6150]

Actually there acounts i did not dispute, i meerly pointed out the proper context to understand them. Context being something you have no grasp of, all the reports Wilber gave are from after the 10th April.
.

post 268 reports from March 22 and April 1...