Sumter Provocation

[wilber6150]

The inventory and supply levels are absolutely irrelevant.

The only relevant question regards the right of a nation to access its military posts.
If the posts are in dispute (such as Gitmo or the DMZ, for example), then the EXPECTED approach is to resolve it diplomatically.
NB: "Diplomatically" does not mean sending two guys to attempt an ad hoc meeting with the executive. It means actually putting some effort into it.

Clearly this was not accomplished and the whole basis of the argument is essentially a troll. A whine. A collection of weasel words. It's that creepy neighborhood kid who always had excuses for everything.

Well, someone had to stick up for Abe

 

[B Peach]

How important were the officers of the fort telling him to tell Washington that they were running short on food? I would say pretty important since they not only said it in dispatches but to anyone from Washington who showed up at Sumter.

Not important to Lamon who did not pass it on nor did the other special envoy either, so the answer to your question, is not very imporatnt and imaterial as Lincoln had already chosen to act on the 29th March on the basis on info already presented to him. We covered this already.

 

[wilber6150]

We covered that already.

No, you are incorrect Hall isn't saying that there are 35 days of provisions, hes saying there would be if the civilians hadn't eaten it.. And still waiting for that post number about Anderson...

 

[wilber6150]

Not important to Lamon who did not pass it on nor did the other special envoy either, so the answer to your question, is not very imporatnt and imaterial as Lincoln had already chosen to act on the 29th March on the basis on info already presented to him. We covered this already.

Its very material to the fact that you are saying that the fort had enough food, and that the officers want people in Washinton to know that so they would act..And the President acted cause he knew the fort was running short on food and would be in a crisis sometime in mid to late April..

 

[B Peach]

Inventory of Ft. Sumter March 1... So we have food ( bread and hard tack) for 85 men for at least 28 days. The problem is that were 55 more men that had to be fed from these stores.


Now compare that inventory to the one of Mar 21...

Six barrels of flour; six barrels of hard bread; three barrels of sugar; one barrel of coffee; two barrels of vinegar; twenty-six barrels of pork; one-fourth barrel of salt; one and a half barrels of rice; three boxes of candles

Covered that and the maths of what it means, on that 2 or three times already. The maths will not support any version of lack of supplies, untill the supplies are stopped by the CS authorities.

 

[Baggage Handler #2]

No, you are incorrect Hall isn't saying that there are 35 days of provisions, hes saying there would be if the civilians hadn't eaten it.. And still waiting for that post number about Anderson...

Your argument says that Stalin had the right to flatten Gt Britain over any (real or suspected) troop movements related to the Berlin Airlift.

It is unbelievably weak.

 

[B Peach]

The inventory and supply levels are absolutely irrelevant.

Only when they show no one was starving does it become irlevent, got it.

The only relevant question regards the right of a nation to access its military posts.

Ok, so in this instance the Jointly owned Federal post belongs to all the states, as do all federal posts. Just like Nato posts are jointly owned by all NATO members. So, when a member of a treaty orgainization (includes compacts) leaves that treaty, it still hasa monetary intrest in the posts to be payed for etc. When France left NATO unilateraly, it orders all other NATO members of French posts and soil ( whichthey did as they had no legal right to remian) and France payed up what it owed to NATO afterwards. In 1860 this same legal principle was sought by the CS commisioners to pay for the jointly owned federal property, and had ordered federal troops out of the state they were in univited and contary to law, in.

If the posts are in dispute (such as Gitmo or the DMZ, for example), then the EXPECTED approach is to resolve it diplomatically.
NB: "Diplomatically" does not mean sending two guys to attempt an ad hoc meeting with the executive. It means actually putting some effort into it.

Lincoln refused to meet with them, so yes he refused to solve the issue by diplomacy.

Clearly this was not accomplished and the whole basis of the argument is essentially a troll. A whine. A collection of weasel words. It's that creepy neighborhood kid who always had excuses for everything.

Nice name calling, so much easier than presenting anything of a factual basis.

 

[wilber6150]

Covered that and the maths of what it means, on that 2 or three times already. The maths will not support any version of lack of supplies, untill the supplies are stopped by the CS authorities.

Yes you know so much more then the men that were actually there... But, you are still incorrect on what Hall is stating... Now use your maths on the actual Mar 21 inventory for 130 and see what the result is...There is no lie or plot there was a very valid reason for the ships to be sent...

 

[B Peach]

No, you are incorrect Hall isn't saying that there are 35 days of provisions, hes saying there would be if the civilians hadn't eaten it.. And still waiting for that post number about Anderson...

We covered that already. Check the maths by all means but im done on that point.

 

[wilber6150]

Your argument says that Stalin had the right to flatten Gt Britain over any (real or suspected) troop movements related to the Berlin Airlift.

It is unbelievably weak.

What? not following

 

[B Peach]

Yes you know so much more then the men that were actually there... But, you are still incorrect on what Hall is stating... Now use your maths on the actual Mar 21 inventory for 130 and see what the result is...There is no lie or plot there was a very valid reason for the ships to be sent...

I have done so twice already.

What i decline to do is use your 55 number of civilians as the number was 40-43.
http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sa=X...gc.r_pw.&fp=78207bf8c2b7603b&biw=1440&bih=809
FIRST BLOOD: The Defense of Fort Sumter 1861 | Indiana's ...
www.indianasnewscenter.com › Features › Community Calendar - Cached18 Mar 2011 – However, the complete story of Fort Sumter's defense began months ... enlisted men and forty civilian employees held Sumter for three and ...
[PDF] FORT SUMTER
www.nps.gov/fosu/historyculture/.../FOSU-Garrison-by-Nationality.pdfFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
A total of 86* officers and soldiers garrisoned Fort Sumter during the April ... not include a civilian clerk, 40 Army Corps of Engineer civilian workers, ...
Fort Sumter's Garrison April 12-14, 1861 By Nationality
A total of 86* officers and soldiers garrisoned Fort Sumter during the April ...
not include a civilian clerk, 40 Army Corps of Engineer civilian workers, ...
claudesinclair.com/Fort-Sumter/Fort-Sumter-Federals.pdf - - Similar pages
The Problem in Charleston Harbor
Simultaneously, inside Fort Sumter, Anderson's command, aided by three Army
Corps of Engineer officers and 40 civilian employees, began mounting cannon and
...

 

[johan_steele]

A couple works with a bearing on the subject. Feel free to add them to the reading list... though I think they may well have been mentioned before:

Days of Defiance by Klein
First Blood by Swanberg
Doubleday wrote down his reminiscences: Ft Sumter & Moultri in 1860-61Musicant wrote an excellent work w/ some contribution to the subject. Divided Waters

As for the rations the 43 laborers were down to a half barrel of corn meal, 1/7 barrel of grits & 11 codfish... that isn't exactly a resounding meal for anyone despite the claims of some. The laborers rations were being kept seperate from those of the soldiers. April 2 unless my notes are off. OR pg 241-243.

When Lt Talbot left the fort to travel to Washington on the CS thoery that he would pass the condition of the fort (which they felt was deploable knowing full well the ration issue) onto the powers that were.

Wigfall, fine upstanding dirtbag that he was, was even well aware of the shortage of rations on Sumter, in other words it was no secret to anyone, least of all the populace of Charleston. On 3 April he gave his speech in Charleston "...whether Major Anderson shall be shelled out or starved out is a question merely of expediancy. The honor of SC was vindicated when the flag of the US was fired at, and it has remained vindicated, because they have never resented that shot..."

Anderson & his command suffered humiliation and repeated insult to themselves & their flag, never once retaliating... to suggest that the US somehow provoked war at Ft Sumter is just another attempt to insult those men and the flag they represented.

Does a nation have a right to supply it's own garrisons? Some apparently think not, glad they weren't in the ear of any responsible leader during the Berlin Airlift, the various issues along the DMZ, the continued garrison @ Gibraltor by the UK, Gitmo etc.

 

[johan_steele]

Even I'm sharp enough to know 2 + 2 does not equal 6. Your grasps of maths... well I'm just glad you were never a QM or supply Sgt.

We covered that already. Check the maths by all means but im done on that point.

 

[B Peach]

Even I'm sharp enough to know 2 + 2 does not equal 6. Your grasps of maths... well I'm just glad you were never a QM or supply Sgt.

Show me where my maths is at fault, if you cant, dont bother to post in reply to anything i write, as it just smacks of your usual trolling.

 

[johan_steele]

I believe the point being made is that if you follow the reasoning of B Peach it would appear he's arguing that Stalin had every right to start WW3 over the resupply of Berlin during the Berlin Airlift. Or Spain has every right to invade England because the UK is dares to feed their troops in Gibraltor. It's a nonsensical argument based on a lot of smoke and mirrors to cast the US as the evil bad guy. As he continually claims to have posted things & answered questions he has not.

What? not following

 

[johan_steele]

See post 392: As for the rations the 43 laborers were down to a half barrel of corn meal, 1/7 barrel of grits & 11 codfish... that isn't exactly a resounding meal for anyone despite the claims of some. The laborers rations were being kept seperate from those of the soldiers. April 2 unless my notes are off. OR pg 241-243.

Ft Sumter was short on rations, the men who were there say it, the OR says it, the CS knew it, the US knew it. You're making some sort of claim that they weren't... 43 men will last how long on 1/2 barrel of corn meal, 1/7 barrel of grits & 11 codfish? That isn't including the rations of the garrison who were not in a whole lot better condition. 2 + 2 does not equal 6 no matter how you frame it.

Show me where my maths is at fault, if you cant, dont bother to post in reply to anything i write, as it just smacks of your usual trolling.

 

[wilber6150]

Show me where my maths is at fault, if you cant, dont bother to post in reply to anything i write, as it just smacks of your usual trolling.

You changed from using straight math derived from inventory levels to adding in the fresh beef and veg that we cant verify that he even recieved..And then you changed from using inventory levels and your ozs per day formula to trying to figure the usage from Jan 27 to Mar 21 and then trying to compare that....Also, on your first posts on this thread you only used 85 men when in actuallity there were over 130 being fed from these supplies..So which math am I supposed to check...

 

[B Peach]

See post 392: As for the rations the 43 laborers were down to a half barrel of corn meal, 1/7 barrel of grits & 11 codfish... that isn't exactly a resounding meal for anyone despite the claims of some. The laborers rations were being kept seperate from those of the soldiers. April 2 unless my notes are off. OR pg 241-243.

Ft Sumter was short on rations, the men who were there say it, the OR says it, the CS knew it, the US knew it. You're making some sort of claim that they weren't... 43 men will last how long on 1/2 barrel of corn meal, 1/7 barrel of grits & 11 codfish? That isn't including the rations of the garrison who were not in a whole lot better condition. 2 + 2 does not equal 6 no matter how you frame it.

You stated my maths was wrong, i asked you to show where this is so, you have not even attempted to show where it is wrong, nor citied the use of any maths by anyone, except to list the seperate amount of civilains stores on the 2nd of April as if it means something mathamatical speaking..

The online OR contains no such refernce on the pages you listedhttp://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/sources/records/

 

[wilber6150]

Peach,
with the hard tack formula you are showing 22 days with the Mar inventory of 6 barrels, while the Unions document for 9 barrels for 85 men is 9 days so it looks like a barrel a day for that amount of men..Im thinking that the usage of hard tack was down, as they ate other things so it throws off your calculations in that aspect..

 

[B Peach]

You changed from using straight math derived from inventory levels to adding in the fresh beef and veg that we cant verify that he even recieved.

I used simple maths to answer the question, i have now included the 4 in 10 days increase of beef (and refered unkown fresh veg ) which Ansderson states he recieved till stopped by SC authorties, rounded down to nearst whole number of 10 day periods.

All show no starvation levels and supply of sallt pork till July, hard tack to end of April. When you claimed the maths would show otherwise.

.And then you changed from using inventory levels and your ozs per day formula to trying to figure the usage from Jan 27 to Mar 21 and then trying to compare that...

No iused the exact same method in all instances.

.Also, on your first posts on this thread you only used 85 men when in actuallity there were over 130 being fed from these supplies..So which math am I supposed to check...

No, thats incorrect, there is the Garrison and 43 civilians, i started by using garrison only, but provided a set of numbers with the civilans included that still put ample supplies in hand.

You can check your 55 (+12) civilians to begin with.