Sumter Provocation

[B Peach]

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..

I might work up a excell spreadsheet for the civilian consumption from the Report given to Anderson, and see what the civilan diet was from US stores, and also, that amount would also tell us how much of each was actually issued to US for the report to refere to it being a 35 day increase for the garrison. its too cumbersome to do on a calculator.

 

[johan_steele]

See post 397, Wilber did all that needs be done in reference to your maths. Which like your reasoning on this entire vhein is questionable w/ no basiss in any reality but your own. The only person saying those men of the garrison of Ft Sumter weren't hungry is you. You lack the backing of the men who were there, the CS govt & people of Charleston, A prominant CS politico, the US govt etc = all you have is your smoke and mirrors.

In the past you've claimed 25 years of military service, you should be able to figure the difference between short on rations and not. A simple check of estimated rations per day should show any but the totally ignorant that just what I listed for those 43 men isn't even close to sustainable for any length of time. It would be unacceptable in the ranks of the British Army in 1860 as well as pretty much anywhere else.

Frankly, I believe the whole ration thing is a poorly devised distraction from the actions of the CS; the provocation clearly stands in the hands of the CS at Ft Sumter and elsewhere. You don't fire on the flags of another nations vessals if you would be friends w/ them. you don't attempt to starve another nations troops if you want to be on friendly terms w/ that nation, you don't point scores of guns at another nations garrison if you want to have them over for a friendly spot of tea & crumpets. To add to that their is the seizure of ships, stores, arms, post offices, mail, specie, coin & anything else that was w/in the grasp of the CS. Friendly parting of ways? Hardly, peace was NEVER an option for the fledgling CS. They wanted a war, they got it. And when it came time to reap the whirlwind... lets just say they paid the price of arrogance and incompetance.

You'll just have to forgive me if I accept the works of established historians w/ honest scholarly work behind them over an anonymous screenname on the net.

 

[B Peach]

See post 397, Wilber did all that needs be done in reference to your maths.

Thats text, not maths, your avoiding actually using any maths like the plaugue, you made a claim my maths was faulty and have twice refused to show any maths of mine, let alone show any errors in it.

I pointed out Wilber did not have the right maths of the garrison and civilians, i had used 120 for my maths, the actual number is 3 less but easier to do and builds ina margin of error:
There were six other officers present: Surgeon Samuel W. Crawford, First Lt. Theodore Talbot of Company H, First Lt. Jefferson C. Davis of the 1st U.S. Artillery, and Second Lt. Norman J. Hall of Company H. Capt. John G. Foster and First Lt. George W. Snyder of the Corps of Engineers were responsible for construction of the Charleston forts, but they reported to their headquarters in Washington, not directly to Anderson. The remaining personnel were 68 noncommissioned officers and privates, eight musicians, and 43 noncombatant workmen.http://www.enotes.com/topic/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter#cite_note-13

Which like your reasoning on this entire vhein is questionable w/ no basiss in any reality but your own.

Will if you could actually count you would see the maths throws up intresting questions about the level of supplies and lack of starvation, that being the reason lincoln sends the relief force on the 29th, when the garriosn is on full rations and has months left of supplies. All from primary cocuments mind you, so stop your Trolling.

The only person saying those men of the garrison of Ft Sumter weren't hungry is you. You lack the backing of the men who were there, the CS govt & people of Charleston, A prominant CS politico, the US govt etc = all you have is your smoke and mirrors.

Hunger is expressed from only after the rations are cut on the 10th, they were cut because of relief force sent, i have the text of the men saying all im saying and present it, you otoh see in others what you do.

In the past you've claimed 25 years of military service, you should be able to figure the difference between short on rations and not. A simple check of estimated rations per day should show any but the totally ignorant that just what I listed for those 43 men isn't even close to sustainable for any length of time. It would be unacceptable in the ranks of the British Army in 1860 as well as pretty much anywhere else.

Back to your inability to perform basic maths.

You'll just have to forgive me if I accept the works of established historians w/ honest scholarly work behind them over an anonymous screenname on the net.

like the ones im following listed in BCF page 272 who argue lincoln sought war, and they are in the majoirity you mean, or the ones you cite but dont contain what you claim they contain?.

 

[wilber6150]

How about you look at the number of days that 6 barrels of hardtack will supply 85 men according to the government in post 377 One barrel a day.. But, math aside your whole point in this exercise is to show that Lincoln shouldn't have sent ships to Sumter? So once the fort went thru all its supplies they would be totally dependent on the CSA, well wouldn't that work out just perfect for Davis.. He could pull the plug any time he wants...

 

[wilber6150]

Thats text, not maths, your avoiding actually using any maths like the plaugue, you made a claim my maths was faulty and have twice refused to show any maths of mine, let alone show any errors in it.

I pointed out Wilber did not have the right maths of the garrison and civilians, i had used 120 for my maths, the actual number is 3 less but easier to do and builds ina margin of error:
There were six other officers present: Surgeon Samuel W. Crawford, First Lt. Theodore Talbot of Company H, First Lt. Jefferson C. Davis of the 1st U.S. Artillery, and Second Lt. Norman J. Hall of Company H. Capt. John G. Foster and First Lt. George W. Snyder of the Corps of Engineers were responsible for construction of the Charleston forts, but they reported to their headquarters in Washington, not directly to Anderson. The remaining personnel were 68 noncommissioned officers and privates, eight musicians, and 43 noncombatant workmen.http://www.enotes.com/topic/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter#cite_note-13


Will if you could actually count you would see the maths throws up intresting questions about the level of supplies and lack of starvation, that being the reason lincoln sends the relief force on the 29th, when the garriosn is on full rations and has months left of supplies. All from primary cocuments mind you, so stop your Trolling.



Hunger is expressed from only after the rations are cut on the 10th, they were cut because of relief force sent, i have the text of the men saying all im saying and present it, you otoh see in others what you do.



Back to your inability to perform basic maths.



like the ones im following listed in BCF page 272 who argue lincoln sought war, and they are in the majoirity you mean, or the ones you cite but dont contain what you claim they contain?.

You know I was trying to figure out where you were going with this, seeing that I was the only person that seemed interested in what you were saying but once you get insulting its just not worth trying to read your poorly written bad english filled posts, so have fun with your maths... By the way its math not maths....What is english your second language?

 

[B Peach]

You know I was trying to figure out where you were going with this, but once you get insulting its just not worth trying to read your poorly written bad english filled posts, so have fun with your maths... By the way its math not maths....What is english your second language?

He set the tone, and got in return, Trolls are like that.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/maths
http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com/dictionary/maths
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maths
is it yours?

 

[OpnCoronet]

In any case, in fact, resupplying Sumter could not be a provocation. Whether secession was legal or not. Whether SC secedded successfully or not, had not bearing on the status of the installation being the sole property of the gov't of the people of the United States.
The question of who owned the property, was a matter for adjudication by law. What was provocative was the csa's insistence of their ownership, being beyond the reach of any law, except insurrection and rebellion.

 

[B Peach]

How about you look at the number of days that 6 barrels of hardtack will supply 85 men according to the government in post 377 One barrel a day.. But, math aside your whole point in this exercise is to show that Lincoln shouldn't have sent ships to Sumter? So once the fort went thru all its supplies they would be totally dependent on the CSA, well wouldn't that work out just perfect for Davis.. He could pull the plug any time he wants...

No he could have sent them, and not lied about the men starving and in need of supplies, he had already chosen to retake the Fort before being sworn in, his next problem, because his cabinet and military advised against holding Sumpter, was how to manipulate opinion behind his chosen course of action.

Ok heres my work up of what your post means.


Jan 27 :
38 barrels pork:38*240*16=145920.
37 barrels flour:37*240*16=132080
13 barrels hard bread:13*240*16=48920.


March 21:
Six barrels of flour;6*240*16=23040
six barrels of hard bread6* 240*16=23040
twenty-six barrels of pork;26*240*16=99640.


25 days consumption has reduced the Jan to March levels.

Jan 27 to March 21 Table 1.
Pork 145920 less 99640 on hand,=46280 consumed in 25 days, 1851 a day. Gives 54 days supplies held.
Flour 132080 less 23040 on hand =109040 consumed in 25 days, 4361 a day. gives 5.2 days held.
hard bread 48920 less 23040 on hand, 25880 consumed in 25 days, 1035 a day. Gives 22 days held.



1st March
31 barrels pork:31*240*16=119040.
16 barrels flour:16*240*16=61440
9 barrels hard bread:9*240*16=34560

March 21:
Six barrels of flour;6*240*16=23040
six barrels of hard bread6* 240*16=23040
twenty-six barrels of pork;26*240*16=99640.

1st March to March 27 Table 2.
Pork 119040 less 99640 on hand,=19400 consumed in 20 days, 970 a day. Gives 102 days supplies held.
Flour 61440 less 23040 on hand = 38400 consumed in 20 days, 1920 a day. gives 12 days held.
hard bread 34560 less 23040 on hand, 11520 consumed in 20 days, 576 a day. Gives 20 days held.


Two things stand out, the difference in daily consumption and the effect this has on expected number of days stocks will last.

The period from 1 March to 21st March has 2 issues of the 10 day supply from Charleston so we can see the effect this has on consumption of existing stocks, ( only 1 issue of supplies can be fitted into the other time period) it reduces the need to use it by as much as 100% when compared to the average for the period Jan 27 to March 27. Why is that?, see post 359, well Anderson was only able to procure the contracter issue of supplies from the start of March and be satified with the dilivery, ( On the seventeenth of March, Anderson indicated that he was "satisfied with the existing arrangement") from Jan to that date he recieved no supplies from Charleston, which is show in the high use of supplies and lowering of stocks in the Table one. Once these supplies reached him, his consumption of existing stocks halved, table two as he was using fresh delivered supplies rather than use the longer lasting salt/hard tack.

We know he was given 184 pounds of beef, and the higher reduction of slated pork consumption can therfore be explained by the eating of the Beef, just as flour for fresh bread, rather than flour tomake bread being purchased, also fits that explanation.

 

[Baggage Handler #2]

So ... B Peach,
At precisely what level of inventory does pork become a munition?

Exactly how much flour is required before it can be weaponized?

And how much hard bread is necessary to feed a cannon?

Your logic is flawed. Countries have an inherent right to resupply soldiers in their own forts. It is not cause for war, nor has it ever been. Interfering with that is cause for war, however.

 

[B Peach]

So ... B Peach,
At precisely what level of inventory does pork become a munition?

Ill asume this is a humour post, as i dont understand it very well. So when its coated on a bullet and used against nations who rever such animals, as in the UK Indian Mutiny and pork fat was used as a lubricant to kill more efficently by reducing jamming.

Exactly how much flour is required before it can be weaponized?

http://hubpages.com/hub/Flour-as-a-Weapon

And how much hard bread is necessary to feed a cannon?

Oh, so close, all i can come up with is more flour tho...http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fusionbb/showtopic.php?tid/192442/post/last/m/1/

Your logic is flawed. Countries have an inherent right to resupply soldiers in their own forts.

No my logic is perfect, because they do not have that inherent right when they have to cross other nations terr waters or land or airspace to do so.

It is not cause for war, nor has it ever been. Interfering with that is cause for war, however.

Just causes for war are codified, they include: Principles of the Just War

A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

 

[matthew mckeon]

Guys,
Let's walk back from the tone and personal remarks.

Matt McKeon
Posted As Moderator

 

[Baggage Handler #2]

Ill asume this is a humour post, as i dont understand it very well. ...

Not really.
You've staked a lot of posts and the bulk of your argument that sending rations to Fort Sumter was cause for war.

Rations are not cause for war.

Therefore, for your argument to have merit (and for the last 3 pages of this thread not to be totally wasted), the rations must have been something that can be weaponized.

Otherwise, your argument is without merit and the last several pages of this thread have been wasted.


I'll type this slowly. The very most that can be said about Charleston Harbor is that more than one party claimed jurisdiction over it.
This is precisely the case that exists in Guantanamo Bay, between the Koreas, and did exist (factually, even if not directly stated) in West Berlin when the Soviets shut off access.

As you have posted, "all non-violent options must be exhausted" and clearly they were not at Sumter before the self styled CSA started violence. Feeding troops is not violence.

Further, you stake a lot of value on the quantity of foodstuffs sent to Sumter, as if 120 days is a magic number that justifies firing cannon at soldiers. Is 119 less holy in this macabre parallel universe, or is it just another quibble, another combination of weasel words to attempt justification for an action that cannot be justified in our time (e.g. Gitmo) nor could have been then.

Your logic does fail, and it's kind of a pity you cannot see it, given the constant raising of maths.

[edit: posted before reading post 411. Will leave it go.]

 

[mobile_96]

"A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified."
So, did the Confederacy explore all options before opening fire against U.S troops. Such as a court case to Again determine whether Fort Sumter was indeed propery of SC?? Ahh shoot, that had already been determined years before, and it wasn't the property of a single state, but the collective states. So....did SC get an ok by All the states to take the shoal the Fort was build on, back into their ownership?? Errr, don't think so!!
Did they use all non-violent options to determine whether secession from the Union was Legal, such as the Supreme Court?? Answer we all know to be a resounding No! Did they try to get an ammendment passed that positively allowed secession??? Again, Wrong!!!!
Seems the Slave states skipped a couple of non-violent options in trying to pass go!

Lets see now, self-defense?? So the few troops in Fort Sumter Attacked Charleston. Therefore the troops in the city were justified in firing back at them?? Didn't happen that way.

As for the rations issue, are you saying that Davis was justiftied in ordering the firing on Fort Sumter because he thought Anderson was lying about the amount of rations he had onhand or was it because Lincoln had ordered more rations to be sent to the fort??

What year was the Rules of warfare codified and signed by the U.S. or was it more of a Morality issue

 

[Copperhead-mi]

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm

POTUS can enter into a treaty, that Congress never voted on it is imaterial to POTUS entering into the agrement, Congress haveing some more important issues to decide on at that moment in time. Foot works are still the most or second most sold works on the WBTS, so i naturaly thought anyone interested in the period would own a copy and be generaly aware of what the topic covers.

The executive branch (potus in your reply) is/has been constitutionally empowered to negotiate a treaty...never an argument there. The Senate MUST ratify the treaty by a 2/3rds majority for that treaty to be legally binding. Your link does nothing to refute that. You claimed that there was a legal binding treaty between the U.S. and S. Carolina per Ft. Sumter 1860/1861. You are incorrect and have supplied absolutely nothing to support your contention.

 

[johan_steele]

I do so love it when someone living 150 years after the fact claims to more than the men who were there at the time were experiancing. I guess it's safer that way, they can't argue. Abner Doubleday mentions the short rations in detail, as does Anderson, the CS Govt knew the state of rations (or lack there of) on Ft Sumter (it's Sumter not Sumpter by the way) a visiting politician was aware enough of the rations that he could work it into his speech. Those who would rewrite history must hate it when they run up against people who have actually read on the subject.

As to the maths noone else seems to be able to comprehend... they're flawed from start to finish. If my poor mathmatical skill can note it & Wilber can note it maybe it's because the poster of said maths fails to get his point or method across. Much like if the need arises to explain a joke, it isn't a well delivered joke. Not the fault of the audience but that of the comedian. The last three pages have been at best a comedy w/ one poster screaming to the four winds that Anderson & the garrison really had plenty of rations wheras the rest of us look at that and wonder if said poster is serious. I won't be the one to call Doubleday, Asst Surgeon Crawford or a host of others liars. I guess I have more respect for them than that.

 

[B Peach]

Not really.

Ok, so, not humour and not relavent either.

You've staked a lot of posts and the bulk of your argument that sending rations to Fort Sumter was cause for war.

In law, the agreement not to do so entered into by the Government of the US and the CS authorities, is a legal reason to use force as a remedy.

Rations are not cause for war.

Breach of agreement is, sending the resupply is a breach of law.

Therefore, for your argument to have merit (and for the last 3 pages of this thread not to be totally wasted), the rations must have been something that can be weaponized.

This is niether logic, nor what a argued, but whatever, starvation, the denial of rations is a weapon of warfare.

Otherwise, your argument is without merit and the last several pages of this thread have been wasted.

You have not understood my posistion.

I'll type this slowly.

I will read it quickly then.

The very most that can be said about Charleston Harbor is that more than one party claimed jurisdiction over it.

Well that settles the issue in law then.

This is precisely the case that exists in Guantanamo Bay, between the Koreas, and did exist (factually, even if not directly stated) in West Berlin when the Soviets shut off access.

Gitmo is solely owned by the USA since TR bought it, so no that is not the same thing at all.
Korea is two seperate countries, so no that is not the same thing at either.
West Berlin, was blockaded on land ( road and rail) by the USSR who held ownership of land that prevented ground traffic from crossing to West Berlin, so again your example is not the same.

As you have posted, "all non-violent options must be exhausted" and clearly they were not at Sumter before the self styled CSA started violence. Feeding troops is not violence.

Sending the relief fleet is an act of war, it breached international law when it was sent, and the right of self defence allows force to be employed as a remidy.

Just as if a person phones you and tells you he comming to kill you, you see him comming up your garden path armed, and you shoot him in self defence.

Further, you stake a lot of value on the quantity of foodstuffs sent to Sumter, as if 120 days is a magic number that justifies firing cannon at soldiers.

120 days?, Anderson was not there for that period.

Is 119 less holy in this macabre parallel universe, or is it just another quibble, another combination of weasel words to attempt justification for an action that cannot be justified in our time (e.g. Gitmo) nor could have been then.

Since the amount of time is not a relavent issue except to determine how much supplies are needed to work out how long a temporal period they can last, i dont follow you at all.

Your logic does fail, and it's kind of a pity you cannot see it, given the constant raising of maths.

Logic is a progression of facts, knowing how many men for how many days eat x amount of supplies answers the question of lack or surplus of supplies, knowing at what point in time they go on to half rations, what level of supplies were furnished by civilian contractor to augment the existing stocks transfered from Moultrie arte all facts, and maths then gives us the answer to the question.

I dont think you know what logic is, and you certainly have failed to show it is not being followed.

 

[B Peach]

The executive branch (potus in your reply) is/has been constitutionally empowered to negotiate a treaty...never an argument there. The Senate MUST ratify the treaty by a 2/3rds majority for that treaty to be legally binding. Your link does nothing to refute that. You claimed that there was a legal binding treaty between the U.S. and S. Carolina per Ft. Sumter 1860/1861. You are incorrect and have supplied absolutely nothing to support your contention.

I explained why you can not find it where you looked, and i have given you a book to read about it in.

 

[B Peach]

I do so love it when someone living 150 years after the fact claims to more than the men who were there at the time were experiancing. I guess it's safer that way, they can't argue. Abner Doubleday mentions the short rations in detail, as does Anderson, the CS Govt knew the state of rations (or lack there of) on Ft Sumter (it's Sumter not Sumpter by the way) a visiting politician was aware enough of the rations that he could work it into his speech. Those who would rewrite history must hate it when they run up against people who have actually read on the subject.

That would not be you, all those refernces come from a time period after the supplies are cut, Wigfall speech is after the SC stopped supplies from entering and the SC had chosen to starve the garrison out rather than use force, which occurs a month after Lincoln gives the order to go, lastly your cite of cod and grits does not exist in the OR, and in any case, it means nothing on its own.


Its called both, but Sumter was more common in the era.
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/00651622/
http://www.nytimes.com/1861/03/21/n...ion-still-uncertainty-state-affairs-fort.html
http://books.google.com/books/about/The_history_of_the_fall_of_Fort_Sumpter.html?id=ZOsSAAAAYAAJ
http://www.sciway3.net/clark/civilwar/sumpter.html
http://civilwarwiki.net/wiki/Fort_Sumpter_Surrender_Correspondence

As to the maths noone else seems to be able to comprehend... they're flawed from start to finish.

You dont understand the maths, ( anyone else ill deal with any one to one basis if they have any questions on the maths, as i would presume to know what they do or dont know in the agregate) that does not make it flawed. You have been asked three times now to use maths to show any error, but instead simply make a claim you refuse to support, i asked you to not reply to my posts unless you would actually use maths to counter a maths question, instead you continue to troll.

If my poor mathmatical skill can note it & Wilber can note it maybe it's because the poster of said maths fails to get his point or method across. Much like if the need arises to explain a joke, it isn't a well delivered joke. Not the fault of the audience but that of the comedian. The last three pages have been at best a comedy w/ one poster screaming to the four winds that Anderson & the garrison really had plenty of rations wheras the rest of us look at that and wonder if said poster is serious. I won't be the one to call Doubleday, Asst Surgeon Crawford or a host of others liars. I guess I have more respect for them than that.

You have not shown anything wrong with the maths, only stated its wrong, this does not an argument make.

 

[B Peach]

We know he was given 184 pounds of beef, and the higher reduction of slated pork consumption can therfore be explained by the eating of the Beef, just as flour for fresh bread, rather than flour tomake bread being purchased, also fits that explanation.

Effect of contractors supplies on intake.

Table 1. Salt pork consumtion was 1851 a day.
Table 2. Salt pork consumption was 970 a day.

For table 2 there was 20 days, ie 8 intakes of 184 pounds of beef, 8*184*16=23552 ounces, which is 11776 a day of beef, add the 970 of salt pork and we get 2147.

Table 2, salt and beef, consumed at 2147.

We can therfore aduce that the reduced consumption of salt pork in table two is solved by the garrisons eating of the contractors beef supply to replace the bulk of the meat ration.

 

[unionblue]

BPeach,

In all seriousness, why does the historical record show a concern for the running out of supplies in the fort during the critical month of April?

Unionblue