Mainly true, but he had verbal authority to move his command if he felt it was in danger. The authority had been given him by Major Don Carlos Buell during a meeting earlier in December. In light of the threats passed on to him by Unionists in Charleston, Major Anderson acted in the manner he thought prudent. There is no crime in that.
Over the next few months, repeated calls for the United States evacuation of Fort Sumter from the government of South Carolina and later Confederate Brigadier General P.G.T. Beauregard were ignored.
There was no reason why the fort should have been abandoned on demand.
United States attempts to resupply and reinforce the garrison were repulsed on January 9, 1861 when the first shots of the war, fired by cadets from The Citadel prevented the steamer Star of the West, a ship hired by the Union to transport troops and supplies to Fort Sumter, from completing the task.
And I would point out that happened while Buchanan, a Democrat, held the White House.
After realizing that Anderson’s command would run out of food by April 15, 1861, President Lincoln ordered a fleet of ships, under the command of Gustavus V. Fox, to attempt entry into Charleston Harbor and support Fort Sumter.
Again, after having a message clearly stating his intention to land food and supplies only unless the resupply was opposed.
For the south, primarily an agricultural area, the use of slaves allowed southern farmers and plantation owners to meet the ever growing demand for more food by a growing nation and still keep prices low. So, the threat that Lincoln’s election represented was the end of the south’s primary means of generating income.
It did not threaten that at all. In the first place, Southern agriculture was geared towards producing and exporting crops like cotton and tobacco, and not with feeding the country. And Lincoln's election did not threaten the South's economy or society or primary meands of generating income at all. Lincoln made it clear that he had not power and no intention of interfering with slavery where it currently existed. He knew that to do so would require a Constitutional amendment, and such an amendment was impossible. The South knew that as well.
From the perspective of provocation, then, it depends on which side of the fence you stand on. With respect to this discussion, AFAIC, it is at an end. I’m not going to debate the Civil War and its causes ad infinitum again. We’ve all been there and done that and this discussion is closed.
Hardly closed. But I understand that this may not be the time or place to revisit the rebellion. The claim has been made by many on this thread that virtually all our nation's ills are the result of Abraham Lincoln and his opposition to the Southern rebellion. I find that claim to be ridiculous and questioned it. Other's brought the war into it.
I am sure the "Nations" ills would have occurred in the North without Lincoln. An independent South would have been spared the socialism and downward spiral.