Your claim from #203 was, "What Doubleday says is that their entire movement drew no fire which proves the point that Anderson was not threatened (which Doubleday's account shows they were), and had no reason remove himself (which they most assuredly did), thus completely disobeying the intent of the War Department and becoming President-elect Lincoln's political and military focal point (which evidence shows wasn't true). Other than that I'd say we were in general accord ;-)
Doubleday mentions the general surprise that many expressed at finding Anderson, a Kentuckian, not as amenable to the insurrectionists as they imagined or expected. He also confirms that Anderson considered himself a professional soldier, and duty bound.
In #210 you assert, "Next, he mentions that they encountered and peacefully passed Confederate troops." That is not at all what Doubleday says. He says:
"It was about sunset, the hour of the siesta, and fortunately the Charleston militia were taking their afternoon nap. We saw nobody, and soon reached a low line of sea-wall under which were hidden the boats in charge of the three engineers, for Lieutenants Snyder and Meade had been sent by Floyd to help Captain Foster do the work on the forts."
In your point #4 you assert, "Then, after some other details concerning sentry boats, manned with Confederate troops, he says they arrived at Ft. Sumter." which totally glosses over the peril in which they found themselves.
Before we get to that let's allow the author to set the scene. Doubleday:
"Bands of secessionists were now patrolling near us by day and night. We were so worn out with guard-duty-watching them-that on one occasion my wife and Captain Seymour's relieved us on guard, all that was needed being some one to give the alarm in case there was an attempt to break in. Foster thought that out of his several hundred workmen he could get a few Union men to drill at the guns as a garrison in Castle Pinckney, but they rebelled the moment they found they were expected to act as artillerists, and said that they were not there as warriors. It was said that when the enemy took possession of the castle, some of these workmen were hauled from under beds and from other hiding-places.
The day before Christmas I asked Major Anderson for wire to make an entanglement in front of my part of the fort, so that any one who should charge would tumble over the wires and could be shot at our leisure. I had already caused a sloping picket fence to be projected over the parapet on my side of the works so that scaling ladders could not be raised against us. The discussion in Charleston over our proceedings was of an amusing character. This wooden fraise puzzled the Charleston militia and editors; one of the latter said, "Make ready your sharpened stakes, but you will not intimidate freemen."
Why am I bothering to include this testimony? Because you won't. Because it doesn't comport with your agenda.
Imagine being an American soldier, on duty in an American city, amidst your neighbors and fellow countrymen. Now imagine those countrymen suddenly announcing themselves your sworn enemies. Imagine going from a respected soldier to hated interloper. That is the predicament Anderson and his troops found themselves in.
Imagine suddenly finding yourself in hostile territory surrounded by increasingly belligerent townspeople. You have your orders but they don't include open warfare on these countrymen. But you do have orders, and they are clear:
... you are to hold possession of the forts in this harbor, and if attacked you are to defend yourself to the last extremity. The smallness of your force will not permit you, perhaps, to occupy more than one of the three forts, but an attack on or attempt to take possession of any one of them will be regarded as an act of hostility, and you may then put your command into either of them which you may deem most proper to increase its power of resistance. You are also authorized to take similar steps whenever you have tangible evidence of a design to proceed to a hostile act.
Moultrie isn't defensible and would leave your charges exposed to these increasingly hostile townsfolk. Events are spiraling out of control and in the absence of fresh orders Anderson repairs to the new fortifications of Sumter. Now any reasonable person can plainly see that this doesn't give him any appreciable, tactical advantage over the locals, but it does lessen the immediate likelihood of conflict and combat. If indeed the insurrectionists succeeded with their rebellion Sumter wouldn't be held for long at any rate, so Anderson isn't setting up for some decisive win scenario - he is buying time for his troops.
Look at what Doubleday said next:
"The next morning Charleston was furious. Messengers were sent out to ring every door-bell and convey the news to every family. The governor sent two or three of his aides to demand that we return to Moultrie. Anderson replied in my hearing that he was a Southern man, but that he had been assigned to the defense of Charleston Harbor, and intended to defend it.... From December 26th until April 12th we busied ourselves in preparing for the expected attack, and our enemies did the same on all sides of us. Anderson apparently did not want reinforcements, and he shrank from civil war. He endured all kinds of hostile proceedings on the part of the secessionists, in the hope that Congress would make some compromise that would save slavery and the Union together."
Unlike Pickens and Beauregard,Anderson wasn't seeking conflict and confrontation, he was 1. following his orders, and 2. Seeking a non-violent solution. Imprudence and arrogance on the part of impetuous southerners is what ignited the tinderbox of war.
I understand that this doesn't fit your narrative or agenda, but it is the truth of what occurred.
I cannot know if it is the same since yours failed, but I did a google phrase search and found an account of it.
"What Doubleday says is that their entire movement drew no fire which proves the point that Anderson was not threatened (which Doubleday's account shows they were)
You did not give evidence of that.
"and had no reason remove himself (which they most assuredly did)
You gave no evidence of this.
And according to your post of Doubleday's account, they saw no one?
So where was the threat?
After all that, and in summary where is your evidence of:
1. "...if attacked...",
2. "... an attack on or attempt to take possession of any one of them...",
3 "...whenever you have tangible evidence of a design to proceed to a hostile act.