And just how does one read that in the plain language of the order? The only 'backing away" in the order is in giving Anderson the discretion to surrender in the face of overwhelming force rather than die to the last man.
But that is just what Anderson's move brought about. He did expose his own life and those of his men in an essentially hopeless battle.
It wasn't a battle until the south started shelling. And do you really think that, if Anderson had stayed in Moultrie, refusing to surrender, and that if resupply was attempted, the south wouldn't have shelled it? That the position wasn't equally as "essentially hopeless"?
As I've posted before, Anderson and Anderson's predecessor had made a lot of improvements to the defensibility of Moultrie.
. Moultrie was essentially open to the land side, with houses that he couldn't move to open fields of fire and nearby high ground that allowed fire into the fort. It simply wasn't made to be defended from the land. More important, Anderson's attempts to get some small arms from the Charleston armory was directly overruled by Floyd.
Charleston leaders had promised to stop mobs from attacking the fort, a fort which Anderson's officers said could withstand mobs.
Per Klein, those same civic leaders also said that the forts would be theirs "one way or another."
It was indeed "essential to the peace of the country."
How? What would have been different had Anderson not moved? Would the south have moderated their position? Would they have allowed Anderson and the forts to stand unmolested? The south's end game was always the same--control of the forts and the removal of the US forces there. Nothing different was ever indicated.
“Things would be so much easier if you would just compromise with me and do things my way” LOL
Apparently Anderson did (according to the Buell book) and Buchanan did (according to Klein and according to Tilley). Anderson said that he made the move on his own responsibility and that he didn't know of the agreement not to change the military situation in the port. Apparently he was the only person in Charleston who didn't know, but his troops knew enough to pretend they were laborers so that they could slip past the patrol boat. The patrol boat's tasks were to prevent hostile action by Charlestonians against the Federal troops and to prevent Fort Sumter from being reinforced by Federal troops.
It wasn't a battle until the south started shelling.
A situation that was brought about by Anderson's move to Sumter.
And do you really think that, if Anderson had stayed in Moultrie, refusing to surrender, and that if resupply was attempted, the south wouldn't have shelled it? That the position wasn't equally as "essentially hopeless"?
Both forts were essentially hopeless. South Carolina didn't want to be occupied by foreign troops. As Floyd's orders said:
If they [Anderson's troops] are invested or attacked by a force so superior that resistance would, in your judgment, be a useless waste of life, it will be your duty to yield to necessity, and make the best terms in your power. This will be the conduct of an honorable, brave, and humane officer, and you will be fully justified in such action.
According to Anderson's orders, he should have surrendered. Buell's orders had told Anderson:
You are carefully to avoid every act which would needlessly tend to provoke aggression ...
Anderson's statement that he held Charleston in his power and could block the harbor and put out the lighthouses was not tending to provoke aggression?
Per Klein, those same civic leaders also said that the forts would be theirs "one way or another."
They were correct.
Contrast this with General Twiggs' surrender of Federal facilities in Texas. Twiggs was surrounded by Texas militia that far outnumbered his troops in a city hundreds of miles from Federal help. Twiggs got no guidance from Washington despite multiple requests asking what to do. Twiggs was captured by a shotgun wielding militia group and taken into the city where he was able to negotiate that his troops could take their arms and some artillery out of state. Twiggs did not want to start the war and get his men killed in a useless heroic gesture.
Anderson put himself and his men at risk in a hopeless conflict in violation of his orders. Anderson was lauded for a foolish act against orders that ended up starting the war. Twiggs was reviled in the North despite the fact that he had been captured yet still managed to save his men and equipment for future use by the North without putting them in a hopeless situation.
How? What would have been different had Anderson not moved?
Perhaps peace could have been negotiated before Lincoln was sworn in. At least before Anderson's move Buchanan and the South Carolinians had been discussing the situation. Neither side wanted hostilities. After Anderson's move, the situation changed and a peaceful resolution was not as possible. I agree that Buchanan at some point decided to pass the problem to Lincoln, meaning in effect that peace was no longer possible.
As Lincoln, South Carolina, and rockrr have all said: "Things would be so much easier if you would just compromise with me and do things my way." Neither side was much for compromise.
I'm off the board until sometime tomorrow.