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.
I don't find the Buell book's assertion of this particularly convincing, since I have yet to see anything Anderson said to indicate this understanding on his behalf.
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.
Again, Anderson's orders were what they were, and you can talk all day about what he should have known, but unless you can show that he actually was informed of these things by official sources, it's a moot point. And, yes, Anderson did make the move to Sumter surreptitiously. That only means that he didn't want a confrontation, which even you will have to admit would have resulted if he hadn't done so.
According to Anderson's orders, he should have surrendered.
I realize that you think that Anderson should have surrendered back in December, but again, that's NOT what his orders said. Combined, the orders of December 11 and those of the 22nd tell him to hold the three forts, to put his men where he saw fit, and that he could use his discretion in surrendering if faced with overwhelming odds. And the communication he received on Feb. 23 back this up, telling Anderson, "Sir : It is proper I should state distinctly that you hold Fort Sumter as you held Fort Moultrie, under the verbal orders communicated by Major Buell, subsequently modified by instructions addressed to you from this Department, under date of the 21st of December, 1860." Anderson's own feelings can be found in his April 4 letter: "After thirty odd years of service I do not wish it to be said that I abandoned a post and turned over to unauthorized persons public property entrusted to my charge."
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?
I've been looking for this. Do you have a link?
Neither side wanted hostilities.
There's a strong argument that the south DID want hostilities, as a way to force Virginia and a few other states into the confederate fold.