Well firstly, that wasn't going to happen, and secondly, the Union authorities hadn't been too honest in their dealings up to that point.
1. Anderson violently seized Sumter in the dark of the night after the War Secretary John Floyd had been telling them for weeks (months?) that the forts would be turned over to them.
2.Gustavus Fox lied about checking on the well being of Anderson and his men, and was really plotting the Charleston mission.
3. Buchanan tried to sneak in 200 artillerymen under cover of "supply" and got caught doing it.
4. The National Republican Newspaper had printed in March that during a cabinet meeting it was decided that Sumter would be turned over to them.
5. Union government officials continued stringing along the confederate delegation sent to negotiate on the disposition of the forts and any other debts that needed to be addressed. They were told one lie after another until they finally realized they were being strung along and left.
With all that dishonesty (from the Confederate's perspective), why would they trust anything Lincoln said?
If Lincoln was only sending "supplies", then why did he need warships and troops on the Baltic?
This is like approaching people claiming you "come in peace" while holding a large sword above your head as if ready to strike.
The fact that the Union warships did not fire on the Confederate batteries firing on Fort Sumter is solid evidence that they were not ordered there to attack the Confederates. Their orders only allowed the use of force to aid the resupply effort, which never took place.
The fact that the Union warships did not fire on the Confederate batteries firing on Fort Sumter is solid evidence that they were not ordered there to attack the Confederates. Their orders only allowed the use of force to aid the resupply effort, which never took place.