Anderson told Beauregard that if he fired on any of those warships he would use the cannons of Ft. Sumter to fire upon the Confederates. This blunt statement made Beauregard understand that Sumter had to be neutralized.
My point is that Anderson would have fired upon Beauregard if he attacked those ships. Is it too much to think that normal ship officers would have shared Anderson's view, and fired back on the forces attacking their people in a fort?
If the ships had gone in shooting it would be hard to maintain that the fleet had been sent to Charleston on a peaceful resupply mission.
The fleet was going to have to shoot in order to accomplish their mission. They only awaited on the arrival of Captain Mercer in the Powhatan, and he wasn't coming.
Had the ships actually done what they were instructed to do before they left, there would have been no pretense possible about this being a "supply" mission. It would have been recognized as a belligerent force deliberately starting a war, which is what the Confederates were led to believe it was.
Nineteenth century newspapers were all partisan. The Buffalo Daily Courier was a Democratic paper. It represented the Democrat point of view.
I have no knowledge of this, but I will take your word for it. Even so, it's point has merit. Ft. Sumter was only useful as a bone of contention. It was useful as an excuse to start a war, and the starting of a war would inhibit direct Southern trade with Europe, which was the actual reason why the war was needed.
“Had the ships actually done what they were instructed to do before they left, there would have been no pretense possible about this being a “supply” mission.”
What orders were those. None of this “super secret Porter orders” BS. What were the orders that those three ships sailed under.
Or they could have just let the ship reprovision the fort without anybody shooting at anybody else. You want to blame Lincoln, so you say that he had free will and nobody else did, but there may have been room for commanders on the ground to negotiate a resolution.
My point is that Anderson would have fired upon Beauregard if he attacked those ships. Is it too much to think that normal ship officers would have shared Anderson's view, and fired back on the forces attacking their people in a fort?
Beauregard attacked the fort and the fleet didn't approach and fire back, so far as I know.
The fleet was going to have to shoot in order to accomplish their mission.
Sure, if you exclude other options and if you assume that commanders never have discretion to interpret their orders as they see fit.
Had the ships actually done what they were instructed to do before they left, there would have been no pretense possible about this being a "supply" mission. It would have been recognized as a belligerent force deliberately starting a war, which is what the Confederates were led to believe it was.
If the ships had gone in shooting, you could say it was war and blame the Yankees. That probably would have been the wiser course.
Ft. Sumter was only useful as a bone of contention. It was useful as an excuse to start a war, and the starting of a war would inhibit direct Southern trade with Europe, which was the actual reason why the war was needed.
It was useful as a symbol that the Union hadn't entirely surrendered to the secessionists and that the union was intact. Assuming that a "bone of contention" only means and "excuse to start a war" is bad logic and shows a poor understanding of how things of how politics and history work.
The instructions were to peacefully reprovision the fort. If the ships were opposed and forces on the ground did not allow peaceful passage of the supply ships there was an authorization to use force. That left a lot of discretion to those on the ground. The orders indicate that the intent was peaceful and that the fleet was not sent to trick or provoke the rebels to start a war.