Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rustbucket
As I remember, the local government stopped providing some supplies to the garrison the week before the firing on Fort Sumter once it became known that Lincoln was sending armed ships south.

Long before that Anderson had been sending reports up North detailing his shortage of supplies. The first report from Anderson that Lincoln saw said that unless resupplied he would have no choice but to surrender. Lincoln was acting on information he received from the commander on the scene. He could hardly be expected to do otherwise.

Lincoln was smart enough to know his actions meant war.

As was Jefferson Davis. The difference is that Lincoln's resupply didn't have to result in war while armed attack on Sumter could hardly be expected to lead to anything else.

704 posted on 06/19/2005 8:49:27 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 703 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur
Here is a mention of the stopping of supplies to Sumter. From the April 7, 1861, Memphis Daily Appeal quoting from the Charleston Daily Courier of April 4:

It is also rumored and generally credited, that the ordinary supplies to Major Anderson will soon be stopped if this is the course of the Government in Washington intend to pursue toward Major Anderson, it is not only full of vacilation, but of meanness and duplicity.

From that same April 7 Daily Appeal issue, quoting from the New Orleans Delta:

Great Activity in the United States War and Navy Department

Washington, April 3. -- Great activity is prevailing at the moment in both the Army and Navy Departments.

All the available vessels in port are ordered to prepare immediately for sea.

The steam frigate Minnesota and three other vessels, the whole under command of Commodore Stringhame ordered to the mouth of the Mississppi River.

The government is evidently preparing for war.

It is reported that the fleet under command of Commodore Stringham has been ordered to sea, with instructions to blockade the mouth of the Mississippi, and, also, that the government has resolved upon sending reinforcements to Fort Pickens.

And the next article in that issue (also reporting on an article in the New Orleans Delta):

Washington, April 4. -- The commissioners of the Confederate States, alarmed by the activity now being displayed in the army and navy departments, have made inquiries of the Government as to the meaning of the military and naval preparations. ... The Administration asserts that the vessels are sent on a tour of observation along the southern coast.

A little later, the Southern Commissioners in Washington accused the Lincoln Administration of gross perfidy over what the Administration had been saying would happen at Sumter (evacuation) and what they were actually planning to do.

Also, the newspapers were reporting that Lincoln had met with the governor of Pennsylvania and that state was to be put on war footing. New York and Massachusetts were said to have thousands of men ready to march on short notice. Illinois was begging to be called into the field. All this before Sumter was attacked. Lincoln was sending all sorts of "Hey guys, we're coming at you" messages.

What was it Alexander Hamilton said during the ratification of the Constitution? Oh, yeah:

It has been well observed, that to coerce the States is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single State. This being the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war? Suppose Massachusetts or any large State should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them, would not they have influence to procure assistance, especially from those States which are in the same situation as themselves? What picture does this present to our view? A complying State at war with a non-complying State; Congress marching the troops of one State into the bosom of another; this State collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against its federal head. Here is a nation at war with itself! Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a Government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself -- a Government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a Government.

The newspaper reports of the time are like watching disaster unfold in slow motion.

Now some speculation on my part. Why did Lincoln send down an inadequate force to Charleston? Scott had told him it was impossible without a large force. Without telling Fox, commander of the Sumter operation, Lincoln diverted one of the main warships to Pensacola that Fox had been counting on having at Charleston. Did Lincoln wanted the operation to fail and US forces to be attacked?

705 posted on 06/19/2005 10:06:03 AM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 704 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson