That's wrong Johnnie...I'll find it for you. Regardless of one or a hundred ships, the fort was not to be reprovisioned. It and one other fort were to be ceded to the Confederacy. Lincoln reneged on the deal.
The city of Charleston had been providing the garrison there with food and water for a year.
I stand corrected. The first incident was as you described, the second involved the flotilla and was the cause of the shelling of Fort Sumter.
Lincoln claimed the flotilla was food and provisions only, no ammunition or guns. That was a lie, Southern spies watched the ships being loaded IIRC.
That was the beginning of the war.
Um, as Lincoln was Presidnet of the United States, and Commander in Chief, what Constitutional authority did ANYONE IN THE SOUTH have to deny Lincoln the Executive Branch authority as Commander in Chief??? I don't care what perceived agreement they thought there was, they don't have the right to deny Lincoln the Executive powers granted him by the Constitution, just because of their addiction to slavery. This is another instance of the Confederates ignoring the Constitution and defying its distribution of powers just because they don't like the result. TOO BAD! This is not right. The Constitution says what it says, and the South didn't like that, so just like today, the Democrats of the South interpreted it in such a way as worked for their slave owning agenda. Am I no longer a conservative because I concentrate my opinion on the Civil War to the fact that slavery is wrong, the Confederates supported slavery, the Union opposed it, and the south was on the wrong side of a losing fight. That's the simple bottom line of this. I don't know how anyone can argue with that. Every objective historian I have EVER heard speak on the Civil War has always established that the South fired the first shots in the war at Fort Sumpter. That's an act of sedition and treason and violated the Constitution at its core. I don't understand how anyone can argue with that.