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

To: Non-Sequitur
[rustbucket] Moving to Sumter did result in a hopeless conflict to defend the fort, a violation of Buchanan's instructions.

[You, bluffing and blustering] Absolute nonsense.

Hardly.

Would you consider the prolonged, strenuous exchange of art'y fire "non-conflict"?

Did Anderson exchange fire with the Carolina batteries without intending to "defend the fort"? Transparently not.

Did Anderson exceed his orders, and violate Buchanan's instructions, by preemptively moving his command to an unfinished work? Arguably -- and not "nonsense", as per you.

Your skeletal reply shows your bankruptcy of argument.

304 posted on 11/26/2010 8:39:47 PM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies ]


To: lentulusgracchus; rustbucket

Courtesy ping.


306 posted on 11/26/2010 8:47:24 PM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies ]

To: lentulusgracchus
Did Anderson exceed his orders, and violate Buchanan's instructions, by preemptively moving his command to an unfinished work? Arguably -- and not "nonsense", as per you.

Not arguable to any rational person. Buell's instructions to Anderson read:

"You are carefully to avoid every act which would needlessly tend to provoke aggression; and for that reason you are not, without evident and immediate necessity, to take up any position which could be construed into the assumption of a hostile attitude. But you are to hold possession of the forts in this harbor, and if attacked, you are to defend yourself to the last extremity. The smallness of your force will not permit you, perhaps, to occupy more than one of the three forts, but an attack or or attempt to take possession of any of them will be regarded as an act of hostility, and you may then put your command into either of them which you deem most proper to increase its power of resistance. You are also authorized to take similar steps whenever you have tangible evidence of a design to proceed to a hostile act."

Looking at Floyd's instructions, which I posted in reply 277 and there is no conflict between them and what Buell relayed to Anderson. Both say that Anderson is to hold all the forts. Floyd does not say that Anderson cannot move his troops. The only clarification is that Floyd is countermanding Buell's instructions to "defend yourself to the last extremity." Floyd is making it clear that in the event of an attack Anderson is not to hold the forts to the last man. Instead, if in his military judgment further resistance if futile then he is to make the best terms possible and surrender his force. And that is exactly what Anderson did, and in doing so he followed his instructions to the letter.

315 posted on 11/27/2010 10:27:53 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | 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