Perhaps the link below might help you understand about Buchanan's promise of not changing things in Charleston Harbor, a promise discussed in his cabinet meeting. By moving to Fort Sumter Anderson in effect broke Buchanan's promise and Anderson's last instruction from the Secretary of War (dictated by Buchanan). Link.
Here is how Buchanan reacted to the news that Anderson had moved to Fort Sumter [Source: Klein, "Days of Defiance"]:
Buchanan slumped into a chair. "My God!" he cried wearily. "Are calamities ... never to come singly! I call God to witness -- you gentlemen better than anybody else know that this is not only without but against my orders. It is against my policy."
So you go to the Democrat slaver NYT and Charleston Courier (which looks to be out of business, thank you.)? No Democrat slaver bias there (SARC)!
LOL. Perhaps you don't know that the New York Times was a thoroughly Republican newspaper back then or that on many matters the Republican and Democrat Parties (and the NY Times) have switched political philosophies, with the exception of race, since those times.
FYI, Lincoln's two secretaries Nicolay and Hay said it best and gave away who really started the war [ Source: Nicolay and Hay in their book, "Abraham Lincoln, A History, Volume 4". Thanks for the source, phi11yguy19, wherever you are]:
President Lincoln in deciding the Sumter question had adopted a simple but effective policy. To use his own words, he determined to "send bread to Anderson"; if the rebels fired on that, they would not be able to convince the world that he had begun the civil war."
By moving to Fort Sumter Anderson in effect broke Buchanan's promise and Anderson's last instruction from the Secretary of War (dictated by Buchanan).
That was the breach of faith; a faith made by Buchanan, a lying Democrat slaver himself? A lie made to his cabinet in order to keep cabinet members? That is Rich!
Buchanan slumped into a chair. "My God!" he cried wearily. "Are calamities ... never to come singly! I call God to witness -- you gentlemen better than anybody else know that this is not only without but against my orders. It is against my policy."
And Buchanan, the Democrat slaver President didn’t bother to dismiss Anderson, the man who “supposedly” was responsible for the war.
LOL. Perhaps you don't know that the New York Times was a thoroughly Republican newspaper back then …
Totally unbelievable considering the NYT article you source is so sympathetic to the Democrat slaver’s cause.
… or that on many matters the Republican and Democrat Parties (and the NY Times) have switched political philosophies, with the exception of race, since those times.
Yeppers, I’ll agree with you somewhat there; except they have not “switched”; both Parties have gotten worse. The Republicans have grown spineless in support of their philosophy; with the exception of most Tea Party members. The philosophy of the Democrats slavers is now a, I reiterate, anti-God, anti Bible, slaughter the unborn by the millions, etc., a straight up evil Party.
President Lincoln in deciding the Sumter question had adopted a simple but effective policy. To use his own words, he determined to "send bread to Anderson"; if the rebels fired on that, they would not be able to convince the world that he had begun the civil war."
So what this tells me is that Lincoln also wanted to win the propaganda war that the Democrat slavers started; thank you for proving my point.
I repeat, think about it; you are defending Democrat slavers of today by defending the Democrat slavers’ history. You would do better to remind Democrat slaver of their history of not only slavery, but of their racism, their KKK, their Progressive to socialists, communism, their hatred for god and Bible, their holocaust of babies, etc. Before I respond to anything else, I have but one question for you; why would you want to defend the Democrat slavers of then and now?