Fort Sumter: The Case for Hungry Soldiers

UPDATE: The comments section is closed. The arguments were circular. 

I am always fascinated by terms, statements and quotes that are thrown around to justify the historical arguments of the public arena. When these elements of “proof” emerge, they are usually unaccompanied by context, explanation, analysis or justification. In the comments section of this blog and in other places,  some apologists used “proof” in their interpretations of Fort Sumter. These arguments center around which side actually started the Civil War, and whether or not the “food for hungry men” explanation provided by Lincoln is an erroneous claim. I am sure there are other angles and arguments made with the same type of historical interpretation but these two subjects are dominating my recent encounters. I feel it is something worth exploring a little more in-depth.

I intended on writing a post, in fact I actually promised a post to one commentator, on the subject of who started the war.  Certain arguments contend that the Union’s policy, initiated by Lincoln and Anderson (troops moving from Moultrie to Sumter, resupply, promises not kept, etc.), provoked the South. At this juncture, Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens are usually cited for their beliefs that the South acted in defense. Recently I came across this post on Tulane University’s website. The post is a terrific analysis of both the Union and the Rebel Government’s political maneuvering during the Ft. Sumter crisis. It also contains a great historiography on the subject. The only thing I might add, or at least expand upon, is the “War Hawkesque” culture of the South. Given that War Hawks of the War of 1812 came predominantly from the South, and then led Southern rhetoric in the antebellum, there might be “cultural baggage” worth exploring? That is probably a post for another time. Given that the “who started the war” question is objectively addressed by someone else, I will concentrate more on the arguments against Lincoln’s claim of “food for hungry men.”

sumter

Many teachers discuss the situation during the Ft. Sumter crisis as one of political maneuvering. Neither side necessarily wanted to start the war. Yet, the South acted aggressively in securing federal forts and installations across the South. Fort Pulaski is one of my favorite examples of this, reminiscent of the seizure of Ticonderoga. In Charleston, S.C. the narrative usually is told in this manner. (I am paraphrasing of course based on the different ways I have seen high school and college professors teach this subject. I understand it is a generalization, but I think it is one we can agree on.) Ft. Sumter and Ft. Pickens proved to be the last remaining forts occupied by the Federal government in the South. Because the federal government owned these installations, and because relinquishing them added validity to secession, the federal government would not hand the forts over. The South on the other hand, now faced the political imposition of having Union soldiers occupying forts in the South. Thus the push and pull politics of both sides that did not necessarily want to be the ones that fired first. At Sumter, Anderson and his men occupied Ft. Moultrie. The Union Gov’t. ordered Anderson to hold the harbor, as was his domain of protection. Anderson moved his forces from Moultrie to Sumter (also under his command) because he felt Moultrie had inferior defenses to ground attacks. There in the walls of Ft. Sumter, Anderson remained throughout the rest of the Buchanon Presidency and into Lincoln’s first months in office. Anderson began to run low on supplies facing a  decision to abandon the fort or commence firing. Both sides knew this. Lincoln politically maneuvered the situation to relive the “starvation of soldiers” without firing first. He sent, “food for hungry men.” Jefferson Davis in response, knowing that the Federal troops would maintain occupation with fresh supplies, ordered Gen. Beauregard to attack the fort (please forgive that oversimplification.) It is the claim of “food for hungry men” that some scrutinize today. These critics of Lincoln state that the men received food from Charleston, therefore they were not starving. This is, as they say, justification for believing Lincoln provoked the South into firing because there was no need to “resupply” the fort.

jbbaldwinThis apologist argument stems from a statement given by John B. Baldwin of Virginia in February 10, 1866. Baldwin, recanted a conversation he had with Lincoln to Senator Jabob M. Howard of Michigan in front of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction. Baldwin noted that in the conversation that took place on April 4, 1861, Lincoln brought up the issue of starvation at Fr. Sumter and Baldwin replied to that dilemma:

He [Lincoln] said something or other about feeding the troops at Sumter. I told him that would not do. Said I, “You know perfectly well that the people of Charleston have been feeding them already. That is not what they are at. They are asserting a right. They will feed the troops, and fight them while they are feeding them. They are after the assertion of a right.”

Apologists argue that Baldwin’s statement indicates that Charleston fed the garrison at Ft. Sumter. Therefore, Lincoln’s sending of “food for hungry men” is nothing more than political tap dance to send reserves, reinforcements, essentially all things evil to provoke the South and cause the Civil War. But there are some problems with Baldwin’s testimony. For starters, those posting this quote from the book  Conversations With Lincoln,

The best source evidence of conditions within the fort comes not from a statesman from Virginia not present at the fort, but from the actual men in and around Ft. Sumter. In this instance, the correspondence between Gen.  Beauregard and Maj. Anderson prove the most revealing.

FORT SUMTER, S.C.,

GENERAL: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication demanding the evacuation of this fort, and to say, in reply thereto, that it is a demand with which I regret that my sense of honor, and of my obligations to my Government, prevent my compliance.  Thanking you for the fair, manly, and courteous terms proposed, and for the high compliment paid me,

I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

ROBERT ANDERSON
Major, First Artillery, Commanding.


HEADQUARTERS PROVISIONAL ARMY, C.S.A.,

MAJOR: In consequence of the verbal observation made by you to my aides, Messrs. Chestnut and Lee, in relation to the condition of your supplies, and that you would in a few days be starved out if our guns did not batter you to pieces, or words to that effect, and desiring no useless effusion of blood, I communicated both the verbal observations and your written answer to my communications to my Government.

If you will state the time at which you will evacuate Fort Sumter, and agree that in the mean time you will not use your guns against us unless ours shall be employed against Fort Sumter, we will abstain from opening fire upon you.  Colonel Chestnut and Captain Lee are authorized by me to enter such an agreement with you.  You are, therefore, requested to communicate to them an open answer

I remain, major, very respectfully, your obedient servant

G. T. BEAUREGARD
Brigadier-General, Commanding.


April 12, 1861

FORT SUMTER, S.C.,

GENERAL: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt by Colonel Chestnut of your second communication of the 11th instant, and to state in reply that, cordially uniting with you in the desire to avoid the useless effusion of blood, I will, if provided with the proper and necessary means of transportation, evacuate Fort Sumter by noon on the 15th instant, and that I will not in the mean time open my fires upon your forces unless compelled to do so by some hostile act against this fort or the flag of my Government by the forces under your command, or by some portion of them, or by the perpetration of some act showing a hostile intention on your part against this fort or the flag it bears, should I not receive prior to that time controlling instructions from my Government or additional supplies.

I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant

ROBERT ANDERSON
Major, First Artillery, Commanding.

beauregard-anderson

Both men acknowledged the condition of food at Ft. Sumter. Beauregard notes mentions of conditions in writing, and also recognizes Anderson’s verbal inclinations. These two men agree, supplies are running low at Fort Sumter. So what of Baldwin’s statement? According to the Encyclopedia of the American Civil War, food supply constantly represented an issue at the fort. The first reports of Anderson’s men being low on food, prompted Pickens, the governor of South Carolina, to send Anderson food and allow women and children to be transported to New York. However, by March, those provisions ended. Beauregard discontinued the supply of Ft. Sumter. Supplies ran low, as dictated in the last letter above. Anderson, without receiving orders from Washington, promised to leave the fort on the 15th of April. This was not soon enough for the Confederate government, with Lincoln’s supplies on the way, Jefferson Davis gave the go ahead for the attack.

Perhaps Baldwins account referred to these earlier circumstances mentioned in the Encyclopedia of the American Civil War. He might have known that citizens of Charleston gave food to the garrison in the past, so he felt that it was not an issue. Maybe Baldwin stretched the truth a little, or he simply did not know that the Charleston later cut the Garrison off. In any case, Baldwin’s account about food at Ft. Sumter is unreliable and based on hearsay.  The soldiers, both Union and Confederate, definitely knew it was an issue. According to the correspondence, the issue proved so grave that Maj. Anderson intended to give up the fort on the 15th. I’d argue  “food for hungry men,” is justified.

Advertisements

168 thoughts on “Fort Sumter: The Case for Hungry Soldiers

  1. Rob, see Kenneth M. Stampp’s And the War Came: The North and the Secession Crisis, 1860-61. He talks about the food shortage. The fresh meats and vegetables were cut off on 7 Apr. [OR Series I, Vol 1, p. 248]
    http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0001;node=waro0001%3A3;view=image;seq=264;size=100;page=root

    In the footnote on p. 264, Stampp says the fort was running short of staples: “pork, flour, beans, coffee, sugar, and salt.” Anderson’s letters of 28 Feb and 2 Mar detailing the timeline for running out of food is in the LOC’s Abraham Lincoln papers.

    1. Al,

      Thanks for the comment and for the sources. I spent the morning reading the correspondence back and forth between the Fort and both governments. It’s a good thing that a fart in the wind warranted a letter to someone or we would not have such wonderful resources.

      I’ll have to get a copy of Kenneth Stampp’s book. Sadly, I could not find anything that allowed me to see the inside of the book. However, I did come across David J. Eicher’s book The Longest Night: A Military History of the Civil War that has a great examination of the situation and Charleston, as well as a couple of garrison soldiers’ statements on the rations. I cannot see the footnotes/endnotes of the Google book tough so I have no clue where these citations come from.

  2. Rob,
    Here’s a link to what Fort Sumter had on hand just prior to Lincoln’s inauguration.
    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mal&fileName=mal1/076/0766400/malpage.db&recNum=0&tempFile=./temp/~ammem_ZtcJ&filecode=mal&next_filecode=mal&prev_filecode=mal&itemnum=4&ndocs=38

    They were getting fresh meats and vegetables from Charleston until 7 April, but they had no means of preserving that food. That’s why after the meats and vegetables were cut off, Anderson said he would be starved out.

    Samuel W. Crawford’s Sumter: The Genesis of the Civil War is another outstanding source, written by someone who was there at the time. David Potter’s Lincoln and His Party in the Secession Crisis is another good one.

    1. Interesting Al. I read a couple of soldiers’ descriptions of the food in the book I referenced above. I wondered why their meals seemed so meager if Charleston supplied food until the 7th. The source you supplied seems to shed some light on that very thing.

  3. George Purvis

    Rob,

    You just bounce from one position to another don’t you. Now what I would quite expect from one who teaches others history. In regards to the issue at Fort Sumter I would expect such an important issue to be one of the first that a student of the War For Southern Independence would have studied.

    If you are confused about what I am talking about, remember making this statement —

    The “starving men” argument is not mine it is Lincoln’s. Technically they weren’t starving, but their supplies were running out. Anderson’s men maintained Sumter for several months leading to the first shots. Anderson received orders that he could move if his position was indefensible. He did not “violate” any agreement.

    If not you can review it at — http://thehistoricstruggle.wordpress.com/2013/02/24/abraham-lincoln-wins-an-oscar/?replytocom=1190

    So I ask just what is your position?

    I am going to address some of your points one by one even though I have already went over this once with you.

    1.“Yet, the South acted aggressively in securing federal forts and installations across the South.”

    Makes no difference. Sumter was the the cause of the war not the armory in Baton Rouge or any other Fort. It was the driving issue in the Peace talks with Lincoln while none of the other installations hardly get a mention. You are mainly using smoke and mirrors to divert attention away from Sumter.

    The Federal Government did not own Sumter, that is proven by this—– The Statutes at Large of South Carolina (Columbia, South Carolina: A.S. Johnston, 1836), Volume V, page 501.

    III. That, if the United States shall not, within three years from the passing of this act, and notification thereof by the governor of this State to the Executive of the United States, repair the fortifications now existing thereon, or build such other forts or fortifications as may be deemed most expedient by the Executive of the United States on the same, and keep a garrison or garrisons therein, in such case this grant or cession shall be void and of no effect.”

    Really ownership of Sumter one way or the other makes no difference. A peace agreement was in place and Anderson violated the treaty. You admit as much in “Lincoln” It is obvious that the peace agreement was a loose one. it was all verbal as neither could come to terms on paper.

    2. “Anderson moved his forces from Moultrie to Sumter (also under his command) because he felt. Moultrie had inferior defenses to ground attacks.

    There was no justification for Anderson’s move. He moved his command with orders or other authorization. If one instance set the two countries on a path to war it was this. Remember there was a peace agreement in place that had not yet been violated.

    The Genesis of the Civil War: the story of Sumter, 1860-1861 By Samuel Wylie Crawford Pages 128-130

    FORT SUMTER, Charleston, S. C, December 27, 1860.

    My dear Sir: I have only time to say that the movement of my command to this place was made on my own responsibility and not in obedience to orders from Washington. I did it because in my opinion it was the best way of preventing the shedding of blood. God grant that the existing condition of affairs may be adjusted without any resort to force.

    Truly your friend, ROBERT ANDERSON.

    The Hon. ROBERT N. GOURDIN.

    3. “he sent food to starving men”

    The Sumter garrison was not starving. See Prof. Rob Bakers statement above. The letters you are posting as you are posting as proof positive of the men starving is AFTER the supplies were cut off from Charleston. At anytime between feast and famine Lincoln could have ordered Anderson from Sumter. Instead Lincoln sent an invasion fleet. The South Carolina authorities knew what was coming toward them. There may have been food but there was also re-enforcements for Sumter and plenty of warships. There is no mention of being short on food in any letters I read of Doubleday, Anderson, or Sgt. James Chester.

    In fact as proof of the food situation at Sumter I offer this source—

    “A sailor of fortune”: Personal Memoirs of Captain B. S. Osbon By Albert Bigelow Paine, 1906 Page 113 —–and Mr. Fox was sent to Charleston to visit Sumter. He was accorded special permission to visit the fort by Governor Pickens, and on his return reported that Major Anderson had supplies to last until April 15th, and that any relief to be of value must arrive by that date.

    Proof that the “starving man argument is a bunch of hogwash.

    4. As to Baldwins statement that this is the only proof we ‘apologist’ have that Anderson and his men received supplies from Charleston. I have no idea who Baldwin is but i can offer these sources that support Baldwins statement—

    From: Mr. Buchanan’s Administration on the Eve of the Rebellion. Page 178

    Such was the state of affairs on the 15th December, 1860. Meanwhile the forts and all other public property were unmolested, and Major Anderson and his troops continued to be supplied and treated in the kindest manner.

    From the National Parks service document “Crisis at Fort Sumter, author and date not listed, page 17

    For his part Perkins allowed mail to enter Sumter the women and Children to leave it. Moreover the garrison could purchase bread, meat vegetables (but not flour) in Charleston and a South Carolina officer sent over several cases of claret.

    From Major R. Anderson to . Honorable Robert N. Gourdin

    “FORT SUMTER, South Carolina, December 29, 1860.

    I regret that the Governor has deemed proper to treat us as enemies, by cutting off our communication with the city, permitting me only to send for the mails. Now this is annoying, and I regret it. We can do without going to the city, as I have supplies of provisions, of all kinds, to last my command about five months, but it would add to our comfort to be enabled to make purchases of fresh meats and so on, and to shop in the city.

    Praying that the time may soon come, etc.,

    ROBERT ANDERSON.

    So to say that the men in Sumter were starving and did not receive supplies from Charleston is a bunch of malarkey.

    George Purvis

    Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education

  4. Mr. Purvis is wrong about so much it’s hard to know where to start. Let’s take ownership of Fort Sumter. He cites, out of context, an 1805 statute that covered Fort Moultrie, Castle Pinckney, Fort Johnston, and forts that would be erected on what was then the exposed land of the state. See page 501 here:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=S7E4AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

    This could in no way cover Fort Sumter, as that artificial island was not yet in existence, therefore not exposed land.

    Fort Sumter was covered by the resolution found here:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=fc4DAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA376&lpg=PA376&dq=Resolved+that+this+state+do+cede+to+the+United+States+all+the+right+title+and+claim+of+South+Carolina+to+the+site+of+Fort+Sumter&source=bl&ots=eKxeVmgeX_&sig=9Y0xdlkvNAmkrvnkgF6iE80OcDI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=j2BjUffbO_Ot0AGG5oEw&ved=0CE8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Resolved%20that%20this%20state%20do%20cede%20to%20the%20United%20States%20all%20the%20right%20title%20and%20claim%20of%20South%20Carolina%20to%20the%20site%20of%20Fort%20Sumter&f=false

    “The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor’s message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

    “Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

    “Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

    “Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.”

    Fort Sumter belonged to the United States lock, stock, and barrel. See what Samuel W. Crawford wrote here:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=wv2IZ9CjLmAC&pg=PA4&dq=The+Genesis+of+the+Civil+War+satisfactory+explanations+being+made&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OmtjUeXSHMjg0QHCioDQDQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Genesis%20of%20the%20Civil%20War%20satisfactory%20explanations%20being%20made&f=false

    There was no peace agreement at Fort Sumter. That claim is thrown about by several neoconfederates but it holds no water.

    It is interesting Mr. Purvis quotes Wylie’s book when he claims Anderson moved without authorization. Don Carlos Buell made a memorandum of the orders given to Anderson, viewable here:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=wv2IZ9CjLmAC&pg=PA73&dq=The+Genesis+of+the+Civil+War+carefully+to+avoid+every+act+which+would+needlessly+tend+to+provoke&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0HJjUcThKMXj0QGNmYDIBw&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Genesis%20of%20the%20Civil%20War%20carefully%20to%20avoid%20every%20act%20which%20would%20needlessly%20tend%20to%20provoke&f=false

    Note: “The smallness of your force, will not permit you, perhaps, to occupy more than one of the three forts, but an attack on or an attempt to take possession of any one of them will be regarded as an act of hostility, and you may then put your command into either of them which you may 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.”

    Mr. Purvis interestingly neglects to provide the statements within Wylie’s book that show the imminence of an attack upon Moultrie which necessitated Anderson’s occupation of Fort Sumter.

    Mr. Purvis quotes Anderson’s letter saying he was not ordered to Sumter by Washington as somehow showing Anderson exceeded his authority. Apples and oranges. That he wasn’t ordered to Sumter doesn’t mean he wasn’t authorized to move there.

    The rest of Mr. Purvis’ post is more of the same.

    1. Thanks for that outstanding response Mr. Mackey. It saved me a lot of trouble. I pointed out many of those things to George in another post. He takes a rather blind stance in many aspects and, as I have already pointed out in this blog, posts a lot of quotes without context.

      1. We’ll never convince Heritage Instead Of History folks, Rob, no matter how many facts we show, no matter how many primary sources we produce, no matter how we show their claims hold no water. We can only counter their inaccuracies so others get the truth.

          1. George Purvis

            Mr. Mackey,

            You are entitled to believe I am wrong. It is your right. However proving I am wrong is another matter. The statues cover all of Charleston harbor including the land Sumter was built on. At any rate, as i have said ownership is not the issue.

            No peace agreement? Are you sure? Prof. Baker in his Lincoln blog admits there was a “loose agreement. Are you telling me he is wrong?

            I really have no idea who Wylie is. I didn’t use his book, I care not what Buell or anyone else has to say about Anderson’s orders. Had you really been reading you would have notice I used a letter of Anderson’s in which he states he had no orders or authorization to move. It just doesn’t get better than that.

            Show me examples of the “imminence of an attack.” Surely you can provide some order from Pickens, Beauregard, or some other Southern official. perhaps you can provide details of when these South Carolinians stormed the walls of Moultrie — a list of losses for both sides perhaps.

            Anderson’s letter(s) — Apples and Oranges yes to the tune of 600,00 plus dead. Are you in the habit of dismissing facts when they do not agree with your preconceived notion of how history should be? If you are able to dismiss Anderson letter so easily, then please tell me why I shouldn’t dismiss your second hand sources in the same manner? As I said when you can provide details of an assault on Moultrie or other direct threat let me know and as Rob Baker says it comes from the men who were there.

            George Purvis
            Southern Heritage AdvancementPreservation and Education

          2. Ownership is an issue. I proved you wrong on your claims in a previous post; Al Mackey just did the same. You seem to backing out of that argument by saying ownership is not an issue.

            “loose agreement” is different than a peace agreement George.

            You stated that Anderson received no orders….Don Buell…the one that gave out the orders, says otherwise. It just doesn’t get better than that….interesting analysis there George. In the letter you post, Anderson explains his move of one of his own decision and not from Washington specifically ordering him. But, he does not imply anymore, that his original orders were void. He specifically means, at that point, at that time, that Washington did not order him to move. As per his original orders, Sumter was under his domain, he was advised Moultrie was inadequate.

            The imminence of attack can correctly be ascertained from the South’s actions all across Dixie in seizing federal installations. That’s just one interpretation though. I’m sure Al has more information to give on the subject.

            Al’s sources were primary source accounts. They are not any more second hand than you posting quotes on this website.

          3. George Purvis

            Nice post on YOUR opiions but you still haven’t proved Andersonw didn’t have orders. That statement comes right from his own hand. Is he lying? And yes there was a peace agreement. I say so Bakersays so.so it appears you are theodd man out. Perhaps Baker is wrong?

            As I said ownership of Sumter is notthe issue. The fact that Anderson viiolated the peace aggreement was the issue.

            And the Statues does cover the complete CharlestonHarbor, regardless of what date it was written.

            I knew what you mean by “imminence.” I was giving you a chance do do your best. More than likely some little kid said boo and Aderson ran like a scared little girl or as Rob Baker does. Speaking of baker he is abig man when someone else is fighting his battles!!!

            “600,000 dead ” yes that burden falls squarely on Lincoln’s shoulders.

            george Purvis
            Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education

        1. George Purvis

          Really is that the best you can do start resorting to cutting remarks and insults? I am not surprised when you history revisionist find the facts in your face, you are the first to resort to such comments.

          1. George save your cries. I’ve read your little website, that includes the forum where you make your disparaging remarks. The victim card does not suit you.

          2. George Purvis

            Mackey here is something from Wylie–

            The Genesis of the Civil War: the story of Sumter, 1860-1861 By Samuel Wylie Crawford Pages 128-130

            FORT SUMTER, S. C , “December 30, 1860.

            My dear Sir: Your most welcome letter of the 26th of December, received to-day, finds me, as you see, at Fort Sumter. God has been pleased to hear our prayers, and has removed me to this stronghold. Perhaps at the very moment you were writing to me I was by His guidance leading my little band across to this place. I left Fort Moultrie between 5 and 6 P. M., and had my command here by 8 o’clock the same evening. You say that you had marvelled that I had not been ordered to hold Fort Sumter instead of Fort Moultrie. Much has been said about my having come here on my own responsibility. Unwilling to see my little band sacrificed, I determined, after earnestly awaiting instructions as long as I could, to avail myself of the earliest opportunity of extricating myself from my dangerous position. God be praised! He gave me the will and led me in the way. How I do wish that you could have looked down upon us when we threw the stars and stripes to the breeze, at 12 o’clock on the 27th! . . .

            I am now, thank God, in a place which will, by His helping, soon be made so strong that the South Carolinians will be madmen if they attack me. There are some alterations and some additions which I wish to have made. The Governor of this State has interdicted all intercourse with the city except that of sending and receiving letters, so that you see we are quasi enemies. Were I disposed to declare myself independent of, to secede from, the General Government and retaliate, I could cut Charleston off from her supplies, but I will show him that I am more of a Christian than to make the innocent suffer for the petty conduct of their Governor.

            You see it stated that I came here without orders. Fear not! I am sure I can satisfy any tribunal I may be brought before, that I was fully justified in moving my command [Robert Anderson]

            FORT SUMTER, S. C , “December 30, 1860.

            ************************************

            And now we have in Anderson’s own words why Pickens wanted him out of Sumter.

            Heritage Not Historty indeed.

            ****************************

            George Purvis
            Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education

            PS — Rob you have stated you have read my website. That is not true if you were attempting to read it it would take you months just to finish what posted. Nice try however.

            Mackey — again it is mentioned he had no orders.

          3. George, I’ll let Al respond directly but to say I read your website is a generalization. I glanced it over, but I did read many posts on the forum. Sort of an out of the way statement by you though.

      2. George Purvis

        Rob,

        What did you point out?? You were getting your butt kicked and closed down cooments and kept posting your opinions. You like mackey’s response because you haven’t the knowledge to post a factual response.

        The comments section is still up at Lincoln, link posted above any reader can go there and see I am telling the truth.

        George Purvis
        Southern heritage Advancement Preservation

        1. I was getting my butt kicked? Perhaps you should reread the comments and also my last statement as to why I close down the comments. I also promised to renew the dialogue again, thus…here we are. Every time I posted anything that contradicted your statements, you ran off to another irrelevant point. And then posted a barrage of random quotes and texts wanting me to decipher each one. My favorite example of this, is the question of who owned Sumter. You have been proven wrong once again, and are now running from that.

          1. George Purvis

            yep exactly. Your ran like the little girl that you are.I have no needd to read anything I know what happened and unless you did some midnight editing the facts will speak for themselves.

            I say again the issue of ownership was not the question, it was the fact that Anderson violated a peace aggreement. He simply could not be trusted!!!!!!!!!!!!

          2. Earlier you said,

            Really is that the best you can do start resorting to cutting remarks and insults? I am not surprised when you history revisionist find the facts in your face, you are the first to resort to such comments.

            Pretty hypocritical George given what you are saying here. Also, I stated my reasons and no, you were not winning anything. You brought up some good points, but ultimately they were put down or came with the promise to address them at a later date. That, in addition to you putting up a “Call to Arms” on your website to attack my site (this is why I mentioned the 5-1 scenario), is the reason I closed down that comment thread. Yes, everyone can see it for themselves.

            Yes, ownership was an issue. Else there would not have been such division over who owned the fort in the first place. You are now posing theory…wrong theory at that.

  5. Mr. Purvis’ writings are typical of the Heritage Instead of History crowd:

    “You are entitled to believe I am wrong. It is your right. However proving I am wrong is another matter. The statues cover all of Charleston harbor including the land Sumter was built on. At any rate, as i have said ownership is not the issue.”

    ————-
    Mr. Purvis either has trouble comprehending the written word or is intentionally deceitful.

    Let’s see what the statute covers:

    “All the lands reserved for fort Moultrie on Sullivan’s Island.” — Not Fort Sumter’s location
    “The high lands and part of the marsh belonging to fort Johnston.” — Not Fort Sumter’s location
    “The land on which fort Pinckney is built.” — Not Fort Sumter’s location
    “A portion of the sand bank marked C, on the south easternmost point of Charleston.” — Not Fort Sumter’s location
    “A quantity of land not exceeding four acres, for a battery or fort, and necessary buildings, on Dr. Blythe’s point of land at the mouth of Sampit river.” — Not Fort Sumter’s location
    “The small island in Beaufort river, called Mustard island, opposite Paris’s island, and a tract of land on St. Helena island, opposite the same, not exceeding seven acres of land.” — Not Fort Sumter’s location

    Nothing in the area covered by the statute pertains to Fort Sumter.
    Further, the statute was written in 1805, long before building Fort Sumter was ever contemplated, and 1808, which is three years after the statute as delineated within, was also long before Fort Sumter was ever contemplated. This statute has no relation whatsoever to Fort Sumter.

    Instead, what happened was there was another cession of land from South Carolina, covered by the 1836 statute. That Mr. Purvis doesn’t seem to understand this speaks to Mr. Purvis, not to anything else. As usual, you can’t trust a claim by a Heritage Instead of History type.

    And ownership is an issue. It was a United States fort garrisoned by United States troops.

    Mr. Purvis continues:

    “No peace agreement? Are you sure? Prof. Baker in his Lincoln blog admits there was a “loose agreement. Are you telling me he is wrong?”

    ———————
    There was no peace agreement. Mr. Purvis himself used the phantom agreement to claim Anderson’s move was a hostile act. I find it instructive he tries to disassociate himself from it now, much like former confederates after the war tried in vain to disassociate themselves and their cause from the institution of slavery.

    Mr. Purvis, in a revealing passage, says,

    “I really have no idea who Wylie is. I didn’t use his book, I care not what Buell or anyone else has to say about Anderson’s orders. Had you really been reading you would have notice I used a letter of Anderson’s in which he states he had no orders or authorization to move. It just doesn’t get better than that.”
    ————————–
    Samuel Wylie Crawford. I know Mr.Purvis didn’t use his book, even though he pretended to quote from it, because it’s history, not heritage. Why would he care about the facts? I know Mr. Purvis doesn’t care what Anderson’s orders were, because he’s not interested in the truth. What he posted was Anderson saying he wasn’t ordered to move. Mr. Purvis’ claim that he stated he had no authorization to move is either another case of Mr. Purvis not being able to comprehend the written word or an out-and-out attempt to lie.

    Mr. Purvis says,

    “Show me examples of the “imminence of an attack.” Surely you can provide some order from Pickens, Beauregard, or some other Southern official. perhaps you can provide details of when these South Carolinians stormed the walls of Moultrie — a list of losses for both sides perhaps.”

    ——————————–
    Mr. Purvis should first invest in a dictionary so he can look up the meaning of the word “imminence.” It doesn’t mean an attack has been made.

    Those interested in actual history would be interested in pages 92-117:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=wv2IZ9CjLmAC&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=Samuel+Crawford+Genesis+of+the+Civil+War+Major+Anderson+considered+that+an+attack+upon+him+was+more+and+more+imminent&source=bl&ots=7m2__Wb9IR&sig=ribp–K4IL7cxm2d_IceVEcXJcM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=y8JkUZCxPPSQ0QGat4H4CA&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Samuel%20Crawford%20Genesis%20of%20the%20Civil%20War%20Major%20Anderson%20considered%20that%20an%20attack%20upon%20him%20was%20more%20and%20more%20imminent&f=false

    One can read Major Anderson’s assessment here:

    http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0001;node=waro0001%3A2;view=image;seq=94;size=100;page=root

    and here:

    http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0001;node=waro0001%3A2;view=image;seq=97;size=100;page=root

    His engineer, Capt Foster, here (3 pages):

    http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0001;node=waro0001%3A2;view=image;seq=100;size=100;page=root

    Anderson here:

    http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0001;node=waro0001%3A2;view=image;seq=103;size=100;page=root

    Capt Foster here again (3 pages):

    http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0001;node=waro0001%3A2;view=image;seq=106;size=100;page=root

    Anderson again here:

    http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0001;node=waro0001%3A2;view=image;seq=110;size=100;page=root

    And here:

    http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0001;node=waro0001%3A2;view=image;seq=121;size=100;page=root

    Foster again here:

    http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0001;node=waro0001%3A2;view=image;seq=122;size=100;page=root

    And Major Anderson reporting the reasons for moving to Fort Sumter here:

    http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0001;node=waro0001%3A2;view=image;seq=19;size=100;page=root

    Of course, I expect Mr. Purvis to show no more skill in understanding what’s written here than he’s shown to date.

    Mr. Purvis says,

    “Anderson’s letter(s) — Apples and Oranges yes to the tune of 600,00 plus dead. Are you in the habit of dismissing facts when they do not agree with your preconceived notion of how history should be? If you are able to dismiss Anderson letter so easily, then please tell me why I shouldn’t dismiss your second hand sources in the same manner? As I said when you can provide details of an assault on Moultrie or other direct threat let me know and as Rob Baker says it comes from the men who were there. ”

    Here Mr. Purvis shows either a complete inability to comprehend what was written or a complete lack of intellectual integrity, possibly both. Simply put, the Anderson letter doesn’t say what Mr. Purvis claims it says. That he doesn’t see that speaks to Mr. Purvis’ lacking. His claim that I used secondhand sources again shows a complete lack of intellectual integrity, proving once again nothing a Heritage Over History type says can be believed. As to the 600,000 plus dead, the responsibility for that falls primarily on the shoulders of the man who ordered the firing on the fort, in the face of being warned, “Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North. The firing upon that fort will inaugurate a civil war greater than any the world has yet seen.” — Robert Toombs

  6. George Purvis

    Hooo hummm just more communications from the ORS and other folks. Do You have something that shows anderson had orders to move to Sumter. Can you prove Anderson wasn’t telling the truth when he said he didn’t have orders??/ Yes or no –simple answer.

    1. Pretty sure he already answered that. He showed, through Don Carlos Buell’s memoirs, that Buell insisted he take up a better spot than Moultrie.

      Buell’s orders: http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0001;node=waro0001%3A3;view=image;seq=133;size=100;page=root

      Anderson’s letter in Sumter: http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0001;node=waro0001%3A3;view=image;seq=136;size=100;page=root

      On the pages in between the two, Buchanon highlights that there was no direct order to move, and that Anderson was in charge of all federal property in the harbor. He was allowed to move only if, he felt there was an imminent threat. Anderson in his letter, justifies his moving. It’s pretty cut and dry as I said before. Anderson had command of federal property in the harbor. He was instructed to stay put, and only move in the case of threat. Buell suggested he take up a new location. Anderson, perceived a threat. The Confederates, rather than negotiate (as Buchanon points out) seized the federal property.

      1. George Purvis

        Makey,

        Doesn’t matter for what reason Rickens wanted Anderson out of Sumpter. The fact of the matter is this is what statred the war.

        And Anderson also mentions again he did not oders.

        ‘Once again, Mr. Purvis demonstrates his lack of the intellectual ability to follow an argument”

        At least i have the intellectual ability to read a letter and understand the contents. I have no need to lie, try to spin a story or act willingly stupid to make a point.

        Now cna you prove anderson had orders yes or no. Simple question simple answer.

        More to come.

        PS
        Rob,
        If I did not answer your post that simply means you had nothing to add to the conversation or the post post wasn’t worth replying to.

        George Purvis
        Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education.

        1. For once George, you are correct. Pickens wanted Maj. Anderson out of the federal property known as Fort Sumter. Anderson would not leave, until finally telling P.G.T. Beauregard that he would leave on Apr. 15th. Of course, we know this was not fast enough for the Southern Government.

          Anderson mentions what exactly? The Washington did not order him to move, but that he was ordered to command all federal installations in the harbor, and was advised to move by his superior commander? Ahhh, gotchya.

          No George, but you do have the need to dismiss any letters that contradict your statement. Instead, you just say it doesn’t matter without taking other factors into account.

          Al has already provided Anderson’s authorization several times over.

          You didn’t reply George, because you could not, not because you would not.

        2. Mr. Purvis is bound and determined to have the world know his shortcomings.

          He asks, in his own semiliterate manner, “Now cna you prove anderson had orders yes or no.”

          I’ve posted the orders transmitted by Don Carlos Buell several times now. Perhaps Mr. Purvis should find someone to read them to him and explain them. Those were the orders that authorized him to move to Fort Sumter. Mr. Purvis still doesn’t know the difference between “ordered to move” and “authorized to move.” Perhaps he can find someone to read the definitions out of a dictionary to him.

    2. Mr. Purvis appears bored by facts. Well, that’s to be expected; after all, why care about facts when one is only interested in a fictional heritage?

      Mr. Purvis asks, “Do You have something that shows anderson had orders to move to Sumter. Can you prove Anderson wasn’t telling the truth when he said he didn’t have orders?”

      Apparently, Mr. Purvis is still having problems comprehending the written word. He’s been told several times that Washington didn’t order Anderson to occupy Fort Sumter, and that’s what Anderson said in his letter. However, Anderson was authorized by his orders to occupy any of the forts in Charleston Harbor. Mr. Purvis has previously shown an inability to distinguish between “ordered to occupy” and “authorized to occupy,” so I expect he won’t understand this either.

      I think this exchange has been illustrative of the intellectual bankruptcy of the Heritage Instead of History crowd. To put it crudely, they aren’t very bright at all. I don’t know if it’s a commentary on the sad state of historical education or if it’s a commentary on the depth of the intelligence level it takes to be a Heritage Instead of History type, but to time after time misconstrue plainly written evidence, to time after time not care about crucial pieces of evidence and the very facts that bear on the subject at hand shows why these folks simply can’t be taken seriously. Sad.

  7. Not content with his self-embarrassment thus far, Mr. Purvis continues digging after hitting the bottom of the well:

    “Nice post on YOUR opiions ”

    ————–
    Here we see Mr. Purvis has no clue what the difference between a fact an opinion is.

    “but you still haven’t proved Andersonw didn’t have orders.”
    —————

    Mr. Purvis has obviously reached the limit of his limited intelligence. Why should anyone prove Anderson didn’t have orders? He had orders transmitted to him by Don Carlos Buell which authorized him to move into any fort in Charleston Harbor. Anderson himself said Washington didn’t order him to occupy Fort Sumter. Mr. Purvis still doesn’t know the difference between “ordered to move” and “authorized to move.”

    “That statement comes right from his own hand. Is he lying?”
    ——————–

    Mr. Purvis demonstrates again he can’t comprehend the written English language.

    “And yes there was a peace agreement. I say so”
    ——————————

    And that right there is the best argument for there not being one.

    “Bakersays so.so it appears you are theodd man out. Perhaps Baker is wrong?”
    ———————————

    It’s hard to decide whether Mr. Purvis really is as dumb as he makes himself out to be or if he’s an outright liar. Rob did not say there was a peace agreement.

    “As I said ownership of Sumter is notthe issue.”
    ————————-

    Mr. Purvis doesn’t have the intellectual ability to recognize what the issues are. Ownership of Sumter is an issue.

    “The fact that Anderson viiolated the peace aggreement was the issue. ”

    ——————————–

    As there was no peace agreement to violate, Mr. Purvis is still dealing in irrelevant nonsense.

    “And the Statues does cover the complete CharlestonHarbor, regardless of what date it was written.”
    —————————————

    Once again, after being shown how the 1805 statute has nothing to do with Fort Sumter, Mr. Purvis demonstrates the limits of his intellectual ability and the limits of his integrity by clinging to his already proven wrong claim.

    “I knew what you mean by “imminence.” I was giving you a chance do do your best.”
    ————————————–

    Nice try, but Mr. Purvis now shows himself to be dishonest.

    Mr. Purvis ends with another claim that shows massive ignorance of history:
    “600,000 dead ” yes that burden falls squarely on Lincoln’s shoulders.

    ———————————–
    Mr. Purvis apparently thinks Jeff Davis was nothing more than Abe Lincoln’s sock puppet, with Lincoln controlling Davis’ every utterance, forcing Davis to order the firing on Fort Sumter.

    I would like to thank Mr. Purvis for proving the Heritage Instead of History crowd has no credibility.

  8. So Mr. Purvis continues:

    “Mackey here is something from Wylie–

    The Genesis of the Civil War: the story of Sumter, 1860-1861 By Samuel Wylie Crawford Pages 128-130

    FORT SUMTER, S. C , “December 30, 1860.

    My dear Sir: Your most welcome letter of the 26th of December, received to-day, finds me, as you see, at Fort Sumter. God has been pleased to hear our prayers, and has removed me to this stronghold. Perhaps at the very moment you were writing to me I was by His guidance leading my little band across to this place. I left Fort Moultrie between 5 and 6 P. M., and had my command here by 8 o’clock the same evening. You say that you had marvelled that I had not been ordered to hold Fort Sumter instead of Fort Moultrie. Much has been said about my having come here on my own responsibility. Unwilling to see my little band sacrificed, I determined, after earnestly awaiting instructions as long as I could, to avail myself of the earliest opportunity of extricating myself from my dangerous position. God be praised! He gave me the will and led me in the way. How I do wish that you could have looked down upon us when we threw the stars and stripes to the breeze, at 12 o’clock on the 27th! . . .

    I am now, thank God, in a place which will, by His helping, soon be made so strong that the South Carolinians will be madmen if they attack me. There are some alterations and some additions which I wish to have made. The Governor of this State has interdicted all intercourse with the city except that of sending and receiving letters, so that you see we are quasi enemies. Were I disposed to declare myself independent of, to secede from, the General Government and retaliate, I could cut Charleston off from her supplies, but I will show him that I am more of a Christian than to make the innocent suffer for the petty conduct of their Governor.

    You see it stated that I came here without orders. Fear not! I am sure I can satisfy any tribunal I may be brought before, that I was fully justified in moving my command [Robert Anderson]

    FORT SUMTER, S. C , “December 30, 1860.

    ************************************

    And now we have in Anderson’s own words why Pickens wanted him out of Sumter.

    ———————

    Once again, Mr. Purvis demonstrates his lack of the intellectual ability to follow an argument. Anderson himself says, ” I can satisfy any tribunal I may be brought before, that I was fully justified in moving my command.” That is because he was within the discretion authorized by the orders transmitted to him through Don Carlos Buell.

    The orders Buell transmitted are available in the OR. The first part here:
    http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0001;node=waro0001%3A2;view=image;seq=105;size=100;page=root

    The second part here:
    http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0001;node=waro0001%3A2;view=image;seq=106;size=100;page=root

    I’ve already quoted from them, showing the authorization for Anderson to move to any fort in the harbor.

    “Heritage Not Historty indeed.”
    ——————–

    Indeed.

  9. George Purvis

    The war of the rebellion: a compilation of the official records of the Union and Confederate armies. ; Series 1 – Volume 1, page 3-4.

    WAR DEPARTMENT, Adjutant- Generals Office, December 27, 1860. Major ANDERSON, Fort Moultrie:

    Intelligence has reached here this morning that you have abandoned Fort Moultrie, spiked your guns, burned the carriages, and gone to Fort Sumter. It is not believed, because there is no order for any such movement. Explain the meaning of this report.

    J. B. FLOYD, Secretary of War.

    [Telegram.] CHARLESTON, December 27, 1860. Hon. J. B. FLOYD, Secretary of War:

    The telegram is correct. I abandoned Fort Moultrie because I was certain that if attacked my men must have been sacrificed, and the command of the harbor lost. I spiked the guns and destroyed the carriages to keep the guns from being used against us. If attacked, the garrison would never have surrendered without a fight.

    ROBERT ANDERSON, Major, First Artillery.

    1. Again, note in the original post this statement:

      When these elements of “proof” emerge, they are usually unaccompanied by context, explanation, analysis or justification.

      George gives another excellent example of this. He randomly posts a document from the O.R. He does so without context, without interpretation, and without justification. He completely dismisses the fact that Anderson was authorized to take such actions without order, and to do so if he felt imminent danger as Buchanon already pointed out.

      1. George Purvis

        I don not need to add anything. Anyone should be able to read and understand what I post. Well that is except you and Mackey.

        1. Using that “logic” George let’s run a little simulation.

          I write on a a piece of paper that:

          George Purvis, holy defender of Southern Heritage, is secretly a government spy sent to put the south in a state of eternal ignorance.”

          I place this piece of paper in a safe, I place that safe in a library, and there it remains for 150 years. In the year 2163, someone uncovers that safe. They decide to write about George Purvis. Now I ask you, do they need to add anything, or should anyone be able to read and understand that you are a government agent trying to make southerners stupid?

          Your logic dictates so. my logic stipulates we include context, we bring in other discussions about George Purvis, including those writing to him at the time. Considering the above, and considering that Mackey and I have training in history, which is the more accurate approach?

          1. George Purvis

            I think what we are discussing is a liitle more detailed than one simple statement. For example anyone can read these pages and see that i am not the ignorant one here and that I have no need to add any cooments at all, or put a spin on true historical fact. They can read the facts and determine for themselves who is right, that would be me, and who is wrong, that would be you and Baker.

            —–and so you are telling me when Anderson says he did not have orders you have no clue what that means. You and Baker must be the worlds two biggest willful idiots living.

            Can you prove Anderson had orders yes or no? he says he didn’t he should know don’t you think. Oh oh oh I know he was like you and baker he needed everything explained to him word for word simple language. Is that what yiou are getting at???

          2. Well hang on there George, you said plainly,

            I don not need to add anything. Anyone should be able to read and understand what I post. Well that is except you and Mackey.

            That was in response to what I said about you not adding any context, or taking into account context. You said that. Plainly. As if the telegraph stood alone in time outside of other correspondence. I’m sure they can read it George, but I would be willing to bet that anyone that sees the page, outside of a “Southern Heritage” proponent, that said person would recognize the need for context.

            No, we stated plainly both times that Anderson had authorization. That authorization came from Buell, and Buchanon recognized that authorization even after Anderson moved. Again, you have no idea what “orders” and/or “authorization” means or you wouldn’t be asking such silly questions. Plus, I already answered this. Did Washington tell him on December 25. “Hey Andy…how ’bout ya move that Garrison of yers to Fort Sumter tomorrow?” No. But was he authorized by Washington to move? Yes. So says Buell, so says Buchanon, and so says Anderson as Mackey pointed out. Please learn learn the difference George. You are either acting stupid in order to narrow the point as much as possible in order to walk away right in your mind, or you really are stupid. I’m hoping it’s the former.

          3. George Purvis

            Lots of posts lots of BS, — not worth reading. Still nothing to prove that Anderson had orders. Nice try

            So far you have failed to prove Anderson was wrong when he stated palinly I that he had no orders. Post the orders and who thaey were from

          4. Maybe if you read the posts, you’d see where Anderson was authorized to move. But alas, anything that contradicts your blindness is “not worth reading.”

          5. George Purvis

            Mackey,

            Do you see the date of the written orders I posted. Dec. 23 1860 This writtenn order supercedes Buells order. In these written orders Anderson is told not to

            Only in your version of history is Anderson authorized to move. You and Baker are jokes. the two of you together have yet to prove one point

          6. Actually, Rob, my training in history consists of enough undergrad classes to qualify for a minor and then stuff I picked up along the way. 🙂

          7. Rob, I was well taught at that fine southern institute of higher learning, and I’ve been fortunate to have some great role models along the way.

      2. One can only provide context if one understands what one is posting and understands the context. Mr. Purvis will likely never be able to provide context, Rob. Sad.

  10. George Purvis

    Mackey,

    here is a bit more info for you to spin.

    The war of the rebellion: a compilation of the official records of the Union and Confederate armies. ; Series 1 – Volume 1, page 89.

    No. 7.]

    FORT MOULTRIE, S. C., December 9, 1860.

    (Received A. G. 0., December 12.)

    Col. S. COOPER, Adjutant- General:

    —————————— Fort Sumter is a tempting prize, the value of which is well known to the Charlestonians, and once in their possession, with its ammunition and armament and walls uninjured and garrisoned properly, it would set our Navy at defiance, compel me to abandon this work, and give them the perfect command of this harbor.

    I am, colonel, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

    ROBERT ANDERSON, Major, First Artillery, Commanding.

    ************************************

    Again ownership did not matter, both sides had their eye on the prize. To be sure the South Carolina governent believed they had as much right to the Charleston forts as the US government.

    Show me where Andersons had orders to move. I have posted in his own words he did not, and posted that his boss Floyd syas he did not. Bring forth your proof save your BS for someone else. And yes the Statues did cover the entire Charleston harbor.

    George Purvis
    Southern Heritage Asdvancement Preservation and Education

      1. Joey Andrews

        Sorry I’m a little late to the party. Something I always notice about these history deniers in people like Mr. Purvis: They start out with a big broad point filled with accusations and hyperbole. Most of their point is then disproved and knocked aside. They then respond by abandoning 95% of their original point and focusing on 1 small facet of which they are convinced if they can get you on, you will then have to accept their full hyperbole filled point from before. Then before you know it you’re arguing over the distinction between “order” and “authorized” where again they refuse to see the distinction you’re making and feel some entitlement to a victory.

        It doesn’t matter how many ways you cut this trying to show Mr. Purvis this distinction. He does not have a mind for subtle things, he is not used to thinking on such a level. He is used to broad generalizations and prejudicial thinking on all subjects that he is privy to. Thus when you try to show him subtlety he thinks you’re being evasive or misleading, he doesn’t understand that some things aren’t as simple as “yes” or “no” and “black” and “white”. He doesn’t understand the Gray area and the “maybe” area that exists in most situations.

        So here we sit, academically discussing a distinction that so many historical moments tip upon, the subtle difference in the words “Authorized” and “Ordered”, and to us we see this gulf of difference in the subtlety. Mr. Purvis sees only some broad battlefield where he might brandish his verbal sword and charge head long to battle, “Damn the ballasts!” he cries! for his cause is righteous, and ours is not. He must triumph over us, for facts cannot stop the righteous in their holy war. Thus is the life of a southern heritage crusader.

          1. George Purvis

            I concede the facts I can make an argument with insults. BTW I don’t need someone else to fight my battles for me. BTW whnen are you going to post some facts????

  11. By the way, Buell himself believed an attack on Moultrie was likely.

    “Major Buell had remained over Sunday in Charleston, and became impressed with the feeling manifested. There was no noisy demonstration, but ‘there was everywhere evidence,’ he thought, ‘of a settled purpose.’ The determination to obtain possession of the forts was with them as fixed as the act of secession itself.

    “All the indications and all the information he could obtain convinced him ‘that Fort Sumter would be seized, with or without the State authorities, unless the Government should occupy it,’ and these considerations largely influenced him in his interpretation of the instructions of the Secretary of War, and which were expressed in the memorandum order.

    “He thought, too, that ‘it was evident Fort Moultrie would any day be liable to assault and reduction unless Sumter was occupied by a Government garrison,’ and he thought that Anderson ‘fully realized the fact.’

    “After some suggestions to Anderson, ‘all looking to the contemplated transfer of his command,’ Major Buell returned at once to Washington with a copy of the memorandum he had given to him. His report to the Secretary was verbal, but he left with the chief clerk, Mr. W. R. Drinkard, who enjoyed confidential relations with the Secretary, a copy of the memorandum for the files of the War Department. Whether the Secretary ever read it until it was called for by the President is questionable.” [Samuel W. Crawford, The Genesis of the Civil War: The Story of Sumter, 1860-61, p. 74]

    http://books.google.com/books?id=K-pkGF-D7eEC&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=Samuel+w.+Crawford+Genesis+of+Civil+War+Major+Buell+had+remained+over+Sunday+in+Charleston,+and+became+impressed+with+the+feeling+manifested&source=bl&ots=WFWTdc4Pbt&sig=njts7qYY1NzhWskaFvrvocLg-ic&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0CBmUZa_Js3U0gG1r4GIDg&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Samuel%20w.%20Crawford%20Genesis%20of%20Civil%20War%20Major%20Buell%20had%20remained%20over%20Sunday%20in%20Charleston%2C%20and%20became%20impressed%20with%20the%20feeling%20manifested&f=false

  12. Anderson’s move to Fort Sumter was NO violation of his orders, as Buell himself said, and as the Secretary of State, Jeremiah Black, said [See David Detzler, Allegiance: Fort Sumter, Charleston, and the Beginning of the Civil War, p. 140].

    His orders said, “The smallness of your force will not permit you, perhaps, to occupy more than one of the three forts, but an attack on or attempt to take possession of any one of them will be regarded as an act of hostility, and you may then put your command into either of them which you may 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.” [OR Series I, Vol 1, p. 90]

    The militia drills and movements seen by Anderson were tangible evidence of “a design to proceed to a hostile act,” i.e., an attack on Fort Moultrie. Buell left Charleston with the idea that Anderson would eventually have to move to Fort Sumter:

    “Major Buell had remained over Sunday in Charleston, and became impressed with the feeling manifested. There was no noisy demonstration, but ‘there was everywhere evidence,’ he thought, ‘of a settled purpose.’ The determination to obtain possession of the forts was with them as fixed as the act of secession itself.

    “All the indications and all the information he could obtain convinced him ‘that Fort Sumter would be seized, with or without the State authorities, unless the Government should occupy it,’ and these considerations largely influenced him in his interpretation of the instructions of the Secretary of War, and which were expressed in the memorandum order.

    “He thought, too, that ‘it was evident Fort Moultrie would any day be liable to assault and reduction unless Sumter was occupied by a Government garrison,’ and he thought that Anderson ‘fully realized the fact.’

    “After some suggestions to Anderson, ‘all looking to the contemplated transfer of his command,’ Major Buell returned at once to Washington with a copy of the memorandum he had given to him.” [Samuel W. Crawford, The Genesis of the Civil War: The Story of Sumter, 1860-61, p. 74]

    “Buchanan asked what exact orders Anderson had at Moultrie. Floyd wasn’t sure and had to send for his files to refresh his memory. He told the president that he had sent Major Don Carlos Buell to see Anderson and assess matters. From this visit had come a memorandum, dated December 11, summarizing instructions given verbally. Anderson was to avoid any at that might provoke aggression and make no hostile move, but he was also to ‘hold possession of the forts,’ and if attacked, he should defend himself ‘to the last extremity.’ Almost as an afterthought Buell acknowledged that Anderson had too few men to hold all the forts. An attack on any one of them would be regarded as an act of hostility, and he was authorized to concentrate his men into any one of the forts.

    “After hearing the instructions, Buchanan objected to the sentence calling for defense to the last extremity. Black insisted that a memorandum was not good enough; formal instructions were needed. He drafted a new version telling Anderson to exercise ‘sound military discretion on this subject. It is neither expected nor desired that you should expose your own life or that of your men in a hopeless conflict in defense of these forts.’ A compliant Floyd signed the message, and it was sent by courier to Anderson.” [Maury Klein, Days of Defiance: Sumter, Secession, and the Coming of the Civil War, pp. 148-149]

    Here’s the message sent to Anderson:

    WAR DEPARTMENT,
    Washington, December 21, 1860.
    Major ANDERSON,
    First Artillery, Commanding Fort Moultrie, S.C.:
    SIR: In the verbal instructions communicated to you by Major Buell, you are directed to hold possession of the forts in the harbor of Charleston, and, if attacked, to defend yourself to the last extremity. Under these instructions, you might infer that you are required to make a vain and useless sacrifice of your own life and the lives of the men under your command, upon a mere point of honor. This is far from the President’s intentions. You are to exercise a sound military discretion on this subject.
    It is neither expected nor desired that you should expose your own life or that of your men in a hopeless conflict in defense of these forts. If they are invested or attacked by a force so superior that resistance would, in your judgment, be a useless waste of life, it will be your duty to yield to necessity, and make the best terms in your power.
    This will be the conduct of an honorable, brave, and humane officer, and you will be fully justified in such action. These orders are strictly confidential, and not to be communicated even to the officers under your command, without close necessity.
    Very respectfully,
    JOHN B. FLOYD. [OR, Series I, Vol 1, p. 103]

    Now, it’s true the southern members of the cabinet, such as Floyd, believed it was against orders. And Buchanan’s relative unfamiliarity with the orders, along with the protests of Jefferson Davis and RMT Hunter, caused his confusion.

    But former Attorney-General Black was clear.

    “Floyd spotted Major Don Carlos Buell. ‘This is a very unfortunate move of Major Anderson,’ Floyd said to him. ‘It has made war inevitable.’

    ” ‘I do not think so, sir,’ answered Buell. ‘ …I think that it will tend to avert war, if war can be averted.’

    “Floyd was not convinced. As the meeting dragged on into evening, he blasted Anderson. ‘It is evident,’ he read from a paper in a quavering voice, ‘… that the solemn pledges of this Government have been violated by Major Anderson. … One remedy only is left, and that is to withdraw the garrison from the harbor of Charleston altogether. I hope the President will allow me to make that order at once. This order … can alone prevent bloodshed and civil war.’ When he finished, Thompson and Thomas supported him, while Black, Holt, and Stanton staunchly defended Anderson. Toucey as usual said little. The suggestion astonished Buchanan; even in his weakest moments the idea if withdrawal had not entered his mind.

    “Black was livid. He sent for the recent order he had drafted for Floyd, read it aloud, and insisted that Anderson had acted ‘in precise accordance with his orders.’ He shook the order in Floyd’s face and shouted, ‘There never was a moment in the history of England when a minister of the Crown could have proposed to surrender a military post which might be defended, without bringing his head to the block!’ Floyd’s indignation pulled him up out of his chair, forcing Buchanan to restore order. Amid an uneasy calm the president conceded that the order seemed to give Anderson leeway to exercise his own discretion against any tangible evidence of a proposed attack on him. Nothing he had herd justified ordering Anderson back to Moultrie.” [Ibid., pp. 170-171]

    “Major Anderson believed that he had such tangible evidence. What he heard were the almost daily threats that his position would be attacked; and these threats became more numerous and more positive after the State had passed the Ordinance of Secession. He knew that he could not long defend himself. What he saw was the nightly watch upon him lest he should transfer his command to the stronger and safer position of Fort Sumter. It was this latter action on the part of the State authorities–wholly in violation of any agreement that might have been made–that impressed him beyond all others and mainly influenced his actions.” [Samuel W. Crawford, The Genesis of the Civil War: The Story of Sumter, 1860-61, p. 100]

  13. George Purvis

    Mackey,

    You keep going on about Buells orders. Please post the exact sentence in which it says Anderson can move to Sumter. I want to see it. You know I am too stupid to know what I am reading. I have posted at least twice Anderson said he had no orders.

    As a matter of fact it could be said that Anderson disobeyed the orders he had received from Buell (Dec. 11, 1860) —
    “You are carefully to avoid every act which would needlessly tend to provoke aggression; and for that reason you are not, without evident and imminent necessity, to take up any position which could be construed into the assumption of a hostile attitude”

    On Dec. 21, 1860 Anderson received written orders that state — “In the verbal instructions communicated to you by Major Buell, you are directed to hold possession of the forts in the harbor of Charleston, and, if attacked, to defend yourself to the last extremity.” ——–

    And—-

    Under these instructions, you might infer that you are required to make a vain and useless sacrifice of your own life and the lives of the men under your command, upon a mere point of honor. This is far from the Presidents intentions. You are to exercise a sound military discretion on this subject. It is neither expected nor desired that you should expose your own life or that of your men in a hopeless conflict in defense of these forts. If they are invested or attacked by a force so superior that resistance would, in your judgment, be a useless waste of life, it will be your duty to yield to necessity, and make the best terms in your power. This will be the conduct of an honorable, brave, and humane officer, and you will be fully justified in such action. These orders are strictly confidential, and not to be communicated even to the officers under your command, without close necessity.

    Very respectfully,
    JOHN B. FLOYD.

    [This letter delivered to Major Anderson December 23, by Capt. John Withers, A.A.G.]

    So you see nothing about holding occupying Sumter or holding any fort in the Charleston harbor. You and Baker are free to add your spin, however I must remind you that these are first hand accounts.

    As I have pointed out both the South Carolina authorties and Anderson knew the importance of Sumter to Charleston harbor.

    Just to refresh yourmemory here is a second instance Andersonmentions how he has Charleston Harbor in his hands — I have alreday posted a portion of this letter.

    “FORT SUMTER, South Carolina, December 29, 1860.

    ————— “The Governor does not know how entirely the commerce and intercourse of Charleston by sea are in my power. I could, if so disposed, annoy and embarrass the Charlestonians much more than they can me. With my guns I can close the harbor completely to the access of all large vessels, and I might even cut off the lights, so as to seal the approach entirely by night.”

    Praying that the time may soon come, etc.,

    ROBERT ANDERSON.

    Tomorrow I will address ome more points on the issue at Sumter.

    George Purvis
    Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education

    1. George continues down the path of denial. Buell specifically gave Anderson authorization to move. He even recommended it. That is why Anderson felt justified in his move. Whether someone in Washington told him to move on the 26th is irrelevant since he was already authorized to do so. Joeys comment hold so much weight in your argument. You came in with a broad generalization and are now trying to narrow the entire thing down to one minutia in order to prove your original over gerneralized statement. What a laugh.

      1. George Purvis

        [This letter delivered to Major Anderson December 23, by Capt. John Withers, A.A.G.]

        Anderson did not move to Sumter until when???? When was the letter delivered???? It supercedes Buells orders. It tells Anderson what????
        Plain and simple to me.

        You are a historian?? You make mistakes like this ? You are nothing but a joke and a fool.

        1. George, before your “butt is kicked” over this last statement, you need to carefully read your retort to Buell’s orders and think about the aspect of “supersede.”

    2. Rob, we should now consider the possibility that Mr. Purvis is actually a plant whose goal is to make southerners look as stupid as possible. We have to ask ourselves if anyone is really as dumb and clueless as Mr. Purvis makes himself out to be.

  14. I’ve already shown conclusively that Buell’s orders to Anderson authorized the movement to Fort Sumter if Anderson felt Moultrie was about to be attacked.

    Anderson’s move was calculated by him to be one that would preserve peace. He moved because he was certain Fort Moultrie was about to be attacked. Before the move he had implored the War Department to send more troops to garrison both Fort Sumter and Castle Pinckney.

    On 23 November 1860 he described Fort Sumter as “the key to the entrance of this harbor; its guns command this work [Fort Moultrie], and could soon drive out its occupants,” [OR Series I, Vol I, p. 74] the “occupants” he was referring to, of course, was his own garrison. His next sentence shows his purpose: “It should be garrisoned at once.” He wanted reenforcements sent to garrison Fort Sumter to prevent South Carolinians from taking it and using it against him and his men at Fort Moultrie. He also wanted a garrison in Castle Pinckney, which was then occupied by only an ordnance sergeant.

    Anderson says, “I need not say how anxious I am-indeed, determined, so far as honor will permit-to avoid collision with the citizens of South Carolina. Nothing, however, will be better calculated to prevent bloodshed than our being found in such an attitude that it would be madness and folly to attack us.” [Ibid., p. 75]

    In that same dispatch, Anderson provides an evaluation of the situation at Fort Moultrie: “There are several sand hillocks within four hundred yards of our eastern wall, which offer admirable cover to approaching parties, and would be formidable points for sharpshooters. Two of them command our work. These I shall be compelled to level, at least sufficiently to render our position less insecure than it now is. When the outworks are completed, this fort, with its appropriate war garrison, will be capable of making a very handsome defense. It is so small that we shall have little space for storing our provisions, wood, &c. The garrison now in it is so weak as to invite an attack, which is openly and publicly threatened. We are about sixty, and have a line of rampart of 1,500 feet in length to defend. If beleatuered, as every man of the command must be either engaged or held on the alert, they will be exhausted and worn down in a few days and nights of such service as they would then have to undergo.” [Ibid., p. 74]

    So from the beginning, Anderson is saying his position at Fort Moultrie is untenable unless he received full reenforcements, unless the construction of the outer works of Fort Moultrie were complete, unless he could level some surrounding sand dunes, and unless both Fort Sumter and Castle Pinckney were occupied by proper garrisons.

    On 28 November Anderson again gave warning of imminent attack:

    “I cannot but remark that I think its [Fort Moultrie’s] security from attack would be more greatly increased by throwing garrisons into Castle Pinckney and Fort Sumter than by anything that can be done in strengthening the defenses of this work [Fort Moultrie]. There are several intelligent and efficient men in this community, who, by intimate intercourse with our Army officers, have become perfectly well acquainted with this fort, its weak points, and the best means of attack. There appears to be a romantic desire urging the South Carolinians to have possession of this work, which was so nobly defended by their ancestors in 1776; and the State, if she determines to act on the aggressive, will exert herself to take this fort. The accompanying report exhibits the present state of my command. I think I can rely upon their doing their duty, but you will see how sadly deficient we are in numbers, whether to repel a coup de main or to maintain a siege.” [Ibid., p. 78]

    On 1 December, Anderson sent the following: “I have seen Assistant Surgeon Crawford, who has also been in the city. He says that never until to-day did he believe that our position was critical. One of his friends told him that we would have trouble in less than fifteen days. He thinks that they will first attempt to take Fort Sumter, which they (justly) say will control this work. Castle Pinckney they regard as theirs already. Mr. King, the intendant of this island, told the doctor that as soon as the act of secession was passed a demand would be made on me to surrender this fort. All these remarks lead to the same conclusion–a fixed purpose to have thse works.” [Ibid., p. 81]

    On 4 December, Anderson’s engineer, Capt. J. G. Foster, wrote to Col R. E. De Russy, the commander of the Corps of Engineers: “The plan of the leaders of this State appears to be, from all that I can see and hear, first, to demand the forts of the General Government after secession, and then, if refused, to take them by force of arms. A quite large party is in favor of not waiting to ask the General Government, but to summon the immediate commanders, and, if refused, to attack at once.” [Ibid., p. 85]

    After Maj Anderson moved his garrison to Fort Sumter on 26 December, Capt Foster wrote again to Col De Russy: “To-day I went to town to negotiate a draft on New York to pay off the men employed on Fort Moultrie. I saw that an attack was to be made somewhere to-night, and also that it would not be safe for me to go to town again for some time. Returning, I brought my family to Fort Sumter, as all guard was withdrawn. At about 4 o’clock a steamer landed an armed force at Castle Pinckney, and effecting an entrance by scaling the walls with ladders, took forcible possession of the work. Lieutenant Meade was suffered to withdraw to this fort. Soon after dark two steamers landed an armed force at Fort Moultrie, and took forcible possession of that work. While in town the Palmetto flag was hoisted on the custom-house and saluted. Two companies were ordered to surround the arsenal. The movement of Major Anderson was made upon a firm conviction that an attack would be made, and that Fort Sumter would be seized first.” [pp. 108-109]

    By moving to Fort Sumter, Anderson stalled the effort to start a war by attacking US troops at Fort Moultrie. He moved from an indefensible position to one that was eminently defensible.

    1. George Purvis

      And again Buells orders were replaced by written orders delivered on the 23 of Dec. Buells oreders were included in these written orders, Buells orders are fairly detailed in ordering Anderson to avoid a ‘Collision” they do not say move to Sumter. here is the order

      Now please point out the word Sumter in these orders.

      FORT MOULTRIE, S C, December 11, 1860.

      Memorandum of verbal instructions to Major Anderson, First Artillery, commanding at Fort Moultrie, S. C.

      You are aware of the great anxiety of the Secretary of War that a collision of the troops with the people of this State shall be avoided, and of his studied determination to pursue a course with reference to the military force and forts in this harbor which shall guard against such a collision He has therefore carefully abstained from increasing the force at this point, or taking any measures which might add to the present excited state of the public mind, or which would throw any doubt on the confidence he feels that South Carolina will not attempt, by violence, to obtain possession of the public works or interfere with their occupancy. But as the counsel and acts of rash and impulsive persons may possibly disappoint those expectations of the Government, he deems it proper that you should be prepared with instructions to meet so unhappy a contingency. He has therefore directed me verbally to give you such instructions.

      You are carefully to avoid every act which would needlessly tend to provoke aggression; and for that reason you are not, without evident and imminent 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 on or attempt to take possession of any one of them will be regarded as an act of hostility, and you may then put your command into either of them which you may 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.

      D. C. BUELL, Assistant Adjutant- General.

      The war of the rebellion: a compilation of the official records of the Union and Confederate armies. ; Series 1 – Volume 1, page 117.

      1. Mr. Purvis still cannot comprehend the written word. I’m surprised he can even type on a computer. Perhaps someone else is typing for him. He really has no clue.

  15. George Purvis

    Mackey,

    Previously you stated these was no peace agreement and tha Buchanan supported Anderson’s move to Sumter. Do you still support these statements/

    Before we answer let’s look at your track record–

    1. You have failed to prove the men of Sumter were starving.
    2. You have failed to prove Anderson was ordered to Sumter, proving that Anderson is lying when he says he had no such orders.
    3. Failed to prove any threats towards Anderson and his men.
    4. Failed to prove there was no peace aggrement regardless of how shaky or loose.

    Really the only thing you have proved is you have a higher education and still cannot shout me down withyour version of history. You have proved that insults and demeaning remarks is the best option you ( and Baker)have and is the path you take to being right when you have no historical backing.

    Now do you still support the two statements above? Yes or no?

    George Purvis
    Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education

    1. Mr. Purvis is truly an idiot.

      1. I never claimed the solders were “starving.” I showed that the fresh meats and vegetables were cut off on April 7 and I showed how they were running out of staples. Mr. Purvis is simply too stupid to understand that.

      2. I specifically said Anderson was not ordered to move to Fort Sumter but was authorized to move. Mr. Purvis is too stupid to understand that.

      3. I have shown the threats. Mr. Purvis is too stupid to understand that.

      4. The burden of proof is on those who claim there was a peace agreement. Mr. Purvis is too stupid to understand that.

      Fools will always continue to be fools. Nobody can shut down a fool because a fool is too stupid to understand things.

      1. George Purvis

        1. But the title iof the article is “Starving — ” you took Bakers argument so. Score a point for me.

        2. By any order you use Anderson was not ordered or authorized. — Andertson orders from Buell — and for that reason you are not, without evident and imminent necessity, to take up any position which could be construed into the assumption of a hostile attitude. You are to stupid to understand that.

        3.. The harbor was charleston, one would expect water traffic to pass in fron of Moultrie. I have prove no threats. You are to stupid to understand that.

        4. You forgot to add Buchanan also supported Andersons move. What are you going to say when I prove you wrong? Man you are bumb

        1. 1. The title of the article is “Fort Sumter: The Case for Hungry Soldiers”. So you are assuming/creating a point which you can score.

          2. Buell authorized Anderson. Mackey and I have said this numerous times. It was in Buell’s own words. The Secretary letter you posted even recognized Buell’s authorizations to Anderson. Are you really having this hard of a time accepting this…even when it is in plain writing?

          3. Mackey already answered that.

          4. Buchanon was not mentioned. Why do you insist on changing the subject and running away from the original argument?

          1. George Purvis

            There is no authorization. You are just trying to justify his move.

            FORT MOULTRIE, S C, December 11, 1860.
            Memorandum of verbal instructions to Major Anderson, First Artillery, commanding at Fort Moultrie, S. C.

            “to take up any position which could be construed into the assumption of a hostile attitude.”

            He was told not to move.

            This never happened nor was it about to happen.—

            WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, December 21, 1860.

            “It is neither expected nor desired that you should expose your own life or that of your men in a hopeless conflict in defense of these forts. If they are invested or attacked by a force so superior that resistance would, in your judgment, be a useless waste of life, it will be your duty to yield to necessity, and make the best terms in your power. This will be the conduct of an honorable, brave, and humane officer, and you will be fully justified in such action. These orders are strictly confidential, and not to be communicated even to the officers under your command, without close necessity.”

            These orders include but supercede Buells orders. They are telling Anderson, who was still in Moultrie, no need to move, surrender with honor if needed.

          2. Posting one sentence out of the memorandum, out of context, is exactly the type of lazy history that Al and myself are talking about. That goes for both parts of orders you posted.

            Buell’s orders:

            Memorandum of verbal instructions to Major Anderson, 1st Artillery, commanding at Fort Moultrie, South Carolina:

            You are aware of the great anxiety of the Secretary of War that a collision of the troops with the people of this State shall be avoided, and of his studied determination to pursue a course with reference to the military force and forts in this harbor which shall guard against such a collision. He has, therefore, carefully abstained from increasing the force at this point, or taking any measures which might add to the present excited state of the public mind, or which would throw any doubt on the confidence he feels that South Carolina will not attempt by violence to obtain possession of the public works or interfere with their occupancy. But as the counsel and acts of rash and impulsive persons may possibly disappoint these expectations of the Government, he deems it proper that you shall be prepared with instructions to meet so unhappy a contingency. He has, therefore, directed me verbally to give you such instructions.

            You are carefully to avoid every act which would needlessly tend to provoke aggression, and for that reason you are not, without evident and imminent 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 on or attempt to take possession of either one of them will be regarded as an act of hostility, and you may then put your command into either of them which you may deem most proper, to increase its power of resistance. You are also authorized to take similar defensive steps whenever you have tangible evidence of a design to proceed to a hostile act.

            D.C. Buell, Assistant Adjutant-General.
            FORT MOULTRIE, S.C.,
            December 11, 1860.

            This is in conformity to my instructions to Major Buell.

            John B. Floyd, Secretary of War.

            Buell authorized Anderson to occupy any of the forts under his command. Floyd’s letter, found here, in no way rejects Buell’s entire order. It simply dictates that Anderson not “fight to the death” so to speak.

            You are barking up the wrong tree here George.

          3. George Purvis

            Rob,

            In reference to your ‘barking” post. I took the orders a part to show exactly just what Anderson was ordered to do. Anderson,s orders of the 21st of Dec. clearly state —

            “In the verbal instructions communicated to you by Major Buell, you are directed to hold possession of the forts in the harbor of Charleston, and, if attacked, to defend yourself to the last extremity.’ This simply referrs back to the orders Anderson received from Buell.

            However the president has no intention of you wasting lives. Thes oders go on to say —If they (The forts)are invested or attacked by a force so superior that resistance would, in your judgment, be a useless waste of life, it will be your duty to yield (surrender) to necessity, and make the best terms in your power.

            These are the last orders given to Anderson, these are the orders he is expected to follow. Written orders always replace verbal orders. I know I have been on both ends of the order chain. .

          4. 1. Written orders do not always replace verbal ones. Never will, never have. It’s ludicrous statement.

            2. As I’ve shown time and time again, Buell’s orders were not replaced. They simple told Anderson not to find to the last extremity. In fact, the Secretary’s orders actually justify Buell’s orders in that Anderson is in charge of forts in the harbor.

          5. George Purvis

            6-6. Written orders.-Whenever possible, orders to a patrol lender should be issued in writing. This is especially true when several patrols are operating simultaneously in the same general area. The patrol leader must assure himself that he understands the orders issued to him. Subordinate leaders and the other members of the patrol should be thoroughly informed of such parts of the order as will enable them to carry out the mission of the particular patrol, and of the force as a whole. For the purpose of
            secrecy it is sometimes necessary to limit the information imparted to individual members of the patrol. Written orders follow the general form of a regular operation order.

            6-7. Verbal orders.-Because of the nature of small war operations, verbal orders will be issued to patrol leaders more frequently than written orders. Such verbal orders should be as complete as the situation permits, and will follow the general form of an operations order. Patrol leaders should reduce to writing any verbal orders or verbal modifications of written orders received.

            You should never use the word never. So that settles that

          6. Again, stop posting things without a citation. No one can determine where you pull these things up.

            1. It appears you have quoted from the Marine Corps Small Wars Manual 1940. Do you think that tells about the situation of verbal/written orders in the Civil War, or the situation at Fort. Sumter?

            2. Never is an appropriate term give that I saw written orders do not always replace verbal orders. When there is no written order to override the verbal order, what stands? When a verbal order comes from a higher up, which order stands? When a verbal order is newer and made in the field, which order stands?

            3. Buell issued a memorandum, putting his orders in writing. That makes your entire point, moot.

        2. Mr. Purvis is taking stupidity to a new low.
          1. The title of the article is Hungry, not starving. But Mr. Purvis is too stupid to understand that. He has delusions of adequacy.
          2. Anderson’s orders from Buell authorized movement to Fort Sumter. Mr. Purvis is too stupid to understand that.
          3. The threats noted by Anderson, Foster, and Buell have been shown. Mr. Purvis is too stupid to understand them.
          4. Mr. Purvis is showing his delusions of adequacy again.

          1. George Purvis

            You suffer from the littleman symdrome don’t you. You are fast with the insults when hiding behind a keyboard.

            If you would get your head out of your boyfriends butt you would know there are two written orders AFTER Buell’s orders. These orders replace supercede, countermand or any other word you may want to use Buells orders. Howeevr and I have said these at least 4 times, they alo include Buells orders..

            I brotke theorders down for you above and you still cannot grasp the menaing of them. Are you just to stupid to keep the dates in order???

          2. I nearly edited this comment out, but instead I want to remind you George that certain types of insults are childish and uncalled for.

            Buell’s orders are not “replaced.” They are amplified. The Secretary simply does not want him to fight to end, he preferred honorable surrender. It’s really not that hard to understand.

          3. George Purvis

            “Edited”

            Right and I agree. I will continue thses sort of insults to the coward Mackey as long as you continue to allow him to call me stupid and other names. Either draw him back to a factual civil discussion or the situation is gonna get very rough

          4. George Purvis

            I did not make any threats. I simply told Mackey he was a big man as long as he had a keybord (and now you) to protect him.

    1. George Purvis

      I am not even going to try and read that letter. Besides you admitted the men were not starving,

      “A sailor of fortune”: Personal Memoirs of Captain B. S. Osbon By Albert Bigelow Paine, 1906 Page 113 —–and Mr. Fox was sent to Charleston to visit Sumter. He was accorded special permission to visit the fort by Governor Pickens, and on his return reported that Major Anderson had supplies to last until April 15th, and that any relief to be of value must arrive by that date.

      I am happy.

      It appears that Baker was wrong wouldn’t you say

      1. I never said anyone was “starving” in this post. My intent was justification of “food for hungry men.” I used “starve” because Lincoln and Anderson did. You are the one that decided to use “starve.” According to the historical documents, it is accurate. It is even more accurate when reading the accounts of a couple of the soldiers in the fort at the time. Note the sources I posted when Mackey and I spoke earlier.

        1. George Purvis

          Right you used the wrdhungry however down the page you imply by this statement—These critics of Lincoln state that the men received food from Charleston, therefore they were not starving.

          1. George Purvis

            Are you a critic of Lincoln’s statement or do you believe Andersons men were starving? It appears you agree with Lincoln.

          2. I believe Anderson’s men face a dire supply situation. Soldier accounts report meager conditions. On the 15th, the supplies would run out. Anderson knew this which is why he told P.G.T. that he would abandon Sumter on the 15th.

          3. George Purvis

            I agree with you on that point. The best example I have is Fox’s report tthat they would run out of food on or near the 15th. I say that because Fox actually went to Sumter and saw the situation first hand. I think Lincoln needed an excuse to send reforcements to Sumter and manufactured the ‘starving man” situation and in doing so brought on the war.

          4. What you think, and what is known from the historical record are two different things. You cannot say that you believe Fox’s report, that the men would run out of food on the 15th, and then say that you think Lincoln “manufactured” the “starving man” situation. Those are cancelling arguments.

          5. George Purvis

            “What you think,”

            Sure I can. it is much the same as the peace agreement of authorized argument. Both are mostly a play on words by Mackey. It is a fact that the men were running low of supplies, it is not a fact they were starving. Had Lincoln sent only supplies war could have been avoided at least for some time. Instead he sent re-enforcements.

          6. Actually he sent “Food for hungry men” The reinforcements were sent behind, in case the Confederacy did not allow the supplies to got to the Fort. So you are thinking wrong in that argument. Try again.

      2. Mr. Purvis says, “I am not even going to try and read that letter.”
        ————–

        He recognizes he’s too stupid to understand it. Good for him.

        Mr. Purvis says, “It appears that Baker was wrong wouldn’t you say”
        —————

        Mr. Purvis is too stupid to understand what Rob said.

          1. My “comments section” is not a chat room “forum” I never edit anyone’s comments. Therefore, it gets trashed by people that trash it. You added to the heap.

    1. George Purvis

      I will be at Beauvoir Confederate Memorial day. Come on down and we will disscuss this over a cup of coffee. My treat.

  16. George Purvis

    Also sometimes spelled supercede

    supersede
    Definition
    su·per·sede[ spər sd ]To hear the pronunciation, install SilverlightTRANSITIVE VERB
    1. replace something less efficient: to take the place or position of something that is less efficient, less modern, or less appropriate, or cause something to do this
    2. succeed somebody or something: to succeed somebody or something in a role, office, or function(formal)
    [ 15th century. Via French < Latin supersedere "be superior to" < super "over, above" + sedere "sit" ]

    Supercede has occurred as a spelling variant of supersede since the 17th century, and it is common in current published writing. It continues, however, to be widely regarded as an error.

    Now stupid man with the "little man symdrome" perhaps you should invest in a dictionary.

    1. Mr. Purvis posts the definition of “supersede,” yet he fails to understand that a set of orders that clarified one point of the previous orders complemented the previous orders and did not supersede them. I’ll leave it to others to determine what that says about Mr. Purvis.

  17. George Purvis

    Here is Lincoln’s supply fleet. gathed from various sources

    The armament of each ship comes from the Naval Historical Center. I’ve posted list of the fleet and troops embarked from newspaper articles from the New York Times.

    http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9904E0DA1230E134BC4053DFB266838A679FDE

    http://digitalnewspapers.libraries.psu.edu/Default/Skins/BasicArch/Client.asp?Skin=BasicArch&&AppName=2&enter=true&BaseHref=RCM/1861/04/08&EntityId=Ar00212

    http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9403EED81230E134BC4153DFB266838A679FDE http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9B02E0DA1230E134BC4053DFB266838A679FDE The New York Herald had this…

    The following list embraces the names, with armaments and troops, of the fleet dispatched from New York and Washington to Charleston harbor, for the relief of Fort Sumter:-

    Vessels of War Steam sloop-of-war Pawnee, Captain S. C. Rowan, 10 guns and 200 men. The Pawnee sailed from Washington, with sealed orders, on the morning of Saturday, April 6.

    Steam sloop-of-war Powhatan, Captain E. D. Porter, 11 guns and 275 men. The Powhatan sailed from the Brookyln Navy Yard on Saturday afternoon April 6.

    Revenue cutter Harriet Lane, Captain J. Faunce, 5 guns and 96 men. On Saturday, April 6, the Harriet Lane exchanged her revenue flag for the United States navy flag, denoting her transfer to the Government naval service, and sailed suddenly on last Monday morning, with sealed orders.

    The Steam Transports Atlantic, 358 troops, composed of Companies A and M of the Second artillery, Companies C and H of the Second infantry, and Company A of sappers and miners from West Point. The Atlantic sailed from the steam at 5 o’clock on Sunday morning last, April 7. Baltic, 160 troops, composed of Companies C and D, recruits, from Governor’s and Bedloe’s islands.

    The Baltic sailed from Quarantine at 7o’clock on Tuesday morning last, April 9. Illinois, 300 troops, composed of Companies B, E, F, G and H, and a detachment from Company D, all recruits from Governor’s and Bedloe’s Islands, together with two companies of the Second infantry, from Fort Hamilton.

    The Illinois sailed from Quarantine on Tuesday morning at 6 o’clock. The Steamtugs Two steamtugs, with a Government official on each, bearing sealed dispatches, were also sent.

    The Yankee left New York on Monday evening, 8th, and the Uncle Ben on Tuesday night. The Launches Nearly thirty of these boats-whose services are most useful in effecting a landing of troops over shoal water, and for attacking a discharging battery when covered with sand and gunny bags- have been taken out by the Powhatan and by the steam transports Atlantic, Baltic and Illinois.

    Recapitulation
    Vessels Guns Men Sloop-of-war Pawnee 10 200 Sloop-of-war Powhatan 11 275 Cutter Harriet Lane 5 96 Steam Transport Atlantic 353 Steam Transport Baltic 160 Steam Transport Illinois 300 Steamtug Yankee Ordinary Crew Steamtug Uncle Ben Ordinary Crew Total number of vessels 8 Total number of guns (for marine service) 26 Total number of men and troops 1,380 It is understood that several transports are soon to be chartered, and dispatched to Charleston with troops and supplies. Also, I just found a blurb from a Hartford Connecticut newspaper from early April 1861 that states “Davis telegraphed to Charleston not to fire on any vessels entering the harbor merely for supplying Fort Sumter with provisions”, I need to find the whole paper.

    1. Not a lot of mention as to where those ships are headed. Interesting that Davis telegraphed not to fire….because he ordered the contrary later on.

      1. George Purvis

        Read again—— The following list embraces the names, with armaments and troops, of the fleet dispatched from New York and Washington to Charleston harbor, for the relief of Fort Sumter:-

        1. And exactly what is your argument by posting these newspaper accounts? Again see the original post where I point out this MO of yours. No context, no interpretation, just random snippets and quotes. I’ve already posted that Lincoln prepared in case South Carolina did not allow supplies to go to the men at Sumter. Thanks for the proof I guess.

          1. George Purvis

            Again see my post about spinning history. Sorry the info is above your head, but what can I say???

          2. Your version of “spinning” is everyone else’s version of actual history. Sorry you don’t like that history offends your heritage. Get over it, stop living in the mythical lost cause.

            What you post, over my head? What are posting exactly? You post some random quote or snippet, then proclaim you are right. Right about what? What argument? And then you proclaim to have won. You are so typical of the many “Lost Causers” of the “Southern Heritage” crowd that you seem cookie cut.

  18. George Purvis

    Proof of a peace aggreement in Andersons own words. Not Pickens place to advise anderson on agreements. More proof can be found but this is all i need to prove mackey wrong.

    “FORT SUMTER, South Carolina, December 29, 1860.

    “My dear Sir: No one will regret more deeply than I shall, should it prove true that the movement I have made has complicated rather than disembarrassed affairs. There is an unaccountable mystery in reference to this affair. I was asked by a gentleman within a day or two, if I had been notified by your Government that I would not be molested at Fort Moultrie, and when I replied that I had not been so notified, he remarked that he was glad to hear it, as it convinced him that I had acted in good faith, having just told him that I had not received such an intimation from my own Government. Now if there was such an understanding, I certainly ought to have been informed of it .

    But why, if your Government thought that I knew of this agreement, was everything done which indicated an intention to attack? Why were armed steamers kept constantly on the watch for my movements?
    (These are the threats that caused a war. It is Charleston harbor for gsoh sakes what sort of water craft does he expect)

    ROBERT ANDERSON.

    1. You should start providing citations for your sources George. Because of your misuse of quotation marks and adding your emphasis without notifying, it is difficult for an outside viewer to tell what is source and what is not.

    2. For starters, who is the letter to?

      It is also easy to tell that there must not have been anything worthy of being called a “peace agreement” if the garrison commander didn’t even know about it.

      1. George Purvis

        Not the fault of South Carolina. mackey said the was never one — he post incorrect info.

        Citations- Doesn’t matter who the letter is to. It is from Anderson that is the important point.

          1. George Purvis

            Again you failure tounderstand TRUE historical fact. You and Mackey have been schooled!!!!!!!

          2. George Purvis

            Baker, Mackey

            Look I understand your positions, I really do. The two of you have invested so much in insults and derogatory remarks, dismissing sources and spiining the posted information that in no way, shpe or form can you admit you are wrong. Your position is clear to any reader of this blog.

            Now get to spinning and post your own version of history!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          3. George Purvis

            Really. then help yourself out with your written order post. help yourself out thwith the fleet to Charles and other posts that I made. In short use anything you want , but the fact of the matter is you cannot bring forth facts to prove me wron. All you can do is dismiss sources and information you don’t agree with— AND INSULT

          4. It’s already helped me out by proving what I have said. It is hard to prove you wrong George, when you’ve never clearly stated what your argument is. It is sad really.

          5. George Purvis

            “It’s already helped me out by proving what I have said. It is hard to prove you wrong George, when you’ve never clearly stated what your argument is. It is sad really.

            Glad to have helped but yiou haven’t proved me wrong. All you are doing is trying to spin what has been posted.

          6. George Purvis

            Sure I have a stance –no, peace agreemnet– orders –where was the fleet headed— Buchannan supported. All of these statement I have proved wrong.

            The two of you have proved you can spin.

            LOL LOL LOL Isn’t this fun???

          7. Again George, what are you arguing. That there was no peace agreement? That a war fleet was headed for Charleston? George you really are acting juvenile.

          8. We are not posting “opinions” George You are. Unintelligible ones at that. George, you are the ones that has dismissed other facts. You admit to doing so in the comments section of this blog. You have also slung enough mud of your own. You are right in one aspect though, readers will see a clear position, sadly yours won’t be the highly regarded one.

          9. George Purvis

            Sure you are read the post– no peace agreem,ent, written orders etc etc etc and the the winner is Where is the fleet headed.

          10. George Purvis

            “exactly what are you implying George. Your english is pretty broken.”

            Good reason — I am stupid remember??? If you can’t understand then you are in far worse shape than I am. Well you can’t say I have lied and post such things as no peace agreement — orders — where was the fleet headed??

            LOL LOL Shall we start the insults again. Your call

          11. George Purvis

            Really. I haven’t insulted you. If I have so what? It is an accepted practice on your blogs.

          12. George Purvis

            Really. So I prove exactly what I said and I am acting juvenile. You are in total denial. The facts are on the baord and you can’t handle it. The best thing you can do is deny and dismiss. I understand Rob I really do. You have no other options.

          13. George this is the last comment before I shut down the comments on this post. You have been proven wrong on each statement or semblance of an argument you have posted. You have posted quotes without context. In some instances, you have posted half of a letter or statements attempting to vindicate yourself. In each attempt, just as Mackey demonstrated, you have been called out on it. You then run off on a tangent and post some other random quote out of context. I am leaving those comments up for others to see. Cheers.

    3. Mr. Purvis quotes a small portion of a letter from Robert Anderson to Robert Gourdin. The full letters is available here:

      http://books.google.com/books?id=ZOsSAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=No+one+will+regret+more+deeply+than+I+shall,+should+it+prove+true+that+the+movement+I+have+made+has+complicated+rather+than+disembarrassed+affairs.+There+is+an+unaccountable+mystery+in+reference+to+this+affair&source=bl&ots=zn_v3PJLTu&sig=6y0q8qgnrYbkkQ9BslJ8lovA8bY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DkprUfC_LrW-4AOWtoGwCg&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

      Anderson quite clearly says, “…if there was such an understanding, I certainly ought to have been informed of it.” And he’s right. If there was an agreement, he would have been informed of it, yet he very clearly states he knows nothing of this phantom agreement.

      That Mr. Purvis thinks this letter proves there was an agreement tells us about Mr. Purvis. I’ll let others characterize what it says about him.

  19. George Purvis

    More sources on buell’s orders.This should be eay enough to understand—-

    MR. BUCHANAN’S ADMINISTRATION EVE OF THE REBELLION.

    NEW YORK :
    D APPLETON AND COMPANY,

    443 & 445 BROADWAY.

    1866.

    Entebed according to Act of Congress, in the year 1965, by

    D. APPLETON & COMPACT,

    In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New Tort

    The President having observed that Major Buell, in reducing
    to writing at Fort Moulti’ie the instructions he had verbally re-
    ceived, required Major Anderson, in case of attack, to defend
    himself to the last extremity, immediately caused the Secretary

    of War to modify this instruction. This extreme was not re-
    quired by any principle of military honor or by any rule of
    war. It was sufficient for him to defend himself until no reason-
    able hope should remain of saving the fort. The instructions

    * Ex. Doc, H. R., vol. vi., No. 26, p. 10.

    ON THE EVE OF THE REBELLION. 167

    were accordingly so modified, with the approbation of General
    Scott.

  20. George Purvis

    Same source as above—

    On the 20th December, 1860, the South Carolina Convention
    adopted an ordinance of secession, and on the 22d appointed
    three of their most distinguished citizens to proceed forthwith
    to “Washington to treat with the Government of the United
    States concerning the relations between the parties. These
    were Robert W. Barnwell, James H. Adams, and James L. Orr.

    They arrived in Washington on Wednesday, the 26th Decem-
    ber. On the next morning they received intelligence by tele-
    graph that Major Anderson had, on Christmas night, secretly
    dismantled Fort Moultrie ; had spiked his cannon, had burnt
    his gun-carriages, and had removed with his troops to Fort
    Sumter, as if from an impending attack. This information they
    sent to the President. lie received it with astonishment and
    regret. With astonishment, because he had believed Major
    Anderson to be in security at Fort Moultrie; and this more

    ON THE EVE OF THE EEBELLION. 181

    especially whilst the commissioners appointed but three days
    before were on their way to Washington. With regret, because
    this movement would probably impel the other cotton and
    border States into active sympathy with South Carolina, and

    thereby defeat the measures of compromise still before the Com-
    mittee of Thirteen of the Senate, from which he had hoped to
    confine secession to that State alone. The President never
    doubted for a moment that Major Anderson believed before the
    movement that he had “the tangible evidence ” of an impending
    attack required by his instructions. Still it was difficult to im-
    agine that South Carolina would be guilty of the base perfidy
    of attacking any of these forts during the pendency of her mis-
    sion to Washington, for the avowed purpose of preserving the
    peace and preventing collision. Such treacherous conduct would
    have been considered infamous among all her sister States. She
    has always strenuously denied that such was her intention.

    In this state of suspense the President determined to await
    official information from Major Anderson himself. After its
    receipt, should he be convinced upon full examination that the
    Major, on a false alarm, had violated his instructions, he might
    then think seriously of restoring for the present the former status
    quo of the forts. This, however, was soon after known to be

    impossible, in consequence of the violent conduct of South Car-
    olina in seizing all the. other forts and public property in the
    harbor and city of Charleston.

    (Mackey says Buchanan supported Andersons move to Sumter. Key sentence to address that point—- This information they sent to the President. lie received it with astonishment and regret. )

        1. Please speak for Buchanon since you know. Mackey posted Buchanon’s own words. I did the same, you are posting an account that doesn’t cite Buchanon. How do you know exactly?

  21. George Purvis

    ‘Your version of “spinning” is everyone else’s version of actual history. Sorry you don’t like that history offends your heritage. Get over it, stop living in the mythical lost cause”.

    At least I can back up what I said. I haven’t make stupid astatements about written- verbal orders, Where is the fleet headed or no peqace agreement. Heck even Anderson made a truce.

    Look you are trying to justify the destruction of the south by placing the balme on the Confederates. — the murder of old men, women and children of all races, the burning, looting and outright pillagingthat took place.

    I am not the one who has to try and justify these action

    No try, no cigar

    1. You haven’t backed anything up. You’ve posted 1940 military codes to justify 1860 Civil War orders. You haven’t backed anything up, you actually showed Anderson knew nothing of a peace agreement. You’ve proven yourself wrong.

      When have I ever made that claim, or that justification?

        1. No you are misrepresenting what I said. I said that a written order does not always override a verbal order. Never has never will. The key part of that is “does not always.” I realize the word “never” gives you a soap box but it is nothing more than your desperate attempt to cause altercation.

  22. At this point, there doesn’t appear to be much more to add on this post. I’ve shown conclusively that Anderson acted within his orders, and that when the Buell memorandum was read to President Buchanan, he agreed Anderson’s actions were in concert with his orders. I’ve shown conclusively the 1805 statute did not apply to Fort Sumter, and the 1836 resolution was the controlling legislation for Fort Sumter, meaning the United States owned Fort Sumter. I’ve shown conclusively that Anderson and his men were running out of food, with the fresh meats and vegetables being cut off on April 7 and with the garrison running out of staples. I’ve shown conclusively that this was the understanding in Washington which led to Lincoln’s authorizing the expedition to land provisions at Fort Sumter.

    I’ve shown in every case that Mr. Purvis’ position was erroneous and that Mr. Purvis either failed to understand clearly written evidence or simply ignored it and claimed it said what it didn’t. I’ll leave it up to others to decide what that means, but in my opinion it is impossible for anyone of at least average intelligence to misunderstand what’s been written. That Mr. Purvis continually mischaracterizes the written record is a statement about Mr. Purvis, and everyone can decide for themselves what that statement is.

    Mr. Purvis will continue to deny the obvious and will continue to claim he’s correct when he’s been proven wrong time after time. He either doesn’t have the intellect to understand that or he doesn’t have the honesty to admit it. I’ll leave it up to Mr. Purvis to tell us which it is.

    Since there is nothing else to add to this discussion, I’ll let Mr. Purvis continue to rant on his own. Thanks for the opportunity to correct Mr. Purvis’ massive mischaracterizations of history, Rob.

  23. Pingback: Fort Sumter Rages On….somewhere else « The Historic Struggle

Comments are closed.