Fort Sumter Rages On….somewhere else

Due to the discussions about Fort Sumter on this blog (here and here), Al Mackey took on the task to address the arguments often thrown around when discussing this topic. You can read his work below. H/T to Al.

A Fort Sumter Series Introduction

Who Owned Fort Sumter?

Was There A Peace Agreement in Charleston Harbor in 1860-1861?

Did Robert Anderson Violate His Orders?

What was the Food Situation At Fort Sumter?

Advertisements

227 thoughts on “Fort Sumter Rages On….somewhere else

      1. George Purvis

        yeah if they were paper i know what they would be good for.

        Just a heads up because I like you. Remember How Mackey disrespected your blog
        ( http://thehistoricstruggle.wordpress.com/2013/04/04/fort-sumter-the-case-for-hungry-soldiers/) with insults and derogatory remarks? Well it appears he is so ashamed of hs actions he will not let a link to tthe “Hungry” page be posted.to his blog. Man that dude did a number on you and you link to his blogs. he sure used you and threw you aside. LOL LOL LOL

        George Purvis
        Southern Heritage Displacement Perversion and Defecation

        1. Actually George it’s different applications of blogs. I let pretty much anything go on my blog as long as it stays on topic. Al obviously has a different outlook. Also, he allowed the ping backs from my blog meaning that he allowed me to post my blog link on his page. It appears that he just doesn’t allow hyperlinks from you. Maybe you should take your insults somewhere else….perhaps the forum of your joke of an education site “SOUTHERN HERITAGE DISPLACEMENT PERVERSION AND DEFECATION”

          1. Mr. Purvis doesn’t understand the concept behind blog moderation. Such is life. Not only did I approve the ping-backs, but I also list this blog in my blog roll to allow everyone to access it from my site. When I started my blog I decided I would welcome comments from anyone, within reason, and that I would not insult commenters or allow them to be insulted by others, nor would I allow commenters to insult me or my friends in their comments. My blog will remain family-friendly, which is why I also edited out Mr. Purvis’ more colorful comments. Mr. Purvis is obviously frustrated because of that. Oh, well. I’m sure he’ll recover.

          2. He doesn’t understand a lot. Instead he just scours the internet and picks arguments that he doesn’t actually win…but he thinks he does, then runs back and claims victory.

          3. George Purvis

            Mackey,

            I understand because of your actions you won’t allow links to “hungry man” posted!!!!!!!

            Baker I haven’t lost yet. Shut down two of your pagesno problem

          4. You didn’t “shut down” anything George. The posts are still up. I still receive private messages asking questions. Of course, you did just give a terrific example of what I was talking about earlier. You run off to claim a “victory” after displaying an ignorance when interpreting primary sources. You’ve proven yourself wrong on numerous occasions, but for some reason, continue to claim a proverbial high ground. You’re sort of sad really.

            Finally, I shut down the comments, not the page, for the very simple reason that the comments section began to overbear the post itself. This is not a forum, it is a blog. Get used to the format or go pat the backs of other “Heritage” lunatics, for those are the only ones that agree with your systematic rants. If you want to comment any further, I suggest you have substance or your idiocy will not be “trashed.”

            Have a pleasant day in denial.

          5. George Purvis

            Sure I did. I was the one posting and you closed the comments. One of these days you and Mackey will figure out what i am doing.

            BTW are we back to insults and derogatory remarks now???

            George Purvis
            Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education

          6. If you’ll note, I also answered all your requests and said I would reopen the issues on future posts. Which I did. I also linked to Mackey addressing those same issues.

            George, you began the insults:

            “Ah yes, piggy backing on someone else.”
            “yeah if they were paper i know what they would be good for.” This comment was followed by an attempt to make it seem as though Mackey was “dissing” me. Which also makes you a liar.
            “shut down two of your pages no problem.”

            So you can throw out insults but run and cry when you get the same? Thanks for playing the kid card George.

          7. George Purvis

            No I never start the insults, it is one of the principals I stand on. To say I did is an outright lie. You closed your pages and continued to post that is eveident.

            Now I made mention of Mackey not wanting me to post a link to “Hungry man”blog because I honestly feel like he took advantage of your good hospitality and I thought you should know. You say your blog is not as tight as Mackey’s and you allow insults, that is another lie, You only allow insults when they are coming from someone who supports your argument. You are the liar. When i started giving insults back to Mackey better than what I was getting you threatened to ban me from posting. You had to bail his him out!!!!!

            Banning me is the only way the two of you can stop me from making you loook like idiots.

            Looks like you are just one of of Mackey’s lackeys.

            George Purvis
            Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation nand Education

            PS I can do this forever if you want. It is your turn

          8. Your first comment on this post was an intended insult about piggy backings. Then you threw the insult that Mackey used me and “threw me aside” while “LOL”ing about it.

            Thus you started the insults, thus you are now lying about that. Making your “principals [sic]” moot. Please point out where I have not allowed your comments….I’ll wait for that answer.

            As you continue your insults, I keep approving them because it only serves to show how big of an idiot you are. You’ve shown no one to be the fool, when you claim these “victories” you simply look like an ass.

          9. George Purvis

            So??? You had already set the boundaries of what was allowed on your pages. I just followed suit.

          10. George Purvis

            Nope wasn’t lying —- That is your game. Again I say –SO??? You don’t like it don’t be a crybaby. You set the rules I am within the rules.

            Anyone can check “Hungry man” and see who started the insults.

            I certainly thank you for the well wishes and the same back to you. WHINER!!!!!!!!! LOL LOL LOL

            George Purvis
            Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education

          11. You started the insults, then denied you did so, and now claim a “so what” position. Seems like a lie to me. Straight forward actually. Not crying either, just pointing out the lunacy.

            People can actually go an look at “Abraham Lincoln Wins an Oscar, or see this comment

            http://thehistoricstruggle.wordpress.com/2013/02/24/abraham-lincoln-wins-an-oscar/#comment-1164

            Where you begin insults.

            http://thehistoricstruggle.wordpress.com/2013/02/24/abraham-lincoln-wins-an-oscar/#comment-1178

            Where you claim I’m “whining” and “spinning” information.

            http://thehistoricstruggle.wordpress.com/2013/02/24/abraham-lincoln-wins-an-oscar/#comment-1185

            Where you call my statements, “BS BS BS BS” and suggest I have a lack of human decency.

            Again, George, you are a liar, and a sad uninformed old man brandishing his sword of lunacy for the Lost Cause.

          12. George Purvis

            Good deal. The truth will be there unless iof couse you edit the post –and that i don’t put above yiou.

            You are the luiar. and a crybaby.

            Your stupid butt is going learn one way or the other. Your choice.

          13. Ha ha ha. So now you are breaking down into a child’s tantrum now that I’ve proved you a liar again? You’re claiming I’ve edited the posts?

            You must be pretty furious there George, you can’t even type correctly anymore.

            “stupid butt.” HA HA.

          14. George Purvis

            Child ??? is that the best youcan do crybaby??? I don’t know if edited them or not. I do know you are not above that action. You are a liar and a idiot.

            Typing isn’t my strong suit — history isn’t yours. I typed butt being nice instead of ass — ass.

            LOL LOL LOL Stupid butt

          15. George Purvis

            Not a problem since youhave a whole blog filled with insults. I told you I could give as well as take.

            Now to the point I have been making, but you seem not top grasp — keep a close watch on the comments posted to your blogs and you won’t have to worry about being embarrased by another persons comments. Comments like you allow would only be allowed on my pages IF I was showing why a person was banned.

            Finally learned did ya????

            have a Dixie day.

          16. Kind of hard to give advice when you are the one starting the mudslinging George. Of course I expected as much after reading your cute forum on your website.

          17. George Purvis

            “starting the mudslinging George’

            yeah right. Hoped you liked the “cute” forum. Sign upwe will spar there without the insults. :-0

            Have a Dixie evening.

            GP

          18. George Purvis

            You don’t have to sign up. I was being nice and extending an invitation. I come here for a reason.I won’t let history be corrupted by the likes of you and Mackey. Besides I like you!!!!!!!

          19. Corrupted? Interesting given your prior comments on Mackey and My posts. You constantly misinterpret sources and declare victory even when proven wrong by numerous other primary/secondary sources.

          20. George Purvis

            I don’t misinterpret anything. I let the facts speak for themselves as you and Mackey should learn to do. All my sources are primary sources–Yankee at that!!!!!! Wrong where have you ever proved me wrong using facts??

          21. No, you put the documents up there, and then give us your conclusions (usually a wrong one). But you do not collaborate your facts, when any other documents and outright refuse to acknowledge documents that contradict yours. The obvious examples of this is on the Hungry Man Post and on Al Mackey’s recent posts.

          22. George Purvis

            Oh get real stop whining and looking for excuses for you lack of knowledge. You and mackey whined because I offered no (commentary–opinion) about the facts. You also dismissed and failed to acknowledge documents that did not support your opinion. So you are telling me I can’t do the same thing as you.Is that your point?????

            Well you closed down hungry man and Mackey edits posts so ——-

            We can start this again, right here, if you want to and agina i will prove you wrong— using Yankee sources. Your call.

          23. Exactly what I’m talking about. Rather than confront the information, you result to insults like you have earlier.

            And no, Mackey or I, addressed all of the articles you posted. Every one of them. You just seem to think that.

            I also reopened it for another time, Mackey edits your insults.

            What are you going to start George? Copying and pasting the exact same thing that refuted your arguments before?

          24. George Purvis

            I am conforting the info posted to this blog.

            No you dismissed info that didn’t agree with your agenda or the two of you gave your opinion as usual. You didn’t let the facts speak for themselves.

            I posted no insults on mackey’s blog. You haven’t a clue as usual..

            Sure I will, they are facts and no matter how many tinmes you dismiss them they are still facts. Oh i might add facts that someone who is not biased will read.

            Stop whining

            Dispute this—-

            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.

            Truly your friend, ROBERT ANDERSON.

            The Hon. ROBERT N. GOURDIN.

            My commentary —–ANDERSON STARTED THE WAR

          25. Well…for starters, the letter he wrote two days later.

            “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? The papers say that I was under a panic. That is a mistake ; the moment I inspected my position I saw that the work was not defensible with my small command, and recommended, weeks ago, that we ought to be withdrawn. I remained, then, as long as I could under the fearful responsibility I felt for the safety of my command, and finally decided on Christmas morning that I would remove the command that day; and it would have been attempted that day if the weather had not proved inauspicious. Not a person of my command knew of my determination until that morning, and only on that day. The captains of the lighters are, I am sorry to see, threatened by the Charlestonians for what they did. I do hope that they will not disgrace themselves by wreaking their wrath upon these men. They were employed to take the women and children, and food for them, to Fort Johnson, and were as innocent in the matter as any one. Another lighter was filled with commissary stores for the workingmen here, and her captain certainly is not blamable for bringing them. Not a soldier came in either of these vessels except the married men with their wives for Fort Johnson, and there was not an arm of any kind permitted to be taken on board those boats. Only one person on board those boats knew that Fort Johnson was not their final destination, until the signal was given that the command was in Fort Sumter. My men were transferred in our own boats, and were all, with the exception of those attached to the hospital, in the fort before 8 o’clock. So much in exoneration of the captains.
            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. 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. I do hope that nothing will occur to add to the excitement and bad feeling which exists in the city. No one has a right to be angry with me for my action. No one can tell what they would have done unless they were placed in the same tight place. . . . I write this note hurriedly, as I wish to acknowledge the receipt of your kind note, and to assure you that I am firmly convinced that, had you been in my place, and known no more of the political bearing of things than I did, you would have acted as I did.
            I know that if my action was properly explained to the people of Charleston, they would not feel any excitement against me or my command.
            Praying that the time may soon come, etc.,
            ROBERT ANDERSON.

            That, taken with Buell’s prior orders demonstrate that Anderson violated no trust, and no order.

          26. George Purvis

            Is this suppose to prove Anderson had orders or there was a peace agreement? Can’t you follow the posts. Again Buells orders mena nothing he had orders after Buell’s. So you are arguing Anderson didn’t know what he was talking about???

            And thank you forproving what I have been saying. It took one whole sentence to prove you will try andtwist historyto fit your agenda. Shouldi call you stupid now? Mackey would.

            George Purvis
            Suthern Heritage Advancemenmt Preservation and Education

          27. Can you not read George? Anderson plainly says, if there was a peace agreement, someone should have notified him. Buell’s orders were never rescinded, they were amplified only to tell Anderson not to “fight to the last extremity” but that surrender would be an honorable course of action.

            You are now attempting to generate questions, and accuse me of twisting facts rather than even attempt to counter the claims or prove the document wrong. Now you are resorting to insults; your usual pattern.

          28. George Purvis

            I can read, can you??? It plainly says there was an agreement which the Confederates honored — Anderson broke. The fact that Anderson did not know is not the fault of Pickens and if he had been told by by the Confederates of an agreement wiould he have beleived them?? Would the US Army at bastone have believed the gernmans if they were told of peace agreement? The Alamo? Iwo Jima?

          29. TO which Anderson states plainly, that he knew of no agreement, nor was he notified of one. If an agreement existed, wouldn’t it seem logical to notify the “enemy” as Pickens claims, of that agreement? It did not matter if he believed the agreement legitimately or not, he admits to his own friends that he knew of no agreement.

          30. George Purvis

            So???? That does not mean there there was no agreement. Because you don’t know the truth doessn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

            Who ownedf Sumter— South Carolina as proven by —

            “South Carolina in 1805 (Statutes at Large, Volume V, p. 501) provided as follows in regard to the cessions in Charleston Harbor:”

            “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.”

            Pay attention to — or
            build such other forts or fortifications as may be deemed most expedient by the Executive of the United States

          31. This is why you are routinely shut out of conversations. When you don’t get your way, or when you are proven wrong by sources that contradict what you are pushing, you begin insults.

            For starters, Al Mackey went in-depth on the issue of Ownership. Secondly, this makes about the 20th time (exaggeration though you have done this a lot) posted that quote out of context. The South Carolina statutes at large do not broadly establish the cessions in the Charleston Harbor. The statutes are very specific. In no way do they mention the location of Sumter. There is not one mentioning of “cessions in the Charleston Harbor.” It is called, AN ACT to cede to the United States various Forts and Fortifications, and Sites for the erection of Forts. Your labeling is misleading intentionally or unintentionally which leads me to think you copy and pasted this off of some website rather than actually look up the statute.

            Fort Sumter was not mentioned in the 1805 cession, it is mentioned in 1836.

            The Fort belonged to the United States, case closed. You can either accept or continue to say, “But, but in 1805 (30 years before Fort Sumter is handed over to the U.S)….blah blah blah.” Of course you still have failed to explain exactly how an 1805 statue overrides one in the 1830’s…

          32. George Purvis

            So I am right youcan’ stand it. Anderson says there was an agreement. Good enough for me. I don’t care what Mackey tries to spin he ws there.

          33. Where exactly did I say that Anderson acknowledged an agreement? Notice how you are claiming victory again? (Your M/O revealed yet again). You do not provide anything that legitimizes your arguments, but yet we are supposed to take your word for it that you are right I guess….. Really?

          34. George Purvis

            You don’t have to say it you posted andersons reply where he acknowledge the agreement.

          35. I hope you’ll forgive the edit George. Insults are getting old.

            Why should I re-walk the path when I can point to adequate work already done (several times over.)? There is not any reason to as it hinders progress.

          36. George Purvis

            ’bout time to shut down the comments since you can’t beat me????

            By this very portion of the orders from Buell Anderson did not have to worry about being attacked In moultrie. he was told not to do anything rash.

            [edited: Please post the entire quotation/source/citation/document George. You are intentionally misleading people]

            yes let’s let everyone see the facts.

          37. This is a misconception on your part George. Buell states earlier that these “aggressive acts” were at Anderson’s discretion, but that Anderson should not act brashly and insinuate attacks.

          38. George Purvis

            No that is wrong. The orders are exact—–

            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.

            [edit: Again George, post the entire order, or not at all.]

            Are the insults behind us now????

            George Purvis
            Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education

          39. What is wrong George? You have to be more specific than “that.”

            If you wouldn’t post things out of context, then you and others could read on in Buell’s orders and see where he specifically says that Anderson may take up an position. But alas, you resort to cherry picking a sentence out of context to prove your point.

          40. George Purvis

            I just explained to you Buells orders. You are editing the psots to suit your needs.

          41. I am only editing out your one liners. And you explained them horrendously. If you want your sources to be allowed, you must put them in their entirety but not taking a sentence out of a paragraph as supporting evidence.

          42. George Purvis

            No you edited out the facts. SBecause my explanation didn’t suit your agenda it is horrible.

            [edit: same reasons as before, sorry George]

            This one sentence explains itself

            BTW you are not gonna frustrate me and make me kleave if that is what you are hoping

          43. I stated the reasons why you are not allowed to post quotes out of context.

            The one sentence is out of context.

            I’m glad you feel this way George. I appreciate repeat visitors.

          44. George Purvis

            But he was never attacked that is the key. He nver had orders regardless of what you say.

          45. George Purvis

            Yes exactly what was the threat??/ Being watched??? LOL LOL LOL It is Anderson’s words not mine

            George Purvis
            Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education

          46. George Purvis

            Let me get this straight. Anderson –in his own words– says the reason he felt threatened was because he was being watched? Correct??? For that reason he moved to Sumter where he would be safer from prying eyes?

            Now on the other hand — we see Anderson tell us he and his men had been going to Charleston and getting supplies. Doesn’t hardly sound like any ill intent was meant. Maybe the Confederates were fattening them up before killing them??

            Rob can you come up with just one instance where Anderson’s men had been injured??? Just one with out the smelly stuff. Either bring forth your sources oradmit they do not exist. You are trying to hard, reading to much iinto Buell’s orders and Anderson’s letters, in an attempt to justify his move which started the war. I mean really, who do you expect tobelieve your opinion over Anderson’s own words??

            George Purvis
            Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education

          47. In this particular document, it is not just being “watched,” but what watched implies in a military sense. To pass it off in to trivial matters dismisses the gravity of the situation.

            Injured is not the only reason, as stated in Buell’s orders, that give reason for his movement. Anderson gives plenty of reasons for his movement and his belief of attack in the O.R. Pages 78-on, http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0001;node=waro0001%3A2;view=image;seq=94;page=root;size=100

            “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.” [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.” [85]

            So on and so forth. Anderson cites numerous reasons/activities about looming operations. Knowing that he had a seemingly indefensible position, he moved to a position less likely to be attacked.

          48. George Purvis

            Also according to Buell’s orders Anderson was supposed to make any move that could be viewed as hostile. Besides the man in charge moved because he was “being looked at.”

          49. I think you mean that “Anderson was [not] supposed to make any move that could be viewed as hostile.” In which case you are right, but you continue to mislead readers into thinking that this simple statement is absolute. It is not. Buell included several provisions in which case certain actions are appropriate. This is factual and indisputable. Buell also ordered that Anderson could take any position he chose in the harbor. Thus doubling the vindication of Anderson’s move.

          50. George Purvis

            Again his onlythreat was being watched. There arre no oders to move. I have pointed this fact out a dozen times.

          51. You are referring to Anderson’s mentioning of Confederate activity in one letter only. I supplied numerous others from Anderson and others. You are intentionally disregarding those because it does not fit your preconceived notions.

          52. George Purvis

            Rob, it is to my way of thinking Andersn had the final word when it came to his men. he only mentions being watched as his only threat. It is had to get a better source than Anderson.

          53. He mentions being watched in that one source you posted George. I posted numerous others from Anderson, as well as his other men (which Anderson would have taken into account.) You are now ignoring evidence to the contrary, which is what you have been doing most of the time so I’m not surprised.

          54. George Purvis

            Anderson is the amn making the call. As long as they were in Moultrie they were welcome in town, got supplies, mail etc etc. So really there was no threat. Anderson says so.

          55. Anderson says so in so much as he acknowledged the constant action and military buildup around him. Why do you insist on pretending this did not happen?

          56. George Purvis

            I don’t pretendit didn’t happen. It was Charleston harbor, what sort of action would you expect to happen??

          57. George Purvis

            No good– southern hospitality was there as long as he obeyed orders and stayed in Moultrie.

          58. George Purvis

            Southern hospitality was one thing in play, yes.It is just as important as was your Confederate government was supposed to notify argument.

            No it is a valid point. It serves to prove no harm was intended Anderson and his men. Evfen after Anderson was in Sumter he had a hard time believeing that Pickens would treat his men as enemies. So yes Southern Hospitality was an important part of the events surrounding Sumter.

          59. George Purvis

            Sure it is.We know the South Carolinians treated Anderson and his men well. Southern Hospitality. If they would have beentreated badly youwould use that as a weapon tio prove your point.Oh wait you have the water traffic and the harsh looks Anderson and his men had to endure. Must have been horrible.

          60. George Purvis

            No not opinion, fact. Remember Anderson told in his letters haow they received supplies and mailfrom Charleston. There is your fact. Like I saidifone person had looked at Andersonnand his men wrong, you would be making your case( and you did)on that tiny instance.

          61. To assert that allowance to shop in town, and have lacked relations as to avoid tensions, is unique to the South and “Southern Hospitality,” is (forgive the insult) ignorant. If anything the South allowed for this so that the soldiers would not starve, preventing reinforcement.

          62. I’ll tell you what, as a series of exercise. You implied first that Charleston, S.C. allowed the garrison to buy supplies. You chalked this up to Southern Hospitality. First explain your argument so that I know what you are arguing for. Provide dates and citations. Only then can I make an adequate retort.

          63. George Purvis

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

            Paragraph 3

            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.

            There you go in Andersons’s own words. Nothing more to be said about that issue!!!!!!!!!!!

            George Purvis
            Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education

          64. Anderson references communication, and the “want” to be able to buy supplies. No where does he mention that he bought supplies in the city. Try again George.

          65. George Purvis

            Sure he does, he says so right there in his letter. Nice try but I think you are mis-reading this the same as you are doing Buell’s orders –Deliberate mis- reading.

          66. George Purvis

            Still you are chasing shadows. No one person gave orders for Anderson to move. Anderson says that himself said he had no orders. Are you sayingyoou don’t believe Anderson?

          67. So this is your counter argument? Because people recognize that General Carlos Buell authorized Anderson to move at his discretion there are no orders? You are seriously driving this argument down to a conversation between Floyd (a Southern sympathizer and corrupt politician) and Anderson? Do you honestly not know the difference between authorization and orders?

            If Congress passed legislation that authorized the governor of Georgia to move troops into Tennessee to take water, does that constitute an order to do so, or simply authorization to do so? Honestly George, I think you are intentionally ignoring this fact in order to claim a small victory, or you are so biased in your mission to vindicate the South that you’ve lost all objectivity.

          68. George Purvis

            —- and so you got to run off on a new tangent. Can’t you just stay with the subject at hand. Anderson received two WRITTEN ORDERS since he had talked to Buell. A third grader can understand that why can’t you???

            Oh I know why because you are afriad thato admit you boys started a war that destopryed half the country and cost some 600,000 lives — or more.

          69. “Run off on a new tangent.”

            I’ve answered all of your posts while remaining on subject. You are only stating this because I accused you of it earlier. Within Buell’s orders, he received authorization to move at his discretion. Sorry. Again with the insults.

            “You boys.”? I was not alive in 1861, so I did not start anything. I also restrain from projecting my current political ideology onto the past, and I refrain from placing myself in the first person scenario of events 150 years old.

          70. George Purvis

            Not smart enough tio know are you? Water in Georgia??? Really???

            “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.’

          71. Again your insults, your usual M/O when you are frustrated.

            You are also posting things out of context again. When taken whole, the Buell’s orders read like this:

            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.

            Now you are intentionally posting documents out of context in a vague attempt at claiming victory. You are being dishonest. If you post anything like this again, it will not be approved. I am not allowing “half truths” and random quotes without context.

          72. George Purvis

            You have added your share. Besides I am still within the boundaries that you set. Don’t like it do ya. What makes you think I do ? That is what this page is really all about.

          73. It is my page, I am changing the parameters, which you advocated for earlier. Sorry if you do not like it. You don’t have to comment.

          74. George Purvis

            Nor will you I will call you on it every time. Now that people know you are editing my posts wonder how much they will trust you???

            George Purvis
            Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education

          75. That’s fine George. I don’t cherry pick my sources and you have failed to prove anyone wrong on this page. Whether or not people trust me is for them to decide. The research is in the post.

          76. George Purvis

            I don’t either nor do I edit posts to suit my needs. I have no need to revise history.

          77. You have continuously cherry picked sources, which is why I do not post them. I am not “revising” anything, though that is your all to common claim.

          78. No George, you are quoting things out of context. It would be like someone taking this quote:

            “Don’t go in there. But if someone tries to get in there, you can go in there at your discretion.”

            And telling people one was not supposed to go in there using this as your proof.

            “Don’t go in there.” Misleading, no?

          79. George Purvis

            It still reads the same if it is presented like this —

            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.

          80. Congratulations George! Was posting things in their full context so hard to do?

            Sadly, your interpretation of that quote is highly misleading. Your argument hinges on the sentence, “You are carefully to avoid…..which could be construed into the assumption of a hostile attitude.”

            When in fact, Buell amplifies this order by adding,

            But you [Anderson] are to hold…defend yourself to the last extremity.”

            And also when he states that “an attack on or attempt to take possession of….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.”

            The last sentence is the key to this action which you continue to leave out of your arguments.

          81. George Purvis

            Here is more verfication anderson had no orders———–

            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.

          82. Original orders from Buell allowed him that move. Floyd knew about these orders, he is the one that amended the part about fighting to the last extremity.

          83. George Purvis

            No they did not. I would guess the Sec Of War and especially anderson knew his orders. You are nuts.

          84. George Purvis

            If Anderson received orders then why does he say at least twice he did not? You are trying to catch smoke.

          85. It’s really simple. This has been explained to you before. Anderson had authorization to move at his discretion. Asking for orders, is to ask if someone told him to move. That is what Floyd sought. If Floyd wished Anderson to stay at Moultrie, he would have also rescinded Anderson’s authorization to move.

          86. George Purvis

            And I have explained this to you before Anderson had no order or authorization to move;

            Since you want to keep hapring on Buell’s orders Buell’s orders came from Floyd. That knoncks your argument there in the dirt. At any rate Buell’s orders did specify this —

            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.

            Anderson was not in any danger at anytime.

            On Dec. 14. Anderson received WRITTEN orders regarding the workman and work around Sumter and addressing a hostile crowd which never existed.

            On Dec. 21 Andersonnagain received WRITTEN orders which stated
            in realtion to Buell’s order he was not to fight to the last man.

            Buell’s orders were violated when anderson moved to Sumter. Thisis found in palin English in Buell’s orders. Anderson never received orders to move. PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          87. Buell’s order authorized Anderson to move at his discretion; Buell recommended a move. You have yet to to demonstrate how anything is knocked in the dirt, instead you make claims without evidence attempting to claim victory (your usual M/O).

            What acts exactly were taken?

            Again, Al Mackey addresses every one of those points you are making.

            Anderson did not violate Buell’s orders at all. Buell authorized a move.

            “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]

            Anderson reports numerous times of this evidence. Hence, authorization validated.

          88. George Purvis

            Again I don’t care waht Mackey says understand. You still cannot fight your own battles??? Still relying on Mackey to prop you up???I told you what the orders say and nowhere do they say move to Sumter.

            Now I have addressed all of Mackeys points..

          89. You haven’t addressed any of Mackey’s points. I’m not going to re-do research that is already traveled when it is available for all to see. Sorry, but it’s redundant.

          90. George Purvis

            Sure I did. Here it is again.

            [edit]

            And

            [edit]

            I don’t care what you do. Correct for all to see.

          91. Sorry George. I’m sure you’ll forgive the edits. But I already told you on another comment that you would not be allowed to post random quotes without citations, and that you would not be allowed to post only one sentence, out of context, of an entire conversation. I’m sure you’ll understand and correct this in the future by including the entire citation and source.

  1. George Purvis

    or like this ———–

    The war of the rebellion: a compilation of the official records of the Union and Confederate armies. ; Series 1 -Volume 1, page 89-90.

    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.

        1. Oh George, I’m not certain if it is ignorance or just willful negligence that you disregard the rest of the order. If you’ll notice, no where does it say stay at Moultrie. It in fact, tells Anderson he may take position in any fort, but not to act aggressively unless attacked or come under the threat of attack.

          1. George Purvis

            Yes I am wondering the smae thing about you. At any rate gotta wonder how many people are reading my posts before you edit them????

            I thought the insults were behind. So do you want them to start up again???

          2. I didn’t realize you were being insulted George I do apologize. You use so many insults that I lose track.

            I know the “rate” that you speak of. It is “0”. They are edited before being posted, mainly as admission that 1.) I edited them, and 2.) you will be required to post sources in their entirety.

  2. George Purvis

    The fact that I posted it in this manner—

    [edit: out of context]

    Give the casual reader the chance to look up the quote andsee for himself what is REALLY said.

    1. I wasn’t aware that the casual reading, reads casually in order to do research George. Thus why we must post quotes in their entirety and in their entire context so as to not be misleading.

  3. George Purvis

    Of course you can’t stand it because this passage doesn’t match the mis-information you are trying to pass as actual history—

    [edit: out of context]

    1. It is really bizarre that you continue to post things out of context, when it is plain from your previous posts that when posted in context, the order is much more inclusive than the Kindergarten directive you contrive.

  4. George Purvis

    It simply tells Anderson to keep you butt where it is at and don’t make any rash decisions about moving–

    [edit: out of context]

    1. Actually, that is one sentence in an order that is provided on this post, and in many other places. When taking in context, one can easily see that Anderson is to avoid taking hostile actions, with exceptions such as being attacked, or having tangible evidence of a looming attack.

  5. George Purvis

    [edit: same reasons as before]

    [note: You even left in a couple of letters that you decided to exclude in your copy and paste job]

  6. George Purvis

    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.

    Still reagrdless of how it is posted Anderson dif not have orders

      1. George Purvis

        No he did not. None of his bosses believed he moved to Sumter. Buell told him tostay put in Moultrie. TThat is iin plain english . as posted in one sentence you won’t let stand because it knocks your argument in the dirt. Too bad a smart fellow like you has a biased agenda. Someone who teaches true history is hard to find.

        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.

        1. From the order you posted, Buell does not mention Moultrie but refers to the “forts” in general. Nor do Buell’s orders tell Anderson to stay in a position, they only say to “avoid every act which would be needlessly tend to provoke aggression.”

          You are looking for evidence that doesn’t exist by projecting your beliefs onto sources.

          1. George Purvis

            No they were not in the scope of Buell’s orders. They were well outside of the “make no move” order. His move did not cause immediate firing they did cause quite a distress among the Confederates and Anderson’s bosses as i have clearly shown.

          2. Answer this George.

            Is the rest of Buell’s order important, or equally important to the “make no ‘act'” (not move: when he change words in an order to suit your purpose your distort history)?

            Anderson was already under stress from the South Carolina government and military actions taking place around him at the time. That is why he moved, falling well within the scope of Buell’s orders.

          3. George Purvis

            Exactly which part of Buell’s orders are you referring to.

            No Anderson was treated well while in Moultrie. He had no reason to be distressed simply because he was being watched. If that was the case then the Confederates can claim the same distress because Washington was watching them.

          4. The rest of the order, both before and after.

            Running patrols preparing for an attack and seizure of other forts is not “well.” It is military escalation in order to surround the enemy. Commanding Ft. Sumter over Moultrie put the Union soldiers at Moultrie in peril. Sumter had superior fortifications and guns. Foster and Anderson conceded before the movement that Confederates prepared for this in advance, thus why they moved.

            “Well,” comes in the form of maintaining open and ‘light’ relations in order to prevent escalation by embargo. The Union still bought their own supplies as the Confederates blocked supply ships. This allowed the Confederates to maintain supply supremacy in the Harbor, subjecting the Union garrison to their decision.

          5. 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.

            The Bold is my emphasis.

          6. George Purvis

            Thank you.There is not one sentence that tells anderson he may move to when his only threat is being watched.The tangible threat never happens.

          7. Actually there is, more than one sentence, you just keep denying it. And you are really hung up on the word “watched.” This has been pointed out to you before by other people, you hang on one word in an attempt to win the argument. Sadly, you are coming off willfully ignorant of other sources.

          8. I never have. I’ve shown numerous times how Anderson acted within the confines of his authorization from Buell. You continue to cherry pick sentences out of these sources I’ve presented, and used them out of context to support your own opinions.

          9. George Purvis

            Didn’t you just say you acknowledge every point in Buell’s orders. One point was to say in Moultrie. . Are you gonna pick and chose waht parts you want to acknowledge???

          10. One point was not to stay in Moultrie, Buell never mentions Moultrie. He says he may put his command in whichever fort of choice, and to only act when under hostile actions or threat of action.

          11. George Purvis

            —-and on the other hand he never mentions sumter. his orders were clear. don’t make waves.

          12. Again George, taking a source out of context by narrowing it down to one sentence, that if it stood alone, might make your point. Thankfully we have Buell’s entire order and we know from reading it when Anderson was authorized to move.

          13. Absolutely not. I continuously place things within their proper context, citing the sources and presenting them in their entirety. Exceptions being very, very long documents, in which case I always include a paragraph for reference, site the source, and link to the entire document.

          14. You are George. I have pointed out continuously how teasing out one sentence/one statement, out of context and out of order, is sloppy history and blatantly misleading evidence. It is not comparable in any way to what I do. This is why people without historical training should not consider themselves “historians” simply by copying and pasting excerpts from the internet.

          15. No we are not. You have been called out on citing information the way you do by other people before. You’ve yet to point to where I take citations out of context. Stop running from the point George.

          16. George Purvis

            I guess you are right, we are not. I am going by what Buell’s order actually says, you are bending the wording to fit your needs.

          17. You are taking one sentence out of context. You are denying Anderson’s authorization by Buell expressed later on in the order, and Anderson’s recognition of such authorization. Your are cherry picking to mislead, which is why you will not be allowed to post that resource out of context any more.

          18. George Purvis

            Anderson never had orders or authorization. That is just a just the excuse Yankees like to use to balme the South for the war. Not my fault you can’t understand orders or English for that matter.

            You are wrong

          19. No he was not. Moultrie was never mentioned in the order. Anderson was authorized to put his command in any fort. And to not take acts that provoke aggression. But he was authorized to take steps defending attack or under the threat of attack. No where in the order is he told to “stay put” as you continuously and wrongly put it.

          20. George Purvis

            Moultrie is applied by the use of the words— “to take up any position which could be construed into the assumption of a hostile attitude.”

          21. George Purvis

            Rob Baker commented on Fort Sumter Rages On….somewhere else.

            in response to George Purvis:

            —-and neither was Sumter.

            Sumter is applied by the used of the words “any forts” and “all forts”

          22. You’ve been proved wrong on that by several people on this blog and others. Sorry George. You are just flat our wrong on this. The square peg won’t fit into the round hole, unless of course you keep trimming off corners like you have been doing.

          23. George Purvis

            I haven’t been proved wrong at all. You on the otherhand have been proven wrong in all your statements.

  7. George Purvis

    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? The papers say that I was under a panic. That is a mistake ; the moment I inspected my position I saw that the work was not defensible with my small command, and recommended, weeks ago, that we ought to be withdrawn. I remained, then, as long as I could under the fearful responsibility I felt for the safety of my command, and finally decided on Christmas morning that I would remove the command that day; and it would have been attempted that day if the weather had not proved inauspicious. Not a person of my command knew of my determination until that morning, and only on that day. The captains of the lighters are, I am sorry to see, threatened by the Charlestonians for what they did. I do hope that they will not disgrace themselves by wreaking their wrath upon these men. They were employed to take the women and children, and food for them, to Fort Johnson, and were as innocent in the matter as any one. Another lighter was filled with commissary stores for the workingmen here, and her captain certainly is not blamable for bringing them. Not a soldier came in either of these vessels except the married men with their wives for Fort Johnson, and there was not an arm of any kind permitted to be taken on board those boats. Only one person on board those boats knew that Fort Johnson was not their final destination, until the signal was given that the command was in Fort Sumter. My men were transferred in our own boats, and were all, with the exception of those attached to the hospital, in the fort before 8 o’clock. So much in exoneration of the captains.

    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. 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. I do hope that nothing will occur to add to the excitement and bad feeling which exists in the city. No one has a right to be angry with me for my action. No one can tell what they would have done unless they were placed in the same tight place. . . . I write this note hurriedly, as I wish to acknowledge the receipt of your kind note, and to assure you that I am firmly convinced that, had you been in my place, and known no more of the political bearing of things than I did, you would have acted as I did.

    I know that if my action was properly explained to the people of Charleston, they would not feel any excitement against me or my command.

    Praying that the time may soon come, etc.,

    ROBERT ANDERSON.

    Note Andesons evidence of attack, HE WAS BEING WATCHED!!!

    Why were armed steamers kept constantly on the watch for my movements? The papers say that I was under a panic.

    1. Oh look, you can post a full source. Of course it is another copy and paste job.

      This source helps me in a number of ways. For starters, it demonstrates that Anderson had no knowledge of any “agreement” between South Carolina and the U.S. It also demonstrates that Anderson believed in an imminent attack. This is corroborated by numerous other statements by Anderson. And it is more than, “being watched.”

      George, you’ve already got your mind made up before you read these.

      1. George Purvis

        {edit: insults George, tisk tisk] This proves the there was an agreement and anderson violated it. Can’t trust a Yankee.

          1. George Purvis

            How do you know it doesn’t.

            You are grabbing at smoke now. We can end this just by you admitting you are wrong.

          2. Wait wait wait…So now you are saying that because I didn’t know one existed one could have existed? Even though Anderson says he knew of none. If I’m wrong, I guess the people alive then though so as well.

          3. George Purvis

            I am sayinmg there was an agreement. The Confederates honored it, anderson broke it, Ignorance is no excuse as they say.

          4. If there was an agreement, obviously they should have notified Anderson. If such an agreement did exist, the Confederates did not honor it. They created a situation of perceived attack, noted by Anderson and his men, so much so as to prompt Anderson’s movement.

          5. George Purvis

            The failure of the US government cannot be blamed on the Confederates.they held up their end of the bargin as honorable people would do.

          6. That statement indicates your preconceived bias before examining the document. Anderson was a Southerner and the correspondence between him and other Confederate officers indicate an extreme amount of honor. Buell’s original order of “fighting to the last extremity” is an indication of the warrior ethos involved in “honor.” (Surrender being an dishonorable act) Floyd reassures Anderson that surrendering in the face of attack was not dishonorable (reinforcing the sense of honor). The fact is, honor is a relevant aspect for many parties involved in this event. And the fact remains, the Confederates acted hostile in Charleston (militarily at least) prompting fear of being attacked. Thus the move.

          7. George Purvis

            It was not the responsibility of the Confederates to giveanderson orders nor inform of any agreements. Like I told you before Santa Anna could have told Bowie and crew Houston wanted them to surrender. Should he have been believed?

            [edit: insults, stay on topic George.]

            You are starting to go in circles now.

          8. It is the Government’s job yes, but it is also the job of the Confederates in the harbor to approach Anderson within the confines of the “agreement,” and to negotiate with him in that manner. Instead, no such mentioning was given, primarily because no tangible agreement existed. What was there was loose at best and did not effectively dictate any terms. Anderson acted only within the confines of his orders from Buell. Which is all the justification he needed.

            To listen would be stupid without direct correspondence from Houston. In this sense, we have that absence of correspondence, indicating that none existed. Historians do not assume something existed in the gaps of history because it is dishonest.

            I am working with numerous sources George. And I am using and applying them in their total context. You showed repeatedly that you are willing to go out of your way to disregard collaborating sources and disregard conflicting passages within a single source.

          9. George Purvis

            Would you really beleive a representative of Pickens if he told you of a peace agreement and you had nothing from your boss???

          10. An action in good faith would be treated as such, of course it would have to be verified. Yet here you are again, attempting to reach into the abyss and pull out proof without evidence.

          11. George Purvis

            The Confederates actions of good faith were allowing Anderson to draw supplies and such while he was in Moultrie. they also offered to allow Anderson to return to Moultrie andsent a peace delegation to washington. At some point good faith is all used up.

          12. Again, moot point and now you are making a cultural argument which is not distinctly Southern, but regional and regional within the South. The assumptions you are making are leading to very moot points.

          13. George Purvis

            Well Yankee hospitality must not exist we have not heard of it, never seen it, never tasted it so it must not exist.. Sam e as hard hearded Southeners. Ever met one. No such thing.

          14. I’m not engaging in a cultural argument George. This is another attempt by you to steer the conversation off topic and base your argument on a self pleasing ground.

Comment Below. All comments are moderated.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s