6 ms·

On the night of December 26, Major Anderson's men were ordered to turn their overcoats to hide the military buttons and to take off their caps, so as to be take

On the night of December 26, Major Anderson's men were ordered to turn their overcoats to hide the military buttons and to take off their caps, so as to be taken for the civilian laborers who passed daily between Forts Sumter and Moultrie. The ruse was successful, a turncoat matter one might say. The act of soldiers posing as civilians in war historically has been viewed as an act of perfidy. With the ruse, Union troops took Fort Sumter without a shot fired. They had spiked the guns at Fort Moultrie and set fire to their carriages. Some at the time and later considered this clandestine move to Fort Sumter an act of war, the first in the coming conflict. US Secretary of War at the time, John B. Floyd, could not believe Major Anderson had made such a move, because there was no order for such an act. He asked the major to explain his action. ... Finally, Lincoln acted. On March 29, he had sent a note to his secretary of war: “I desire than an expedition, to move by sea, be got ready to sail as early as the 6th of April next.” Despite many rumors of evacuation, Fort Sumter apparently was to be reinforced, a move expressly forbidden by Southern authorities after months of patient and unsatisfying negotiations regarding the evacuation of the fort. US Naval Captain Gustavus Fox, commanding the reinforcement expedition, was instructed to enter Charleston Harbor and send a boatload of provisions to Fort Sumter and to do no more, unless he was stopped or fired upon. In either of those cases, he was to try to force a passage, with the help of US Navy ships beyond the harbor, and supply the fort not only with provisions but also with troops. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4112687/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4112687/

shkkmo 3y ago
Even with your extremely selective quoting, (including the exclusion of what that ruse was required and the food shortage that necessitated resupply) there is still nothing there that qualifies as a invasion.
- Clubber 3y ago
  >your extremely selective quoting If you read the article I linked, Anderson took the fort on his own accord. Did you want me to paste the entire article in here or something? What's extremely selective about it? I linked the article. >including the exclusion of what that ruse was required Got any references or anything to explain what you mean? >food shortage that necessitated resupply Anderson took the fort and held it for three months. I'm certain he needed resupply. Did you think the CSA was gonna give him food after he took their fort?
  - shkkmo 3y ago
    It wasn't their fort. It was the property of the US army and was taken by a commander who that article describes as very sympathetic to the southern cause, but honorably loyal to the army. There is no indication that Anderson had any desire to "invade" the south, but rather the opposite. The CSA fired at the Star of the West to prevent resupply of Anderson. The CSA also chose to fire at the fort even though they knew that Anderson would surrender due to lack of food within days. The CSA repeatedly chose violence to take a fort that a they couldn't get through negotiation and thus started a very bloody war. Perhaps that war was inevitable and it clearly stemmed from hostile choices on both sides, but the decision to officially start that war by the CSA was preemptive and absolutely not a response to any invasion.
    - Clubber 3y ago
      From the CSA's point of view, it was their fort on their land that the Union not only took but were reinforcing. It was a defensive fort at the mouth of one of their most important eastern seaboard harbors. A fort that if taken would prevent the CSA from getting anything shipped through there, in or out. It was considered an act of war and the CSA retaliated by shelling it for 3 days after they refused to leave, amazingly with no casualties. Interestingly, the CSA commander was a protege of Anderson (who took the fort). You can't just hand wave that away because the CSA were "the bad guys," you have to be able to view both sides of it to fully understand the war, the causes and the affects, not play favorites, and especially not view it through modern eyes. There were no laws banning secession and it was deemed illegal by the SCOTUS ex-post facto. Do you think if the Southern states thought they wouldn't be able to leave the Union when they joined in 1788 they ever would have joined in the first place? Doubtful. >There is no indication that Anderson had any desire to "invade" the south, but rather the opposite. Sure, but that act has obvious consequences. The first battle of the Civil War was Bull Run/Manassas. It was fought in Virginia because the Union troops crossed into the CSA territory to take the capitol. That's an invasion, an invasion that was the consequence of firing on Sumter, which was a consequence of Anderson taking it and Lincoln reinforcing it. Had cooler heads prevailed, we might not have had to lose 700k+ people. Although the Civil War officially began when Confederate troops shelled Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, the fighting didn’t commence in earnest until the Battle of Bull Run, fought months later in Virginia, just 25 miles from Washington D.C. Under public pressure to end the war in 90 days, President Lincoln had pushed the cautious Gen. McDowell to embark on a campaign to capture the Confederate capital in Richmond, but McDowell’s troops were stopped at Bull Run by Brig. Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard’s Rebel forces. The Federals retreated to Washington, where the Lincoln administration retooled for a war that would be waged at great human and financial cost https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/bull-run https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/bull-ru...

shkkmo 3y ago

Even with your extremely selective quoting, (including the exclusion of what that ruse was required and the food shortage that necessitated resupply) there is still nothing there that qualifies as a invasion.

Clubber 3y ago
>your extremely selective quoting If you read the article I linked, Anderson took the fort on his own accord. Did you want me to paste the entire article in here or something? What's extremely selective about it? I linked the article. >including the exclusion of what that ruse was required Got any references or anything to explain what you mean? >food shortage that necessitated resupply Anderson took the fort and held it for three months. I'm certain he needed resupply. Did you think the CSA was gonna give him food after he took their fort?
- shkkmo 3y ago
  It wasn't their fort. It was the property of the US army and was taken by a commander who that article describes as very sympathetic to the southern cause, but honorably loyal to the army. There is no indication that Anderson had any desire to "invade" the south, but rather the opposite. The CSA fired at the Star of the West to prevent resupply of Anderson. The CSA also chose to fire at the fort even though they knew that Anderson would surrender due to lack of food within days. The CSA repeatedly chose violence to take a fort that a they couldn't get through negotiation and thus started a very bloody war. Perhaps that war was inevitable and it clearly stemmed from hostile choices on both sides, but the decision to officially start that war by the CSA was preemptive and absolutely not a response to any invasion.
  - Clubber 3y ago
    From the CSA's point of view, it was their fort on their land that the Union not only took but were reinforcing. It was a defensive fort at the mouth of one of their most important eastern seaboard harbors. A fort that if taken would prevent the CSA from getting anything shipped through there, in or out. It was considered an act of war and the CSA retaliated by shelling it for 3 days after they refused to leave, amazingly with no casualties. Interestingly, the CSA commander was a protege of Anderson (who took the fort). You can't just hand wave that away because the CSA were "the bad guys," you have to be able to view both sides of it to fully understand the war, the causes and the affects, not play favorites, and especially not view it through modern eyes. There were no laws banning secession and it was deemed illegal by the SCOTUS ex-post facto. Do you think if the Southern states thought they wouldn't be able to leave the Union when they joined in 1788 they ever would have joined in the first place? Doubtful. >There is no indication that Anderson had any desire to "invade" the south, but rather the opposite. Sure, but that act has obvious consequences. The first battle of the Civil War was Bull Run/Manassas. It was fought in Virginia because the Union troops crossed into the CSA territory to take the capitol. That's an invasion, an invasion that was the consequence of firing on Sumter, which was a consequence of Anderson taking it and Lincoln reinforcing it. Had cooler heads prevailed, we might not have had to lose 700k+ people. Although the Civil War officially began when Confederate troops shelled Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, the fighting didn’t commence in earnest until the Battle of Bull Run, fought months later in Virginia, just 25 miles from Washington D.C. Under public pressure to end the war in 90 days, President Lincoln had pushed the cautious Gen. McDowell to embark on a campaign to capture the Confederate capital in Richmond, but McDowell’s troops were stopped at Bull Run by Brig. Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard’s Rebel forces. The Federals retreated to Washington, where the Lincoln administration retooled for a war that would be waged at great human and financial cost https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/bull-run https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/bull-ru...