alt.war.civil.usa

On Oct 5, 9:41?am, . James wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 00:29:32 -0400, "Gregory E. Garland"
>
>
>
>
>
> wrote:
> >" . James" wrote in message
> >news:1vnag3t78ql9qdmbsrfoouen6m936q6oks@ ...
>
> >> I ran across a reprint of an old history book that was first
> >> published in 1879. This is a long post but I hope someone may find
> >> it interesting. This covers 4 pages of text and is the authors
> >> explanation of Ft Sumter. According to him, it was an act of war
> >> by Lincoln. I'm not saying that is true, but it probably comes as
> >> close as most explanations I've read. And it was offfered by someone
> >> closer to the event.
>
> >Typical post war drivel of the lost cause. You would better
> >spend your time finding out what the people of 1860-61
> >said at the time, rather than giving credence to spin doctors
> >working 15 years after the war.
>
> That's what I'm trying to do. I happened on this volume by chance.
> The author doesn't have a lot to say about the secession days. I was
> hoping he would tell us a lot about those activities from the
> viewpoint of a man of that era. But he didn't.
>
> >> The United States had already sanctioned an act of war by allowing
> >> Major Anderson to remain in Fort Sumter after he had destroyed the
> >> works at Moultrie,
>
> >I don't recall any destruction of Moultrie or any other fortifications.
> >IIRC,
> >a duty officer remained at all the Federal facilities under Anderson's
> >command until the rebels seized them.
>
> On page 236 he gives us the Southern side of that --
>
> "...The year 1860 closed with another startling event, which produced
> an intense excitement throughout South Carolina and the whole country.
> There was an explicit understanding between Governor Pickens, of South
> Carolina, and President Buchanan, that no hostile operations should
> occur on the waters around Charleston where the forts were situated ;
> consequently, every courtesy had been extended by the noble
> Charlestonians to Major Anderson, the commandant of the garrison at
> Fort Moultrie. On the 25th of December, under the cover of the
> darkness of night, Major Anderson spiked the guns, burnt the fort, and
> removed to Fort Sumter with his command of ninety-eight men. This act
> was the first casus belli committed. It amounted to nothing less
> than a declaration of war. The commissioners from the young Republic
> of South Carolina had arrived at Washington to treat with the foreign
> Government of the United States, and complained in a respectful
> communication to the President of the action of Major Anderson, and
> asked an explanation of his unexpected removal to Fort Sumter. The
> President gave no satisfactory explanation ; his reply was evasive ;
> he stated that "while Major Anderson had no orders to remove his
> garrison to Fort Sumter, it was in his discretion to make the change."
> The President declined to remove the garrison from Sumter, and refused
> to recognize the official capacity of the commissioners...."
>
> comment ---
>
> 98 men ? I didn't realize Anderson had a small army with him.

It was less than that, and yes you did - not that less than a hundred
men, some of them civilian contractors, pose much of a threat to a
major city, especially when they're in a Fort a mile or two from
shore.


No
> wonder this concerned the people of Charleston. It would have scared
> anybody when they saw that gang setting off explosives and sneaking
> around the harbor under cover of night. Such a pack could have
> committed no end of rape and murder


Then I guess it's a good thing the ANV was brought to heel then. If
you're worried what less than a hundred men might do to Charleston,
just think what all those tens of thousands might have been capable of
if the AoP posse hadn't brought 'em in.

Troll.