 Editor in Chief Bill   | 17 Dec 2011 4:51 p.m. PST |
Did Anderson make the right move in relocating his command (and men) from indefensible Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter, even though it provoked the South Carolinians? |
| John the OFM | 17 Dec 2011 6:16 p.m. PST |
What does South Carolina have to do with it?
It was the US Army moving form one Federal property to another. |
| Grand Duke Natokina | 17 Dec 2011 6:45 p.m. PST |
Probably. He lost no men during the battle--only after the fighting when a gun blew up firing a salute. And he could be reinforced or evacuated by sea with minimal interference.
Of course, Sumter was pounded into rubble. |
| Colonel Hairy Haggis | 17 Dec 2011 7:01 p.m. PST |
I'm sorry to disagree with you John, but South Carolina
HAD seceded from the United States declaring it self
a free and independent country. Thus the United States Army
was trespassing on Confederate property. The firing on Fort Sumter was only after repeated warnings
by the government of South Carolina to vacate the fort. The overt act of war was when the United States tried to supply the garrison, with men and arms, and invaded the sovereign waters of South Carolina. As always at your service, Colonel Hairy Haggis |
| Editor in Chief Bill | 17 Dec 2011 7:08 p.m. PST |
It was the US Army moving form one Federal property to another. Fort Sumter was federally financed, but it was a man-made island – the ownership of which was ambiguous at the time… |
| Editor in Chief Bill | 17 Dec 2011 7:09 p.m. PST |
The overt act of war was when the United States tried to supply the garrison, with men and arms, and invaded the sovereign waters of South Carolina. Which time? |
| Man of Few Words | 17 Dec 2011 7:37 p.m. PST |
The Editor has identified the legal origins of Ft Sumpter, in fact the rock was from New England I think.
At great risk I must say I agree with the OFM.
The question of legality,Colonel Haggis, has never been settled so your premise can't stand. |
| EJNashIII | 17 Dec 2011 9:14 p.m. PST |
I was a Federal Reenactor in Charleston for the 150th last April. I lived 1 day in Moultrie and a week on the rock. I saw it all up and personal. Anderson had no choice in the matter. Staying in Moultrie was suicide. Neighboring buildings overlooked the walls (still do) and sand dunes made it easy to scale. He wasn't looking to provoke anyone. In fact he was southern. By moving out to the island he removed the immediate threat of something stupid happening between the poorly trained command he inherited and the rabble outside the walls of Moultrie. His hope was to buy enough time so that his southern friends could come to their senses. Either way, by April the fort was nearly out of food. All the rebels had to do was wait another week and Anderson would have given up the fort without the firing of a shot. Honor being satisfied. However, old judge Petigru summed up the situation best, "South Carolina, too small to be a republic, too large for an insane asylum." |
| vtsaogames | 17 Dec 2011 9:41 p.m. PST |
The Confederates never tested the legality of seccession in a court of law. Instead they tested it on the field of battle. After repeated appeals, it lost. Case closed. Kudos to Major Anderson. |
| Femeng2 | 18 Dec 2011 6:15 a.m. PST |
As the Charleston Militia attacked Fort Moultrie the next day, it was the correct course. You can't secede just because you don't like the results of an election. THe UNited States (people or government) had not performed any act of aggression against South Carolina at this time, and active negotiations were still going on. It strikes of an early Pearl Harbor. |
| John the OFM | 18 Dec 2011 8:10 a.m. PST |
The Confederates never tested the legality of seccession in a court of law. Instead they tested it on the field of battle. After repeated appeals, it lost. Case closed. Huzzah! for that fine legal argument. |
| 11th ACR | 18 Dec 2011 9:34 a.m. PST |
"Sumter was pounded into rubble." But Fort Sumter was not "pounded into rubble" until the Union Siege of Fort Sumter in 1863.
That being done by Union Ships. link
link |
| EJNashIII | 18 Dec 2011 8:07 p.m. PST |
As you said, It was pounded to ruble until later. However, the barracks burned down during the bombardment. |
| John the Greater | 19 Dec 2011 6:52 a.m. PST |
To answer the question at hand: Anderson made the right decision. Ft Sumpter was more defensible, especially given how few men he had. Since it was a defensible island, he could sit and do nothing in hopes that cooler heads would prevail. He can't be blamed for the lack of cool heads. I love the Petigru quote! |
| Bill N | 19 Dec 2011 10:32 a.m. PST |
It depends on what you believe Anderson's mission should have been. If you believe that Anderson's job was to maintain a U.S. presence in Charleston harbor for as long as possible without having to resort to offensive or counter-offensive actions to do it, then Fort Sumter was the logical place to be. |
