WI Confederates don't attack Fort Sumter

So instead Fort Sumter is captured by dirty underhanded Confederate dubiousness, which will be so much better.
Or by northern overconfident gullibility.

The vagueness of going from "opiates are available" to explaining how this would actually be a viable method.
The idea is mine, you are the doubter. As the accuser, you should demonstrate that the scheme wouldn't work, not demand proofs that it would, as that entitlement, you don't have, aspie or not. As for opiates, they are but one available method. You would have to prove that no available method would work. And even opiates you failed to shoot down.
As for nitpicking, you failed to nitpick, since you failed show any "nit" that could invalidate the plan.
 
Last edited:
Or by northern overconfident gullibility.

That may be how the Confederates want to present it, but its not how its going to come across to anyone who doesn't already buy their line.

The idea is mine, you are the doubter. As the accuser, you should demonstrate that the scheme wouldn't work, not demand proofs that it would, as that entitlement, you don't have, aspie or not. As for opiates, they are but one available method. You would have to prove that no available method would work. And even opiates you failed to shoot down.
No one is claiming "entitlement". What I am pointing out is that as someone with Asperger's Syndrome (aka an Aspie), I am naturally obsessive about details.

I am not seeking to prove that "no available method could possibly work" - I am looking to see you show how this is viable instead of saying that because drugs exist that somehow the Confederates will be able to use them to pull this off. If you want me to agree with you, you need to be convincing. This isn't about me having the right to demand answers or any such bullcrap.

As for nitpicking, you failed to nitpick, since you failed show any "nit" that could invalidate the plan.
Apparently, the nits of how the drug plan will actually work being left entirely unexplained to the point that there's no reason to believe it will work and why the Confederates will even come up with the idea don't count.

For this to be possible:
you have to have a way that the Confederates will have the opportunity to drug the food. "We're going to inspect it because we think you're smuggling in ammunition." is barely plausible at best.

For the drugging of the food to escape notice. "We're inspecting, don't look" :rolleyes:

A drug that they can drug the food with that is strong enough to knock the garrison out for a prolonged period and subtle enough that neither the garrison or the other Union men won't notice it in the food by any of the usual senses.

It has to be something that will retain these properties when - if you put in the flour, say - baked.

It has to be something where those not currently eating will not smell a rat when those who consumed the drugged flour are knocked out.

It has to impact all the garrison, who are all knocked out at the same time. This does not mean they all have to fall unconscious at the same time, but they all have to be unconscious in the same time, which is long enough for the Confederates to take the fort.

It has to be something the Confederates have on hand and know how to use in this manner.

The person who comes up with the idea has to have the ability to have it implemented, either by being the boss or convincing the boss.

And finally, for this to really work, the Union has to believe that it was the garrison's fault rather than an underhanded backstabbing sort of attack. For the Union to literally fire the first shot is not good enough.

In brief, it has to pass a number of points it can fail miserably. None of which your explanation provides a solution to.

All you have is the idea that opiates existed and that someone could think of it, really.
 
Last edited:
Lets suppose
the confederacy feigned to accept that food was sent to the garrison, but demanded to inspect it. Before delivering the food to the garrison,
the confederates add some drug to it. After the food gets eaten, the fort is taken without a single shot, and the garrison is sent under wraps back to the North. Depending on the spin, the ridicule could be a powerful offensive weapon.

If anything, drugging the garrison in order to carry Sumter would be an even more reviled act than firing on the fort. You have to remember, this is 19th century America. Men, especially soldiers, were supposed to act with honor.
 
"Your people are getting food, so don't you dare supply them with any."

I hope I'm not the only one whose expression resembles this face :eek: more than this face :confused:.

I suppose I could spell the reasoning out to you, but I thought it was obvious. (1) The feds are sending ships into a hostile harbor. Why? The mission has two levels: (a) The overt one of resupplying a federal garrison, and (b) the unspoken one of provoking the confederates into firing the first shot.

The overt mission can be justified because the federal garrison there is running out of food--actually very close to running out. Why? Because that garrison has been cut off from their normal source of food--the merchants of Charlestown.

(2) In the scenario I suggest, the confederacy resumes supplying food and presents it as a peace gesture. The garrison is no longer in danger of running out of food. The overt reason for sending federal ships into the harbor no longer exists. The feds can still send the ships in, but they are now responding to a confederate peace gesture by sending ships into a major southern port--an obviously provocative move--when the reason for doing so no longer exists. Much more difficult to justify in terms of northern and especially border state opinion.
 
I suppose I could spell the reasoning out to you, but I thought it was obvious.

When in doubt, its safe to assume I want to see how someone is forming an idea so I have a better picture of what they're trying to say.

(1) The feds are sending ships into a hostile harbor. Why? The mission has two levels: (a) The overt one of resupplying a federal garrison, and (b) the unspoken one of provoking the confederates into firing the first shot.

The overt mission can be justified because the federal garrison there is running out of food--actually very close to running out. Why? Because that garrison has been cut off from their normal source of food--the merchants of Charlestown.

(2) In the scenario I suggest, the confederacy resumes supplying food and presents it as a peace gesture. The garrison is no longer in danger of running out of food. The overt reason for sending federal ships into the harbor no longer exists. The feds can still send the ships in, but they are now responding to a confederate peace gesture by sending ships into a major southern port--an obviously provocative move--when the reason for doing so no longer exists. Much more difficult to justify in terms of northern and especially border state opinion.
No, they're sending ships to resupply a Union fort that is in need of supplies because the reason for doing so STILL EXISTS.

If you have it so that the supplies are never cut off to begin with, then yes, there's no reason to send the ships, so no mission. But saying that you'll oppose Union efforts to send supplies to a Union fort - something Lincoln has every right to do whether the garrison can buy supplies from Charleston or not - is not a peace gesture.

Prohibiting Union ships from supplying the garrison is essentially announcing that you're going to use force to seal it off. At most this is an attempt to stare down the Union, as opposed to skipping to throwing the first punch.
 
When in doubt, its safe to assume I want to see how someone is forming an idea so I have a better picture of what they're trying to say.

You'll need to do the same for me because I'm really not seeing your logic on the rest of your response.

No, they're sending ships to resupply a Union fort that is in need of supplies because the reason for doing so STILL EXISTS.

Hmmm. You put that in all caps. It must be true. Except it isn't.

As I noted in the last post, there are two levels of reasons for sending the ships. Level one is the justification given to the public--the overt reason. That justification is that the garrison is running out of food because the south cut off their normal sources. If the south resumes normal shipments, the justification no longer exists, and the Feds risk the public perception that they are deliberately picking a fight, which they would be.


If you have it so that the supplies are never cut off to begin with, then yes, there's no reason to send the ships, so no mission. But saying that you'll oppose Union efforts to send supplies to a Union fort - something Lincoln has every right to do whether the garrison can buy supplies from Charleston or not - is not a peace gesture.

You put it in bold this time. I don't know if I can oppose the power of the bolded phrase.

Fortunately I don't need to because it's irrelevant. I'm not a neoconfederate, and I honestly believe that Lincoln did have the legal right to resupply that garrison.

However, what matters isn't whether or not you or I feel that Lincoln had the right to send ships in. It's how sending those ships in would play in the north and especially in the border states. I know there are people on this board that think the north was solidly for war and nothing Lincoln could do would affect that because the northern press would spin it as southern aggression. I've also read enough history of the era to know that is not historically true.

While there were people in both the north and south who were not going to be budged from their position, there were also a considerable number who could be swayed by perceptions of 'who started it'. That's the key to the situation. I suspect that Lincoln was a smart enough politician that if the south had resumed food shipments as a 'peace gesture' he would have backed off temporarily until he found a way of getting the south to fire the first shot that didn't make it quite as obvious that he was doing so.

Prohibiting Union ships from supplying the garrison is essentially announcing that you're going to use force to seal it off. At most this is an attempt to stare down the Union, as opposed to skipping to throwing the first punch.

Sort of true. Though the south could and would spin federal ships demanding to enter a major southern harbor when their stated mission had gone away as an unnecessary provocation, which from an objective standpoint it would be.

Looking back at the post, I suspect I come across as a bit of smart-@ss. That's not quite what I'm going for. I'm mildly amused at the vehemence of some of the opinions on this board on issues that were settled nearly 150 years ago. The south lost. It was accepted back as an equal part of the United States. Everybody involved in the fighting or the decision-making is long since dead, as are, for the most part, their children and grandchildren. It's over. It's history, with enough time between the events and now that there is no logical reason to get vehement about it.
 
You'll need to do the same for me because I'm really not seeing your logic on the rest of your response.

Will do what I can to clear it up.

Hmmm. You put that in all caps. It must be true. Except it isn't.

As I noted in the last post, there are two levels of reasons for sending the ships. Level one is the justification given to the public--the overt reason. That justification is that the garrison is running out of food because the south cut off their normal sources. If the south resumes normal shipments, the justification no longer exists, and the Feds risk the public perception that they are deliberately picking a fight, which they would be.
No more than they'd be picking a fight to send the garrison of Fort Whatchamacallit out on the plains supplies. The idea that the government has a right and responsibility to maintain the garrison is still intact, and the ships doing that is not illegitimate. The garrison still needs supplies (being able to buy them from Charleston gives them another source, but it doesn't magically eliminate the need to gain them), so supply ship missions still are relevant.

You put it in bold this time. I don't know if I can oppose the power of the bolded phrase.
Sarcasm does not go over well when pointing out that my writing is more incoherent than usual. Whether this is intentional or not is not the point, but it comes off as unnecessarily grating. Note, if anything in my phrasing is having the same effect, let me know.

Fortunately I don't need to because it's irrelevant. I'm not a neoconfederate, and I honestly believe that Lincoln did have the legal right to resupply that garrison.

However, what matters isn't whether or not you or I feel that Lincoln had the right to send ships in. It's how sending those ships in would play in the north and especially in the border states. I know there are people on this board that think the north was solidly for war and nothing Lincoln could do would affect that because the northern press would spin it as southern aggression. I've also read enough history of the era to know that is not historically true.
Sending those ships would only play as an aggressive act if those ships were doing anything more than sending in supplies.

]
While there were people in both the north and south who were not going to be budged from their position, there were also a considerable number who could be swayed by perceptions of 'who started it'. That's the key to the situation. I suspect that Lincoln was a smart enough politician that if the south had resumed food shipments as a 'peace gesture' he would have backed off temporarily until he found a way of getting the south to fire the first shot that didn't make it quite as obvious that he was doing so.
And the side starting it is the one raising a stink over the fort. How dare the Federals supply it. It is no more outrageous for Lincoln to send supply ships to Fort Sumter than for Britain to send supply ships to Gibraltar. How dare the US try to supply its soldiers overseas (which, assuming the Confederacy is considered a separate country, Fort Sumter has become)

Sort of true. Though the south could and would spin federal ships demanding to enter a major southern harbor when their stated mission had gone away as an unnecessary provocation, which from an objective standpoint it would be.
No, it wouldn't be. The only standpoint it would be a provocation is that of those who think that the Federal ships have no right to enter.

The South can spin it anyway it likes, but it would not be objectively any sort of provocation - except to those who think Lincoln not abandoning the fort is itself provocation (whether said as opposition to Lincoln's policy or to the Union).

Looking back at the post, I suspect I come across as a bit of smart-@ss. That's not quite what I'm going for. I'm mildly amused at the vehemence of some of the opinions on this board on issues that were settled nearly 150 years ago. The south lost. It was accepted back as an equal part of the United States. Everybody involved in the fighting or the decision-making is long since dead, as are, for the most part, their children and grandchildren. It's over. It's history, with enough time between the events and now that there is no logical reason to get vehement about it.
Speaking for myself with no attempt whatsoever to speak for others, I get vehement when dealing with arguments in the form of "the South was right".

And the South is dead wrong in claiming it has any right to demand anything in regards to Fort Sumter.

Could a "we'll agree to let the garrison buy supplies if you don't send any ships to the fort" offer be made? Yes. Would there be people who would see that as a reasonable exchange? Yes. Would that mean that sending such ships is Lincoln attempting to start conflict? No.

It would mean Lincoln refuses to accept the US being dictated to in regards to what it can do to hold and maintain its territory.

One unfinished, under garrisoned, underequiped fort is not much of a threat to Charleston except to the extent those who find any Union soldiers south of some line between the Mason-Dixon and the Carolina border see it as a threat. Even as a fully finished and equipped and manned fort, it is as right for the US to occupy it as for Britain to occupy Gibraltar.

South Carolina is no more threatened by it than Spain is by that outpost of British territory so long as the two are at peace, and if there's war it will - based on developments so far - be because someone decided to remove that disputed spot from what they see as theirs. Same as OTL.

That's the problem. SC is whining that because the US dares occupy the site that its being provocative. That doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.
 
I've found that a lot of Internet disagreements can be resolved by simply defining the issues and figuring out which ones the participants agree and disagree on. There are two issues here:

1) Did the feds have a legal/moral right to supply Fort Sumter. There may be people on this board that argue with that, but I'm not among them, as I clearly stated.

Reaction: Several additional paragraphs on why the feds had a right to resupply Fort Sumter, couched as response to me. Kind of pointless given that we're in agreement on the issue.

2) What would the practical impact of a different southern strategy have been?

Reaction: Crickets chirping in an otherwise empty room.

Look, all of the stuff about how the south was wrong is cool and all, but it's irrelevant to what the original poster asked. It's also irrelevant when responding to my attempt to get the topic back to the original question.

There are a gazillion threads out there on the civil war that degenerated into people typing "the south was right" and "the south was wrong" in bolds and all caps. It's boring. Been done. A thousand frickin mind-numbingly boring times.

Let's do something novel and much more intelligent: Take a look at how an alternate southern strategy might have played out.
 
I've found that a lot of Internet disagreements can be resolved by simply defining the issues and figuring out which ones the participants agree and disagree on. There are two issues here:

1) Did the feds have a legal/moral right to supply Fort Sumter. There may be people on this board that argue with that, but I'm not among them, as I clearly stated.

Reaction: Several additional paragraphs on why the feds had a right to resupply Fort Sumter, couched as response to me. Kind of pointless given that we're in agreement on the issue.

Well, you're the one treating it as if its a questionable thing in your post, so you're the one who had a post directed at them regarding it. This is an attempt at clarification, not further debate on it.

2) What would the practical impact of a different southern strategy have been?

Reaction: Crickets chirping in an otherwise empty room.

Look, all of the stuff about how the south was wrong is cool and all, but it's irrelevant to what the original poster asked. It's also irrelevant when responding to my attempt to get the topic back to the original question.

There are a gazillion threads out there on the civil war that degenerated into people typing "the south was right" and "the south was wrong" in bolds and all caps. It's boring. Been done. A thousand frickin mind-numbingly boring times.

Let's do something novel and much more intelligent: Take a look at how an alternate southern strategy might have played out.
It would depend on what that alternate strategy is. If the South lets Sumter's garrison be supplied (whether from the ships, Charleston, or both), what it is saying is that it is not concerned with Fort Sumter remaining in Federal hands for the time being.

This leaves any remaining Federal installations. Are those also okay?

It does not seem likely that the hotheads of the Confederacy can be restrained forever, and judging by the second wave's so-called conditional unionists, real Unionism - as distinct from those who claim to be Unionists right up until they have to make that more than empty noise - in the Confederacy is generally a minority (a strong minority, but a minority), so its not likely that the Confederate government will be overthrown by them from within any more than was the case OTL.

Tennessee will be interesting. Tennessee if memory serves has already at least partially broken with the US, and its governor is anxious to push it further. How will this work out? What will he do?

And it probably ought to be noted here for want of a better place that if Lincoln is under enough pressure to Do Something that it matters then he also has enough support to attempt more aggressive action.
 
Last edited:
I've found that a lot of Internet disagreements can be resolved by simply defining the issues and figuring out which ones the participants agree and disagree on. There are two issues here:

1) Did the feds have a legal/moral right to supply Fort Sumter. There may be people on this board that argue with that, but I'm not among them, as I clearly stated.

Reaction: Several additional paragraphs on why the feds had a right to resupply Fort Sumter, couched as response to me. Kind of pointless given that we're in agreement on the issue.

2) What would the practical impact of a different southern strategy have been?

Reaction: Crickets chirping in an otherwise empty room.

Look, all of the stuff about how the south was wrong is cool and all, but it's irrelevant to what the original poster asked. It's also irrelevant when responding to my attempt to get the topic back to the original question.

There are a gazillion threads out there on the civil war that degenerated into people typing "the south was right" and "the south was wrong" in bolds and all caps. It's boring. Been done. A thousand frickin mind-numbingly boring times.

Let's do something novel and much more intelligent: Take a look at how an alternate southern strategy might have played out.

The problem is the POD appears to be after firing on the Star of the West. to prevent an immediate likeliness of war breaking out there at that specific place, preventing this incident would be a big part of it.
 
The problem is the POD appears to be after firing on the Star of the West. to prevent an immediate likeliness of war breaking out there at that specific place, preventing this incident would be a big part of it.

Yeah, the Star of the West made war more likely, but it was two or three months before the main Fort Sumter battle, so obviously it wasn't a spark to cause a rush to war.

I suppose that if you wanted to make Fort Sumter as a spark for war less likely you could go with the Buchanan administration appointing someone with less initiative than Anderson (Union commander at Sumter). His arguably unauthorized move from indefensible Fort Moultrie on the mainland to previously unoccupied Fort Sumter turned the garrison from a nuisance to threat from South Carolina's point of view.

Going with the 'resuming food shipments' POD for the moment, the Lincoln administration has to deal with the following possible scenarios:

1) Most desirable: Cooler heads prevail in the south and the fire-eaters lose ground--eventually becoming isolated enough that they could be dealt with without military action. Unfortunately, not likely. Not impossible though, and the most desirable outcome.

2) Almost as desirable: The US is gradually able to reassert sovereignty over the wayward states and pretty much ignores the wayward state governments--eventually arresting a few ringleaders for treason. Again, hard to pull off, but worth working toward.

3) Far less desirable but better than losing the "Wayward Sisters" without a fight: Using a passive-aggressive strategy to goad the secessionists into doing something so blatant that they would alienate the border states and allow the feds to quickly reassert sovereignty over the already seceded states. By passive-aggressive I don't mean immoral or unlawful--simply stuff that puts the confederacy in a position where it either starts a fight or loses ground.

A fight against the deep-south states would be far easier than a fight against those states plus Virginia, North Carolina, etc. That outcome: keeping all of the border states in the union still wouldn't be easy, but with the right maneuvering might be possible.

4) What happened historically: Maneuver the south into firing the first shot, but not in a way that causes the border states to recoil from secession. Unite the north, at least temporarily, but at the cost of having to fight a much more formidable opponent. That's 600,000 dead Americans worth of undesirable, but might be the best outcome that's really feasible. That's what I'm trying to figure out.

5) Even less desirable: Try number 3/4 (passive aggressive strategy) but have it backfire because a lot more northerners and people in the border states perceive it as the feds looking for a fight. If a strategy unites the south and border states against the feds, but doesn't unite the north behind going to war to keep states from seceding, then you end up with the worst of both worlds: a larger confederacy but no concensus to go to war against it. That's what the confederacy would be trying to maneuver Lincoln into with a resumption of food shipments packaged as a peace gesture or a good-will gesture or a gesture of good faith. I'm guessing that Lincoln would be smart enough not to risk that. He would have other ways of asserting federal authority in ways the south would have to respond to.

6) Arguably even less desirable: Actually let the "Wayward Sisters" go without a fight. That's not something Lincoln was going to do if he had a choice, but he did have to marshal opinion behind using force against fellow Americans--not easy to do.
 
I think today's agreed-upon totals are 800,000 in the Confederate armies, 1,200,000 in the Union armies, with of that 1.2 million Union soldiers a total of about half a million from the South, 200,000 whites and 300,000 blacks. It's a pretty impressive total indeed and the only Confederate state not to have *some* soldiers that fought in the Blue was South Carolina.

Small nitpick - South Carolina was the only Confederate state that did not have at least a full regiment of white men serving in the Union army. The did have a full regiment of USCT.

http://www.itd.nps.gov/cwss/regiments.cfm



In OTL, the Confederates did not attack Ft Sumter because it was about to be resupplied. In fact, Major Anderson had already told the Confederates he was almost out of food and would have to surrender in a couple days. CSA President Davis ordered the attack, supported by most of his Cabinet.
 
Small nitpick - South Carolina was the only Confederate state that did not have at least a full regiment of white men serving in the Union army. The did have a full regiment of USCT.

http://www.itd.nps.gov/cwss/regiments.cfm



In OTL, the Confederates did not attack Ft Sumter because it was about to be resupplied. In fact, Major Anderson had already told the Confederates he was almost out of food and would have to surrender in a couple days. CSA President Davis ordered the attack, supported by most of his Cabinet.

Good point. I'll concede that. :eek:
 
Damn! Another case of Jeff Davis being one of the Yankees' greatest weapons! :cool: Could any contemporary secessionist been any worse? :eek:

Hero of Canton

Definitely. Someone like Robert Barnwell Rhett as President of the Confederacy would have been a *big* mess for the South. If the Confederacy began *immediately* as a blatant slaveholders' state class issues would have already been present from the start. Even if it gets larger, one Fort Donelson and the CSA starts having some big messes on its hands with anti-Confederate sentiment.
 
I've proposed that Lincoln instead orders that Sumter being evacuated. Kind of hard to see that happening, though. Withdraw/retreat could only provoke the rebels to go for even more land and territory, perhaps beyond their own borders. Kind of like the "give an inch, take a mile"

Is it possible for Lincoln to actively reinforce Sumter without an outright provocation? Could it be done relatively clandestinely? So that Anderson has a couple thousand more guys (enough to man all his guns, at least) with plenty of provisions to withstand a siege?

Even better, would it be possible to get troops from Virginia there? If it's not Yankees manning the walls? Say... in the interests of promoting harmony and trust to Virginia that he asks the state of Virginia to man the fort. Maybe they still secede and turn it right over to the rebels, but barring Lincoln's call in invade the South and instead just garrison Federal property, he's able to get some more traction?
 
I've proposed that Lincoln instead orders that Sumter being evacuated. Kind of hard to see that happening, though. Withdraw/retreat could only provoke the rebels to go for even more land and territory, perhaps beyond their own borders. Kind of like the "give an inch, take a mile"

Is it possible for Lincoln to actively reinforce Sumter without an outright provocation? Could it be done relatively clandestinely? So that Anderson has a couple thousand more guys (enough to man all his guns, at least) with plenty of provisions to withstand a siege?

A problem there is where the hey two thousand more guys come from. The US army all totaled is 16,000 and I'm not sure Lincoln has cause to call for militia/volunteers.

Even better, would it be possible to get troops from Virginia there? If it's not Yankees manning the walls? Say... in the interests of promoting harmony and trust to Virginia that he asks the state of Virginia to man the fort. Maybe they still secede and turn it right over to the rebels, but barring Lincoln's call in invade the South and instead just garrison Federal property, he's able to get some more traction?

Not with the idea that responding to an attack on the United States is an act of aggression dominating in Virginia and the other late leavers.
 
Top