Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 7:45 AM ET, 12/27/2010

Joan Waugh: Was Major Robert Anderson's decision to abandon Ft. Moultrie and move his troops to Ft. Sumter his best option?

By Joan Waugh

Professor of history at UCLA

Waugh

Kentucky-born Anderson, commander of the modestly sized United States garrison stationed in the Charleston, S.C. harbor, was in a difficult situation after Lincoln’s election in 1860.

Bereft of strong policy instructions by the Buchanan administration, Anderson began mulling his options that fateful November. He asked for reinforcements from the War Department, and began making contingency plans (kept in strict secrecy) to move his officers and men from the indefensible Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter, the unfinished man-made island standing guard over Charleston Harbor’s main channel. He believed that he had the President’s authorization to make this decision, if necessary.

South Carolina’s secession brought a new urgency to an already tense situation. Anderson and his men were now considered “foreign occupiers” by the seceded states, and Southern leaders were pressuring the governor, Francis Pickens, to remove the Federal troops from the Harbor as quickly as possible. Removal would send a powerful signal to the world confirming the legitimacy of Confederate nationality. Abandonment of the forts, on the other hand, would reveal the weakness of the United States in the face of rebellion.

On December 24, three representatives appointed by Governor Pickens arrived in Washington City to request negotiations for turning the forts over to South Carolina control. Unknown to them, to Pickens, and to the Buchanan administration, Major Anderson was putting the final touches on his escape. Under cover of night on December 26, he loaded all of his men onto boats, rowed across to Fort Sumter. Once landed, he immediately set his troops to work strengthening the island’s fortifications.

The next morning Charleston residents awoke to the stunning news of Anderson’s bold move to secure the federal presence in their Harbor. Refusing the governor’s request to abandon Fort Sumter, Anderson settled in, and waited for instructions from his superiors. Buchanan and his cabinet were equally stunned by Anderson’s action, but after deliberating for some time, decided to leave him on Fort Sumter. South Carolina troops seized control of Fort Moultrie and Castle Pinckney (the third fort in the Harbor) while Pickens ordered battery units assembled, preparing for attack if necessary. All the elements were now assembled for the dramatic decision the new president would have to make in the New Year.

Was Anderson’s move to Fort Sumter his best option? Yes. He was a realist, fully aware that he would have to surrender sooner or later. Anderson made the best decision he could for his country, preserving a symbol of United States sovereignty over South Carolina until the bitter end. Major Anderson found that his loyalty and patriotism for the Union were stronger than his ties to the southern cause.





By Joan Waugh  | December 27, 2010; 7:45 AM ET
Categories:  Views  | Tags:  Joan Waugh  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Frank J. Williams: Was Maj. Robert Anderson's decision to abandon Ft. Moultrie and move his troops to Ft. Sumter his best decision?
Next: Message in bottle carries bad news

Comments

At that time, Presidents took office in March, not January as is now the case. Anderson's actions bought time for the Buchanan administration to be over and the Lincoln admin to take control. Anderson & later Lincoln maneuvered the Confederacy into firing the first shot. This was their fatal flaw, since it united the Union against the Confederacy and made people willing to fight & die for the preservation of the Union. It was NOT a war of Union conquest, for the loyal states, it was a war to preserve the Union. For the Confederacy, it was a war to protect slavery.

Posted by: cyberfool | December 30, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company