The Civil War News & Views Open Discussion Forum

Re: Legal opinions
In Response To: Re: Legal opinions ()

Date: Tuesday, 20 July 2010, 10:43 am In Response To: Re: Legal opinions (David Upton)
I want Chuck to post Anderson's orders>

OR Series 1, vol. 1 page 89-90
FORT MOULTRIE, S.C., December 11, 1860.
Memorandum of verbal instructions to Major Anderson, First Artillery, commanding at Fort Moultrie, S.C.
You are aware of the great anxiety of the Secretary of War that a collision-of the troops with the people of this State shall be avoided, and of his studied determination to pursue a course with reference to the military force and forts in this harbor which shall guard against such a collision. He has therefore carefully abstained from increasing the force at this point, or taking any measures which might add to the present excited state of the public mind, or which would throw any doubt on the confidence he feels that South Carolina will not attempt, by violence, to obtain possession of the public works or interfere with their occupancy. But as the counsel and acts of rash and impulsive persons may possibly disappoint those expectations of the Government, he deems it proper that you should be prepared with instructions to meet so unhappy a contingency. He has therefore directed me verbally to give you such instructions.(*)
You are carefully to avoid every act which would needlessly tend to provoke aggression; and for that reason you are not, without evident and imminent necessity, to take up any position which could be construed into the assumption of a hostile attitude. But you are to hold possession of the forts in this harbor, and if attacked you are to defend yourself to the last extremity. The smallness of your force will not permit you, perhaps, to occupy more than one of the three forts, but an attack on or attempt to take possession of any one of them will be regarded as an act of hostility, and you may then put your command into either of them which you may deem most proper to increase its power of resistance. You are also authorized to take similar steps whenever you have tangible evidence of a design to proceed to a hostile act.
D.C. BUELL, Assistant Adjutant-General.
(*) see also Floyd to anderson, December 21, 1860m abd Holt to Anderson, February 23, 1861,post (Holt to Anderson not found in the OR's)
S1,V1 page 103
WAR DEPARTMENT,
Washington, December 21, 1860.
Major ANDERSON,
First Artillery, Commanding Fort Moultrie, S.C.:
SIR: In the verbal instructions communicated to you by Major Buell,(+) you are directed to hold possession of the forts in the harbor of Charleston, and, if attacked, to defend yourself to the last extremity. Under these instructions, you might infer that you are required to make a vain and useless sacrifice of your own life and the lives of the men under your command, upon a mere point of honor. This is far from the President's intentions. You are to exercise a sound military discretion on this subject.
It is neither expected nor desired that you should expose your own life or that of your men in a hopeless conflict in defense of these forts. If they are invested or attacked by a force so superior that resistance would, in your judgment, be a useless waste of life, it will be your duty to yield to necessity, and make the best terms in your power.
This will be the conduct of an honorable, brave, and humane officer, and you will be fully justified in such action. These orders are strictly confidential, and not to be communicated even to the officers under your command, without close necessity.(++)
Very respectfully,
JOHN B. FLOYD.
(+) See Buell's memorandium, December 11, 1860, pg 89
(++) This letter was delivered to Major Anderson, December 23, by Capt. John Withers A.A.G.
-----------

The source has already been posted, via Bob Huddleston post on the ownership of Sumter.

Messages In This Thread

Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions
Re: Legal opinions