The Civil War News & Views Open Discussion Forum

Re: May 6, 2011
In Response To: Re: May 6, 2011 ()

Fort Sumter today is about 1/3 to 1/4 the size it was in 1860. What is left is a percentage of the parade level or 1st Tier. A ship could have easily hid behind it in 1860. However, again, no attempt to reenforce Fort Sumter under Fox's plan included such a scenario. Since we are comparing C-130s to steamships, the Confederate batteries were not laser guided 5inch 45's, 120mm's, or Harpoon missles either. Farragut's wooden steam ships at the Battle of Mobile Bay passed much more powerful batteries, at a slower speed, and at a closer range than that of 1861 Charleston with no lossed in ships to gun fire- mainly due to their return fire (i.e. something Fort Sumter could have provided.) The U.S.S. Hartford was hit dozens of times but was not sunk or stopped by rifled shell fire or solid shot.

I agree with you, if Lincoln truely intended in "supplying" Fort Sumter he could have done so either covertly or by simply contracting a supply ship, or ordering Anderson to accept supplies from Charleston which was offered to him by the Governor of South Carolina and refused. Or if he truely intended in reenforcing Fort Sumter he would have not put a civilian off the street (working in a wool mill) to command an amphibious assault force, and then secretly ham-string the operation by taking away his assualt force, (in this way, no one in the government could be directly blamed for the coming disaster- but the desired effect would be made).

_______________________
David Upton

Messages In This Thread

May 6, 2011
Re: May 6, 2011
Re: May 6, 2011
Re: May 6, 2011
Re: May 6, 2011
Re: May 6, 2011
Re: May 6, 2011
Re: May 6, 2011
Re: May 6, 2011
Re: May 6, 2011
Re: May 6, 2011
Re: May 6, 2011
LOL!
Re: May 6, 2011
Re: May 6, 2011
Re: May 6, 2011
Re: May 6, 2011
Re: May 6, 2011
Re: May 6, 2011
Re: May 6, 2011
Re: May 6, 2011
Re: May 6, 2011
Re: May 6, 2011
Re: May 6, 2011
Re: May 6, 2011
Re: May 6, 2011
Re: May 6, 2011
Re: May 6, 2011
Re: May 6, 2011
Re: May 6, 2011
Re: May 6, 2011
Re: May 6, 2011