Why did lincoln inform the confederacy that he would be sending troops or weapons as food were sent to fort sumter?

The correct answer is "to convince the Confederacy that he did not intend any military actions. "

Lincoln informed the Confederacy that he would not be sending troops or weapons as food supplies were sent to Fort Sumter.

Fort Sumpter was located in Charleston, South Carolina. President Abrahan Lincoln wanted to send a clear message that he had no intentions to start an armed conflict there when he informed the Confederacy that he would not be sending troops or weapons as food supplies were sent to Fort Sumter.  

Unfortunately, Fort Sumpter held two battles during the Civil War. The first one started on April 12, 1861. The second one was on September 18, 1863. Many lives were lost during those battles.  

The other options of the question were, a) to allow the Confederacy to retain full ownership of the fort, c) to give the Confederacy a false sense of security and then attack, and d) to inform the Confederacy of his desire to open fighting.

they both wanted to stop protestantism, they felt a call in life and it was to strengthen the church. charles used inquisition, philip used army's, charles gave control to outsiders, philip centralized all power.

hope this you !

a hypothesis is an expected answer to a question, usually based on some theory or prior research. hypothesis testing is a method of determining the viability of a hypothesis. let’s use the us presidential election as an example. there are many hypotheses (questions) about how people feel or whom they will vote for. the only way to know the 100% “truth” about the answers to these questions is to ask every single possible voter – something that is impossible, expensive, time consuming etc. instead, we take samples and use statistics to make “best guesses” about the answer to a particular hypothesis. we never know for sure if our conclusion is right at the time we accept/reject it, but these techniques, when used appropriately can get us close to the truth most of the time (which is a lot better than guessing, flipping coins or throwing darts to get answers).

the tricky part about hypothesis testing is that we have to think somewhat backwards about it – we have to test what is known as the “null hypothesis”. as an example, the hypothesis might be “obama is more popular than romney” while the null hypothesis is “there is no difference in popularity between obama and romney”. we focus on the null hypothesis because it tells us exactly what the expected value of our tests should be (obama popularity = romney popularity) and we can collect data and see if it comes out that way (see next section on “significance”). if it does, then we “accept the null hypothesis” and reject our original hypothesis. if the null hypothesis is disproven, we look at the data to see if our original hypothesis holds (obama> romney).