Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gettysburg: Panic in Pittsburgh, then a nation saved
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ^ | 7/4/13 | Steve Mellon

Posted on 07/08/2013 5:37:15 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden

Just south of Gettysburg, a young soldier named John Nevin leads a Pennsylvania regiment across fields freshly scarred by a horrifically violent, three-day clash between two great armies. Trees are shattered and pocked with holes, crops and orchards mowed down by flying lead, fields trampled by tens of thousands of marching men, fences torn apart. A barn and a house, trapped between the two armies, have burned to the ground.

Nevin sees human slaughter on a massive scale, with an estimated 8,000 killed, many as yet unburied. The dead, Nevin writes, are "strewn around in various forms of horror," the bodies blackening in the summer heat. Rising from the battlefield is a stench that sickens Gettysburg’s residents.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsinteractive.post-gazette.com ...


TOPICS: Education; History; Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: civilwar; gettysburg; kkk; pittsburgh; proslavery; sesquicentennial; whitesupremacists
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last
This is an interactive exposed done for the 150th anniversary of Gettysburg. It is a very long read and is worth it. One of the things the rest of the country may not realize is the panic that went through Pittsburgh during this time. They really thought they were a target for the Confederate army. Pittsburgh at hthat time produced about 90% of the Union Army's cannons and shells. They also produced many other things for the union army (Horse carriages, clothing etc..). It was also a major transportation hub for soldiers ferried on the river.

I've always thought that General Lee was one of our countries greatest tacticians, but he really blew it during the summer months of 1863. Why fight at Gettysburg? He could have easily turned south towards the capital or even an easier victory that would have been to turn west towards Pittsburgh and burn it to the ground. Thereby destroying a lot of the Union's supplies. I'm sure Sun Tszu would have recommended that.

1 posted on 07/08/2013 5:37:15 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

The Confederacy coveted Pittsburgh while the Union had its eyes set on the Hornets Nest of Charlotte. Neither achieved their goals.

Although there were certainly fortifications dug to prepare Pittsburgh for a Confederate assault. The ruins of one can be found not far from where I grew up. The local garrison commander was authorized to hire “as many men as necessary” to dig them. Reportedly a lot of them did not get paid. Some of their families were still trying to collect from the Federal Government as late as the 1970’s.


2 posted on 07/08/2013 5:50:45 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
Why fight at Gettysburg?

Lee's strategy was to engage the enemy and destroy his army in detail.

He fought at Gettysburg because that is where his forces found the Union forces.

If he defeated Meade at Gettysburg and destroyed his army, the only thing standing between the ANV and Washington DC would have been the understrength perimeter troops.

3 posted on 07/08/2013 5:59:20 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
"Some of their families were still trying to collect from the Federal Government as late as the 1970’s."

Why not? The Government gives away money left and right anyways. As of last year, the Federal Government still paid two civil war pensions to sons of veterans.
4 posted on 07/08/2013 6:01:06 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
"Lee's strategy was to engage the enemy and destroy his army in detail."

As I mentioned, I thought Lee was a better General than that. He won former battles by forcing the enemy to fight on his terms, he won by guile and manueverability. He never won any previous battle by fighting on the enemies terms and frontally assaulting fortified positions. No, he got the Union to do that.

The object of war should never be to attempt to destroy an army in detail. Did that work for Hannibal? No greater victory has ever been recorded in the annals of warfare than what Hannibal attained at Cannae. The classic double envelopment. He decimated the Roman Army, yet he still lost the war.

A lesson from our own history. Did the British sacking Washington cause us to lose the War of 1812?
5 posted on 07/08/2013 6:10:51 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wideawake; Old Teufel Hunden

Lee was known to suffer from angina pectoris, and has been said to have been having pains during the battle of Gettysburg. Some historians believe that his angina may have affected his judgement at Gettsyburg. One theory, anyway.


6 posted on 07/08/2013 6:15:18 AM PDT by Hardastarboard (Buck Off, Bronco Bama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

“...A Nation Saved...”

The Civil war marks the end of the Constitution. The Nation died. It has been decomposing ever since.


7 posted on 07/08/2013 6:17:24 AM PDT by Born to Conserve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

Why did Lee attack at Gettysburg?

The historians argue variously that Lee underestimated the Union Army’s strength, as Jeb Stuart’s division was not in position to provide reconnaissance; or, that he was overly confident in his and his men’s ability to defeat the Union Army (due to prior success).

Longstreet, in his memoirs, and aided perhaps by hindsight, says that at a war council he recommended Lee form his army into a defensive position and allow the Yankees to exhaust themselves attacking them. He (Longstreet) argued that the Yankees would have significant forces (by extrapolating the march of Union units from various positions to the site of the battle), and would be able to reinforce the middle of their line since their line bent inward.

Longstreet, who became a Republican after the war, and as commander of police and militia forces, unsuccessfully attempted to prevent the Klan from taking over Louisiana during the reconstruction period, came to be blamed by The Lost Cause for not having his corps ready early enough on the morning of Pickett’s Charge.

The piece is written from the perspective of Pittsburgh, which makes it fresh, although its real focus is the battle. All across the north, Yankees were aroused by the advance of Lee northward, by his commandeering of supplies and his capture of blacks to send them south as slaves. Militia units and volunteers raced to Harrisburg, to be organized into a new army under the command of the Governor, should the Army of the Potomac have been defeated.

Lincoln may have started the war to preserve the Union, but had to issue the Emancipation Proclamation to sustain the support of the people of the North. Historians can debate the real cause of the war, but to the farm boys and town clerks that filled the ranks of the Union Army, the reason was obvious.


8 posted on 07/08/2013 6:26:07 AM PDT by Redmen4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Born to Conserve
"The Civil war marks the end of the Constitution. The Nation died. It has been decomposing ever since."

I don't want to really get into this conversation, but I will reply to this type of discussion only this one time. Mankind's freedom overrides anything in the 10th amendment or States rights. Our declaration of Independence outlined the role of government to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How can men and women in this country have ever enjoyed life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness in the chains of slavery? There are many times when the Federal government oversteps it's bounderies and I'm with you all the way in those times. But protecting the basic rights of men and women is not one of those oversteps.

The Federal government had every right to step in and tell states that slavery needed to be abolished then. Just as it did 100 years later to protect the basic human rights of blacks during the civil rights period of the 1960s.
9 posted on 07/08/2013 6:28:06 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Redmen4ever
"The historians argue variously that Lee underestimated the Union Army’s strength, as Jeb Stuart’s division was not in position to provide reconnaissance;"

All the more reason he should have been hesitant to engage the Army of the Potomac at Gettysburg. Lack of intelligence means he should have excercised more caution. It started out as just a skirmish, one of many that was going on all throughout June as Lee's forces marched north. He chose to make it something larger. I'm glad he did, because he signed the beginning of the end.

On another note, even if he had beaten the Army of the Potomac there, I believe it would have been inevitable that the south would have still lost. It just would have been longer and more painful.
10 posted on 07/08/2013 6:34:42 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
He won former battles by forcing the enemy to fight on his terms, he won by guile and manueverability.

This is too vague a description.

He never won any previous battle by fighting on the enemies terms and frontally assaulting fortified positions. No, he got the Union to do that.

He won Chancellorsville by engaging the Union forces with an extremely bloody frontal assault on Hooker's fortified position, while Jackson flanked the Union position.

The object of war should never be to attempt to destroy an army in detail.

Let's hold that thought for a moment - leaving aside the fact that this is precisely the successful strategy that Grant pursued against Lee.

Did the British sacking Washington cause us to lose the War of 1812?

So you've argued that destroying armies is a bad strategy and also that seizing territory is a bad strategy.

This leaves, as far as I can tell, a third option - destroying supply lines, something that Lee never cared much about (he preferred to use enemy supply lines if he could).

11 posted on 07/08/2013 6:35:33 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Hardastarboard
Lee was known to suffer from angina pectoris, and has been said to have been having pains during the battle of Gettysburg.

Correct. However, he was just as sick at Chancellorsville.

12 posted on 07/08/2013 6:38:22 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
"This is too vague a description."

If you would like specifics, okay. Fredricksburg is one. He fought them to a standstill and some say a moral victory at Antitiem. Both of these battles, he got the Union Army to fight on his ground.

"extremely bloody frontal assault on Hooker's fortified position, while Jackson flanked the Union position."

Thanks for making my point. What won Chancellorsville? It was the flanking manuever by Stonewall that eventually cost him his life. This was exactly what I was thinking about when I talked about winning by guile and deception.

"leaving aside the fact that this is precisely the successful strategy that Grant pursued against Lee."

You called me out for being vague then you come back with a vague answer. That's funny. However, there is truth to the fact that Grant pursued a very bloody and frontal strategy. However, his bloody strategy in the end was combined with the fact that the south ran out of supplies to fight with. Lee could not get re-supplied and was outmanuevered and surrounded.

"So you've argued that destroying armies is a bad strategy and also that seizing territory is a bad strategy."

No, I've argued that destroying armies is a bad strategy for winning a war. Wars are won by defeating the enemies will and or ability to fight. Defeating them politically or cutting off their ability to fight. Which goal would have achieved that more, you tell me? Defeating Meade's army or sacking Washington or Pittsburgh.
13 posted on 07/08/2013 6:45:53 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

I also recommend some of the short stories of Thomas Wolfe whose father was a witness to the Gettysburg battle. Amazing tales and some humor too.


14 posted on 07/08/2013 6:50:38 AM PDT by miss marmelstein ( Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

“One of the things the rest of the country may not realize is the panic that went through Pittsburgh during this time.”

Of course, “the rest of the country may not realize the panic” that all Southern citizens went through after John Brown’s raid; after all the threats from Northern newspapers, the Union congress’ early financing of war material, the Union senators’ threats from the floor of the “all the peoples, by the peoples, and for the peoples” government buildings, and Lincoln’s inaugural promise to invade if the tariffs were not paid.

The “panic” you described was overstated and irrelevant to what the Southern citizens and their government anticipated.


15 posted on 07/08/2013 7:11:46 AM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
This was exactly what I was thinking about when I talked about winning by guile and deception.

The frontal assault at Chancellorsville was accompanied by a flanking movement from Jackson.

The frontal assault at Gettysburg was intended to be accompanied by a flanking attack by Hampton and Stuart.

There was "guile and deception" at Gettysburg too. It was unsuccessful.

You called me out for being vague then you come back with a vague answer. That's funny.

It's not vague at all. Grant's strategy was quite specific: destroy the ANV.

However, his bloody strategy in the end was combined with the fact that the south ran out of supplies to fight with. Lee could not get re-supplied and was outmanuevered and surrounded.

Lee began Grant's Overland campaign with 65,00 men.

28,000 men surrendered at Appomattox Court House.

If Lee had been supplied in time and lived to fight another day, Grant would have pounded him again and made the ANV smaller again.

Lee running out of supplies was a good break for Grant, but if it hadn't worked out, Grant would have continued to pursue his strategy: destroy the ANV.

Which goal would have achieved that more, you tell me? Defeating Meade's army or sacking Washington or Pittsburgh.

Defeating Meade's army, which may have forced an evacuation of Washington.

Even then, I see no scenario under which the South would have won the war.

16 posted on 07/08/2013 7:18:35 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
If he defeated Meade at Gettysburg and destroyed his army, the only thing standing between the ANV and Washington DC would have been the understrength perimeter troops.

Lee did not destroy the Union army at Second Bull Run, or Fredericksburg, or during the Seven Days battles, or at Antietam or Chancellorsville. What makes you think he would have destroyed it in Pennsylvania?

17 posted on 07/08/2013 7:19:02 AM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O
What makes you think he would have destroyed it in Pennsylvania?

At Chancellorsville, Lee confronted a Union Army of 130,000 with 60,000 men.

At Gettysburg, he had 70,000 men and the Union had about 95,000.

If he could reduce the Army of the Potomac's effectives by 30% after one battle with such great odds, he had good reason to believe he could have even more success on more even terms.

Lee's forces took almost 6,000 prisoners of war at Chancellorsville and had to let thousands of others go because they did not have the manpower.

Had he split Meade's army at Gettysburg, he could have done some absolutely brutal damage.

18 posted on 07/08/2013 7:32:27 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
"Even then, I see no scenario under which the South would have won the war."

Again, thanks for making my point. Defeating Meade at Gettysburg would not have furthered the South's goals of winning the war. However, depriving the North's ability to fight (i.e. sacking their means of making artillery pieces by destroying 90% of their artillery making ability in Pittsburgh) would have been fruitful towards that goal.
19 posted on 07/08/2013 7:33:20 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
However, depriving the North's ability to fight (i.e. sacking their means of making artillery pieces by destroying 90% of their artillery making ability in Pittsburgh) would have been fruitful towards that goal.

That would have caused a temporary supply interruption.

Destroying Meade's army and threatening Washington might - might - have given the UK government political cover to intervene in the Union blockade.

Ultimately I think this would have failed as well, because the US government would probably have just relocated to New York or Boston and have won over UK public opinion to the point where the UK would not have risked further escalation.

20 posted on 07/08/2013 7:50:27 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Civil war armies were pretty resiliant organizations, capable of taking large losses time and again and coming back. Short of penning the army up and forcing it to surrender, as Grant did at Donelson and Vickburg, there was no real way to destroy an army.

But say Lee had managed to badly defeat Meade at Gettysburg, would he have taken Washington or Baltimore? No. Had he won then he would do what he did following defeat, go home. What choice did he have? He was deep in Northern territory without a supply line. He would have had thousands of wounded to care for. He would have shot off most of his ammunition. He would have had the Army of the Potomac, wounded but still dangerous, in the area. He would have had no choice but to go back to Virginia.

21 posted on 07/08/2013 7:54:54 AM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
"That would have caused a temporary supply interruption."

Not, it would have caused a major supply interruption. It would have dragged the war on for years IMO. As for England, the political leaders would have loved for the south to win. It would have been good for Britian. For one thing, their textile industry depended on the South's cotton. For another thing, breaking up the fledgling America would have eliminated a potential rival on the world stage. However, England was very anti-slavery and public opinion would have never supported England's direct involvement in the war on the South's side.
22 posted on 07/08/2013 7:57:57 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
I've always thought that General Lee was one of our countries greatest tacticians, but he really blew it during the summer months of 1863. Why fight at Gettysburg?

The armies blundered into one another by accident. Gettysburg was not a planned event, but born of the of of war...

the infowarrior

23 posted on 07/08/2013 8:04:10 AM PDT by infowarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O
Civil war armies were pretty resiliant organizations, capable of taking large losses time and again and coming back. Short of penning the army up and forcing it to surrender, as Grant did at Donelson and Vickburg, there was no real way to destroy an army.

Grant whittled away the ANV pretty well in 1865 without having them penned up.

But say Lee had managed to badly defeat Meade at Gettysburg, would he have taken Washington or Baltimore? No.

That is not a foregone conclusion.

Had he won then he would do what he did following defeat, go home. What choice did he have? He was deep in Northern territory without a supply line.

As Sherman found out about a year later, you did not need to have a supply line.

Lee's mentality after a victory was not to go home and wait for the next battle, but to press on.

He would have had thousands of wounded to care for.

He would have sent them to Virginia.

He would have shot off most of his ammunition.

Which he would have replenished from Union stores.

He would have had the Army of the Potomac, wounded but still dangerous, in the area.

Not if his plan to defeat it in detail had worked.

Again, I believe Lee's campaign would have eventually ended in defeat.

But he did not invade Pennsylvania with the intent of running straight back home.

He was looking for a major strategic victory.

24 posted on 07/08/2013 8:06:23 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
Not, it would have caused a major supply interruption. It would have dragged the war on for years IMO.

When there are fat, guaranteed government contracts to be had, manufacturers move very quickly.

A year, certainly. Multiple years? I'm not sold on that one.

25 posted on 07/08/2013 8:09:09 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: infowarrior
"The armies blundered into one another by accident. Gettysburg was not a planned event, but born of the of of war..."

That's true in the beginning. However, the armies were fighting skirmishes throughout Maryland all through June. This started as just anothher skirmish. Lee chose to bring his troops in and enlarge it to something bigger. Why? There was no reason. They could have easily disengaged after the first day and the Union had established their defensive position. He did not have to bring his whole army there.
26 posted on 07/08/2013 8:16:52 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
"When there are fat, guaranteed government contracts to be had, manufacturers move very quickly."

Cannon's were made of iron back then. There's a reason that Pittsburgh became the iron and steel capital. It has a unique set of qualities (coal, water, natural resources) that made it this way. In 1863, it would have taken years to re-build the foundries and mills necessary to make these cannons. No matter what guaranteed big fat contracts said. That was a simplistic answer born of lack of understanding.
27 posted on 07/08/2013 8:21:10 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
As Sherman found out about a year later, you did not need to have a supply line.

Sherman was not facing a Confederate army on his march and didn't fight a pitched battle.

Lee's mentality after a victory was not to go home and wait for the next battle, but to press on.

Then why didn't he press on after Chancellorsville?

He would have sent them to Virginia.

He had no supply line established.

Which he would have replenished from Union stores.

Union stores where?

28 posted on 07/08/2013 8:37:09 AM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
That was a simplistic answer born of lack of understanding.

Not really. Destroying mills and foundries is a setback.

But taking Pittsburgh would not have meant an end to the Union's supplies of iron ore, or coking coal or water.

There were large foundries in Massachusetts, not as well-located as Pittsburgh, but still productive.

Pittsburgh's greatest advantage was Rodman's patented process which gave it a technological edge. That edge was transferable in an emergency.

I'm not sure how well you understand Pittsburgh's role in all this - it was not a magical place. It had great advantages which made it a very economical area to forge iron and therefore a place that attracted engineering talent.

29 posted on 07/08/2013 8:37:19 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O
Sherman was not facing a Confederate army on his march and didn't fight a pitched battle.

Lee was facing an army, and was able to gather quite a bit of stores locally despite that fact.

Then why didn't he press on after Chancellorsville?

He did. He went to Gettysburg. Within a couple of weeks of Chancellorsville he was already advancing northward. Brandy Station took place on June 9th.

He had no supply line established.

Indeed he did. So well established, in fact, that his troops had time to capture and send to Virginia black Pennsylvanians as "contraband." If he had the resources to kidnap people and ship them South, surely he could have used those same resources to send wounded men along the same route.

Union stores where?

The Allegheny Arsenal (still being restocked), Harpers Ferry (already worked once) and the Washington Arsenal.

30 posted on 07/08/2013 8:48:27 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
"I'm not sure how well you understand Pittsburgh's role in all this - it was not a magical place."

It made 90% of the Unions cannons and shells. That's just a fact, nothing magical about it. Replacing that in 1863 is not as easy as you seem to think.
31 posted on 07/08/2013 9:09:06 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
It made 90% of the Unions cannons and shells. That's just a fact, nothing magical about it.

Not sure if that is "just a fact."

Do you have a source for that statistic?

Regardless, Pittsburgh's contribution was very large. If it had gone, other foundries and mills in the US would have expanded their output and capacity to fill the gap.

When the supplier who has the best cost advantage exits the market, the supplier who has the second best cost advantage wins.

There would have been a period of dislocation, but there would also have been strong incentive to shorten that dislocation period.

Replacing that in 1863 is not as easy as you seem to think.

The first coke-fired smelter in Pittsburgh was built in 1859, less than two years later it was the industry standard in Pittsburgh.

If the city converted its entire base to a new technology in less than two years, I believe that other areas would move quickly to ramp up.

32 posted on 07/08/2013 9:26:30 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
Lincoln’s inaugural promise to invade if the tariffs were not paid.

His actual words:

I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.

In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.

The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised, according to circumstances actually existing and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections.

Such vicious threats!

33 posted on 07/08/2013 1:21:31 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Redmen4ever
Lincoln may have started the war to preserve the Union, but had to issue the Emancipation Proclamation to sustain the support of the people of the North.

Just recently discovered Jeff Davis' official response to Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. Issued January 5, 1863, four days after the EP.

We can, I guess, call it the Enslavement Proclamation.

In it he announces official CSA policy is to enslave all free blacks presently in the South, as well as any free blacks or escaped slaves they are able to capture when invading northern states. And he officially states that these kidnapped people and their issue will be slaves forever.

Utterly destroys the notion that there was "no difference" in Union and Confederate attitudes towards blacks. In the same week one government issues a proclamation of its intention to forever free all black slaves it can reach, and the other announces its intention to forever enslave all black people, free or slave, it can get its hands on.

http://corematerials.homestead.com/files/jd63.pdf

34 posted on 07/08/2013 1:30:36 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Yes, they were vicious, and here is the reason why.

In his Inaugural Address, Lincoln stated that it was his duty “to collect the duties and imposts,” but beyond that “there will be no invasion of any state.”

What that really meant was that he was saying that if the seceded states failed to collect and pay the newly-doubled tariff rates, as the South Carolinians did with respect to the 1828 Tariff of Abominations, there would be an invasion.

He was true to his word.

4/8/1861 Armed Coast Guard revenue cutter, Harriet Lane, put out to sea from New York with sealed orders.

4/9/1861 The steam transports Illinois and Baltic got to sea. The Illinois carried 300 troops and the Baltic had 200. The Powhatan had sailed on the 7th with 358 troops. The Pawnee left from Norfolk with 10 guns and 200 troops.

He instructed Fox to fight his way in if opposed.

Fighting is vicious work.

35 posted on 07/08/2013 2:04:28 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge

Less than 1100 troops total, when the CSA and SC forces in the area were over 6,000, not to mention tens of thousands more that could quickly have been brought to bear.

Yup, sounds much more like a definitive plan to invade and conquer SC than a plan to reinforce and hold a fort owned by the USA.


36 posted on 07/08/2013 2:10:16 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
The “panic” you described was overstated and irrelevant to what the Southern citizens and their government anticipated.

Your screed was overstated and irrelevant to the article.

37 posted on 07/08/2013 2:14:24 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

I see you now agree that there was a large military and naval force ordered to enter Charleston Harbor. This was an act of war unapproved by the government.

His speech revealed his vicious intent.


38 posted on 07/08/2013 2:18:46 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
Gettysburg: Panic in Pittsburgh, Then a Nation Saved
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
By Steve Mellon

... In decades to come, "Mellon" will become one of the city’s, and country’s, most prominent names. ...

______________

Uh ... okay ...

39 posted on 07/08/2013 2:18:49 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x
I am sure that all here very much appreciate your notion.
40 posted on 07/08/2013 2:20:46 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
This was an act of war unapproved by the government.

I assume you mean to say Congress.

But of course Congressional approval is not required for the President to move troops between US facilities.

For it to be an act of war it would have required the president to agree that SC had actually seceded and was now (part of) another country.

Which of course neither Buchanan nor Lincoln ever conceded.

Your argument that it was an act of war is therefore a classic example of a well-known logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

41 posted on 07/08/2013 2:26:32 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge

I know that I appreciate it every time someone gives you a swat with a rolled up newspaper ;-)


42 posted on 07/08/2013 2:37:33 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: x
"Uh ... okay ..."

He meant Andrew Mellon silly!!! : )
43 posted on 07/08/2013 3:02:02 PM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Not quite, Washington DC was one of the most heavily defended cities on the planet at the time. It was ringed with over 50 forts, with 800 cannon, with 20 miles of rifle trenches and hundreds of battery emplacements. Nearly 40,000 men manned these works. this large concentration of troops in Capitol meant that these men were not available to reinforce Army of the Potomac as it marched north. General Hooker resigned as the AOPs commander because Washington would not release any of the garrison to the AOP.


44 posted on 07/08/2013 5:59:10 PM PDT by X Fretensis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: X Fretensis

Actually, Hooker “resigned” over the Harpers Ferry garrison.


45 posted on 07/08/2013 6:03:48 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

agree about the South losing in the End. Grant had just captured Vicksburg, Bragg was retreating before Rosecrans.
Heard someone liken Lee’s efforts in the East as saving the front porch while the rest of the house burnt down.


46 posted on 07/08/2013 6:05:15 PM PDT by X Fretensis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

Doubt that lee could have “sacked Washington DC” The city was heavily fortified and well manned. Besieging the City would have required a steady supply line for ammunition, provisions. It would also have locked lee into a position that he could not defend Richmond from the Union forces already on the Peninsula. Lee probably would not have even considered attacking Pittsburg, geographically 150 miles from Gettysburg over the Alleghany mountain. No line of communication with the Confederacy and no clear retreat path back to Virginia. Though he would probably endorsed this action by Bragg and the Army of the Tennessee.


47 posted on 07/08/2013 6:24:30 PM PDT by X Fretensis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

“Union stores Where? The Allegany Arsenal was at Pittsburg, 150 miles away over the Allegany Mountains,
The Harpers Ferry Arsenal had been in Confederate hand since September 1862 all of its machinery had been moved to Richmond and was no longer in the arms manufacturing business. The Washington Arsenal is a possibility, but only if General Lee could bust through the fortified lines around DC. Unlikely because if for no other reason, he had expended most of his artillery ammunition at Gettysburg.


48 posted on 07/08/2013 6:34:45 PM PDT by X Fretensis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

And failure to keep Lee out of Washington DC would have meant murder of government officials, burning of government buildings, and destruction of government records.

They didn’t want to ‘just be left along’. They wanted the whole US to be subject to the slave power.


49 posted on 07/08/2013 9:19:57 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: X Fretensis

Washington’s defenses were second to those at Richmond, built by slave labor and at the direction of RE Lee.


50 posted on 07/08/2013 9:21:46 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson