Posted on 06/23/2016 2:04:08 PM PDT by ColdOne
Like many schooled by our Marxist education system, you are utterly confused about the differences between Democrats and Republicans.
In fact, all of those disasters were brought to you by Democrats, the very same people who declared secession and war on the United States in 1861.
I figured out that it was pointless to argue with you when you compared Ft. Sumter to Pearl Harbor. And now you are pushing this "Marxist" spiel?
The reaction you get from me is that you don't seem to have both oars in the water.
Of course every word of that was rubbish & nonsense, as Davis well knew, because by April 29, 1861 pro-Confederates had already:
Within a few weeks after April 29,1861 Confederates would:
Those were not the actions of a peaceful leader who only wants to be "let alone".
They are more like the actions of a burglar who wants to be "let alone" to do his dirty work.
No, it's not just "someone else's fault", it is specifically the fault of Jefferson Davis and his Confederate leadership, because:
DiogenesLamp: "...and none of the blame for the destruction and aftermath should fall on the heads of the invaders or their descendants."
"or their descendants???"
What kind of insane talk is that?
Nobody outside black-reparationists blames today's descendants for events over 150 years ago, and reparationists are certifiably insane.
So what are you DiogenesLamp, nuts?
DiogenesLamp: "I figured out that it was pointless to argue with you when you compared Ft. Sumter to Pearl Harbor.
And now you are pushing this "Marxist" spiel?"
Fort Sumter and Pearl Harbor were precisely the same in their effects on Americans' public opinion and leadership.
They were also similar militarily, sorry if that disturbs you, but facts remain facts regardless of how you feel about them.
As for your Marxism, there's no doubt in my mind that you've been indoctrinated somewhere by somebody with foul intentions, and I suspect Marxists because of your relentless focus on Northern economic factors, to the exclusion of all else, along with your constant war-hoops against 19th century capitalists.
DiogenesLamp, your mind & values are messed up, you don't share all the values of normal conservatives, so I'd be curious why you think you are one.
DiogenesLamp: "The reaction you get from me is that you don't seem to have both oars in the water."
The reaction you get from me is that you don't seem to have both oars in the water.
I believe I have found some clarification on this point. It is worse than you describe. The order sent to all the ships of the expedition, (USS Thomas Freeborn, Uncle Ben, USS Yankee, USS Baltic, USS Pocahontas, USS Pawnee, USRC Harriet Lane, and the USS Powhatan) were:
From Gideon Welles, United States Secretary of the Navy. April 5, 1861.
“The United States [Navy] steamers Powhatan, Pawnee, Pocahontas, and Harriet Lane will compose a naval force under your command, to be sent to the vicinity of Charleston Harbor, for the purpose of. . . carrying out the objects of an expedition of which the War Department has charge (Scott is supplying the men and material and transports, Fox is to lead them.).The primary object. . . is to provision Fort Sumter. . . Should the authorities at Charleston refuse to permit, or attempt to prevent the vessels from entering. . .you will protect the transports or boats, open the way for their ingress, and [remove] all obstructions to entry. . . The expedition has been intrusted to Captain G. V. Fox, with whom you will put yourself in communication. . .
You will leave New York with the Powhatan in time to be off Charleston bar, ten miles distant from and due east of the lighthouse. . . there to await the arrival of the transports (with Fox on board). . . The Pawnee, Pocahontas, and Harriet Lane will be ordered to join you. . . “
This clearly says to use force to open the way for their ingress, and [remove] all obstructions to entry
The Powhatan was the lead ship. It was the command ship. All the other ships were led to believe that it would be joining them off Charleston, and that they were to wait until it got there.
Had the Powhatan arrived as expected, the mission would have proceeded to force a landing at the Fort through the teeth of the Confederate guns. That would likely have killed most everyone on those ships.
These were the orders that were public knowledge among these sailors, outfitters, dock hands, and so forth, and it is unquestionable that the South was told of what those orders consisted.
The Powhatan was last to leave, and just before it left, David Porter shows up with a secret order from Lincoln authorizing him to take command of the Vessel and sail it to Pensacola. None of the other ships have knowledge of this, and their orders compel them to sit off the coast of Charleston waiting for the Powhatan, which is never going to come.
This warship flotilla is effectively paralyzed into inaction but it's leaked orders indicate it will attack when the Powhatan joins it. Again, the Powhatan was never going to join it. The Attack orders were intended to provoke the Confederates but were never truly intended to be carried out.
Lincoln cleverly used the Powhatan as the hidden key to stopping the attack, but neither the Confederates nor the other Union ships knew of this.
Lincoln could pretend to be "sending bread to Anderson" even though he his Secretary of the Navy had clearly issued belligerent orders that were conditional on the arrival of the Powhatan.
But those ships never were going to unload supplies for Anderson because the Powhatan never was going to show up to meet them. Lincoln clearly had no intentions that those ships should ever land any supplies at all. The only reason they were there was to scare the Confederates into believing they were about to be attacked.
Plus the tugs that had been obtained to deliver the supplies to the fort had not shown up. The tugs had been delayed or prevented from proceeding by the same storm and rough seas that had delayed some of the larger ships of Lincoln's armada.
Although there were no tugs, the Pawnee had a boat that could carry in supplies. However, the heavy and rough seas were a problem for the Union ships that might provide cover for the Pawnee supply boat. The Baltic itself had already run aground in heavy swells on a shoal off the harbor and took time to get free.
From Maury Klein's excellent book, Days of Defiance"
Everyone [on the Union ships] had wanted to assist Sumter regardless of the batteries, but without pilots, buoys, or marks they dared not make the attempt.
Sumpter [sic] on the one side and the Fleet off the North Channel on the other, will effectively cover any relieving expedition, whether of open boats, tugs, or small vessels, from any maritime attack, and confine all resisting operations to the land batteries. Experience has shown -- as in the case of Gen. WILKINSON’S passage down the St. Lawrence during the last war [the Mexican War doesn’t count as a war in the Times view?], with five hundred boats, suffering but a trifling loss, in the face of strong shore batteries – that batteries cannot effectually prevent the passage of an armament. Still less can be done when the batteries themselves will be exposed to such a terrific fire as Major ANDERSON can for some hours at least, pour with his whole force on Moultrie and the battery near Cummings' Point, the only two places from which boats or light draft vessels can be fired upon to any purpose.But ANDERSON’S fire will not be the only one to which Moultrie may be exposed, as the smaller vessels can take with impunity positions from which shell may be thrown with great effect. No matter how brave or skillful the Southern troops may be, they will be under a fire which will render the entire stoppage of relief to Fort Sumpter [sic] nearly impossible.
Is there any way you can post an image of it sufficient to read that statement? The statement has been rejected before by the Union Apologists, but showing it appeared in an actual newspaper is pretty good evidence that he did in fact say it.
Never mind. I found your links.
The copy I have was made for me by the Perry-Castañeda Library at the University of Texas. They had recently placed their copies of the Baltimore Sun in an area or online site accessible only by UT staff, faculty, and students, of which I was none. Since I only wanted the one article from that paper, a gentleman in the library staff kindly accessed their system and made a copy of the article for me. Unfortunately, the fine print on the border of the copy says the copy is copyrighted. Also, in order to be able to photograph parts of old newspapers, I had previously signed a statement at the University of Texas that I would not reprint or publish photos I might take of newspapers in their collection. I do not post my photos or Xerox copies I make of old newspapers on microfilm either, figuring the images are copyrighted by the makers of the microfilm.
However, the words themselves of the article are not copyrighted. Although I could not find a copy of that issue of the Sun online, I was able to use the words of the 1861 article themselves, that are no longer under copyright, to search online for other newspapers that reprinted the article.
I found the entire article in the Library of Congress's Chronicling America web site reprinted word-for-word in the Newbern weekly progress of Newbern, NC on April 30, 1861, Image 2. I posted a link to that newspaper in my post 328 of this thread along with links to two other newspapers that had reprinted all but the final paragraph of the Sun article [Post 328].
Here is the link to the Newbern newspaper that contains the entire Baltimore Sun article. The words in the Newbern newspaper exactly match the words of the copy of the Sun article provided for me by the University of Texas. [Newbern weekly progress copy of the entire Baltimore Sun Article].
On another point, "Copyrighted"? Something 150 years old is copyrighted? Even with all the relatively recent changes that make copyrights last 80 years, the copyrights are expired.
I'm not sure what angle they can claim to assert that they own any sort of legitimate copyright. But if you signed an agreement, as a man of honor, you will have to abide by it, even if it's silly.
The issue is not that the words are copyrighted. They aren’t, hence I posted words from the article on FreeRepublic. The issue is that the image of the paper is copyrighted, and it was the image that I was being asked to produce. Some company went to the trouble of taking photos of the paper and compiling them in a computer accessible file. The University of Texas, which owns the microfilm, made the copy for me. I don’t own the microfilm.
The University of Texas also owns a collection of original old newspapers, and they do not allow photos taken of their old newspapers to be published without their permission.
My son once found on microfilm an old newspaper that listed the Confederate unit my great-great grandfather had served in along with the units of about thirty other men. I sought and received permission from the people who made the microfilm so that I could post the Confederate units of all of the men listed in the paper. I then posted the names and units on a genealogical web site to help others identify the units their ancestors served in.
So they own a collection. They don't have to be @$$holes about it, but a lot of Universities nowadays are.
What possible public good is served by deliberately hiding historical records?
This is an example that carries the "Intellectual property" rights too far.
UT did let me photograph original newspapers. As I said earlier, I was just not allowed to publish the images without their permission.
Some libraries require you to be a "qualified" researcher to get access to their original sources. A published author or someone with a history degree or a student in the history department might be able to get to the sources, but an amateur history buff like me might not.
The Rice University Library in Houston has about 100,000 documents and material on Jefferson Davis. I asked them once about getting access to the documents. I found that would not be allowed to photograph or copy anything, but I could write out on a piece of paper any words of a document that I wanted. Rice has slowly published some of the material in volumes edited by library staff.
This reminds me somewhat of the restrictions that were placed for a long time upon access to the Dead Sea Scrolls even to qualified researchers [Link]. A group had control of the scrolls and were the only ones with access to them. They were thus the only ones who could publish much about them. Access to the scrolls has gotten much better over time.
I once requested permission by email to visit a library in Midland, Texas to see a collection of wartime documents written by John Salmon "Rip" Ford, a famous Texas Confederate commander. One of my ancestors served under Ford during the war. The library had a similar "qualified" researcher access requirement. I even used my Dr. title (a Ph.D.) in hopes to get access. They didn't even reply to my inquiries. Well, I won't be sharing with them a copy of the diary my ancestor kept when he served under Rip either.
I cannot see what public good is served by restricting access to copies of historical documents.
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.