Posted on 04/14/2018 4:11:34 AM PDT by harpygoddess
I know you prefer that only one side be heard, but we still have “freedom of speech” in this country, even though it may not last much longer.
On the contrary, you have every right to say what you want and I fully support your right to say it. No matter how wrong I believe you to be.
That I do not doubt. I just think you would prefer that I didn’t. :)
Prefer DiogenesLamp not post? Where's the fun in that?
They returned fire, again, nice try.
You are a little unclear here. To whom are you referring when you say "they returned fire." Are you referring to the Confederates who thought they were beating Lincoln to the punch after he had ordered those ships to open fire on them, or are you referring to Lincoln returning fire through his invasion after the Confederates had fired upon Sumter?
Not sure what you mean here, but one thing is clear. Without him sending that fleet with those orders, the war would not have started there. (If at all) Confederate communications of the time reveal that it was the arrival of the ships that triggered the assault on Sumter. They knew they were coming and they knew what their orders were, thanks to their spies and sympathizers in the Northern shipyards. Beauregard waited much longer than he was supposed to do after the ships had arrived at the rendezvous point for their assault. One more Day and Anderson would have evacuated the fort, but once the ships arrived, Beauregard could give him no more time.
In this regard, you and I are thinking alike. Without opposition, there is no challenge or accomplishment.
I doubt it will become a habit.
Maybe not, but i've noticed it has happened on several occasions on other threads.
What's clear is, you're not making any sense at all. The war began because the rebels opened fire, and after the Sumter bombardment seized a federal installation. Just as happened with John Brown at Harper's Ferry, they had no complaint coming.
Because a fleet of warships sent by Lincoln had arrived with orders to use force to land supplies and troops at Sumter.
Did you not know about that? The Confederates had assurances from Anderson that he was going to leave by the 15th of April, and they had no intentions of doing anything until that time, and then the warships started showing up on April 9th, and they already knew what their orders were because people in Washington and New York had already informed them as to what those ships orders were.
You know about the Confederates opening fire, because that is all anyone has been taught for the last 150 years, but did you know that the reason they did so was because they expected those warships to attack them, per orders?
That is your opinion. It's also a distortion. The fleet weren't ordered to attack the rebels. That was only if they or the fort were attacked. And the rebels wouldn't know what the orders were. Plus, the South Carolinians didn't attack the ships. They attacked the fort.
Not so much. They actually say so in their communications in the lead up to the incident.
It's also a distortion.
Not even slightly. Attempting to minimize/dismiss it is the distortion.
The fleet weren't ordered to attack the rebels.
They were ordered to attack the Confederates if the Confederates did not acquiesce to allowing them to resupply the garrison in the fort. The Confederates were not going to acquiesce, and everyone on both sides knew it.
That was only if they or the fort were attacked.
No, it was under any condition in which the Confederates impeded their ability to land supplies at the fort. Passive blocking of the channel would have been sufficient according to the actual order.
And the rebels wouldn't know what the orders were.
The Confederates most certainly did know what the orders were. The Navy was full of Confederate spies and sympathizers, as were the shipyards, as were Washington. The correspondence between the confederate forces shows that they very well knew what the ships orders were.
Plus, the South Carolinians didn't attack the ships.
If the Confederates had sat there until the ships attacked them, as the ship's orders said they would, what do you suppose that fortress would have done? If you answered "Open fire on the Confederate forces in coordination with the attacking ships." Go to the head of the class.
So what would any rational military man in such a situation do? Would you sit there doing nothing while waiting for the ships to attack? I know you won't answer, because I don't think you can admit the slightest thing that doesn't favor what you wish to believe.
They attacked the fort.
And that is the answer I would expect you to say if you were being honest. Yes, a rational military man would first neutralize the fort so it could not coordinate it's attack with that of the seaborne force.
And you know that how? Were you there? Are you a mind reader? In a confused and uncertain situation it's hard to say what "everyone knew."
If the Confederates had sat there until the ships attacked them, as the ship's orders said they would, what do you suppose that fortress would have done?
You contradict yourself. If the Confederates allowed the ships to resupply the fort, the ships wouldn't have attacked them. That's not what the orders said. You can't even keep your own story straight.
So what would any rational military man in such a situation do? Would you sit there doing nothing while waiting for the ships to attack?
Are you daft? You say that the Confederates knew the orders. Then they knew the ships wouldn't attack if they were allowed to resupply the fort. If they knew what the orders were, they would know that they weren't waiting for the ships to attack them.
Of course it's possible that they didn't know the orders. Or that Confederate intelligence didn't share information with the South Carolina units on the scene. But if they knew the orders, they would know that if they let the ships alone, the ships were not going to attack them. Major contradictions in your story.
Yes, a rational military man would first neutralize the fort so it could not coordinate it's attack with that of the seaborne force.
You are not a rational military man. I will rely on people who have seriously studied tactics and military history, rather than somebody arguing in defense of their own personal obsession.
Moreover, this was not an ordinary military situation. This was a situation which could start a devastating war. Just as one would want more than a military solution to the Berlin Crisis (1961) or the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962), so one would have to look beyond purely military thinking to decide what to do in Charleston in 1861.
“Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?”
Because I can read. Specifically I can read their words where they explicitly say so.
If the Confederates allowed the ships to resupply the fort, the ships wouldn't have attacked them.
The South was not going to let them resupply the fort. Most of Lincoln's cabinet told him so.
The North knew it, and the South knew it too. They were not going to allow the resupply of that fort. Therefore, the orders would trigger the attack requirement.
Then they knew the ships wouldn't attack if they were allowed to resupply the fort.
And now you are repeating yourself. Repeating your assertion does not make it any more convincing. Let me show you what many people believed about sovereignty in that time period.
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which, we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.
According to this philosophy, the people who inhabit the land, are the owners of the land.
If they knew what the orders were, they would know that they weren't waiting for the ships to attack them.
They knew the ships would send someone under a flag of truce to ask them if they would oppose the landing of supplies. The Confederates would have replied in the affirmative. Once that bit of pomp and ceremony was out of the way, the Ships would have raked the Confederate gun emplacements with their cannons, while small boats tried to make it to the fort with supplies. The Fortress would have commenced firing on the Confederate battalions.
That's what any rational man of the time would have thought.
But if they knew the orders, they would know that if they let the ships alone, the ships were not going to attack them.
And here you repeat it a third time. They were not going to let the ships resupply the fort.
I will rely on people who have seriously studied tactics and military history, rather than somebody arguing in defense of their own personal obsession.
Because it's too complicated to understand what a Fortress in the hands of opposing forces would do while it's sea forces were attacking you. Yes, that could have lots of different answers, all of them subtle, and not obvious. There is a good probability that the Fortress might intentionally try to fire on it's own ships, but only someone who studied tactics and military history would be able to determine that for sure.
I really didn't expect an honest answer out of you. I expected what I got. Another appeal to your own personal obsession of seeing every act by Lincoln as justified, regardless of how wrong it was.
Here is another Lincoln quote for you. I just found it.
May 18, 1864, the following order: “You will take possession by military force of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce … and prohibit any further publication thereof…. You are therefore commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison … the editors, proprietors and publishers of the aforementioned newspapers.”
That's what any rational man of the time would have thought.
That is your own fantasy version of what would have happened. How do you know that cooler heads or weaker spirits would have prevailed on one side or the other? How do you know that the Confederates wouldn't have fired first, as they in fact did before the ships entered the harbor? I will rely on people who don't have an obvious ax to grind.
You didn't used to be this unhinged when you started posting, did you? You grow more domineering and dictatorial daily, and more dogmatic in your dismissals of opposing points of view. You are Free Republic's own David Hogg. The spoiled child who takes over every discussion and lashes out at everyone who doesn't humor his own whims.
For it to work out as you claim, Numerous military officials in the North would have to disobey orders, or numerous military officials in the South would have to disobey orders.
Do you think it is even slightly likely that officers in the North or South would have refused to obey their orders? I find the probability virtually impossible.
You grow more domineering and dictatorial daily, and more dogmatic in your dismissals of opposing points of view.
That is because they have become increasingly nonsensical and childish, and more trying to my patience. Like your above theory that one side or the other would have disobeyed orders, I regard it as stupid nonsense that should not have even been put forth as an argument. It smacks of "straw clutching" because you can't come up with anything that sheds a better light on the actions of Lincoln.
Orders can be ambiguous and subject to interpretation by the commander on scene. Moreover, orders sent by different authorities or at different times may be in conflict.
Say you are the commander of the resupply expedition. You are ordered to make a peaceful resupply of the fort, using force only if necessary. You enter the harbor and a ship or boat approaches. You explain your mission and are denied entry. What do you do then? Start shooting at the ship or boat? At the distant shore batteries whose location you may not know? At the city?
I submit that you'd just proceed on your way to the fort, only firing if you were fired upon. If they shot first, you'd "force a passage." It made no sense to start shooting your way through if it were avoidable. Or you might just remain in the harbor trying to resolve the situation. You aren't obligated to immediately go in guns blazing.
Of course it may not have happened that way. The commander might have been a hothead, or might have interpreted his orders differently, or the operating instructions (if any) given at the academy might have dictated other procedures, but one can't assume that on refusal, the ships would immediately resort to force.
I don't know what the Confederate orders (or the South Carolina orders which may have conflicted with those of Davis or Beauregard might be) but a officer concerned with not starting a war might have used whatever leeway was available to him.
That is because they have become increasingly nonsensical and childish, and more trying to my patience. Like your above theory that one side or the other would have disobeyed orders, I regard it as stupid nonsense that should not have even been put forth as an argument.
You have an idea about counterfactual history -- something which by its very nature excludes provable truth -- and you have become ever more dogmatic and imperious in your behavior. You treat people who disagree with your unproven imaginings with contempt. You truly have become our own David Hogg.
MONTGOMERY, April 8, 1861.General BEAUREGARD, Charleston:
Under no circumstances are you to allow provisions to be sent to Fort Sumter.
L. P. WALKER.
I see what you mean. Why that order can be taken numerous different ways. It's very ambiguous, isn't it?
WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, April 4, 1861.Captain G. V. FOX, Washington, D. C.:
SIR: It having been decided to succor Fort Sumter you have been selected for this important duty. Accordingly you will take charge of the transports in New York having the troops and supplies on board to the entrance of Charleston Harbor, and endeavor, in the first instance, to deliver the subsistence. If you are opposed in this you are directed to report the fact to the senior naval officer of the harbor, who will be instructed by the Secretary of the Navy to use his entire force to open a passage, when you will, if possible, effect an entrance and place both troops and supplies in Fort Sumter.
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
SIMON CAMERON,
Secretary of War.
This order is also very unclear. I think it means they can take a pleasure jaunt around the Gulf of Mexico or something.
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.