Posted on 04/02/2021 9:04:55 AM PDT by gattaca
On April 12, 1861, Confederate troops fired the opening shots of the Civil War at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. This month marks the 160th anniversary of the beginning of the war, the deadliest conflict ever fought on American soil. The Civil War lasted four years and resulted in an estimated 620,000 deaths and 1.5 million casualties. Approximately one in four soldiers that went to war never came back home. This impacted families, communities, and the entire country for generations to come.
Historical photograph of Fort Sumter The years leading up to the beginning of the Civil War were filled with increasing tensions between northern and southern states. In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected president by a strictly northern vote. The election was the impetus for southern states, who were already wrangling with the North on issues like slavery, states’ rights, and westward expansion, to begin the process of secession. Four days after the election, South Carolina Senator James Chesnut resigned his Senate seat and began drafting secession documents. Before long, six more states joined South Carolina to form the Confederate States of America on February 8, 1861. That number increased to 11 states after the fall of Fort Sumter. Four border states (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri) held enslaved persons but remained loyal to the Union.
Exterior view of Fort Sumter Fort Sumter, originally built as a coastal garrison, was located at the entrance to Charleston Harbor. Confederate General P. G. T. Beauregard, from the newly formed Confederate States Army, demanded federal officials turn over the fort. He claimed the fort was located in Confederate territory and thus belonged to the South. President Lincoln refused and made attempts to send a ship to resupply the fort. The ship was turned away by Confederate guns.
Tensions grew, and Beauregard finally sent US officials an ultimatum – abandon the fort or face destruction. At 4:30 a.m. on April 12th, some 500 soldiers from the South Carolina Militia opened fire on 80 Federal soldiers inside the fort. The bombardment continued for 34 hours until the afternoon of April 13th, when the garrison commander, Major Robert Anderson, surrendered the fort. Though there were no fatalities on either side during the Battle of Fort Sumter, the conflict marked the beginning of more than 10,000 military engagements that occurred between 1861-1865.
Interior View of Fort Sumter Fold3® has an extensive collection of Civil War records including:
Brady Civil War Photos: The Civil War is considered the first major conflict to be photographed extensively. Mathew Brady led a photography team that captured images of the war using a mobile studio and darkroom. Civil War Maps: This collection of 2,000 detailed battle maps provides insight into Civil War engagements. Some maps show the placement of regiments and the movement of troops. Civil War “Widows Pensions” Files: Only 20% of Civil War pension files are digitized, but if you are lucky enough to find the pension file for your ancestor, you’ll uncover a treasure trove of information. Civil War Service Records: We have service records for both Union and Confederate troops. These records are organized by state. Service Records for US Colored Troops: Approximately 179,000 Black men served in the US Army and another 19,000 in the US Navy. Despite facing racism and discrimination, the US Colored Troops served with valor and honor. These records are organized by regiment. Southern Claims Approved: After the war, the US government established the Southern Claims Commission. This office accepted petitions for compensation for items taken by Union troops during the war. In addition to these collections, Fold3 has more than 150 additional collections that contain 43 million Civil War records. Start searching our Civil War collection today on Fold3®.
re: “Dinesh is a go-to guy if you want faked history cut and fit to serve present day partisan politics.”
I like the way he cites various publications and historical works to support his position.
Unlike you, who cites ________ (nada) ?????
“C’mon man! Cite a reference!”
925
Maryland had slaves but stayed in the Union. Did it fight to preserve slavery? No. Try again Reb and try answering the question I put you.
“As do you.”
If the implied equivalency was intended as a compliment it was fully ineffective.
It doesn’t even reach grim satisfaction.
“Maryland had slaves but stayed in the Union. Did it fight to preserve slavery? No.”
Did it fight to end slavery?
At one point you implied the Union fought to end slavery.
In Maryland, most were Union sympathizers. There was a small amount of people connected to slave trade around Baltimore, and the farmers of top grade tobacco on the eastern and shore area....they were the primary Confederate supporters.
Lincoln realized the issue and quickly sent troops in to ensure no rebellion.
My family lived in Western Md, and mostly rock solid Union out in the mountain areas. There were a few Confederate sympathizers who joined Rebel Cav Raiders in the area.
1 hour to the East is Gettysburg, Antietam...a little further to the East and south is Harpers Ferry, WV.
There were also incursions and small raids across the Potomac to hit critical areas like the Canal, which allowed ease of huge food and ammo shipments.
Also some individual theft of food missions into the Western farmland areas, out western Md., where they felt safer to strike for food without retaliation.
While Marylanders had sympathies for the South it's citizens were more pro-Union. And don't twist my words Reb. I said the primary reason for the Union's fight was to preserve the Union. It was also committed to ending slavery. Now stop the s**t and answer the question I asked you or are you too cowardly to do so?
Did you ever check any of the citations to see if they actually support his conclusions?
"Unlike you, who cites ________ (nada) ?????"
An internet post isn't a book.
But in order to provide something along that line here's Victor Davis Hanson critiquing D'Souza's thinking. You won't like it:
However bad free factory labor might become (largely after the Civil War), it had advantages that slavery denied to slaves -- freedom of movement, wages and the possibility of capital accumulation, freedom from physical punishment -- that were not inconsiderable.
Right, Democrats opposed the US Constitution since Day One in 1787, and still oppose it today.
In 1860 their opposition first became violent, and is now again approaching those levels.
The difference is that Democrats have figured out why they lost in 1865 and are determined not to repeat it -- hence open borders and millions of soon-to-be legal aliens amongst us.
DoodleDawg: "Really? LBJ. Jimmy Carter. Bill Clinton. Both Bush's. I'd say they've gotten their revenge and then some."
DiogenesLamp: "Bush Senior was from Connecticut, and he clearly produced a lot of Connecticut influence on Bush the lesser."
The fact is the South solidly supported such Democrat Progressives as Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and even Illinois Democrat Governor Adlai Stevenson, twice!
So long as they believed they were the beneficiaries of Leftist Big Government largess, Southerners were happy to support it.
It was only after they figured out somebody else was getting the Big Government money, then they began to vote against it.
Of course, we're delighted Southerners have slowly become more conservative & Republican, but let's not pretend "it was always thus".
Don't be ridiculous -- Confederates never denied demanding Fort Sumter's immediate surrender and firing the first shots when Maj. Anderson refused.
Sure, if you search the history books for earlier shots fired, you can find them, but Fort Sumter's surrender was the first actual battle of the Civil War.
"Otherwise, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"
Basically, Nateman has it exactly right, but not every Democrat is 100% Democratic and not every Republican 100% Republican.
Setting aside the Trail of Tears, ("Otherwise...") I count Andrew Jackson as more Republican than Democrat.
Since Day One in 1787 Federalists / Whigs / Republicans are the writers, ratifiers and defenders of the Constitution.
Democrats were the anti-Federalists and since then only ever defend the Constitution when it can be weaponized via "strict-construction" against their opponents.
Otherwise, once themselves in power, Democrats ignore the Constitution.
So, to the degree that, say, an Andrew Jackson or Grover Cleveland actually followed the Constitution, they were not true Democrats, but more like conservative Republicans.
Southern Democrats had a great hand in that, voting solidly for "Progressives" from Woodrow Wilson to Franklin Roosevelt, Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson (twice!) and, outside the Deep South, even that Texas Democrat Pedernales Cowpoke, Lyndon Johnson, in 1964.
Thanks for a great link to a 2007 critique by VDH of D'Souza's War on Terror opinions.
D'Souza comes out of it sounding very confused & disoriented, and since he apparently attacked VDH directly in print, I can't sympathize with D'Souza on this.
Victor Davis Hanson is my definition of "conservative common sense."
If D'Souza finds himself opposed to Hansen, then D'Souza needs to rethink his own opinions.
However, dare I say this?
2007 was a vastly more innocent age than today.
In 2007 we might still have reasonable disagreements with "liberals" and might still find common ground on some issues.
And I suspect it was D'Souza's search for that "common ground" which lead him into such utter confusion & disorientation.
But even further, it would take a scholar of the caliber of Victor Davis Hanson to compare D'Souza's 2007 opinions to those of, let's say, Donald Trump today.
Remember, in this link VDH is defending the Bush administration's War on Terror, a war that Donald Trump has roundly condemned -- at least in part.
So, are Trump's opinions closer to George W. Bush's in 2007 or to Dinesh D'Souza's?
I don't know, but with the benefit of 14 years hindsight, and with the Left's descent into berserker madness, perhaps D'Souza's opinions today are not quite as alien as they were in Hansen's 2007 National Review piece.
Bottom line: as of today, D'Souza is far more on our side than on that of our "Woke", "Progressive" Leftist political opponents.
More important, facts are still facts, and the Democrats' war against the US Constitution is today approaching levels not seen since 1861.
D'Souza's facts & opinions on that are right on point: "it's all the Democrats' fault", period.
WokeJoeK
Happy Easter
The War for Slavers' States Rights.
the OlLine Rebel: "If they wanted to leave, let them leave.
Why “union” at the point of a gun?"
In his 1861 First Inaugural, Pres. Lincoln offered Confederates, in effect, "peaceful coexistence".
Confederates refused, started war on April 12 and then formally declared war on May 6, 1861.
That's why.
eyedigress: "The South wanted out."
Not "the South", only the ruling slavocracy in seven cotton states.
FLT-bird: "I think war for Southern Independence more fitting.
After all, they were simply leaving an oppressive regime just like their fathers and grandfathers had done."
That's a total lie!
The allegedly "oppressive regime" was actually Southern Democrat rule over Washington, DC, from the election of 1800 until secession in 1861.
What Southern Democrats then could not tolerate was future prospects of having to live under the "oppression" they themselves had imposed for the past 60 years!
In 1860 Democrats went as berserk from the election of Republican Lincoln as they have since 2016's election of Republican Trump.
It was just Democrats doing what Democrats by their natures do.
Our Founders never recognized an unlimited "right of Independence", except under two very specific conditions:
Except when, having declared your secession, you then start (April 12) and formally declare (May 6) war against the United States.
The Confederacy declared war on May 6, 1861.
Lincoln declared Confederates in insurrection on April 19 and Congress agreed with Lincoln's naming it a rebellion on July 4, 1861.
SCOTUS's supremely Crazy Roger Taney had a lot of problems with Lincoln, but after the war in Texas v. White agreed the war was rebellion and secession did not stand.
No one ever said Sumter wasn’t the first battle, you idiot. Stop putting false statements out there.
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.