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®.
Yeah D’Souza got his hat handed to him ;’}
My younger brother won’t watch anything with Tom Cruise in it. Because of his politics, not his acting (such as it is). Same for a bunch of other lefty Hollyweirders. My attitude is “live & let live” - you’re only cutting off your own nose in order to spite someone who doesn’t GAD about you. As a musician in a cover band I am often asked to play songs by artists whom I abhor. For example, the singer in my band loves Sheryl Crow so we do a couple of her songs. I’m able to compartmentalize myself sufficiently to continue to despise her but play the song.
I grew up with Reagan’s “Trust but verify” as a code of conduct. Listen to what a guy is saying but do your own homework to verify accuracy. Don’t blindly accept everything that anyone says. Consequently I’m not trapped by my own bias from learning something new - even if it comes from a questionable source. If he’s right he’s right.
My first real test of this was with Michael Medved. A talk show “hometown hero” (as he was marketed here in Washington) Medved was a leftist turned conservative but who relapsed. He became a virulent anti-Trumper and revealed his truer (leftist) self in the process.
Was he still capable of saying the right things? Yes, and he often did. Was he right about Trump and the Trumpsters? Absolutely, categorically, offensively NO! In Medved’s case the bad outdid any possible good and I quit following him.
Another example is Glenn Beck. I really like the guy - but rarely seek out his “wisdom”. He’s a nice guy and (I believe) very sincere. But he is casually reckless with the facts. I don’t know if he has writers preparing his scripts or if it is he himself, but he needs to be better about checking his sources before making bold declarations. He firmly believes that his highly watched show crashed because he “got too close to the truth”. I believe it crashed because he was sloppy and negligent.
That said, he is still capable of solid analysis and I do read his stuff from time to time.
Really, 1860?
You mean 1860, the year Deep South Fire Eaters successfully split apart their majority national Democrat party, thus guaranteeing election of a minority Republican candidate?
You think Marx supported Fire Eaters?
You mean 1860, the year Democrats first went berserk & declared their secession over election of the first Republican Donald Trump?
You think Marx supported berserker Democrats?
You mean 1860, the year Democrats first began threatening violence against Union officials and seizing Union property?
You think Marx supported Democrat violence against the United States?
I beg to disagree.
The same Democrats who hoped to destroy the US Constitution in 1860 have worked since the "Progressive" era to destroy it by other means.
Southern Democrats were happy to support "Progressivism" so long as Southern Democrats were to benefit from it.
They only began flipping to conservative Republicans when that possibility disappeared.
DiogenesLamp: "He actually supported an effort to amend the constitution to preserve slavery indefinitely."
Congressman Lincoln did draft a bill to abolish slavery (with compensation) in the Federal city of Washington, DC, in 1849.
Lincoln's view was that, according to the Constitution, each state should decide slavery for themselves, and Lincoln expected abolition would continue into Southern Border states -- until SCOTUS Dred Scott:
As for Corwin, that was supported unanimously by Democrats, opposed by a majority of Republicans and not opposed by Lincoln because he thought it made no actual changes.
Corwin went nowhere among Republican controlled states.
By stark contrast the 1864 13th Amendment abolishing slavery was fully supported by Lincoln, unanimously by Republicans and even by some Democrats.
Those Democrats opposed did so on states' rights grounds, they didn't argue slavery was moral, only that it should still be left for states to decide.
Except, "DC" made no moves to "force states to stay in the union" until after:
In 1861 it was a War of Southern Aggression against the United States.
So do you agree that if Democrats today just let in enough illegal aliens to "reside" here, then they have a "natural right" to rule over us, as despotically as they wish, "in perpetuity"?
DiogenesLamp: "We followed natural law in our exodus from English rule.
Natural law still applies."
The self-evident truths" we followed in 1776 included:
In 1939 the Nazis did claim Poles refused to negotiate.
In reality, Operation Himmler included dozens of German false-flag incidents attempting to make it look like Poles were attacking Germany.
Hitler used those incidents as his excuse for invading Poland.
A "War of Polish Aggression"?
According to some.
By stark contrast, there was nothing "false flag" about 1861 Confederate invasions in Union Missouri, Kentucky, Oklahoma and West Virginia.
Nor about the Confederate assault on Fort Sumter, April 12.
wgmalabama: "Because they will never let anyone leave."
No Founding Father ever expressed support for an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure.
They did all support "secession" under two, but only two, conditions:
wgmalabama: "I’m not sure what the answer is.
I am a person given God given liberty.
Not a subject of the USSA."
There are only two real choices:
Sure, but "the Union" fired first on July 8, 1776, at the Battle of Gwynn's Island, just four days after declaring itself free & independent -- the Union fired against the Brits, not against Confederates.
Likewise, on January 8, 1861, Union troops were ordered to fire over the heads of a threatening (drunk?) crowd, but the crowd was US citizens, seemingly out for a walk, not Confederates and not even necessarily secessionists, since Florida was still a Union state at the time.
In the months & years before Fort Sumter, the US military was often called on to use force in situations which had nothing to do with Civil War, such as at Fort Barrancas.
The actual Confederate Army there, 1,000 strong, did eventually attack Union troops on October 9, 1861 at the Battle of Santa Rosa, but were repulsed.
“But puzzling”
Only to you. These states supported the restoration of the Union. i.e. ending secession. The fact that that slavery was legal in those states has little to do with that objective. In these states, slave owners wielded less political and economic power Than the slave owners in North Carolina, Tennessee or Virginia.
DiogenesLamp: "This is incorrect.
The Star of the West was carrying troops and munitions with the intention of increasing the level of forces in Sumter."
The Star of the West incident had nothing to do with President Lincoln.
It was sent to Fort Sumter in January by Democrat President Buchanan who, while totally sympathetic to Southerners, never agreed to abandon Fort Sumter without a fight.
Pres. Buchanan had wanted to send a US Navy ship (or ships?) to reinforce Fort Sumter, but was talked out of it by Gen. Scott who thought a civilian ship had a better chance to succeed without starting Civil War.
Gen. Scott was right about not starting Civil War, but his January 1861 mission to Fort Sumter failed.
DiogenesLamp: "It was just another dirty trick from Washington DC, and it's one of the reasons nobody believed any promises out of Washington DC."
It's certainly true that Pres. Buchanan was guilty of cowardice and of not wanting to start Civil War during his last months in office.
Had he simply repeated what Pres. Andrew Jackson did in 1830, Buchanan might have started war then & there.
You may remember, in 1830 Jackson began sending US warships and troops to Charleston with this message:
All that is what Pres. Buchanan did not do in January 1861, in sending the civilian Star of the West, because he hoped to keep the peace a little while longer.
But when war did come at Fort Sumter, Buchanan supported the Union cause, unlike some other former Presidents.
In fact, Confederates had many times demanded Fort Sumter's surrender, going back to December 1860.
Maj. Anderson, Presidents Buchanan and Lincoln had always refused.
By April 1861 there was nothing conditional or "truce" about Confederate demands -- on April 11 & 12 they again demanded immediate surrender and when Maj. Anderson tried to delay, Jefferson Davis' orders were that Fort Sumter be "reduced".
The Confederates' final order to assault Fort Sumter came when only one Union ship, the Revenue Cutter Harriet Lane, sat out of sight, well outside Charleston Harbor.
DoodleDawg: "You and FLF-bird must have the same dictionary."
See the US Constitution.
The US is not a "coalition of equal states", we're a nation of "we the people" with a Constitution which clearly defines "treason" and makes provisions against insurrection, rebellion, "domestic violence", and invasion, all of which Confederates did after the election of November 1860.
Hanson is intelligent and insightful, but a lot of what he wrote in the Bush years is embarrassing. He was enthusiastic for the Iraq War and too willing to pretend that his classical education made him an expert on things military. I generally agree with him now, though.
Glenn Beck? Well, like he says, he's a fusion of entertainment and enlightenment. He's right about a lot of things, but I wouldn't trust him to give me the big picture on anything.
Right, Maryland & Missouri were the two Border States most likely to abolish slavery on their own, had there been no Civil War.
Maryland sent its soldiers to both sides, but its Union troops outnumbered Confederates about two-to-one.
Those Union supporters helped Maryland abolish slavery on it own, well before ratification of the 13th Amendment.
The South is more like the rest of the country than it used to be. Nowadays, the split in the country is more urban vs. rural. Politics in the suburbs may still reflect regional differences, but big city politics and culture are similar throughout the country.
Hello Bro Joe K. Nice to see you here.
As always your posts are illuminating and informative, cutting through the fog of Confederate revisionism that runs like a muddy stream through here.
Time and again I ask the Johnny Reb wanna be’s a simple question: If the South had won the war would it have ended slavery?
I ask this since the constant argument of these people is ‘’slavery was a dying institution’’, or ‘’The South didn’t go to war to preserve slavery’’’, it was a’’state’s rights issue’’.
None of them ever attempt an answer. They run from it like roaches when the kitchen light goes on.
I asked it just recently of ‘’jeffersondem’’. He’s gone to ground.
First of all, that "WigWam" was intended to hold 10,000 people, of whom fewer than 500 were voting delegates.
All the rest were there strictly to observe & cheer.
Those 500 voting delegates may have been impressed with Lincoln's support, but that's not why they voted for him.
The reason Republican delegates voted for Lincoln over Seward is precisely because Seward was seen by most as a more radical abolitionists -- famous for his October 1858 "Irrepressible Conflict" speech, Seward was thought more likely to start Civil War than the more "moderate" Lincoln.
After the November 1860 election, Seward careened all over the place, going rogue, sometimes supporting Lincoln, other times, not so much.
Whether, on his own, a potential President Seward, could have, would have or even wanted to prevent Civil War, might be debated, but in the end he strongly backed Lincoln's actions and supported the Union's efforts.
Still not seeing any “take-down” of D’Souza’s sources, which is what it would take to “Change my mind.”
BTW, VDH seemed awfully uninformed as to what-all happened on January 6th at the capital. I think his mind isn’t able to focus on some of the finer details/perhaps he never studied the finer details of complicated events, that, or events he studied 4 or more decades back have become fuzzy in his mind, whereas Dinesh has recently visited these subjects AND has had the benefit of the internet and better ‘information flow’ between protagonists and antagonists.
re: “D’Souza is intellectually lazy and tells people what they want to hear.”
x, I’ll wager, has never seen the reference material D’Souza uses in his books and movies.
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.