Posted on 11/15/2017 6:05:25 AM PST by Bull Snipe
Those 3 bluebellies bested your Georgian hotheads. Hence your whining about war crimes and Atlanta...
It was sent to Pensacola because of last minute, hand carried secret orders that deliberately avoided the normal Navy chain of command. None of the other ships involved in the attack were notified that their command ship was not going to show up.
(Was the Union leadership really that incompetent? Unintentionally Leaving ships floating of Charleston with impossible orders? No Lincoln was not. )
The Confederate spies and sympathizers had sent copies of the regular ships orders to the South, and so the Confederates knew the ships were coming before they even left New York. (That's also how governor Pickens knew Lincoln had lied to him about reinforcing the fort.)
Didn’t forget her, she was not outside of Charleston harbor.
But she was supposed to be. Not even the other ship's captains knew that she wasn't coming. It was the captain of the Powhatan that was supposed to take command and initiate the attack, and so the other ships simply waited.
More importantly, the Confederates did not know she was not coming, and that therefore there would never be an attack against them.
It was the sighting of the ships gathering at the rendezvous point that convinced them that an attack really was coming. It was as a result of this knowledge that the ships were going to attack them that they decided to take out Fort Sumter.
They were willing to give Anderson as much time as he wanted to evacuate the fort, and Anderson had decided that he was going to do so. It was the arrival of the ships sent by Lincoln that triggered the conflict.
Lincoln even specifically ordered Lieutenant David Porter (He was at least two ranks lower than a captain) to not inform the navy department of what he was doing. Now why would the commander in chief deliberately order a man to refuse to inform his superiors about what he was doing?
I believe the Secretary of the Navy even sent a telegram deliberately ordering Porter to give the Powhatan back to captain Mercer. Porter refused.
You tell me what was going on?
On these acts of David Porter hinged the entire expedition to Charleston, and yet afterward, Porter was quickly promoted to Admiral.
Incompetence and stupidity, or a deliberate fake-out?
Funny how everything worked out to get Lincoln the war he needed.
You're welcome. I've learned a lot digging into the bones of the Civil War this last two years. There are a lot of interesting details about it.
You may very well not have done that, but the message from me to which you replied, was to someone else that did say the war was over slavery. Not recalling your position on the point, your response to my response led me to believe that you are one of those who believe that the war was fought over slavery.
Secession of seven states was about slavery.
Sleigh of hand. They had slavery as long as they remained in the Union. It was in fact impossible for the Union to abolish slavery by amendment because they could never get the 3/4ths majority it would take to amend the constitution. Those states said they were leaving because of threats to the institution of slavery, but there were in fact no real threats against it. Lincoln even offered to support the "Corwin Amendment". This man tells a more accurate picture of why they wanted to leave. The "secession statements" that people always want to drag out, were just political tactics intended to fire up the emotions of the impressionable masses.
Lincoln badgered, cajoled, and even tried bribery to get the four slave holding states in the Union to end the institution. He was only partially successful.
Well if he had stomped on them with overwhelming military force, I bet that would have worked. Actually it probably would have just woke up the rest of the states to what they had created.
Try Allen Nevins 8 volume history of the war. First two volumes are about the 30 years leading up to war. Two volumes are about the rise of Lincoln. Four volumes are about the conduct of the war itself. Does have a slight Union bias. But I didn’t think it was any more biased for the North than Shelby Foots great History of the Civil War was biased for the South. Both belong on a Civil War readers book shelf. Got to go so am sure some of you responses will go un answered by me, have a good day.
If it was about slavery, why didn't the Union stop slavery in areas it already controlled? Why did Lincoln support the Corwin Amendment which would protect slavery indefinitely?
Even the "Emancipation Proclamation" protected slavery in areas the Union controlled.
You've been sold a lie. It wasn't about slavery, it was about the Washington DC "establishment" controlling the economic power of the South.
So long as the South remained under Washington's economic control, slavery would have continued indefinitely. Or as the London Spectator noted in reference to the Emancipation Proclamation:
“The Union government liberates the enemy’s slaves as it would the enemy’s cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.” Proclamation
Even Lincoln's very own Secretary of State (William Seward) noticed:
"We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."
“I have no patience for CSA defenders, it was about slavery and reaping profit on the backs of defenseless people. How many Southern men raped and brutalized defenseless women over the long time span of American slavery??? I am glad Sherman destroyed that way of life.”
You have fallen victim to Revisionist History that was spoon fed to you in public school. That fact is, a fact that has been pointed out by several other contributors on this thread, is that the War of Northern Aggression had nothing at all to do with slavery and was instead a war against freedom and states’ rights.
The poor innocent people of Atlanta and the rest of the Confederacy were simply trying to make ends by working as Labor Organizers on their own plantations.
It wasn’t an either or, it was very complex. But the Southern states tried to secede because of Lincoln’s election and his election marked that the abolitionist were making huge headway electorally. They left because and really only because of slavery. Lincoln was not fighting to remove slavery, but to preserve the Union. The longer the war dragged on, Lincoln linked the issue of slavery to the war. I have not been sold anything and honestly, I am done arguing with a CSA revisionist...
Their earlier discussions had all but one saying it would cause a war. Their earlier discussions were correct, and their later discussions were incorrect.
They swath of destruction is still visible. The towns on either side of the path are larger and the road net is more established.
Maybe, maybe not. Most of the stretch between Augusta and Savannah was underpopulated even before the war.
Moving the capital from Milledgeville to Atlanta after the war didn't do the area any favors either.
No Joe, you are wrong. I actually got it spoon fed from my daddy when I was dragged to every battlefield around when I was a kid. My family has deep history on the Northern side and I don’t buy the CSA bull$hit “it wasn’t about slavery” when it was THE REASON the South broke away. There are a few fools out there that try to defend the CSA , don’t be one of them...
You mean the War of Southern Treason? Funny, that's not what the southern fire-eaters said. Oh, and what "states rights" specifically?
So since London issued two emancipation proclamations during the American rebellion can we conclude that you believe that the wrong side won in 1783?
But the Union did fire the first shot. They sent the war fleet with orders to attack the confederates. *That* was the "first shot."
If you want to get really picky about this nonsense of a "first shot", Union troops reoccupying fort Pickens fired on members of the Florida Militia in January, and before the "Star of the West" incident.
So even in terms of gunfire, Yes, the Union fired the first shot.
Nor did Lincoln want to give the border states that had a lot of sympathy any more fuel to join the CSA.
So slavery is okay so long as you are on my side? Is that it? So how then is the war about "slavery", rather than being on "my side"?
Lincoln did not want this war, a lot of Southerners did.
Some Hot Heads in the South may have thought they wanted war, but I doubt they constituted a majority. One very cool head in the North wanted war, and he had the power to start it, and so he did.
Tell me Pelham, is slavery ugly, brutal and morally repulsive???
Tell me Pelham, is slavery ugly, brutal and morally repulsive???
The South would not have fired on the Fort if warships hadn't shown up with orders to attack them. Who sent the ships with those orders? Lincoln did.
Strawman much Diogenes???
Better than 4 to 1 odds is not much to crow about.
Yes having 3 war heroes in one of the greatest causes ever is not much to crow about diogenes. How many slaves did your family own and are you still pissed we freed them???
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.