On this date in 1864

[fatez]

Pull the log out of your own eye since you seem free to post your opinions also...

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Lincoln's act of sending those ships is what triggered the war.
Even Anderson himself said so."

"Triggered"?
You cannot "trigger" a weapon which is not first manufactured, assembled, loaded, aimed and cocked.
And that is exactly what Jefferson Davis did beginning in early March, 1861.
He assembled his forces, aimed his cannons and demanded Fort Sumter's surrender.
Such demands are in and of themselves acts of war if backed up by threats of military force.

So Lincoln's resupply "fleet" simply "triggered" Davis to do what he had intended & prepared to do anyway -- take Fort Sumter, by force if necessary.

The truth of this matter is that the Confederacy had been at war against the United States from Day One in December 1860.
But it was only with Confederates' first military assault -- against Fort Sumter -- that the Union began, slowly, to respond.

Just like Pearl Harbor & 9/11/01, Fort Sumter was not really the beginning of war, only the beginning of the United States' response to it.

[DoodleDawg]

That is putting your own opinion forward as fact.

As opposed to you when you said earlier discussions were correct and later discussions were incorrect? The overwhelming majority of what you present as fact is nothing more or less than your own opinion.

The Cabinet all but one said that retaining the fort would cause war, and they would prefer to give it up rather than have a war.

A position that they later changed.

Talking about the "intent" of the Confederates and claiming it was something other than just not having a Federal Presence at the entrance to one of their most important harbors, is the same as putting your own words into their mouths. It's dishonest.

Pot? Meet kettle.

[BroJoeK]

Georgia Girl 2: "Oh and the slaves on those plantations were left free to starve along with everybody else.
Yeh Sherman was a real hero."

Always remember that on any day between April 12, 1861 and early 1865 Confederates could have ended their war on much better terms than the Unconditional Surrender they fought so long & hard to achieve.

But Confederates didn't want better terms, they would not be satisfied with anything other than total, abject defeat.

[DiogenesLamp]

As opposed to you when you said earlier discussions were correct and later discussions were incorrect? The overwhelming majority of what you present as fact is nothing more or less than your own opinion.

Well then you aren't paying attention. I routinely incorporate exact quotes from a variety of sources. In these discussions, I merely restate the same information in my own words.

A position that they later changed.

Most likely under pressure from Lincoln. Their later position turned out to be incorrect, and their original position turned out to be exactly right.

But when the boss wants you to agree with him, you either do it or hit the road.

[BroJoeK]

Bull Snipe: "There would not have been a call for 75,000 volunteers if the South had not fired on Fort Sumter."

DiogenesLamp: "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."

DiogenesLamp well knows the truth of these matters, because he's been instructed on it many times, but continues to post his lies anyway.

In fact, as DiogenesLamp well knows, Lincoln's final orders were, in effect: No first use of force.
If Confederates had accepted Lincoln's resupply mission, that's all it would be -- not even reinforcements.

But Jefferson Davis' plan from Day One was: Fort Sumter must surrender, by force if necessary.

DiogenesLamp post #118: "The North attacked the South because an Independent South represented a FINANCIAL THREAT to New York and Washington DC.
The Reasons why the South left don't matter.
Only the reasons why the Union invaded matter.
There would have been no war had the Union chosen to keep it's soldiers home.
It chose to send them to invade other people.
Why did the Union invade?"

More nonsense.
In fact, no nation in the history of the world would accept the Confederacy's war against it without some military response, if possible, regardless of economic factors.

So DiogenesLamp's insistence that only economic factors mattered to the Union is just his old Marxist Dialectics training coming out on Free Republic.
In any other context we'd not tolerate it, but since it's Civil War, we have take seriously stuff that just isn't serious.

DiogenesLamp post #105: "The point was and is, the Southerners were paying 75% of the bills for the Federal government.
And then the Federal Government was spending almost all of the money in the North."

In fact, as DiogenesLamp well knows, Deep South exports represented about 50% of US total, not 75%, and Federal spending was roughly proportional -- that's what Congress was/is all about, and Southerners completely dominated Washington DC from around 1800 until they walked out in early 1861.

So claiming they weren't getting a fair share is total nonsense.

[DoodleDawg]

Well then you aren't paying attention. I routinely incorporate exact quotes from a variety of sources. In these discussions, I merely restate the same information in my own words.

LOL. I must have missed that.

Most likely under pressure from Lincoln. Their later position turned out to be incorrect, and their original position turned out to be exactly right.

And your quotes for that?

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "Sherman was a war criminal."

rockrr: "In the same way that Lee was a traitor... "

Very good!
Word definition games are so annoying, it's nice to see when they can be turned on the accuser.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp to Bull Snipe: "That was a blatant lie.
The men and arms were sent before the Picken's letter, and the fort was going to have men and arms put into it even if the Confederates didn't resist.
Lincoln lied, because the ships left before his letter did."

All lies, and DiogenesLamp knows it.
In fact, Lincoln's final orders were just what he told South Carolina Governor Pickens: resupply only and no first use of force.

The historical fact which matters here is that Jefferson Davis had long since decided: Fort Sumter must surrender, by force if necessary.
The only questions were: when and how much force did Davis need to eject Union troops from their Union fort.

So from Day One Confederates were effectively at war against the United States, but it was unknown if or when the US would respond.
After Fort Sumter that question was answered.

[DiogenesLamp]

DiogenesLamp well knows the truth of these matters,

Yes I do, and if you would stop introducing your propaganda bullsh*t into the conversation, perhaps people could understand the truth of what happened, and also what is happening now.

Lincoln and his New York Power brokers who had managed to take control of Washington DC and the Congress, wanted the money to keep flowing in from the South. They also wanted to control all European trade, and they did not want competition from Southern companies that would be newly capitalized from establishing the natural trade that then existed between Europe and the South.

So they started a war to protect the financial interests of the New York Robber Barons and the corrupt Washington Establishment.

And we have been fighting this power cartel ever since. They run Washington to this very day, and they are currently intent on preventing Roy Moore from becoming a Senator from Alabama, and thereby removing 1/100th of their current power in the Senate.

It is no accident that the attacks on this man come from New York and Washington DC. The Coalition of interests that run Washington don't want to lose any power, and that's why they are attacking him.

And that is why they attacked the South in 1861.

[DiogenesLamp]

LOL. I must have missed that.

You might fool other people who don't know you, but you don't miss it, you deliberately ignore it, and pretend I didn't even post it.

You simply don't take seriously anything that doesn't fit your dogma.

And your quotes for that?

I've presented their quotes when they objected to starting a war over ft. Sumter. You have seen them. *You* and others have presented their quotes where they thought it would be okay to start a war there.

The fact that they started a war there proves that their original statements were correct, and that their subsequent statements were wrong.

I don't need to quote anything further for you, and I believe it is generally a waste of my time to do so, because you won't pay any attention to them anyway.

[DiogenesLamp]

In fact, Lincoln's final orders were just what he told South Carolina Governor Pickens: resupply only and no first use of force.

No they weren't, and you and I have already gone over this. The men and arms and munitions were already sent before the Pickens letter went out. You can see from the various Ship's orders that the reinforcement was part of the mission.

Lincoln deliberately lied. The men and arms were already on their way before he told Pickens that he wouldn't throw in any additional men or arms.

The Confederates already had copies of the Ship's orders telling them that the men and arms were coming. That's why they knew Lincoln was lying to them the moment his letter arrived.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp po0st #18: "Of course Adolph Hitler proved much the same thing during the subsequent century."

rockrr post #40: "I call Godwin’s Law. You lose."

DiogenesLamp post #159: "I generally ignore your opinions because I can't get over your comparison of "Pearl Harbor" to "Ft. Sumter." "

DiogenesLamp doesn't hesitate to use Hitler to serve his own purposes, but doesn't like seeing WWII compared to the US Civil War.

In fact there are many valid comparisons, both on the positive and negative sides.

[jmacusa]

Boy you sure done a heap ‘o’ fancy book learnin’ in yer time, eh? Seriously though dude, hows things, how’s the Asbergers?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Yes I you do, and if you I would stop introducing your my Marxist dialectics propaganda bullsh*t into the conversation, perhaps people could understand the truth of what happened, and also what is happening now. "

Fixed it.
No problem, you're welcome, I understand it's easy for you to get disoriented.

DiogenesLamp: "Lincoln and his New York Power brokers who had managed to take control of Washington DC and the Congress, wanted the money to keep flowing in from the South."

No, as you well know, New York's Democrat globalist business leaders in early 1861 cared nothing about Washington DC tariff revenues.
They only really cared about their own commercial interests and for that they were willing to themselves declare secession to join the Confederacy!
Of course that didn't happen, but New Yorkers only became anti-Confederate after Confederates began renouncing, revoking & reneging on their debts.

Regardless, Lincoln was not indebted to such people and did not give their concerns undue priority.
What certainly did concern Lincoln was the US Constitution, the law and voters, especially Deep South Unionist voters, of whom he believed there must be considerably more than proved to be the case.

Of course you well know all that, but are so, so, so in love with Marxist economic dialectics that you just can't, can't, can't let go of them, can you?

DiogenesLamp: "The Coalition of interests that run Washington don't want to lose any power, and that's why they are attacking him.
And that is why they attacked the South in 1861."

In fact, just as there would be no US WWII against Japane had Japanese not attacked Pearl Harbor, so there would be no US Civil War had Confederates not attacked Fort Sumter.
So wiggle, squirm, misdirect and deny all you wish, but that remains the truth regardless.

[DoodleDawg]

I've presented their quotes when they objected to starting a war over ft. Sumter. You have seen them. *You* and others have presented their quotes where they thought it would be okay to start a war there.

Let's concentrate on the claim in question, shall we? What made the first vote correct and the second vote wrong other than you own opinion?

The fact that they started a war there proves that their original statements were correct, and that their subsequent statements were wrong.

Actually the fact that the South started the war supports their conclusion that the South was hell-bent on war under any circumstances so the resupply of Sumter wasn't going to change things.

I don't need to quote anything further for you, and I believe it is generally a waste of my time to do so, because you won't pay any attention to them anyway.

Yes, well if you can't then you can't.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "No they weren't, and you and I have already gone over this.
The men and arms and munitions were already sent before the Pickens letter went out.
You can see from the various Ship's orders that the reinforcement was part of the mission.
Lincoln deliberately lied..,"

On numerous occasions we've reviewed those orders to Lincoln's mission commanders, and they clearly say just what Lincoln told SC Governor Pickens: resupply only and no first use of force.

"The primary object of the expedition is to provision Fort Sumter, for which purpose the War Department will furnish the necessary transports.
Should the authorities of Charleston permit the fort to be supplied, no further particular service will be required of the force under your command, and, after being satisfied that supplies have been received at the fort, the Powhatan, Pocahontas and Harriet Lane will return to New York, and the Pawnee to Washington.
Should the authorities at Charleston, however, refuse to permit or attempt to prevent..."

DiogenesLamp: "The Confederates already had copies of the Ship's orders telling them that the men and arms were coming.
That's why they knew Lincoln was lying to them the moment his letter arrived."

But there was no lie from Lincoln.
The only lies are your efforts to obfuscate the fact that Jefferson Davis intended to take Fort Sumter, by military force if necessary.

[BroJoeK]

Pelham: "So since London issued two emancipation proclamations during the American rebellion can we conclude that you believe that the wrong side won in 1783?"

Nonsense.
African Americans were promised freedom by both sides during the Revolutionary War and far more served the Patriots than Loyalists.
A British officer reported that Washington's army at Yorktown appeared about 1/4 black.

More important, slavery laws were enforced by Britain in American colonies and slavery was not fully outlawed by Britain until 1840.
Indeed the subject of Thomas Jefferson's famous deleted clause in the Declaration of Independence was the British enforcement of slavery in its American colonies.

So you cannot claim that British in 1776 or 1783 were more anti-slavery than American patriots.

Pelham: "You appear to be saying that you support the secession of Massachusetts and Connecticut from the government of King George and Parliament, but withhold your support of rebellion by the other colonies- is that because you want to separate New England from the colonies that had slaves?"

More nonsense.
In fact there's no valid analogy between conditions of the 1776 Declaration of Independence and 1861 Declarations of Secession.

By 1776 the Brits had already:

1. Imposed taxation without representation.
   
2. Abrogated colonial charters of self-government.
   
3. Imposed their own arbitrary & dictatorial rule over Americans.
   
4. Declared colonies to be in rebellion -- effectively a declaration of war.
   
5. Waged war against the colonies, in the Declaration's words:
   "He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people."

Nothing remotely resembling such conditions existed in 1860 when Deep South slave-holders began declaring their secession at pleasure.

DiogenesLamp to Bull Snipe post #25: "Had [British King] George not sent that force to molest them [colonists], there would have been no occasion for them to fire upon his forces.
Lincoln sent the warships to attack the Confederates surrounding Sumter.
Lincoln fired the first shot with those orders for that fleet to attack."

We should first note here that DiogenesLamp effectively admits that Lincoln's "first shot" was, in fact, metaphorical, not an actual shot.

But, to the point: in 1776 all the conditions for revolution were established by Brits themselves -- imposing taxation without representation, revoking charters of self-government, forcing arbitrary dictatorial rule and eventually effectively declaring war on Americans.
American patriots simply responded to signals from Britain.

By stark contrast no such conditions existed in 1860, indeed just the opposite: the Southern slave-power ruled in Washington, DC, and had almost continuously since 1800.
There was no lack of representation, they were overrepresented thanks to the Constitution's 3/5 rule.
So in 1861 it was Confederates who tore up the old charter of self-government -- the US Constitution -- and declared war on the United States.

That's why the only analogy which works is to make 1861 Confederates = 1776 Brits and 1861 Unionists = 1776 Patriots.

[Pelham]

You wish it was nonsense.

The two emancipation proclamations issued by the Royal government during the Revolutionary War:

Dunmore's Proclamation of 1775

The Philipsburg Proclamation of 1779

[rockrr]

So you cannot claim that British in 1776 or 1783 were more anti-slavery than American patriots.

Well, he can claim it, but he looks pretty darned foolish for doing so.