On this day in 1864

[Bull Snipe]

Leading elements of Union Major General George G. Meade's Army of the Potomac cross the Rapidan River. With a few hours they would clash with General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia in the Battle of the Wilderness. Lieutenant General Grant's Overland Campaign had begun.

[DiogenesLamp]

To quote the immortal Abraham Lincoln:

"A State for a fort is no bad business."

[dfwgator]

To quote the immortal Abraham Lincoln: "A State for a fort is no bad business."

[DiogenesLamp]

But being on the internet does not automatically make them false either.

Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1915

[HandyDandy]

You must be feeling guilty, or something. I wasn’t talking to you. I addressed the post that you responded to, to your cohort.

[HandyDandy]

Yes, conspiracy. Don’t tell me you already forgot about all the monied northern liberal bankers and the WashingtonDC/New York establishment and media that was behind Abe. You are the one who created them out of thin air. Now you drop all that to say it was Lincoln and Lincoln only? You sound conflicted. Please don’t reply to tell me you didn’t read this post. How about if you just don’t reply so that I will know you read it?

[DiogenesLamp]

You are deliberately mixing up the context of what was being discussed. Were you to focus on the specifics of the conversation, you would be aware that it was about Lincoln's sending of the war fleet against the South. *THAT* was all Lincoln.

Sure, he may have had backers urging him to do something, anything to stop those Southerners from capturing all that European capital that they were used to have going through their fingers, but this tactic of sending a war fleet that had orders to attack, but due to some incredibly lucky "screwup" would not actually attack, that was all Lincoln. No conspiracy about that part.

[DiogenesLamp]

I actually don't pay much attention to you or Doodle Dawg, and I more or less consider you two interchangeable, but I recall one of you bitching about me ignoring some little trivial thing you wrote, and I just wanted to convey some understanding of why I did it.

It wasn't worthy of notice.

About the only people I take seriously in this discussion are "X" and Bull Snipe. BroJoeK can occasionally be serious, but you have to wade through so much "noise" to find it, and it just isn't worth the trouble.

Occasionally a few others will wade in with relevant commentary, but it doesn't happen so often as I would prefer.

[DoodleDawg]

I actually don't pay much attention to you or Doodle Dawg, and I more or less consider you two interchangeable, but I recall one of you bitching about me ignoring some little trivial thing you wrote, and I just wanted to convey some understanding of why I did it.

But I read all of your posts, DL. They invariably provide a laugh on otherwise dull days.

[HandyDandy]

You don’t say. So that is your explanation for why you replied to a post by me that was not addressed to you?

[HandyDandy]

“Were you to focus on the specifics of the conversation.........”

Sounds funny coming from you. You admit you skip entire posts by certain posters. You don’t know what you are missing. Kind of similar to how you do your own research. Who were Davis’s biggest backers?

[HandyDandy]

I might suggest you read it again.

For the first time.

[OIFVeteran]

Excellent summary of events!! Clearly shows that the states were conducting treasonous acts prior to actually declaring themselves to have secceded from the United States.

They did all of this because a presidential election didn’t go their way. This shows the democrats of 1860 were a lot like the democrats of today.

[BroJoeK]

OIFVeteran: " They did all of this because a presidential election didn’t go their way.
This shows the democrats of 1860 were a lot like the democrats of today."

Bingo! We have a winner, quote of the day, at least.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Because a strongly worded letter just wasn't getting the point across.
Of course he was bringing up artillery.
How else did you expect them to put pressure on Anderson to leave? "

Remember, at issue here is: who started Civil War at Fort Sumter -- was it Jefferson Davis by firing on Maj. Anderson's garrison, or was it Lincoln for sending his "war armada" to Charleston?
So why did Lincoln send warships to Charleston?

1. President Buchanan had already committed (on February 5) to SC Governor Pickens that Fort Sumter would be defended against attacks and not surrendered under any circumstances.

2. President Buchanan had already tried & failed to resupply & reinforce Fort Sumter with a single unarmed civilian merchant ship, Star of the West.

3. Confederates had repeatedly demanded Fort Sumter's surrender, threatening violence and firing on Union ships.

4. Jefferson Davis had ordered preparations for military assault on Forts Sumter & Pickens, if they didn't surrender.

Bottom line: military assaults are acts of war, resupply missions are not.
So, despite DiogenesLamp's repeated denials, Jefferson Davis intended to start war at Forts Sumter & Pickens, if Lincoln didn't surrender them first.
And that's just what happened.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "They deliberately misled the Confederates into believing that the properties were to be turned over to them, thereby respecting their independence, but what Anderson did instead was seen as a bait and switch con.
After that they were unwanted guests who refused to leave."

But there was no "misleading" about US intentions to hold the Charleston forts.
If you review my post #1,037 you'll see that that:

• Secessionists began threatening Union officials on November 7, the day after Lincoln's election.

• By November 23, Maj. Anderson reported his small garrison was being "openly and publically threatened."

• This lead to December 4, still weeks before any secession, outgoing Doughfaced Democrat President Buchanan announced the SC forts would be defended if attacked.
  In response, SC congressmen told Buchanan reinforcing Maj. Anderson would cause war and they asked him to meet with SC commissioners to discuss turning over Federal properties.
  Note this is still two weeks before SC declared secession!

• On December 11, still a week before secession, the US Secretary of War (future Confederate General) ordered Maj. Anderson to defend the forts if attacked, and deploy his garrison as seemed best.

• On December 27, President Buchanan claimed that Anderson's move to Fort Sumter had been against his orders, but in that Buchanan was mistaken.
  Secretary of War Floyd (future Confederate general) strongly advocated removing all Federal troops from Charleston -- on grounds Anderson violated Washington pledges.
  But in that Floyd was mistaken.

• On December 28, SC commissioners demanded Anderson's withdrawal from Fort Sumter, but Buchanan refused.

• On December 31, President Buchanan told SC commissioners Congress must define relations between Federal government and SC, denied any pledge to preserve status of forts and noted how SC seized other Federal properties.
  Buchanan refused to withdraw Anderson's garrison and issued orders for ships, troops and stores to sail for Fort Sumter.

So there was no time under President Buchanan when the US promised to withdraw Maj. Anderson's garrison from Charleston, SC.
And from the beginning secessionists used force, plans & threats of force to compel Union withdrawals.
So Jefferson Davis' actions on April 12 were simply a continuation of previous Confederate tactics.

[jeffersondem]

“Bottom line: military assaults are acts of war, resupply missions are not.”

Secession is not an act of war.

It was unanimously endorsed by all the states in the Declaration of Independence and provided for, with a bunch of other stuff, under the U.S. constitution's ninth and tenth amendments.

War started after U.S. Navy vessels were sent on the prod in the Gulf of Tonkin incident. I mean, the Ft. Sumter incident.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "A resupply force is a contradiction.
It was a 'force' of eight armed ships with cannons and riflemen, and it had orders to FORCE it's way into Sumter, and to there install a larger force of men to resist further.
It was D@Mn stupid, and it was impossible for it to accomplish it's stated mission.
Abner Doubleday said every ship would have been sunk."

DiogenesLamp continues to post this last lie despite having been corrected now many times.
Capt. Doubleday in Fort Sumter first proposed the plan which became the Lincoln/Fox resupply mission.
It was to send supplies by rowboats from ships anchored off-shore at night, under cover of darkness and even fog.
It was a totally realistic plan and would have succeeded if Anderson had held out a few days longer.

And DiogenesLamp does or would know this if he'd ever read his own source materials.

[BroJoeK]

Bull Snipe: "Beauregard open fire with total disregard for what ever naval force was to appear."

DiogenesLamp: "Would it change your opinion about anything if you found out Beauregard actually did reserve batteries for the Warship attack which didn't come?"

Remember the sequence of events:

1. On April 8, Lincoln advised SC Governor Pickens he was sending a resupply mission to Fort Sumter.

2. On ~April 10, Davis ordered Beauregard to "reduce" Fort Sumter if he believed the Union intended to replenish it.

3. On April 11, Beauregard did believe Lincoln's announced intentions and demanded Anderson's surrender, then began military assault when Anderson refused.

So the size of Lincoln's "war armada" was irrelevant to Davis, as was any Beauregard reserve force.
What did matter, instead, was Beauregard's own admission he had only 48 hours of ammunition, meaning if Anderson had only held out a couple more days, the Lincoln/Fox resupply plan would be successful.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "The 9th and 10th amendments are right after amendment 8."

Got it, but those don't say what you claimed, so I thought maybe you meant somewhere else?

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Most reasonable people believe the new property owner was in the right because he first sought a peaceful end to the intrusion and when that failed, used reasonable and proportional force to defend his family."

So I take from that you claim the "new owner" had legitimately bought & paid for the property, from the "former owner"?
Do you know the amount paid and the transaction documenting it?
Who exactly signed off on this supposedly legitimate property sale?