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.

[Bull Snipe]

Sumter was fired on before the war ships were within gun range.

Once the bombardment of the fort started, the warships did not fire on the Confederate batteries at Moultrie or Sullivan’s Island. That was not in their orders.

Anderson did not return fire for almost an hour into the bombardment.

Clearly, Davis chose war and fired first.

[DiogenesLamp]

Sumter was fired on before the war ships were within gun range.

Well of course it was. It would have been pretty D@mn stupid to wait until the ships were within gun range and then have to face both the guns of the fort and the guns of the ships at the same time.

Once the bombardment of the fort started, the warships did not fire on the Confederate batteries at Moultrie or Sullivan’s Island. That was not in their orders.

Their orders were for Captain Mercer of the Powhatan to take command of the expedition. They thought he was just late. They were unaware that he had been relieved of command by secret orders from Lincoln, and that David Porter at that very moment had his ship, disguised as a British aircraft carrier, sailing to Pensacola to there start a war.

Anderson did not return fire for almost an hour into the bombardment.

Anderson explains that he had no ammunition to waste, so the men were not to fire until they had daylight to see by.

Clearly, Davis chose war and fired first.

Clearly Lincoln was going to have his war start in either Charleston or Pensacola, and he didn't really care which.

Motive and intent. All on the North's side.

[Bull Snipe]

Davis chose to start it at Fort Sumter

[DiogenesLamp]

Lincoln chose to start it in Washington DC. Most of his cabinet told him his actions would ignite a war. They were correct.

Lincoln wasn't stupid. He knew exactly what he was doing.

[Bull Snipe]

Davis chose to start it in Richmond, VA. His Secretary of state told him this action would ignite a war. They were correct

Davis wasn’t stupid. He knew exactly what he was doing when he ordered Beauregard to reduce Fort Sumter by all means necessary before the resupply ships arrived.

[DiogenesLamp]

Davis chose to start it in Richmond, VA. His Secretary of state told him this action would ignite a war.

After Lincoln had sent the fleet. Keep cause and effect in mind.

Davis wasn’t stupid. He knew exactly what he was doing when he ordered Beauregard to reduce Fort Sumter by all means necessary before the resupply ships arrived.

Warships, not "resupply" ships. A single supply ship (star of the west) was deemed sufficient. Lincoln sent 8, most of which were loaded with cannons and rifles, and one which was loaded with troops.

Calling it a "supply" mission was just preemptive propaganda. They were warships and their orders were to use force against the confederates.

Lincoln sent a belligerent force against people who were about to end the standoff peacefully, and you don't like hearing the accurate truth because it makes it quite clear who was responsible for starting all the bloodshed.

[BroJoeK]

Bull Snipe: "Davis chose to start it in Richmond, VA. His Secretary of state told him this action would ignite a war."

DiogenesLamp: "After Lincoln had sent the fleet.
Keep cause and effect in mind."

Actually, Davis & Co. were in Montgomery in April 1861, didn't move up to Richmond until after Virginia seceded.

Regardless, what's so disgusting here is that DiogenesLamp knows perfectly well what the real truth is, but refuses to acknowledge it out of loyalty to the Lost Causers' myth.
We have Jefferson Davis' own words, before Lincoln ordered his resupply mission, to the effect that Forts Sumter & Pickens surrenders would be forced as soon as Beauregard & Bragg were ready militarily.

Davis didn't need Lincoln's fleet to start war at Forts Sumter & Pickens.
The only thing Davis needed for certain was war itself, to flip Virginia & other Upper South states from Union to Confederacy.
Lincoln's fleet, or no fleet, Davis would have his war, one way or another.

• "It is scarcely to be doubted that for political reasons the U.S. govt. will avoid making an attack so long as the hope of retaining the border states remains.
• "There would be to us an advantage in so placing them that an attack by them would be a necessity, but when we are ready to relieve our territory and jurisdiction of the presence of a foreign garrison that advantage is overbalanced by other considerations.
• "The case of Pensacola then is reduced [to] the more palpable elements of a military problem and your measures may without disturbing views be directed to the capture of Fort Pickens and the defence of the harbor.
• "You will soon have I hope a force sufficient to occupy all the points necessary for that end.
• "As many additional troops as may be required can be promptly furnished."
  [Jefferson Davis to Braxton Bragg, 3 Apr 1861]

The date here of April 3 is significant because it's the day before Virginia voted against secession, 89-45 it wasn't even close, and the day before Lincoln ordered his resupply mission to Fort Sumter.

So Davis was planning to start war at Forts Sumter & Pickens, even without Lincoln's ships.
Why? Because it was all gain and no pain for Davis -- gain the Upper South, suffer no pain from the Illinois back-woods Big Ape with no military experience to speak of.

All of which by now DiogenesLamp knows well, but can't acknowledge while defending his adopted Lost Cause myths.

[jeffersondem]

“You disagree?”

This fourth question in your post related to the previous three questions and your own musings.

If I had the inclination to expand the one-to-ten scale to one-to-one hundred - which I don't; and if I had the inclination to expand the scale to include negative numbers - which I don't; and if I had the inclination to chase the Hitler rabbit you released - which I don't . . . I still don't know how I could simply express agreement or disagreement without getting as bollixed up in the distractions as you.

Maybe I should just state my opinion: sure Lincoln was a white supremacist. Most whites, north and south, were. That's one reason the race card, or even the slavery card, cannot be honestly played today by any region. They certainly cannot be used to justify the killing of 600,000 people.

There were real reasons the war was fought so vigorously by the North, and by the South. It is still not to late to acknowledge the reasons and to learn from the catastrophe.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Lincoln was just starting to turn his life around."

As was Jefferson Davis in 1865 -- finally adopting Lord Dunmore's policy of offering slaves freedom in exchange for military service.
But it was way too little too late, never actually happened.
Still a noble gesture from a decidedly unnoble leader.

And in the mean time ole' Jeffy boy began exploring the joys of transgender cross-dressing, I mean, how modern & progressive could an old slaver get??
He set the bar for Democrats 150+ years later.
Amazing.

DiogenesLamp: "You get 750,000 people killed in a war you deliberately started, and how do you top that?"

The fact is that Jefferson Davis started war, declared war & waged war long after it was clear his side lost.
Indeed he could have ended his war at any time before April 1865 on much better terms than the Unconditional Surrender he fought so hard to achieve.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "...sure Lincoln was a white supremacist.
Most whites, north and south, were.
That's one reason the race card, or even the slavery card, cannot be honestly played today by any region.
They certainly cannot be used to justify the killing of 600,000 people."

Maybe, but Lincoln was murdered for proposing, as John Wilkes Booth said: "That means n*gg*r citizenship ... That is the last speech he will ever give."

By stark contrast, Jefferson Davis wanted to fight on until, in his own word, "extermination".
For what? He claimed for independence but independence to do what?
Well, to protect slavery, of course.

So by your 1 to 10 scale, I'd say Lincoln in 1865 defines one and Jefferson Davis-John Wilkes Booth defines 10.

[jeffersondem]

“And in the mean time ole’ Jeffy boy began exploring the joys of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, I mean, how modern & progressive could an old slaver get??

I leap to the conclusion your rational answer tank is, again, empty.

[jeffersondem]

“So by your 1 to 10 scale, I'd say Lincoln in 1865 defines one and Jefferson Davis-John Wilkes Booth defines 10.”

Keep in mind: You are the one in post 896 that introduced degrees of racism. At that time your yard stick was “today's standards"; now you toggle to 1865 standards.

You are moving the goal posts, most likely because you believe it will somehow make northern white supremacy seem benevolent and to justify Lincoln's War that killed over 600,000.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "I leap to the conclusion your rational answer tank is, again, empty."

At worst, no more empty than those who post fake pictures of "gay Lincoln".
But I'd invite you to notice the end-of-war contrast between Lincoln, murdered for proposing "n*gg*r citizenship" and Jefferson Davis running for his life dressed up in women's clothes -- the perfect modern Democrat.

[BroJoeK]

BJK post #896: "Lincoln's views were also, by today's standards, racist but there are degrees -- despite his racism Lincoln believed slavery should be abolished, whereas Confederates took a different view."

jeffersondem: "...your yard stick was 'today's standards'; now you toggle to 1865 standards.
You are moving the goal posts, most likely because you believe it will somehow make northern white supremacy seem benevolent and to justify Lincoln's War that killed over 600,000."

I get the triple lutz with pirouette you're hoping to perform by converting Lincoln's emancipation, abolition & citizenship for African Americans -- for which he was murdered -- into the moral equivalent of slavers' like Jefferson Davis' war of "extermination" to preserve, protect & defend slavery.

Your logical lutz is certainly awesome & stunning in its audaciousness, but ultimately fails & crashes on contact with even a little common sense.

In his own words, Jefferson Davis' war of "extermination" to "the last man":

Of course Davis himself was not "exterminated", merely transitioned into a kinder & gentler gender.
What a great Democrat.

[HandyDandy]

And let’s not forget that Jeffy came around to being Pro-Union in the end, which would put him diametrically opposed to some of his defenders around here. Sometimes, when you don’t complete that triple lutz, you land facing the wrong direction.

[HandyDandy]

Another thing, no matter what Abe felt about blacks as a race, he found “slavery” abhorrent. This is indisputable. Anyone who knows anything about Abe Lincoln knows this and can’t run from it. He hated that one man could earn his bread off the sweat of another man’s face.

[jeffersondem]

“At worst, no more empty than those who post fake pictures of “*** Lincoln”.”

I’m not sure if this is an admission you are posting something wrong, or a defense.

[jeffersondem]

“Another thing, no matter what Abe felt about blacks as a race, he found “slavery” abhorrent.”

I just wish, as I'm sure you do, that Lincoln had proposed a constitutional amendment before the war to end slavery through the peaceful constitutional amendment process. Say when he served in Congress.

But he didn't.

Of course, Lincoln had a very good reason for not introducing a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery before the war: it was not in his own best self-interest, or the interests of his economic and political backers.

[jeffersondem]

“And let’s not forget that Jeffy came around to being Pro-Union in the end, which would put him diametrically opposed to some of his defenders around here.”

As a southerner, Jefferson Davis was pro-union before the war, too.

[DiogenesLamp]

Tis the patience of a saint ye have to be still arguing with the likes of him. :)