Commentary: Truth blown away in sugarcoated 'Gone With the Wind'

But the further argument is that the order from Walker came only because the Confederate government had learned about the planned reinforcement.

No reinforcement, no disruption to supply.

The burden of this observation, unless you can upset it somehow, is that the situation, barring an aggressive move by Lincoln, was stable.

The fact that he decided to send a flotilla that wasn't needed for supply indicates Lincoln was in fact seeking conflict.

Lincoln had a duty and an obligation to respond to the southern insurrection.

There was no insurrection. Only separation, which the Southern States had the unrefuted right to perform, acting out of the abundant reserves of sovereign power retained by the People of South Carolina.

Something you haven't yet admitted about Grier's opinion in The Prize Cases is that he was making this stuff up -- pulling it out of his robes, so to speak, as he went along.

Your attention has been previously called to some of Grier's inventions, and you haven't responded. Grier tried to wash a number of unconstitutional executive actions, some of them the same ones for which Lincoln had later to be indemnified (if that is the word) by a slumbering Congress, at five o'clock in the morning, two years after the fact.

To the extent that Lincoln exercised the constituional powers to wage war, he exercised those powers to win the war.

My criticism of him is that he had no mandate so to do, and that he started the war with no mandate either from the People or from their Congress.

Lincoln's electoral mandate was to serve as President, not to make himself Shogun.

But the further argument is that the order from Walker came only because the Confederate government had learned about the planned reinforcement.

The Davis regime had no knowledge of the planned resupply of Sumter until Lincoln's letter to Governor Pickens arrived, and that was on or about the 8th of April. The order to cut off the food predates that by almost a week.

The fact that he decided to send a flotilla that wasn't needed for supply indicates Lincoln was in fact seeking conflict.

Was he? Or was he reacting to the actions of the Davis regime?

"Something you haven't yet admitted about Grier's opinion in The Prize Cases is that he was making this stuff up -- pulling it out of his robes, so to speak, as he went along."

It is called interpretation - and it was a true majority (5-4). If you want to read badly documented fantasy from the Supreme Court, I refer you to the Dred Scott decision, which was a mishmash of pluralities.

"There was no insurrection. Only separation, which the Southern States had the unrefuted right to perform, acting out of the abundant reserves of sovereign power retained by the People of South Carolina."

True to form, but incorrect nevertheless.

"My criticism of him is that he had no mandate so to do, and that he started the war with no mandate either from the People or from their Congress."

You remain in the small minority who actually believes this stuff. That's why you are a fringist.

"Ft. Sumpter (sic)"

The Union cannons were meant to defend the fort, first and foremost. As Charleston was occupied by insurrectionists and other criminals, the guns of Fort Sumter, defended the principle of Constitutional government.

"Congress was in session when 7 Southern states seceded. Congress did not hold that the states were insurrectionary, nor did they declare war on the states for seceding."

There was hope they would come to their senses. The limp noodle Buchanan didn't have the backbone to do anything, thus Lincoln was presented with a crisis even before he assumed the duties of his office.

"Lincoln's electoral mandate was to serve as President, not to make himself Shogun."

Ahh so.

The problem was the pro-southern rioters and associated criminals; not the troops in transit.

Problem or not, it's easier from the stance of public safety to divert troop shipments around the city than risk a confrontation with tens of thousands of angry civilians. Marching through Baltimore inflamed the population toward a more secessionist stance than they otherwise would have taken. It's one thing to travel in relative peace and without confrontation around a hotspot and another to march right through the center of it without regard to the fact that doing so inflames a very delicate situation among the populace. Lincoln could never quite grasp that concept and apparently neither can you.

12 dead criminals, or just innocent bystanders throwing bricks?

I have no doubt that you consider the 12 year old boy who was killed by a stray bullet from the soldiers while standing on a boat at the docks to have been a "criminal" simply because you cannot admit that any yankee ever did anything wrong, but the simple fact is that innocent civilians suffered the most casualties. Mayor Brown described what he witnesses as follows:

It was impossible for the troops to discriminate between the rioters and the by-standers, but the latter seemed to suffer most, because, as the main attack was from the mob pursuing the soldiers from the rear, they, in their march, could not easily face backward to fire, but could shoot at those whom they passed on the street.

He denied authorizing destruction of the bridges.

Yet documentation from the time and at least four eyewitness accounts say that he did.

To my knowledge, there is no paper trail with his authorization.

There's at least part of a paper trail signed by Hicks - his letter to Lincoln stating that he was fully supportive of everything Brown did. That would include the bridges.

"I have been in Baltimore since Tuesday evening last, and co-operated with Mayor G, W. Brown in his untiring efforts to allay and prevent the excitement and suppress the fearful outbreak as indicated above, and I fully concur in all that is said by him in the above communication."

Uh huh. That's believable.

It sure is. Three separate eyewitnesses who, in addition to Brown, all reported seeing Hicks authorize blocking the bridges. That makes four witnesses including Brown himself against one, Hicks, who changed his mind about what he did a month later.

A non sequitur. Lincoln did not commend Hicks and Brown for burning bridges!

He commended them for their actions the day after they ordered the bridges burned. Do you not think that Lincoln knew the bridges had been burned when he commended them?

I do not believe Lincoln knew that Brown had a hand in the insurrection.

Sounds more like the conspirators getting their stories straight, and trying to blame a higher-up.

"It's one thing to travel in relative peace and without confrontation around a hotspot and another to march right through the center of it without regard to the fact that doing so inflames a very delicate situation among the populace. Lincoln could never quite grasp that concept and apparently neither can you."

Passing troops from one station to another in Baltimore need not have been viewed as provocative. Of course, there is no accounting for the mob mentality.

"It was impossible for the troops to discriminate between the rioters and the by-standers, but the latter seemed to suffer most, because, as the main attack was from the mob pursuing the soldiers from the rear, they, in their march, could not easily face backward to fire, but could shoot at those whom they passed on the street."

Rule #1: Don't watch a riot in progress. (They had to learn this in St. Louis too.)

"Yet documentation from the time and at least four eyewitness accounts say that [Gov Hicks] did [authorize the destruction of the bridges]."

As I stated earlier, no paper trail exists which implicates the Governor; only the "eyewitness" accounts. Given that the "eyewitnesses" are insurrectionists of poor character, I somewhat discount their testimony.

Sounds more like the conspirators getting their stories straight, and trying to blame a higher-up.

An interesting theory, but for three major faults:

(1) It violates Ockham's razor by posing an unnecessarily complex and contingent explanation for the simple event of four out of five speaking consistently and the other having a different story.

(2) You have provided absolutely no evidence to even remotely suggest a conspiracy to change the story was at play, or anything other than the indicated fact that Hicks lied.

(3) To challenge the stories of the other four witnesses and to accept Hicks' changed story would also entail several contradictions of Hicks' known behavior. Among them are his letter to Lincoln the following day indicating that he fully supported everything Brown was doing, plus the fact that he was staying in Brown's house and thus must have known what Brown had ordered on his authorization having been present when Brown gave that order to the police chief, plus the fact that he said nothing to counteract Brown's actions or even to deny his role in them until a month had passed.

Thus, while I have no doubt that you personally desire it to be the case that Hicks was not lying since doing so would allow you to "vindicate" Saint Abe from what would otherwise constitute an abusive action on his part, the facts simply do not support you.

Besides, aren't you the guy who wanted us all to accept an unsourced New York Times editorial alleging that Taney and Merryman were neighbors even after that claim had been discredited? So who are you to arbitrarily toss out four known, detailed, specific, and corroborating accounts by eyewitnesses that all say Hicks authorized the order?

I do not believe Lincoln knew that Brown had a hand in the insurrection.

What insurrection are you speaking of? Hicks and Brown ordered the railroad bridges cut to stop trains from entering Baltimore so there wouldn't be another riot. Being the government officials of Maryland who were tasked with ensuring the public safety of Baltimore, they had every right to do so. As much as you believe otherwise, "King of the Maryland Railroads" is not one of the powers given to the president by the Constitution.

The April 20, 1861 Philadelphia Public Ledger reported conflicting accounts of the Baltimore riot. Report #1 from an unidentified Baltimore newspaper:

This morning upon the arrival of the Massachusetts volunteers at the President street depot at 10 o'clock, a large crowd had assembled, evidently to give them an unwelcome reception. The arrangements contemplated the passage of thirty-six cars occupied by the volunteers, from the president street depot to the Camden station of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, over the intervening space occupied by the Pratt street track. The cars were dispatched one after the other by horses, and upon the arrival of the first car at the intersection of Gay and Pratt streets, a vast assemblage having collected there, demonstrations were made which evidently contemplated the stopping of the troops at that point. Just there, repairs of the road were in progress, and a number of paving stones were lying in heaps, which were seized by the crowd and used for purposes of assault.

Ten of the cars had succeeded in passing on their way before the crowd were able to accomplish their purpose of barricading the track, which they a?w began to effect by placing large heavy anchors lying in the vicinity, directly across the rails. Some seven or eight were borne by the crowd and laid on the track, and thus the passage of the cars was thus effectually interrupted.

Having accomplished this object, the crowd set to lustily cheering Jefferson Davis, South Carolina, or secession, and groans for sundry obnoxious parties. In the meanwhile the troops thus delayed at the depot remained quietly in the cars until tired of their inaction, and apprehending a more formidable demonstration they came to the conclusion to face the music and march through the city. They accordingly evacuated the cars, and rapidly gathering on the street north of the depot, formed in line and prepared to make the attempt. The word was given to "march" and the head of the line had advanced some fifteen paces, when it was driven back upon the main body by the immense crowd, still further increased by a body of men who marched down to the depot bearing at their head a Confederate flag.

The Public Ledger also printed Report #2.

THE RIOT

Eight of the cars started from the President street depot and passed safely to the Camden station. The ninth started but soon returned, the track having been torn up and obstructed at the corner of Pratt and Gay streets.

After considerable delay it was determined to march the troops through the city. There were then the contents of twenty-two cars, only about sixty of whom were supplied by arms. The remainder were recruits and occupied second class and baggage cars.

Just before the movement was made from the cars a large crowd of persons went down President street, with a southern flag, and met the troops as they emerged from the cars. The southern flag was then carried in front of the column, and hooting and yelling began, and as soon as they turned out of Canton avenue they [the troops, I presume] were greeted with a volley of stones.

At the corner of Fawn street, two of the soldiers were struck with stones and knocked down; one of them was taken by police to the drug store of T. J. Pitt, at the corner of Pratt and High streets, and the other to the Eastern police station.

The yelling continued and the stones flew thick and fast. At Pratt street bridge a gun was fired, said by policeman No. 71, to have been fired from the ranks of the soldiers.

Then the crowd pressed stronger, until the body reached the corner of Gay street, where the troops presented arms and fired. Several persons fell on the first round, and the crowd became furious. A number of revolvers were used, and their shots took effect in the ranks.

Here is Report #3 from the Public Ledger:

…cars were turned back at the President street depot, and the men disembarked and prepared to march through the city.

Mayor Brown and a number of police appeared at their head, and led the way. They came along at a brisk pace, and when they reached Market space, an immense concourse closed in behind them, and commenced stoning them. When they reached Gay street where the track had been torn up, a crowd of men armed with paving stones, showered them on their heads with such force that several were knocked down in the ranks. After lying a few moments, they were carried into stores on Pratt street.

At the corner of Pratt and South streets a man fired a pistol into the ranks, when those in the rear ranks immediately wheeled and fired upon their assailants, several of whom were wounded. The guns of the soldiers that had been knocked down were seized and fired into the ranks with fatal effect. In two or three instances, after reaching Calvert street they [the soldiers] succeeded in checking their pursuers by a rapid fire, which brought down two or three and they were not much molested until they reached Howard street, where another large crowd was assembled. Some stones were thrown at them, but as their guns were not loaded, they passed on through a dense crowd, down Howard street toward the depot.

The scene on Pratt street was of the most startling character. The wounded soldiers, three in number, were taken up carefully and carried to places of safety by the citizens along the street.

Passing troops from one station to another in Baltimore need not have been viewed as provocative.

But only an idiot would believe that he could do it without provocation in April of 1861. Whether you think it was right or not to march the troops there, it is indisputable that those who did either failed to gauge the certain reaction of the city's residence or held the city itself in complete contempt and disregard. Most likely it was a little bit of both.

Rule #1: Don't watch a riot in progress.

I suppose it's easy to say that from a distance when the innocent kid who gets mowed down isn't your own, but violence has a nasty way of happening spontaneously and when it does, bystanders get hurt. You might as well respond to a bank robbery by lecturing the people in the teller lines that they are at fault for being there.

As I stated earlier, no paper trail exists which implicates the Governor

And you stated that falsely. Hicks wrote to Lincoln the next day giving his blanket praise and approval for everything that Brown did.

Given that the "eyewitnesses" are insurrectionists of poor character

I see you are back to the old practice of ad hominem libels against anybody and everybody who counteracts the Lincoln line. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps Lincoln was the individual of poor character here? Or perhaps Hicks? Of course not. You believe that Saint Abe should be sitting on Jesus' throne with the cherub Hicks floating around at his service, thus you cannot conscience the possibility that Lincoln ever erred or hurt anybody. Thus, in your warped mind, the 12 year old kid who gets mowed down by a bunch of soldiers for simply being on a boat near Pratt Street is at full fault for and deserving of his untimely death.

The Union cannons were meant to defend the fort, first and foremost.

The fort was built to PROTECT Charleston, not attack it.