(Vanity) Recommendations For Books on the "Civil War"/War Between The States

[GOP_Raider]

I told myself I'd limit myself to one vanity post per several hundred comments and threads I'd posted, so I apologize in advance.

Currently, I'm doing some summer reading and I'm looking specifically for books on the Civil War/War Between the States--or the "War of Northern Agression" if you're so inclined. While I am for certain that this topic could fill up my living room and perhaps my grandparents' entire house, I'm looking for anything that those of you who argue back and forth on the Civil War threads have read. Thanks in advance.

[x]

Seems as if you are using the "first to fire" argument to determine who started the war. Very lame logic and weak point. You really are losing it.

You are wrong on two levels. First, the United States Congress stated that the official opening of the war was the declaration of the blockade, and not the Charleston defense of its harbor.

If you still want to hang on the first to fire rationale, I will point out to you that it was Union Lieutenant Daniel Tompkins who fired the first shot in Charleston Harbor.

I think any normal person who'd been following this discussion for as long as I have would be sick of it by now.

It's always some stupid sophistry or other from you, Pea.

There was no official declaration of war, so you can play games with the date, but virtually everyone agrees that the war began with the firing on our flag on April 12, 1861.

If I wanted to I could say the war started when the first rebel seized the first federal property, but that's not the excepted beginning of the war.

Similarly, whatever obscure incident you want to make the beginning of the war doesn't change the accepted understanding of things.

A stray shot here or there doesn't make a war, so we ought to speak of the "first shots" in the plural, the military action that started the war.

Similarly, the formula in these things is often "a state of war has existed since" -- since Japan or Germany or the Confederacy did this or that to commence hostilities.

That's when the war began, not when you first get the news, or when you start to take steps to win the war that's already begun.

You want to blame Lincoln and absolve the rebels so you just assert things you want to believe. But really, who else is going to be convinced by such asininities?

[PeaRidge]

Stupid sophistry? Asininities?

Pulling out some more of your lame attempts at personal attacks again as a diversion from the fact that you have no facts to back up your biased assertions.

You said: “There was no official declaration of war”

Nice effort at misdirection. You well know that Lincoln did everything possible to avoid any declaration of war.

I said: “the official opening of the war was the declaration of the blockade”

Which is true. See http://www.raabcollection.com/manuscript/Abraham-Lincoln-Document-Blockade.aspx

Which says: “...according to the Supreme Court, Lincoln’s signature on this order sealing the imposition of the blockade marked the official beginning of the Civil War.

The statement is referring to Lincoln’s signing of the blockade order on April 19, 1861. Congress and the Supreme Court fixed this date as the beginning of the war.

“...virtually everyone agrees that the war began with the firing on our flag on April 12, 1861...” simply means that virtually everyone is wrong on this fact.

You know this is true. You just simply believe that some talent of yours at debate can make your assertions true just because you make the assertion. I don’t think you even realize how paranoid that is.

[PeaRidge]

By the way, if you look at your syntax and word choices, are you sure you are not using some student to write your replies these days? It is getting pretty sloppy, there, x.

[stainlessbanner]

There was no official declaration of war

That's the problem - Lincoln's unconstitutional call for troops and authorization of funding can only be done by Congress. Seeing this act of aggression, previously undecided states sided with the Confederacy. Lincoln's unconstitutional measures cost him the support of VA, TN, NC, and AR. Virginia was the lynchpin - the South desparately needed her for political and strategic reasons. Had Lincoln not bent the rules, perhaps VA would have stayed in the Union.

He tried to pull of Gus Fox's stupid plan without Congressional approval and got caught.

[Non-Sequitur]

That's the problem - Lincoln's unconstitutional call for troops and authorization of funding can only be done by Congress.

PeaRidge would disagree with you. His own source posted in reply 82 points out that Lincoln had the authority to call out troops to suppress rebellion under the authority of the Militia Act. Lincoln's call-up complied with the law in effect in every respect.

Virginia was the lynchpin - the South desparately needed her for political and strategic reasons.

Hence Davis's need for a war to get Virginia off the fence, and his likely reason for initiating the conflict at Sumter.

He tried to pull of Gus Fox's stupid plan without Congressional approval and got caught.

Why was congressional approval needed?

[Non-Sequitur]

You well know that Lincoln did everything possible to avoid any declaration of war.

Who was Lincoln supposed to declare war on? Himself? War is declared on other sovereign nations, not with rebellious sections of your own country.

I said: “the official opening of the war was the declaration of the blockade”.

Your own source says that the confederates fired on Sumter "initiating hostilities". So what exactly is the difference between "initiating hostilities" and "official beginning"? If the official beginning is marked by one side's response to the other side's aggression, then wouldn't Lincoln's troop call up of troops mark the official beginning?

Which says: “...according to the Supreme Court, Lincoln’s signature on this order sealing the imposition of the blockade marked the official beginning of the Civil War."

Do you happen to know what case the author is referring to?

I don’t think you even realize how paranoid that is.

Why Pea, I would say that that comment constitutes "some more of your lame attempts at personal attacks again as a diversion from the fact that you have no facts to back up your biased assertions."

[Colonel Kangaroo]

That's the problem - Lincoln's unconstitutional call for troops and authorization of funding can only be done by Congress. Seeing this act of aggression, previously undecided states sided with the Confederacy. Lincoln's unconstitutional measures cost him the support of VA, TN, NC, and AR. Virginia was the lynchpin - the South desparately needed her for political and strategic reasons. Had Lincoln not bent the rules, perhaps VA would have stayed in the Union.

Lincoln never had the support of the border states. Support is more than sitting on the sidelines. Thats akin to idle bystanders at a mugging. Boss Jeff knew he would win either way by forcing the issue at Sumter. If Lincoln surrendered, he had a chest-thumping victory for the slavery regime and the nutty plantation element could more easily push secession over the prudent. If Lincoln stood firm, the nutty plantation element would be able to use the "outrage" as a club to push secession over the prudent.

Thankfully, Lincoln chose to stand firm. The Confederacy seceded over slavery in the territories and they were not going to be done fighting until they won the territories and the mastery over the continent. Better to start the inevitable shooting in Charleston than in Kansas and Nebraska.

[x]

Your site says: "It was a de facto declaration of war by the Union against the Confederacy." But as non pointed out it also says: "On Friday, April 12, 1861, Confederate forces opened fire on Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor, initiating hostilities between the North and South."

So the declaration of the blockade wasn't the beginning of the war, any more than Congress's declaration of war on Japan was the beginning of WWII. In both cases the war had already begun with the attack on us.

What the Supreme Court said in The Protector, 79 U.S. 12 Wall. 700 700 (1870) was:

The question in the present case is when did the rebellion begin and end? In other words, what space of time must be considered as excepted from the operation of the statute of limitations by the war of the rebellion?

Acts of hostility by the insurgents occurred at periods so various, and of such different degrees of importance, and in parts of the country so remote from each other, both at the commencement and the close of the late civil war, that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to say on what precise day it began or terminated. It is necessary, therefore, to refer to some public act of the political departments of the government to fix the dates, and, for obvious reasons, those of the executive department which may be and in fact was, at the commencement of hostilities, obliged to act during the recess of Congress, must be taken.

The proclamation of intended blockade by the President may therefore be assumed as marking the first of these dates, and the proclamation that the war had closed as marking the second. But the war did not begin or close at the same time in all the states. There were two proclamations of intended blockade: the first of the 19th of April, 1861, embracing the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas; the second of the 27th of April, 1861, embracing the States of Virginia and North Carolina; and there were two proclamations declaring that the war had closed, one issued on the 2d of April, 1866, embracing the States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, and Arkansas, and the other issued on the 20th of August, 1866, embracing the State of Texas.

In the absence of more certain criteria of equally general application, we must take the dates of these proclamations as ascertaining the commencement and the close of the war in the states mentioned in them. Applying this rule to the case before us, we find that the war began in Alabama on the 19th of April, 1861, and ended on the 2d April, 1866. More than five years, therefore, had elapsed from the close of the war till the 17th of May, 1871, when this appeal was brought.

Source (footnotes deleted)

Once again, this doesn't tell us when the war actually began. Or ended. If you were still fighting in March or April 1866, something was probably very wrong.

I suspect this is analogous to the "eras" that the Defense Department and Department of Veterans' Affairs divide history up into. They don't always coincide with the actual fighting or what we'd think of as the real war.

So, like I said, sophistry ...

[PeaRidge]

Not so fast there pal. No disagreement with stainlessbanner. And it was Lincoln who needed the war, and he brought forth the US Navy to do so....led by that civilian Hothead G. Fox.

[PeaRidge]

The choice of armed conflict was made by Abraham Lincoln. He bears ultimate responsibility for the war's beginning.

The hostilities of that event began when Lincoln dispatched warships tasked specifically to fight their way into Fort Sumter in the inevitable event that the confederates refused to let them enter their territory - Charleston harbor. His ships were even instructed to coordinate their attacks with the fort by use of signal flags. When the first US Naval ship arrived, the Harriet Lane, it fired on the confederate civilian vessel Nashville.

Then, according to the 'Official Records' the Nashville stopped. Shortly thereafter, the US warships "captured" an ice schooner trying to pass, and Fox devised a plan to use it against the Confederate defenses. At that point a defacto blockade existed. I took several more days for Lincoln to officially admit and declare that a blockade existed. Later, the courts affixed this date as the official beginning of the war.

[Non-Sequitur]

No disagreement with stainlessbanner.

Then you disagree with your source posted in reply 92, which detailed Lincoln's authority to call up the militia in the face of the Southern rebellion. So if you believe they're wrong in that area then what other area are they incorrect on?

And it was Lincoln who needed the war, and he brought forth the US Navy to do so....led by that civilian Hothead G. Fox.

And it was Jefferson Davis who bombarded Sumter and initiated the war rather than allow food to be landed and the status quo to continue. Why? How else was he going to get the other slave states off the fence? He banked that with 8 addition states he could take on the federal government and win. As it turns out he only got 4 states and he lost.

[stainlessbanner]

I do not see any disagreement between the posts. Bottom line is, Lincoln called for funding, called for troops, and created an aggressive plan to attack S.C. The plan was refuted by his own cabinet and would not be shared with Congress despite their asking.

Lincoln would not even receive the S.C. negotation party that sought peaceful resolution.

[stainlessbanner]

You must have read post 92 before I posted, Non. You’re getting good at these debates.

[Boagenes]

"Captain Sam Grant", by Lloyd Lewis, who died before he could complete what was supposed to be a trilogy, and "Grant Moves South" and "Grant Takes Command" by Bruce Catton, who completed the trilogy.

Probably the best three books ever written about the Civil War, but they follow the war through Grant's career. Amazing writing, and absolute must reads for understanding the Union side of the conflict.

[PeaRidge]

You said: ...Your site says: "It was a de facto declaration of war by the Union against the Confederacy." But as non pointed out it also says: "On Friday, April 12, 1861, Confederate forces opened fire on Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor, initiating hostilities between the North and South." So the declaration of the blockade wasn't the beginning of the war,... the war had already begun with the attack on us.

How utterly ridiculous. Just another sophomoric try by you and your pals at obfuscation.

Non-sequitur audaciously uses the term hostilities to try to make the case that all of a sudden, official war broke out.

Then you pile on by flatly stating that the beginning of the war is defined by the outbreak of hostilities. Ridiculous!.

Your assertion that the war began and was a necessary consequence of the confederate defense of Fort Sumter is simply not true as no necessary causal connection existed between the events, nor has any ever been demonstrated in the entire 147 years since it happened.

I point this out because, in spite of this obvious fact, you continue to treat the events as if a necessary connection existed between them.

By contrast, since the invasion and blockade were the direct necessarily caused result of Lincoln's choice to do both, he bears ultimate responsibility for there bringing about a war. And the courts said so.

[Non-Sequitur]

Bottom line is, Lincoln called for funding, called for troops, and created an aggressive plan to attack S.C. The plan was refuted by his own cabinet and would not be shared with Congress despite their asking.

Bottom line is your claim that Lincoln acted illegally when in fact he did not.

Lincoln would not even receive the S.C. negotation party that sought peaceful resolution.

The only party was sent by Davis, and they were not there to negotiate but to demand Union recognition of confederate sovereignty. In other words, Lincoln's surrender. Given that, what was there to meet about?

[stainlessbanner]

Pickens sent envoys to Buchannen; Davis sent the 3-man commission to Lincoln. That coward Seward dodged every meeting with them including attempts from the Californian McGwin.

It is clear the Southern commission went with peaceful intentions and sought time to resolve the issues, but Lincoln's inexperience/unwillingness cost everyone. The irony is both sides, the Union and CSA wanted more time, but the lack of communication on Lincoln's behalf destroyed any credibility or hope for peaceful resolution.

[Non-Sequitur]

Pickens sent envoys to Buchannen; Davis sent the 3-man commission to Lincoln.

A three man commission to do what? According to their instructions, to demand recognition of the confedercy. No negotiations, there was nothing to negotiate because so far as the Davis government was concerned no other outcome was acceptable. Recogntion, period.

It is clear the Southern commission went with peaceful intentions and sought time to resolve the issues...

No, they did not want to resolve the issue. They wanted Lincoln's surrnder. His positions were of no interest to the commissioners or Davis. Only complete recognition of the legitimacy of the confederacy and the legality of their actions, including repudiating debt and seizing property, was the accepted outcome. Given this, as have said all along, what on earth was there for Lincoln to talk about?

The irony is both sides, the Union and CSA wanted more time, but the lack of communication on Lincoln's behalf destroyed any credibility or hope for peaceful resolution.

There was no credibility because there was no interest on the part of the South in a peaceful resolution. Had there been then Davis would have dispatched a true negotiating team empowered to discuss all positions and not just the Southern one.

[stainlessbanner]

There was no hostility in the 3-man delegation. They were statesmen, not conquerers or warriors. Their goal was peaceful means to resolve the problem. Buchannan kept communications open until his last day in office. Lincoln and his new team shut down communications perpared for war. Lincoln built his war policy in Dec 1860 and would not be deferred by a peaceful envoy from South.

While waiting for Seward’s reply, Forsyth wrote this letter to Sec. War Walker.

Note how many times he advocates peace and time.

We are not talking backwoods, hill people commissioners, John Forsyth was an Alabamian, the well-known editor of the Mobile Register, mayor of Mobile, and minister to Mexico under Pierce and Buchanan.

Read on:

“We are feeling our way here cautiously. We are playing a game in which time is our best advocate, and if our Government could afford the time I feel confident of winning. There is a terrific fight in the [Lincoln] Cabinet. Our policy is to encourage the peace element in the fight, and at least blow up the Cabinet on the question.

“The outside pressure in favor of peace grows stronger every hour. Lincoln inclines to peace, and I have now no doubt that General Scott is Seward's anxious and laborious coadjutor in the same direction. If Seward were not a coward, and would have had an unofficial conference with us, we could have strengthened his hands. His refusal forced us to precipitate the official bombshell into the Cabinet before he was ready for it. He has already had to beg for time. I repeat that I feel the strongest conviction that if time would allow we could make our mission a success. Seward wanted time as much as we did, but his lack of nerve has lost it to him and to us. Never was administration in such a dilemma. The only question is which of its two horns had it better be impaled over. Since the 4th of March two of the Republican illusions have been exploded-first, that it was very easy to re-enforce the forts, and second, that they could collect the revenue on floating custom-houses at sea.

The great danger is that from ignorance of the true state of things in the South they may blunder us into a war when they really do not mean it. I think the great problem with the Administration is how to get out of a fight without blowing up the Republican party. They believe, and we encourage the pleasant thought, that in case of war their precious persons would not be safe in Washington. With prudence, wisdom, and firmness we have the rascals "on the hip."

-Source: Official Records, Series IV, Vol. I, 165.

[Non-Sequitur]

Their goal was peaceful means to resolve the problem.

Their sole purpose, as laid out in the letter Davis sent to Lincoln, was "establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States.." No discussion. No negoitiation. Nothing but recognition. An end to secession wasn't open for discussion. Lincoln's positions weren't open for discussion. Nothing at all was open for discussion, unless Lincoln first caved in to the rebel demands. And after he had done that, once he had surrendered, then there was a vague offer to discuss "matters and subjects interesting to both nations". If payment for debt wasn't a subject interesting to the South then apparently it wasn't a topic to discuss. If compensation for stolen federal property wasn't a matter intersting to the South, then apparently that wasn't on the table, either. The whole delegation was a con game, a smoke screen to force the issue by delivering an unacceptable ultimatum and then walking out in a huff. You're just upset that Lincoln saw through the scheme and refused to play along. Hence the need to fire on Sumter.