Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Targeting Lost Causers
Old Virginia Blog ^ | 06/09/2009 | Richard Williams

Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by Davy Buck

My oh my, what would the critics, the Civil War publications, publishers, and bloggers do if it weren't for the bad boys of the Confederacy and those who study them and also those who wish to honor their ancestors who fought for the Confederacy?

(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...


TOPICS: Books/Literature; Education; History; Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: academia; confederacy; damnyankees; dixie; dunmoresproclamation; history; lincolnwasgreatest; neoconfeds; notthisagain; southern; southwasright
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,321-1,3401,341-1,3601,361-1,380 ... 2,241-2,255 next last
To: rustbucket
rustbucket: "Ignoring the Star of the West, are we?"

BroJoeK: "nearly all had no troops to speak of, and no federal reinforcements were sent by President Buchanan."

The operative term here being "nearly all," the major exception being Fort Sumter. Here, again, is a partial listing of those seizures:

1860:
Dec 20: South Carolina secedes

Dec 27: Fort Moultree & Castle Pinckney, Charleston Harbor

Dec 27: US revenue cutter William Aiken in Charleston Harbor

Dec 30: US arsenal at Charleston

1861:
Jan 2: Fort Johnson, Charleston Harbor

Jan 3: Fort Pulaski, Georgia

Jan 4: US arsenal at Mount Vernon, Mobile Alabama

Jan 5: Forts Morgan and Gaines, Mobile Bay, Alabama

Jan 6: US arsenal at Apalachicola, Florida

Jan 7: Fort Marion, St. Augustine, Florida

Jan 9: Mississippi secedes

Jan 9: Fort Johnson, North Carolina

Jan 9: Star of the West with reinforcements and supplies for Fort Sumter fired on by South Carolina artilery.

Jan 10: Florida secedes

Jan 10: Fort Caswell, North Carolina

Jan 10: US arsenal at Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Jan 11: Alabama secedes

Jan 11: US Marine Hospital, New Orleans

Jan 12: Fort Barrancas, Fort McCree, and the Pensacola Navy Yard, Florida.

Jan 14: Fort Pike, New Orleans

Jan 18: Alabama state forces seize the lighthouse tender USS Alert at Mobile.

Jan 19: Georgia secedes

Jan 20: Fort Massachusetts on Ship Island, Mississippi

Jan 24: US arsenal at Augusta, Georgia

Jan 26: Louisiana secedes

Jan 26: Fort Jackson, Georgia

Jan 28: Fort Macomb, New Orleans, Louisiana

Jan 29: US revenue cutter Robert McClelland at New Orleans

Jan 30: US revenue cutter Lewis Cass at Mobile Bay, Alabama

Jan 31: US Mint & Customs House at New Orleans

Jan 31: US revenue schooner Washington at New Orleans

Feb 1: Texas secedes

Feb 8: US arsenal at Little Rock, Arkansas

Feb 12: US Army munitions at Napoleon, Arkansas

Feb 16: US arsenal at San Antonio, Texas

Feb 18: US Army installations in Texas "surrendered"

Feb 21: Camp Cooper, Texas

March 2: US revenue schooner Henry Dodge at Galvaston, Texas

March 7: Ringgold Barracks and Camp Verde, Texas

March 12: Fort McIntosh, Texas

March 15: Camp Wood, Texas

March 17: Camp Hudson, Texas

March 19: Forts Clark, Inge, and Lancaster, Texas

March 20: Forts Brown and Duncan, Texas

March 20: Sloop USS Isabella at Mobile, Alabama

March 28: Fort Mason, Texas

March 31: Fort Bliss, Texas

April 3: Confederate artillery on Morris Island, Charleston Harbor, fires on Union vessel Rhoda H. Shannon

April 5: Fort Quitman, Texas

April 12: Major Anderson at Fort Sumter tells Confederates he will abandon his post on April 15. At 4:30 AM the shoreline erupts from the flames of 18 mortars and 30 heavy cannon, backed by 7,000 troops, firing on Fort Sumter. Anderson with 85 men and 43 civilian engineers fires back with six cannon. Four thousand rounds hit Fort Sumter, 1,000 rounds fired back, no one killed by bombardment.

1,341 posted on 07/11/2009 2:41:07 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1285 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
"If Anderson had stayed in Fort Moultrie, the country (countries, actually) might have been spared a war."

If the South were determined to secede peacefully, the country might have been spared a war. But the South wanted war, and expected to win it. What Jefferson Davis, like Abraham Lincoln did not want was to be seen as the aggressor. But since the Confederacy was by nature aggressive, it couldn't stop itself from war-like actions -- see my post on the many seizures of Federal forts & ships.

1,342 posted on 07/11/2009 2:49:19 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1287 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
That's possibly the five volume set that is listed on Amazon as "by Robert Underwood and Clarence Clough Buel, eds. (Peter Cozzens, ed. of vol. 5) Johnson."

No, I think it's "Battles and Leaders of the Civil War", the four volume set that's been out for years and was a compilation of articles written by the men who actually fought there. It's available online here.

So, was Anderson basing his move on anything more than rumors and "Ha, ha, we're going to get you suckers" type of taunts and his own assessment of 'what if I were attacked here?' I think the latter.

Anderson didn't think so. In his report to Washington sent on December 27th he makes it clear that it was not a decision he reached lightly, and was made only because he was convinced that South Carolina forces were going to attack him. Link

Buchanan also said in his letter you linked to.

That is true, Buchanan never ordered Anderson to move his men. But the Secretary of War granted Anderson that authority in instructions delivered to Anderson by Major Buell: "The smallness of your force will not permit you, perhaps, to occupy more than one of the three forts, but an attack on or an attempt to take possession of any of them will be regarded as an act of hostility, and you may then put your command in either of them which you deem more proper to increase your power of resistance." Link

Anderson did not take his decision lightly. He had received reports of South Carolina militia mustering and scaling ladders being constructed. James Pettigu, a local attorney and Unionist, flatly told Anderson that Moultrie would be attacked. Had Anderson waited until an actual attack he would have been helpless. He made the only decision he could under the circumstances, and one he was authorized to make.

1,343 posted on 07/11/2009 3:08:42 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1339 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
"I argue history, not moral platitudes. You sound as though you would have been one of the "laws higher than the Constitution" Republicans of the pre-war period. "

History grants us only a few recent examples of absolute evil -- the Nazi holocaust and Communist tyrannies come to mind, but also American slavery.

Of course you are free to argue the facts of history, such as constitutional sanctions and Supreme Court decisions (Dred Scott, etc.) legitimizing slavery.

But if you go further, to suggest that these are all good things and they morally justified such actions as Southern secession and war of rebellion, then you've gone too far -- and also make suspect your claim of defending black civil rights in the 1950s.

By the way, in the 1950s I lived in North Carolina for two years -- attended 3rd & 4th grade there. ;-)

1,344 posted on 07/11/2009 3:28:18 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1323 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly
"States joined the “Union” with the understanding that they could withdraw or “take back” DELEGATED powers."

Your very long-winded quotes do not mention the word "secession" even once.

1,345 posted on 07/11/2009 3:30:51 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1319 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly

Thank you - that was exceptionally informative!


1,346 posted on 07/11/2009 3:41:01 PM PDT by Who is John Galt? ("Sometimes I have to break the law in order to meet my management objectives." - Bill Calkins, BLM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1319 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly

Thank you, again!


1,347 posted on 07/11/2009 3:43:07 PM PDT by Who is John Galt? ("Sometimes I have to break the law in order to meet my management objectives." - Bill Calkins, BLM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1320 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
WIJG: You know what? When it comes to public policy, private disclaimers bear no weight, whatsoever, in my opinion...

D: By that logic, nothing he ever said before 1809 and after 1817 bear any weight either. Nor do anything Washington, Jefferson or any of the founders have to say when they were not in office and making public declarations.

Thank you for presenting a classic 'straw man' argument (completely lacking in logic, despite your protestations to the contrary). Moreover, your statement is, essentially, idiotic: I referred to public statements, and "private disclaimers," in response to which you suggest that no one but an elected official can make a public statement.

Tell us, sport - were Mr. Madison's contributions to the Federalist Papers not only intended to be made public, but widely publicized?

Were not the Kentucky Resolutions, drafted by Mr. Jefferson, not only intended to be made public, but widely publicized?

Were not many other writings of the Founders (Thomas Paine's Common Sense comes to mind ;>) not intended as public writings? Your suggestion that one must be elected to public office before one's writings become 'public' is absolutely moronic.

But if you care to close your eyes to a not so private declaration from the man who was the most influential of the men who crafted the Constitution, please don't allow me to take the blinders off your eyes and your hands off your ears. Enjoy your myth.

Actually, please enjoy YOUR myth, camouflaged with logical inconsistencies & 'straw man' arguments.' "Not so private?" Give me a freaking break - did Mr. Madison submit the letter you cite to the major newspapers of the day, as his Federalist Papers were?

In many ways, Mr. Madison did indeed 'craft the Constitution' - and he did it in writing, and he helped 'sell it' in writing, in public, to the people of the several States (in part via his very - might I say EXTREMELY? - public Federalist Papers). And he emphasized, everywhere possible, in writing, and in public, that the people of the States would be delegating only limited, specifically defined powers to the proposed federal government; and that the people of the States reserved every non-expressly-delegated power unto themselves.

But you prefer to reference his private letters, written decades later, and made available to the people of the States - the same people who established the Constitution, on the basis of Mr. Madison's public, written, recommendations - even later than that.

You seem to think 'bait & switch' is the law of the land. How nice...

But I have no doubt that if Mr. Madison were with us today, he would tell you your formula for anarchy (i.e. Unilateral Secession) has no place in the Constitution.

"[F]ormula for anarchy?" Congratulations - you've offered up another 'straw man' argument. In fact, I advocate the rule of law - and I insist on a specific, written law, ratified by the parties thereto, not some politician's personal opinion, or 'gut feeling,' or private opinion, expressed in personal correspondence to an acquaintance decades after the fact.

Madison had no use for either Democracy nor Anarchy. He belived in Liberty under Law.

I would not have the arrogance to claim that I know what James Madison believed in. What he sold to the ratifying States, was this (Federalist No. 45):

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

Tell us - where is the federal power to prevent State secession "defined," among the "few" powers "defined," in writing, for the federal government, in the United States Constitution? And why (rather) does not the right of secession "remain in" the States, whose powers "are numerous and indefinite?"

You would apparently suggest, despite Mr. Madison's PUBLIC WRITINGS, that 'the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are numerous and indefinite - those which are to remain in the State governments are few and defined (and subject to further encroachment by federal courts).' And you apparently believe the ratifying States actually agreed to such tripe.

We, therefore, disagree...

1,348 posted on 07/11/2009 4:39:12 PM PDT by Who is John Galt? ("Sometimes I have to break the law in order to meet my management objectives." - Bill Calkins, BLM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1322 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
WIJG: Then, by all means, please cite the constitutional clause that prohibits State secession. Please be specific.

N-S: I did not say secession was illegal. I said unilateral secession was. You should not misquote me.

I was not quoting you - your statement is a non sequitur. And I can not help but note that you have completely failed to cite any specific clause of the United States Constitution that prohibited State secession (or even "unilateral" State secession).

How nice.

An 1833 letter to Alexander Rives. Link.

Actually, the quotation you posted varies from the citation you provided (punctuation), suggesting that you actually obtained the material from a different source. No big deal (I'm sure there are multiple sources). However, I have to thank you for the context that you neglected to provide:

"I do not consider the proceedings of Virginia in ’98-99 as countenancing the doctrine that a State may at will secede from its constitutional compact with the other states. A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact absolving the seceding party from the obligation imposed by it..."

Several (if not all) of the Southern States cited an abuse of the [constitutional] compact, when they seceded from the union. They therefore actually met the requirements specified by Mr. Madison.

Which (obviously) raises an additional question - who (or what) was to determine when "an abuse of the compact" had occurred?

Mr. Madison (in the same citation you provided) declares the following:

"...it was asserted against Virginia [following the publication of the 'Virginia Resolutions'], that the states had no right to interpose legislative declarations of opinion on a constitutional point; nor a right to interpose at all against a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which was to be regarded as a tribunal from which there could be no appeal.

"The object of Virginia was to ... interpose against the [unconstitutional] decisions of the [federal] judicial as well as the other branches of the [federal] Government [i.e., abuses of the compact, as determined by the State] — the authority of the [federal] judicial being in no sense ultimate, out of the purview and form of the Constitution."

That is entirely in keeping with Mr. Madison's repeated suggestions, in his Virginia Resolutions and his Report on the Virginia Resolutions (links at my FR homepage), that the States (as parties to the compact) retained the right to judge regarding the constitutionality of federal actions ('abuses of the compact').

Mr. Jefferson agreed, as noted in his Kentucky Resolutions:

"...[E]ach [State as a] party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."

Thanks for the citation!

;>)

Another quote from your citation:

"Having many reasons for marking this letter confidential, I must request that its publicity may not be permitted in any mode or through any channel."

As noted, I generally prefer Mr. Madison's public writings (based upon which, in more than a minor part, the Constitution was ratified). You obviously prefer his "confidential" correspondence, written long after he sold the Constitution to the people of the ratifying States (and never intended for publication)...

;>)

WIJG: Mr. Madison addressed the issue of State secession (specifically, the secession of States from a self-proclaimed "perpetual" union) in Federalist No. 43...

N-S: And nowhere in there does Madison state that the state may leave unilaterally. Unlike Webster or Clay, or even Lincoln and Buchanan, Madison did not believe that once in the Union a state could never leave under any circumstances. But he did understand, even if you do not, that the Constitution protects all states equally and doesn't grant one state any more rights or any more protections than another state enjoys. A proper ending of the compact requires the consent of all the impacted parties. Only then are the interests and rights of all the parties protected, those leaving and those staying.

Absolute bull crap. "[T]he compact requires the consent of all the impacted parties?" If that were the case, Mr. Madison would never have promoted the establishment of the new Constitution, which required only the ratification of nine of thirteen States (see Article VII - "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.") According to you, "a proper ending of the compact requires the consent of all the impacted parties," as was required, in fact, by Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation - which James Madison blatantly ignored, because 'he did understand, even if you do not, that neither the Constitution nor the Articles prohibited State secession'...

1,349 posted on 07/11/2009 5:44:18 PM PDT by Who is John Galt? ("Sometimes I have to break the law in order to meet my management objectives." - Bill Calkins, BLM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1338 | View Replies]

To: usmcobra
PLEASE consider APOLOGIZING to EVERYONE here for LYING & LEAVE FR forever.you are a source of SHAME to everyone, as you are a CONSTANT/KNOWING LIAR & NOTHING but that.

remind everyone of WHEN you were a "staff-member" of the NO Confederate Museum =====> the TRUTHFUL answer is: you were NEVER a member of the staff at ANY time and for ANY period, as we CSA folks do NOT accept TURNCOATS at ANY of our sites.

laughing AT you LIAR, FOOL & TURNCOAT.

free dixie,sw

1,350 posted on 07/11/2009 6:04:58 PM PDT by stand watie (Thus saith The Lord of Hosts, LET MY PEOPLE GO.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1318 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
NOPE. there is NOBODY on FR that is arguing FOR slavery.

the FACTS are that you & the other DYs here have been SOLD A BILL OF GOODS BY "YOUR BETTERS" & you've swallowed that PACK of DY LIES, hook/line/sinker. ====> that's why the southrons here think that ALL of the DYs on FR have been drinking their bathwater instead of bathing in it.

free dixie,sw

1,351 posted on 07/11/2009 6:10:54 PM PDT by stand watie (Thus saith The Lord of Hosts, LET MY PEOPLE GO.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1314 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
why of course you HAVE to say that you "doubting the authenticity" of the source, as otherwise your position looks even more STUPID & INCOHERENT than it IS.

free dixie,sw

1,352 posted on 07/11/2009 6:13:57 PM PDT by stand watie (Thus saith The Lord of Hosts, LET MY PEOPLE GO.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1332 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
“Your very long-winded quotes do not mention the word “secession” even once.”

King Lincoln is second to last—I'll post some more later for your enjoyment.

The future inhabitants of [both] the Atlantic and Mississippi states will be our sons. We think we see their happiness in their union, and we wish it. Events may prove otherwise; and if they see their interest in separating why should we take sides? God bless them both, and keep them in union if it be for their good, but separate them if it be better. – Thomas Jefferson

Yesterday the greatest question was decided which was ever debated in
America; and a greater perhaps never was, nor will be, decided among men.
A resolution was passed without one dissenting colony, that those United
Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States.
John Quincy Adams

“Each state enjoys sovereign power.”
— Gouverneur Morris
(1752-1816) represented Pennsylvania in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, author of large sections of the Constitution for the United States, credited as the author of its Preamble
Source: Commentaries on the Constitution, Vol. III, p 287

“The thirteen States are thirteen Sovereignties.”
— James Wilson
(1742-1798) Member of Continental Congress, signed Declaration of Independence; U.S. Supreme Court Justice and delegate from Pennsylvania
Source: Commentaries on the Constitution, Vol. III, p 287

“The Thirteen States are Thirteen Sovereign bodies.”
— Oliver Ellsworth
(1745-1807) USA Founding father, third Chief Justice of the United States

But the indissoluble link of union between the people
of the several States of this confederated nation
is, after all, not in the RIGHT, but in the HEART. If the day
should ever come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of
the people of these States shall be alienated from each other, when
the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of
interests shall fester into hatred, the bonds of political association -
will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the
magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and
far better will it be for the people of the disunited States to part
in friendship with each other than to be held together by constraint.
Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents
which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution,
to form again a more perfect Union, by dissolving that which
could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited
by the law of political gravitation to the center.
— John Quincy Adams
(1767-1848) 6th US President
Source: in his discourse before the New York Historical Society, in 1839

“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right – a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” – Abraham Lincoln, (speech in Congress January 1848)

“Only a despotic and imperial government can coerce seceding states” - William Seward US Secretary of State under Abraham Lincoln in 10 April 1861

1,353 posted on 07/11/2009 7:13:29 PM PDT by Idabilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1345 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK; PeaRidge
BroJoeK,

Do you understand what “consent of the governed” stands for?

With all do respect— Some may want a Government of their choosing

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

President James Buchanan would vote against the use of force against a State or States

“The question fairly stated is, Has the Constitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce a State into submission which is attempting to withdraw or has actually withdrawn from the Confederacy? If answered in the affirmative, it must be on the principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare and to make war against a State. After much serious reflection I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Congress or to any other department of the Federal Government. It is manifest upon an inspection of the Constitution that this is not among the specific and enumerated powers granted to Congress, and it is equally apparent that its exercise is not “ necessary and proper for carrying into execution “ any one of these powers. So far from this power having been delegated to Congress, it was expressly refused by the Convention which framed the Constitution.”

1,354 posted on 07/11/2009 7:56:42 PM PDT by Idabilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1314 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Illegal seizures are illegal regardless of who does them. When committed by Americans against Federal property and people, they are rebellion, insurrection or "domestic violence."

We obviously have different opinions. When a state took property owned by its deputy, the United States government, for the future safety of the state's people, I think it was a different matter. Or at least it was back then. If the states were going out of the Union in a few days or weeks, which they were, then the matter of when they took possession of property in the name of the state is almost immaterial. If it were "rebellion, insurrection or domestic violence" as you say, why didn't the federal government rise up at that point and invade the South. The feds didn't have the public behind them at that point. If the states hadn't gone ahead with secession I suspect the seized forts, etc., would have been returned to the federal government. The Arkansas arsenal was taken by the governor in the name of the United States, for example.

We are talking about a different point in time here back when states were the check against the power of the central government and vice versa. Secession was thought permissible by many, if not most, people like the New York ratification document I posted said. Indeed, several attempts were made by Northern Republican congressmen in early 1861 to pass an amendment outlawing secession or requiring all states to approve the withdrawal of a state. If it was already illegal, why were amendments proposed to outlaw it? Why would states ever agree to such an amendment that left them at the mercy of other states that might be taking advantage of them in some way?

Anderson sent the following in a note to his superior on December 28, 1860. It shows that Fort Moultrie was then held under the authority of the sovereign state of South Carolina.

I sent my post adjutant this morning with a message to the commanding officer of Fort Moultrie asking by what authority he held possession of that work, and desiring to know whether he would make any opposition to my sending for some property, public and private, left there. He replied to my first question that he held that post by authority of the sovereign State of South Carolina, and in obedience to the orders of the governor.

South Carolina and later the Confederate government both offered to negotiate about the forts, the public debt, etc., but were rebuffed. The South came out on the short end of the stick in value because by seceding they left behind their share of the Northern forts and government buildings and their share of land in the territories. Territorial land was worth billions at that point in time, and it far far outweighed in value any forts or armories taken by the South.

1,355 posted on 07/11/2009 8:44:34 PM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1340 | View Replies]

To: stand watie

Dear Stand,

(sticks fingers in ears)
lalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalala.

I can’t hear you....

PS you’re not a confederate general or even an indian.


1,356 posted on 07/11/2009 9:06:28 PM PDT by usmcobra (Your chances of dying in bed are reduced by getting out of it, but most people still die in bed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1350 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Me: His book didn't say. However, the book The Siege of Charleston 1861 - 1865 by the director of the Charleston Museum, E. Milby Burton, does give a reference for it: "Battle and Leaders" Volume 1, page 103. I suspect Burton is referring to "Battle and Leaders of the Civil War" Vol. 1. That's possibly the five volume set that is listed on Amazon as "by Robert Underwood and Clarence Clough Buel, eds. (Peter Cozzens, ed. of vol. 5) Johnson." I don't have those books. It might also refer to an older "Battle and Leaders of the Civil War" published in the 1800s by the Century Press, but I suspect the former.

You: No, I think it's "Battles and Leaders of the Civil War", the four volume set that's been out for years and was a compilation of articles written by the men who actually fought there. It's available online here.

Thanks for the link. I think it is clear we are talking about the same series of books. There is now apparently a fifth and sixth volume, perhaps added in modern times. Your link says the : "Based on "The Century war series" published from Nov. 1884 to Nov. 1887 in the Century magazine and edited by Robert Underwood Johnson and Clarence Clough Buel of the editorial staff of "The Century Magazine". Tha Amazon author list I copied misplaced the name Johnson. See Link

In any event the item you were seeking the source for is not reported on page 103 of volume 1 of your link. Perhaps the modern version that is based on the old "Century" version has changed or updated the text of the old version.

That is true, Buchanan never ordered Anderson to move his men. But the Secretary of War granted Anderson that authority in instructions delivered to Anderson by Major Buell

Hmmm. I wonder about Buell. From Klein: "Buell's visit did little to ease Anderson's anxiety. Floyd had ordered him to look the situation over and give Anderson instructions that were neither explicit nor to be construed as orders. ... Buell decided on his own to give Anderson the written memorandum of the 11th as a guideline for what he knew to be a vague and unsatisfactory position."

By the way, the dictated response from Buchanan sent by Floyd is at Link. Also, Anderson was assured by the mayor and leading citizens of Charleston that they would prevent Moultrie from being attacked by a mob. Anderson had also arranged Moultrie that you had to enter the fort by crawling through a tunnel.

1,357 posted on 07/11/2009 9:22:08 PM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1343 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
rustbucket: "Ignoring the Star of the West, are we?"

BroJoeK: "nearly all had no troops to speak of, and no federal reinforcements were sent by President Buchanan."

The operative term here being "nearly all," the major exception being Fort Sumter.

Sorry, how did "nearly all had no troops to speak of" mean that Buchanan sent no reinforcements. He might not have sent reinforcements to other forts, but he did send reinforcements to Sumter in the Star of the West. They might have been driven off, but the point I was making was that Buchanan did indeed send reinforcements. Your word "no" was incorrect.

1,358 posted on 07/11/2009 9:30:52 PM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1341 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
If the South were determined to secede peacefully, the country might have been spared a war. But the South wanted war, and expected to win it. What Jefferson Davis, like Abraham Lincoln did not want was to be seen as the aggressor. But since the Confederacy was by nature aggressive, it couldn't stop itself from war-like actions -- see my post on the many seizures of Federal forts & ships.

I disagree. The South wanted to secede peacefully. The taking of forts was to insure that they could if they faced an aggressive North that did not want them to secede.

I believe that Lincoln intentionally provoked war. By refusing to peacefully negotiate and saying he would take the South's revenue by interdicting ships coming into southern ports, he chose a path to war.

I have said on these threads that I think the South made a mistake in firing on Sumter. They had offered to supply Sumter with food early on. Anderson turned them down. They kept permitting him to buy fresh meet, etc., at the Charleston markets right up until word of Lincoln's battle fleet came in early April. Had Anderson accepted the food offer, there would be no need for a relief fleet.

I once posted a April 12, 1861, New York Times piece [Link to post] that wondered why on earth the South had not attacked Fort Sumter before then. The Times could not see that the South was holding out to the last moment trying to negotiate peace.

1,359 posted on 07/11/2009 9:57:15 PM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1342 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
History grants us only a few recent examples of absolute evil -- the Nazi holocaust and Communist tyrannies come to mind, but also American slavery.

I think slavery is/was evil but do not descend into such hyperbole as you. Read the Slave Narratives sometime. I think it would have been far better if the country could have peacefully rid itself of slavery shortly after its formation.

Of course you are free to argue the facts of history, such as constitutional sanctions and Supreme Court decisions (Dred Scott, etc.) legitimizing slavery.

You keep implying I favor the Dred Scott decision. Are you one of those posters who intentionally misstate what other posters say. If so, we have little to say to each other.

The only time I mentioned Dred Scott was to point out that a justice of the Supreme Court was so upset with the Dred Scott decision that he resigned from the Court. This same justice, however, was one who believed that the Massachusetts personal liberty law was unconstitutional. Since he disagrees with your position on personal liberty laws, that somehow made me in favor of Dred Scott? What strange logic. I'm beginning to get a picture of how you post.

But if you go further, to suggest that these are all good things and they morally justified such actions as Southern secession and war of rebellion, then you've gone too far -- and also make suspect your claim of defending black civil rights in the 1950s.

Believe whatever you want.

1,360 posted on 07/11/2009 10:21:49 PM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1344 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,321-1,3401,341-1,3601,361-1,380 ... 2,241-2,255 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson