Lee, Virginia, and the Union

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org ^ | March 27, 2019 | Fred H. Cox

[NKP_Vet]

The Hall of Fame recently dedicated at New York Uni­versity was conceived from the Ruhmes Halle in Bavaria. This structure on University Heights, on the Harlem river, in the borough of the Bronx, New York City, has, or is in­tended to have, a panel of bronze with other mementos for each of one hundred and fifty native-born Americans who have been deceased at least ten years, and who are of great character and fame in authorship, education, science, art, soldiery, statesmanship, philanthropy, or in any worthy un­dertaking. Fifty names were to have been chosen at once; but, on account of a slight change of plans, only twenty-nine have been chosen, and twenty-one more will be in 1902. The remaining one hundred names are to be chosen during the century, five at the end of each five years. The present judges of names to be honored are one hundred representa­tive American scholars in different callings. They are most­ly Northern men, although at least one judge represents each State.

[Wallace T.]

If I recall correctly, didn't Pennsylvania and Massachusetts abolish slavery prior to the ratification of the Constitution? I assume there was not total manumission, but like New York and New Jersey, which abolished slavery in the 1820s, there were probably a few remaining slaves in 1861. Yet neither was regarded as a slave state in 1861.

[rockrr]

Shhh! You’ll ruin his narrative!

[wbarmy]

The first shots weren’t a war fleet. The Union had attempted to transport supplies and reinforcements to the fort two months earlier via a ship called the Star of the West, only to be turned away by a hail of artillery fire from South Carolina cannons. So South Carolina tried to fire the first shots months earlier, but were lousy shots. So much easier to shoot at an unmovable fort.

Major Anderson wasn’t the only one to receive the “secret” orders. Determined to avoid a bloody clash if possible, Lincoln notified South Carolina governor Francis Pickens (1805-1869) on April 8 of his plan to send ships carrying food and other supplies to Fort Sumter.

All of your points are like some “conspiracy” of Lincoln, but he told everybody what he was going to do and why. The South chose to fight back, physically, and precipitated the incident.

[DiogenesLamp]

The first shots weren’t a war fleet. The Union had attempted to transport supplies and reinforcements to the fort two months earlier via a ship called the Star of the West, only to be turned away by a hail of artillery fire from South Carolina cannons.

The Star of the West was secretly transporting 250 federal troops and munitions to maintain control of the fort that was seized by Major Anderson in the dark of the night, and contrary to what had been told the people of South Carolina.

Furthermore there was no "hail of artillery fire." It was some cadets at the Citadel firing at the ship with a single cannon, I believe. They were not at that time regarded as part of the Confederate forces, and so you can't blame their actions on General Beauregard.

Major Anderson wasn’t the only one to receive the “secret” orders. Determined to avoid a bloody clash if possible, Lincoln notified South Carolina governor Francis Pickens (1805-1869) on April 8 of his plan to send ships carrying food and other supplies to Fort Sumter.

And that is a bullsh*t lie. Five warships are not "supplies". They are an armed force with orders to attack. Here is a picture of one of your "supply" ships.

All of your points are like some “conspiracy” of Lincoln, but he told everybody what he was going to do and why.

No, he lied about what he was going to do, and told everyone he was sending "supplies". He was sending an armed force that had written orders to attack the Confederates if they did not cooperate.

Again, his cabinet told him his actions would start a war. They all knew what he was going to do would trigger a war, and he did it anyway. The *PUBLIC* didn't know. They thought that he was "sending bread to Anderson" because that is what he had led them to believe. The Confederates knew these were warships coming to attack them, but Lincoln didn't tell the Northern public anything about that.

[wbarmy]

Why did some poor little cadets fire on the Star of the West? Buchanan authorized a relief expedition of supplies, small arms, and 200 soldiers on an unarmed civilian merchant ship which was legal, since Fort Sumter was Federal property, and they fired on it. Did the cadets know that stuff was on the ship? Or was it Union so they were doing what they knew the government of the South wanted?

Also, how many rounds did the USS Pawnee fire? How many casualties did it take? It wasn’t even there when the shelling started. And again, President Lincoln did not order them to fire on Charleston, that is just hyperbole on your part. There were no orders to attack, just to resupply Fort Sumter. the record states that on April 6, Lincoln notified Governor Pickens that “an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only, and that if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made without further notice, [except] in case of an attack on the fort.

South Carolina fired first, there were no warships there firing at them, nor had Fort Sumter fired first. You can project in your mind all you want, but the facts are what matters.

Your arguments are based on assumptions and what you believe Lincoln and his cabinet were aiming at. You keep showing pictures of warships, but they were not there. South Carolina wanted war, the South wanted war, and the guy who pulled the lanyard to fire the first shot really wanted war.

[wbarmy]

No, he lied about what he was going to do, and told everyone he was sending "supplies". He was sending an armed force that had written orders to attack the Confederates if they did not cooperate.

I just reread that and have to aks, do you work for ABC, CBS, CNN, or NBC as a writer? Because that line is fake news if I ever read any.

One, Lincoln did not lie. He told them he was sending a relief squadron and he did.

Supplies are what was on the ships, and that is how the navy takes supplies into a combat area where an unarmed ship was shot at. Their order were to return fire if fired upon, just like our ROE in every part of the world.

[DiogenesLamp]

Also, how many rounds did the USS Pawnee fire? How many casualties did it take? It wasn’t even there when the shelling started.

It may not have arrived before the shelling started, but the fact it was sent to attack the people surrounding the fort is *WHY* the shelling started. Calling the five warships a "supply" mission was just a deliberate lie. It was a belligerent attack mission specifically intended to provoke a war which Lincoln wanted.

And again, President Lincoln did not order them to fire on Charleston, that is just hyperbole on your part.

The written orders said to use all the force at their disposal to place both men and arms in Sumter. When you send five warships with orders to use force, what does that mean? That they should wave hankies at them?

There were no orders to attack, just to resupply Fort Sumter.

.

.

.

WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, April 4, 1861.

Captain G. V. FOX, Washington, D. C.:

SIR: It having been decided to succor Fort Sumter you have been selected for this important duty. Accordingly you will take charge of the transports in New York having the troops and supplies on board to the entrance of Charleston Harbor, and endeavor, in the first instance, to deliver the subsistence. If you are opposed in this you are directed to report the fact to the senior naval officer of the harbor, who will be instructed by the Secretary of the Navy to use his entire force to open a passage, when you will, if possible, effect an entrance and place both troops and supplies in Fort Sumter.

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

SIMON CAMERON,

Secretary of War.

.

.

South Carolina fired first, there were no warships there firing at them, nor had Fort Sumter fired first.

"“The attempt must be made with the employment of military and marine force, which would provoke combat, and probably initiate a civil war. . . I would not provoke war in any way now.”

William Seward, Secretary of State, March 15, 1861.

.

.

"“If the attempt will so inflame civil war as to involve an immediate necessity for enlistment of armies. . . I cannot advise it."

Salmon P. Chase, Secretary of the Treasury

.

.

“I am willing to evacuate Sumter, rather than be a active party in the beginning of civil war.”

Edward Bates, United States Attorney General

.

.

“It would not be wise under the circumstances.”

Caleb B Smith, United States Secretary of the Interior

.

.

“The military gentlemen represent that it is unwise. I am not disposed to controvert their opinions.”

Gideon Wells, United States Secretary of the Navy

.

.

“I am greatly influenced by the opinions of Army officers [that] it is now impossible to succor the fort.”

Simon Cameron, United States Secretary of War

The claim that sending warships with orders to use force against them is not "firing first" is laughable. Lincoln's cabinet knew as early as March 15, 1861 that this would provoke a war, and they told him so.

[DiogenesLamp]

I just reread that and have to aks, do you work for ABC, CBS, CNN, or NBC as a writer? Because that line is fake news if I ever read any.

HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY, Washington, D. C., April 4, 1861.

Lieutenant Colonel HENRY L. SCOTT, A. D. C., New York:

SIR: This letter will be landed to you by Captain G. V. Fox, ex-officer of the Navy, and a gentleman of high standing, as well as possessed of extraordinary nautical ability. He is charged by high authority here with the command of an expedition, under cover of certain ships of war, whose object is to re-enforce Fort Sumter.

To embark with Captain Fox you will cause a detachment of recruits, say about two hundred, to be immediately organized at Fort Columbus, with a competent number of officers, arms, ammunition, and subsistence. A large surplus of the latter-indeed, as great as the vessels of the expedition can take-with other necessaries, will be needed for the augmented garrison of Fort Sumter.

The subsistence and other supplies should be assorted like those which were provided by you and Captain Ward of the Navy for a former expedition. Consult Captain Fox and Major Eaton on the subject, and give all necessary orders in my name to fit out the expedition, except that the hiring of vessels will be left to others.

Some fuel must be shipped. Oil, artillery implements, fuses, cordage, slow-march, mechanical levers, and gins, &c., should also be put on board.

Consult, also, if necessary, confidentially, Colonel Tompkins and Major Thornton.

Respectfully, yours,

WINFIELD SCOTT.

Their order were to return fire if fired upon, just like our ROE in every part of the world.

Their orders were to *FORCE* supplies into Fort Sumter if they were resisted, and everyone in the f***ing world knew that they were going to be resisted.

Those five navy ships against the confederate gun batteries would have been wiped out if they had actually carried out the written orders they were given. Anderson had sent maps and descriptions of the Confederate gun emplacements, and that was sufficient to make any sane man realize those orders were a suicide mission.

David Dixon Porter (Union Admiral) said in his memoirs, that if they had attempted to fulfill those orders, those ships would have been sunk.

Did Lincoln send them on a suicide mission? Was he a fool? It was certainly successful at starting a war that he, more than anyone else, needed.

[wbarmy]

I would think that someone as obviously intelligent as you would actually read the orders.

The first order is to deliver the subsistence. Period, full stop.

The second order was to report to the senior officer if the first mission could not be done.

The third order was to the senior officer to use his entire force to open a passage. That was own his own discretion since he was not there!!!!

If the Governor of South Carolina had let the ship go there, there would have been no problem. But South Carolina politicians and media were screaming for blood to make Virginia and Alabama join them.

I know, it is sovereign territory of the Independent state of South Carolina!!!!!!!!!

Actually, it was a manufactured island totally made by the Federal government. It was not there originally as part of South Carolina and was owned and controlled exclusively by the USA. The USA gave up and surrendered all the original forts in the area to South Carolina, but Sumter was really the property of the USA>

[DiogenesLamp]

If the Governor of South Carolina had let the ship go there, there would have been no problem.

Wasn't going to happen, and everyone knew it before the mission even launched.

That means the backup order was in force, literally.

Northern newspapers had already urged that the cannons of the fort be turned to strike Charleston if they did not comply with the collection of the Federal Tariff. Nobody was going to tolerate a fort overlooking their harbor entrance with the ability to threaten their trade.

Actually, it was a manufactured island totally made by the Federal government. It was not there originally as part of South Carolina and was owned and controlled exclusively by the USA.

The fort was ceded to the US Government for the purpose of defending Charleston from foreign attack. It was never intended that it be used as a means of attacking Charleston or threatening their shipping.

Even Lincoln recognized the right of people to control the territory they occupy.

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 to Congress, January 12, 1848.

[rockrr]

The fort was ceded to the US Government for the purpose of defending Charleston from foreign attack.

Not accurate. The land upon which the fortifications were constructed were ceded in perpetuity to the United States government. The fort itself was built using federal funds and there was no stated purpose or limitation to the land or any structures built upon it other than it remain exempt from any taxes.

It was never intended that it be used as a means of attacking Charleston or threatening their shipping.

Assumption on your part. You know what they say about people who assume.

Even Lincoln recognized the right of people to control the territory they occupy.

And the federal government did exactly that.

[jeffersondem]

“If I recall correctly, didn’t Pennsylvania and Massachusetts abolish slavery prior to the ratification of the Constitution? I assume there was not total manumission, but like New York and New Jersey, which abolished slavery in the 1820s, there were probably a few remaining slaves in 1861. Yet neither was regarded as a slave state in 1861.”

Wikipedia’s entry on Pennsylvania slavery (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Pennsylvania) includes this:

“During the American Revolutionary War, Pennsylvania passed the Gradual Abolition Act (1780), the first such law in the new United States. Pennsylvania’s law established as free those children born to slave mothers after that date. They had to serve lengthy periods of indentured servitude until age 28 before becoming fully free as adults. Emancipation proceeded and, by 1810 there were fewer than 1,000 slaves in the Commonwealth. None appeared in records after 1847.”

From 1780 until 1847 is 67 years so I’d say the term “Gradual Abolition” was well chosen. What is not clear was whether the high moral ground was occupied immediately in 1780 or whether it built up gradually until the killings started in 1861.

I think many northerners will say that after 1780 Pennsylvania was not a slave state. It was just a state that happened to have slaves in its guest worker program.

[jeffersondem]

“Why can we not discuss these topics without the personal attacks?” - Your post 55

“Were you this kind of drama queen as an officer?” - Your post 41

“I am back in the States now and will meet you wherever you choose to see if you will back those words up.” - Your post 17

I leap to the conclusion irony is not lost on you.

[NKP_Vet]

The war was over States Rights, not slavery. Lincoln didn’t give a damn about the black race and said so many times. Slavery was Constitutional and all the 13 Original Colonies had slaves at one time or the other. The reason the Southern states still had them in the middle of the 19th Century is because their agricultural economy depended on them for labor and you can bet your ass if the Northern states economy depended on them they would have never gotten rid of them. For years New York was the largest slaveholding state. Southern democrats were states rights, Constitutional God-fearing men. It was Lincoln and his Wiggs then the republicans that were big government liberals. The uppity NE politicians looked down on the Southern states, thought they were smarter and better than them. In that respect nothing has changed.

https://uae.souq.com/ae-en/abraham-lincoln-was-a-liberal-jefferson-davis-was-a-conservative-the-missing-key-to-understanding-the-american-civil-war-30930152/i/

[wgmalabama]

You are an idiot. I hate FR civil war threads. It is never so simple as the arm chair quarterback online make it out to be. Thank God we never have to make such hard decisions and be judged by history. I can accept the judgement of his adversaries and contemporaries. Most were honorable men. More to be said for the idiots on this forum when this subject comes up.

[wbarmy]

Than how do you feel about Longstreet’s remarks about Lee after the war?

[wbarmy]

Not totally. There were business interests that wanted to exploit the situation for financial gain. There were politicians who used it for personal aggrandizement. But there were a lot of Northerners who did want to stop slavery. And that was the group that voted Lincoln in to office.

[wbarmy]

You are correct, I should not have responded in kind to personal attacks but acted like George W. Bush and ignored them. I am sure I would have earned your respect by doing that.

[wbarmy]

However, Post 17 was not a personal attack, it was an honest desire to see what kind of person says that stuff on a board like this.

I have actually met somebody once who was saying things from the safety of a keyboard and they were just as I had imagined them.

[x]

Eisenhower was born in 1890 when memories of the war were beginning to fade. He graduated West Point in 1915, when the country was trying to sew North and South back together and Civil War revisionism was in full swing. West Point, the alma mater of Lee and Grant (and Sherman and Davis) which educated officers for the arm had to be especially devoted to keeping North and South together and blurring the differences that had caused the war. So it's not surprising that Ike thought as he did. If he - and many others - didn't, who knows what would have happened to the country?

By the time Ike passed away (1970), people were beginning to question the revisionist ideas that had predominated in the previous decades, so it's not surprising that fewer people nowadays think is he did. Holding the country together now seems to involve keeping different races, rather than different regions, together and that's altered views of the past. But it's not really a modern distortion. It's also a recovery of bitter past divisions that early 20th century Americans papered over in the name of national unity.

The interesting thing about past views of Lee is how modern they are. Lee was admired because of his personal qualities and because of the deep personal conflicts and sufferings that people believe he endured. He wasn't really examined in light of whether he was right or wrong or of what effects his actions had, but according to subjective and emotional criteria. People who were quite severe in their judgments of other historical figures had something of a soft spot when it came to Lee.