Posted on 12/22/2019 4:23:47 AM PST by Bull Snipe
"I beg to present you as a Christmas gift the City of Savannah, with one hundred and fifty heavy guns and plenty of ammunition and about twenty-five thousand bales of cotton." General William T. Sherman's "March to the Sea" was over. During the campaign General Sherman had made good on his promise d “to make Georgia howl”. Atlanta was a smoldering ruin, Savannah was in Union hands, closing one of the last large ports to Confederate blockade runners. Sherman’s Army wrecked 300 miles of railroad and numerous bridges and miles of telegraph lines. It seized 5,000 horses, 4,000 mules, and 13,000 head of cattle. It confiscated 9.5 million pounds of corn and 10.5 million pounds of fodder, and destroyed uncounted cotton gins and mills. In all, about 100 million dollars of damage was done to Georgia and the Confederate war effort.
It is a neat site. Have read some of the info elsewhere, some haven’t seen before. Thanks for the link.
Then I ask you to join me in placing the blame for enshrining slavery into the United State Constitution squarely where it belongs: on the original slave states.
Specifically - New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.
North and South Carolina and Georgia were also slave states. Don't ever forget to cast three-thirteenths responsibility in that direction.
“Was this before or after Lincoln locked up all the ones in favor of it?”
The Maryland legislature voted 53-13 against secession on April 29. Butler and a 1,000 troops didn’t enter Baltimore until May 13th. So the answer to your question is that Maryland voted overwhelmingly against secession before Martial law was imposed and pro Confederate officials arrested.
During the Civil War, 26 infantry regiments (6 USCT), 4 cavalry regiments, 1 heavy artillery regiment and 6 artillery batteries from Maryland served in the Union Army.
Confederate Maryland units consisted of 2 infantry regiments, 2 cavalry regiments and 4 batteries of artillery.
When Lee invaded Maryland in 1862, his army brought along 2000 extra rifle muskets for the purpose of being issued to the Maryland recruits that would flock the Confederate flag.
When Lee’s Army retreated out of Maryland, they brought back all 2000 rifle muskets, unissued.
I agree that all the states share some blame, but the state’s that were threatening to leave the constitutional convention over the slavery issue share more. Those same states are the reason that the African slave trade was allowed to continue for twenty years. If you have read the constitutional convention notes you will see that again South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia, would not agree to an immediate end to the African slave trade so a compromise was reached.
You keep avoiding my question, do you believe chattel slavery as practiced in the United States was wrong and immoral?
Nice ducking of the issue, though. Who were these Northern capitalists who demanded war? Names, please? Details? Do you have anything more than just your gut instinct and a Marxist theory of what must have happened?
That makes no sense. What were they supposed to do? Deliver the supplies while the fort was under ferocious fire? Fire back? The fleet did what they would do if it were part of a resupply mission: they stayed out of the fight, recognizing that they couldn't resupply the fort any more.
If the ships had gone in shooting it would be hard to maintain that the fleet had been sent to Charleston on a peaceful resupply mission. The ships didn't go in shooting, and the newspaper takes that as proof that the mission wasn't peaceful. Not much logic there.
Nineteenth century newspapers were all partisan. The Buffalo Daily Courier was a Democratic paper. It represented the Democrat point of view. Citing its editorials or opinions proves no more than quoting what a partisan hack says on cable television today.
“I agree that all the states share some blame, but the state’s that were threatening to leave the constitutional convention over the slavery issue share more.”
The three states that you have scapegoated were not even necessary to ratify the constitution and establish a viable nation.
The other 10 slave states could have established a viable constitution and a viable nation that excluded slavery. Do you know why the other 10 slave states did not?
The North produced only 26% of the export trade. How did they end up with 90% of the import trade?
The Southerners were paying the tariffs, but they were doing so indirectly so it's easy to hide this fact.
It strongly suggests the opposite.
Yes it does, and that is precisely my point. A false understanding of the trade patterns is created by the fact that virtually all the traffic for the South was controlled by New York. This leaves the impression that New York was paying for almost all the tariffs and the South's contribution was trivial.
However, the tabulation of exports I posted demonstrates that one way or another, the vast bulk of that money was created by Southern exports, and therefore the tariffs must be eventually paid for by Southern exports.
In other words, the map creates a false understanding, while the chart clarifies what was actually going on.
Who were these Northern capitalists who demanded war? Names, please?
Some names have been posted before. I guess you missed them. From my perspective, the names are not so terribly important because it doesn't matter who is holding your leash. It only matters that someone is.
Who are the names of the people involved between the current New York plutocrats and the Deep State in Washington DC? We know some of them because some of them have been dragged out into the open where we could see them.
Do not doubt it, the media is the weapon of this corruptocracy, and this collusion between crony capitalists and government "deep state" is detrimental to the nation. These are the very people Trump is currently fighting, and their proxies are people like Schumer, Pelosi, Nadler, Cuomo, and so forth.
Who is behind these front people? Legions.
Anderson told Beauregard that if he fired on any of those warships he would use the cannons of Ft. Sumter to fire upon the Confederates. This blunt statement made Beauregard understand that Sumter had to be neutralized.
My point is that Anderson would have fired upon Beauregard if he attacked those ships. Is it too much to think that normal ship officers would have shared Anderson's view, and fired back on the forces attacking their people in a fort?
If the ships had gone in shooting it would be hard to maintain that the fleet had been sent to Charleston on a peaceful resupply mission.
The fleet was going to have to shoot in order to accomplish their mission. They only awaited on the arrival of Captain Mercer in the Powhatan, and he wasn't coming.
Had the ships actually done what they were instructed to do before they left, there would have been no pretense possible about this being a "supply" mission. It would have been recognized as a belligerent force deliberately starting a war, which is what the Confederates were led to believe it was.
Nineteenth century newspapers were all partisan. The Buffalo Daily Courier was a Democratic paper. It represented the Democrat point of view.
I have no knowledge of this, but I will take your word for it. Even so, it's point has merit. Ft. Sumter was only useful as a bone of contention. It was useful as an excuse to start a war, and the starting of a war would inhibit direct Southern trade with Europe, which was the actual reason why the war was needed.
I answered that question in my post to you. If you would extend me the same courtesy and now answer my question I have posted to you three times to you; Do you believe chattel slavery that was practiced in America was morally wrong?
“Had the ships actually done what they were instructed to do before they left, there would have been no pretense possible about this being a “supply” mission.”
What orders were those. None of this “super secret Porter orders” BS. What were the orders that those three ships sailed under.
“You seem to not have a problem with slavery. Do you or do you not believe slavery is a great moral wrong?”
Your statement that I do not seem to have a problem with slavery is nothing less than an attempt to impeach me with a false accusation of racism.
I am sensitive to this because I have seen other impeachment attempts this week using the same false accusation of, “he is a racist.”
Again you dodge the question. Sometimes a cigars is just a cigar and sometimes a racist is just a racist. I think it is very telling that you refuse to answer it.
I'm pretty sure i've posted them to you several times. Do you not remember them? I don't want to look them up again, especially if you are going to forget them again.
To summarize "use entire force to put both men and supplies into Sumter."
Ring a bell?
“Ring a bell?”
Cannot say that it does. Please repost those orders when you have the the opportunity.
Found the whole memo President Jackson sent to his secretary of war during the nullification crisis. Thinks it puts to rest your mistaken beliefs that Jackson would not have followed through with his statements that he would use armed force to suppress South Carolina “secession.”
TO SECRETARY CASS.
Washington, December 17, 1832.
confidential
My D’r sir, If I can judge from the signs of the times Nullification, and secession, or in the language of truth, disunion, is gaining strength, we must be prepared to act with promptness, and crush the monster in its cradle before it matures to manhood. We must be prepared for the crisis. The moment that we are informed that the Legislature of So Carolina has passed laws to carry her rebellious ordinance into effect, which I expect tomorrow we must be prepared to act. Tenders of service is coming to me daily and from Newyork, we can send to the bay of charleston with steamers such number of troops as we may please to order, in four days.
We will want three divisions of artillery, each composed of nines, twelves, and Eighteen pounders, one for the East, one for the west, and one for the center divisions. How many of these calibers, are ready for field service How many musketts with their compleat equipments are ready for service. How many swords and pistols and what quantity of fixed ammunition for dragoons, Brass pieces for the field, how many, and what caliber. At as early a day as possible, I wish a report from the ordinance Department, on this subject, stating with precision, how many peaces of artillery of the caliber, are ready for the field, how many good musketts etc. etc., and at what place in deposit.
yrs. respectfully
Andrew Jackson
Or they could have just let the ship reprovision the fort without anybody shooting at anybody else. You want to blame Lincoln, so you say that he had free will and nobody else did, but there may have been room for commanders on the ground to negotiate a resolution.
My point is that Anderson would have fired upon Beauregard if he attacked those ships. Is it too much to think that normal ship officers would have shared Anderson's view, and fired back on the forces attacking their people in a fort?
Beauregard attacked the fort and the fleet didn't approach and fire back, so far as I know.
The fleet was going to have to shoot in order to accomplish their mission.
Sure, if you exclude other options and if you assume that commanders never have discretion to interpret their orders as they see fit.
Had the ships actually done what they were instructed to do before they left, there would have been no pretense possible about this being a "supply" mission. It would have been recognized as a belligerent force deliberately starting a war, which is what the Confederates were led to believe it was.
If the ships had gone in shooting, you could say it was war and blame the Yankees. That probably would have been the wiser course.
Ft. Sumter was only useful as a bone of contention. It was useful as an excuse to start a war, and the starting of a war would inhibit direct Southern trade with Europe, which was the actual reason why the war was needed.
It was useful as a symbol that the Union hadn't entirely surrendered to the secessionists and that the union was intact. Assuming that a "bone of contention" only means and "excuse to start a war" is bad logic and shows a poor understanding of how things of how politics and history work.
The instructions were to peacefully reprovision the fort. If the ships were opposed and forces on the ground did not allow peaceful passage of the supply ships there was an authorization to use force. That left a lot of discretion to those on the ground. The orders indicate that the intent was peaceful and that the fleet was not sent to trick or provoke the rebels to start a war.
My recollection is that you can find the orders on this website. My recollection is that there are two versions of the orders from different officials, and there might also be a third.
I'm not sure if this site contains the orders to wait for captain Mercer, (or words to that effect) but I know i've seen it.
Happy looking. :)
Anderson wasn't assigned to that fort. He took it over in the middle of the night. He started the aggression. If he wanted a peaceful relationship, he should have not taken over the fort, which was a belligerent aggressive act.
You want to blame Lincoln, so you say that he had free will and nobody else did, but there may have been room for commanders on the ground to negotiate a resolution.
It was already done. Anderson had announced he would evacuate at noon on April 15th. Then the warships showed up and triggered the fighting. Anderson even blames Lincoln, but not overtly or directly.
Beauregard attacked the fort and the fleet didn't approach and fire back, so far as I know.
This is correct. They had been told to wait for Captain Mercer in the Powhatan before implementing any force against the confederates. Mercer was never coming, but they didn't know that.
Sure, if you exclude other options and if you assume that commanders never have discretion to interpret their orders as they see fit.
My recollection is that the orders said something along the lines of "if resisted, use all the force at your command to place both supplies and reinforcements into Sumter."
If the ships had gone in shooting, you could say it was war and blame the Yankees. That probably would have been the wiser course.
That is what the Confederates believed was going to happen, and they believed this because they had been sent telegraph messages from trusted sources saying that this was what those ships were going to do.
Indeed, that is what their publicly known orders said they would do. Nobody knew Lincoln was going to send secret orders to the command ship relieving Captain Mercer of command, and sending it to Florida under the command of a lieutenant. (Two ranks below a captain in the naval ranking system of that era.) It was an unheard of thing in that era.
The Confederates were well and truly hoodwinked.
It was useful as a symbol that the Union hadn't entirely surrendered to the secessionists and that the union was intact.
It is pretty apparent that had the Confederates ignored the hostile force in their midst and just went about trading with Europe while ignoring the Union, they would have likely made their secession a fait accompli.
I do recall reading a discussion among Lincoln's cabinet officials worrying that the South would do exactly this, and six months later they would still have a useless garrison once more needing to be resupplied.
Nobody in the North wanted a war, and nobody in the South wanted one either. Had one not started (due to Lincoln's intentional provocation), the South's secession would have been accepted by the Northern states.
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.