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.
Just letting you know that I haven't forgotten your challenge. Life has gotten in the way and there was a great deal of reading to do as well ;'} In truth I wasn't paying particular attention to the specifics of the go-around between you and BroJoeK. In truth, most of the claims and counter-claims don't add up to a hill o beans - from either of you. But (just for schitz und gigglez) let's examine this exchange and see where it sends us.
As best I can tell, the root of contention lies with this assertion by you:
"Speaking of Fort Pickens, that is exactly where Lincoln sent Lieutenant Porter in the Powhatan under hand carried secret orders. Porter immediately upon arrival, tried to fire on Confederate shore batteries and did indeed fire on Confederate ships, and all with no knowledge of the events in Charleston. So yes, Lincoln fully intended to start the war somewhere else and was only conning Virginia to get them to do what he wanted long enough to keep them in line."
You then double-down here:
"This has been explained to you before. Lieutenant Porter immediately tried to engage the confederate shore batteries as soon as he arrived. If you think he was doing this contrary to the President's orders, you are greatly mistaken. One can only conclude that his orders were to start a d@mn fight as soon as he got there. Nothing else is reasonable."
Thus brings us to your challenge to me:
"Was his actions in initiating this attack in compliance with the President's orders, or was he going rogue?"
Ignoring the stink of the "When did you stop beating your wife?" gotcha and (for a moment), dismissing the the strawman of "attacking", and setting aside the logical fallacy associated with the nonsensical "Nothing else is reasonable" we need to look at Lincoln's orders and then compare them to Porter's actions to make any sort of reasonable interpretation. Say, do you happen to have a copy of them handy?
Well, in case you don't, I suppose that we'll just have to guess at them. My guess is, "Git your butt down to Pickens post haste, secure the fort, and relieve Colonel Brown."
It's about here that I want to insert an analogy. When Lincoln assumed office on March 4, 1861 it was like taking possession of a used car. You don't know much about the condition and worthiness of the vehicle - only that it was misused by its previous owner.
Lincoln was caught flat-footed by circumstances that threatened to spiral out of control and all needed immediate attention. The institutions of the United States were being threatened in all quarters, from illegal seizures to mutiny and desertion. Even his "inner circle" of cabinet members were akin to cats requiring constant herding. Problems needed to be addressed. Solutions needed to be identified. Choices needed to be made. And actions needed to be initiated. On every front and in every respect. Now!
What we can glean from the records that survive is a recognition of the confusion, the pandemonium, and the need to stave off panic. There was massive treachery afoot by those both without and within. There were conflicting opinions as to what to do (or not do), who to do what, and who to do the ordering. As a result conflicting orders and countermands were being issued. Hindsight being 20-20 we can look back at the events as they were unfolding and presuppose our own values onto the flow of events. In truth the fog of war blinds all of us equally.
So what do the records tell us? First, that Gustavus Fox had devised and initiated a relief expedition for Fort Sumter. We also know that (unbeknownst to Fox) an expedition similar to Fox’s was simultaneously being fitted out under the command of Navy Lieutenant David Porter. Secretary of State William Seward, without the knowledge of Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles, had obtained Lincoln’s authorization to divert Powhatan to the gulf expedition. Just as she was preparing to sail from New York on April 6, Powhatan was ordered to leave the Charleston expedition and diverted to Fort Pickens. Communication breakdown.
As to the orders, Porter states he wrote them himself:
"'Lincoln reluctantly agreed', taking no notice of the incompatibility of the Pensacola scheme and the Sumter relief expedition, perhaps simply confusing the name of the ship whose presence was vital to assure success in both places.
"Porter immediately wrote the 'confidential' carte blanche orders. Lincoln picked up his pen; "Seward,' he said, see that I don't burn my fingers.' - Porter David D. “The Naval History of the Civil War”.
"Porter tried to initiate an attack on the Confederates."
Not accurate.
"Captain Meigs stopped him."
Sorta. Since Meigs had arrived before Porter he intercepted Porter to let him know of Colonel Brown's desires. Having specific written orders from the president, Porter was conflicted but insisted that Lincoln's orders superseded the Colonel's.
Among my readings was cited opinion by a couple of officials, including Welles, that initially distrusted Porter. Suspicions ran high what with all the treachery underway. Porter was known to have many southern friends and associates and there was speculation that he might join the exodus to the rebs. As it turned out Porter liked where he was situated and eager to join the fray.
"Was his actions in initiating this attack in compliance with the President's orders, or was he going rogue? "
My guess is that he acted in compliance (more or less) of Lincoln's orders.
"Lieutenant Porter immediately tried to engage the confederate shore batteries as soon as he arrived."
Not accurate. There were no "shore batteries". Remember that Brown and even Meigs were already onsite and had already taken possession of the fort when Porter was intercepted upon by Meigs and acceded (more or less) to Brown's order to stand down. The next day spotters saw vessels bearing down on them. No vessel names, flags, captains, or intentions are listed in any of the accounts I read. Porter fired a warning shot. The vessels retreated and did not return.
"One can only conclude that his orders were to start a d@mn fight as soon as he got there. Nothing else is reasonable."
Nonsense.
"Yes, if Lincoln fully expected to start the war somewhere else, and only told Virginia what they wanted to hear until he could pull another trick to start a war, then you are correct."
Pure speculation. You wish it to be true so you int4rpret the narratives one way. I interpret them differently.
What document has every president of the United States used to govern by since Lincoln overthrew the Construction.
Answer: the new, synthetic constitution.
The rock-ribbed Lincolnite Garry Wills in his biography of the rail-, side-, and nation-splitter explained how it went down at the address at Gettysburg.
Lincoln, he recounts, “performed one of the most daring acts of open-air sleight-of-hand ever witnessed by the unsuspecting. Everyone in that vast throng of thousands was having his or her intellectual pocket picked. The crowd departed with a new thing in its ideological luggage, that new constitution Lincoln had substituted for the one they brought there with them. They walked off, from those curving graves on the hillside, under a changed sky, into a different America. Lincoln had revolutionized the Revolution, giving people a new past to live with that would change their future indefinitely.”
So I don't consider him to be much in the way of a constitutional scholar, and in any case, the right to independence is from a higher law than the US constitution which is mere man created law, and that only because the Declaration of Independence gave the newly independent nation the authority to create the constitution.
If you read these quotes, and the others from founding fathers I have posted on this thread, you can see the Republican Party and Abraham Lincoln were the conservatives of their era.
What was being conserved? Societal upheaval is the mark of a Liberal.
This is a great book on the subject. Liberals are always about change.
You thought no such thing. What you thought is "how can I deflect this accurate and historically supportable charge against Lincoln by invoking supposed wrong doing by someone else. "
Again, when a man can be locked up and accused of treason for simply writing a song praising a former general, the man locking him up can also easily win elections by intimidating any potential challengers or their supporters.
And I don't care what Davis did. It isn't a contest between which is the more evil. As I said, wrong things done by Davis do not justify wrong things done by Lincoln.
Each man must be judged on his own deeds independently of other men.
The money men underpinning the North's need for war had no interest in making a spectacle of themselves. Indeed, they preferred to skulk around in shadows and hope nobody noticed their hand in things.
Ran across this the other day.
"—The Common Council of Boston appropriated $100,000 to provide for soldiers enlisting from Boston. The Lowell city government appropriated $8,000 for soldiers’ families.— Boston Journal."
"A meeting at Chicago, Illinois, called for the purpose of sustaining the Government, was the largest and most enthusiastic ever held in the city. Speeches were made by prominent gentlemen of both parties. Stirring resolutions were adopted. $6,000 were subscribed for the support of the volunteers until taken charge of by the State.—Free Press.
"—The banks in Trenton, N. J., Chicago, Ill., Portland, Me., subscribed in support of the Federal Government. A meeting of the officers, representing all the Boston (Mass.) banks, was held this morning, when resolutions were adopted to loan the State of Massachusetts 10 per cent. on their entire capital for the defence of the Government. The capital of the Boston banks amounts to $38,800,000.—Boston Transcript.
"—Governor Morgan, of New York, issued a proclamation calling for men to answer the President’s requisition.
"—A meeting of the merchants of New York city was held at the Chamber of Commerce. The proceedings were characterized by the utmost harmony and unanimity. Mr. Peletiah Perit occupied the chair, and patriotic speeches were made by Mr. Perit, George Opdyke, James Gallatin, Royal Phelps, S. B. Chittenden, Prosper M. Wetmore, George W. Blunt, John E. King, William E. Dodge, John A. Stevens, R. H. McCurdy, and others. Resolutions upholding the Federal Government, and urging a strict blockade of all ports in the secession States were unanimously adopted. It being announced that several of the regiments needed assistance to enable them to leave—on motion, a committee was appointed to receive donations, and in ten minutes the subscription had reached over $21,000. What was still more important was the appointment of a large committee of the most influential capitalists, to use their exertions to secure an immediate taking of the $9,000,000 remaining of the Government loan.—(Doc. 66.)"
New York, Boston, Chicago. All financially interlinked with shipping and trade to Europe. All major centers of money and power. Same group of bastards that are f***ing up the country today.
All Linked by Water transport which mostly New York controlled.
You raised the subject, I just jumped in.
Again, when a man can be locked up and accused of treason for simply writing a song praising a former general, the man locking him up can also easily win elections by intimidating any potential challengers or their supporters.
I don't know. I'd love to take the person who wrote "Baby Shark" and lock them up and throw away the key.
And I don't care what Davis did.
Of course you don't. Interest in Davis would be...inconvenient.
Which means you don't have any quotes from Southerners all complaining about how they farmed out their business to the North. Figures.
There is no natural right of independence! There is a natural right of revolution which is what the founding fathers appealed to in 1776. There is also a natural right of self-defense, so when a group of people invoke the natural right to revolution the people they are revolting from have a right to defend themselves to keep the country together. This is why the natural right of revolution is an appeal to force of arms or war. When you appeal to war you better have the power to make it stick.
Once you appeal to force of arms then your actions, in the western world at least, are evaluated under the concept of Just War. Let’s look at the southern rebels under the first criteria of Just War(which I received quite a bit of training on in the military), Jus Ad Bellum.
1)Proper authority and public declaration-were the southern rebels the proper authority and did they make public declarations. It could be argued they weren’t the proper authority, especially in states like Georgia and Tennessese where there was suppression of pro-union factions, but I’m going to give this one to the rebels. They did make public declarations. So point to the rebels.
2)Just cause / right intention- the southern rebels lost a free and fair election(even though republicans were kept off the ballot in the southern states) in a constitutional republic with a robust system of checks and balances. A party they believed would threaten their institution of chattel slavery won the presidency, though they still had enough representatives in congress to block most actions by this party, they decided to rebel. No way to sugar coat this, it is a horrible cause and horrible intention. Point to the United States.
3)Probability of success-or are the war aims achievable. Your not just wasting lives. The rebels chances of winning this war were slim to none. Point to the United States.
4)Proportionality-Did losing an election in a constitutional republic justify grabbing every governmental property in sight, actually imprisoning US soldiers and civilians, and firing on a US Fort. Answer is no. Point to the United States.
5)Last resort-was this the only means that the rebels had to protect their “peculiar institution”? No. They could have stayed in the United States and blocked most actions by the republicans. They could have worked through congress to pass legislation to allow states to secede or they could have seceded then appealed to the supreme court. They had many other options besides resorting to force. Point to the United States.
So under the Jus Ad Bellum theory of war its 4-1 in favor of the US. So the southern rebels fail under this test. Morally they were wrong to appeal to force of arms
“Which means you don’t have any quotes from Southerners all complaining about how they farmed out their business to the North.”
Here is one.
We are a peculiar people, sir! You don’t understand us, and you can’t understand us, because we are known to you only by Northern writers and Northern papers, who know nothing of us themselves, or misrepresent what they do know. We are an agricultural people; we are a primitive but a civilized people. We have no cities—we don’t want them, have no literature—we don’t need any yet. We have no press—we are glad of it. We do not require a press, because we go out and discuss all public questions from the stump with our people. We have no commercial marine—no navy—we don’t want them. We are better without them. Your ships carry our produce, and you can protect your own vessels. We want no manufactures: we desire no trading, no mechanical or manufacturing classes. As long as we have our rice, our sugar, our tobacco, and our cotton, we can command wealth to purchase all we want from those nations with which we are in amity, and to lay up money besides.”
Texas Senator Louis T. Wigfall
“Answer: the new, synthetic constitution”
the “new synthetic constitution” has been in effect for 155 years. Over twice as long as the old one. We seem to be getting along rather well under it.
forgot last sentence of Wigfall quote, my bad.
from those nations with which we are in amity, and to lay up money besides.”
>>x wrote: “There was more industry in the North and business also imported machinery necessary for production. There were only so many crystal chandeliers and Paris gowns that plantation owners could buy. So no, most imports weren’t sold in the South.”
That is a fallacious argument — complete and total left-wing propaganda. The Whigs, later renamed the “Republicans,” who were the elitists of the Northern states, and who followed the leads of the anti-capitalist mercantilists named Hamilton and Clay, routinely plundered the resources of the South to support crony-capitalist patronage within the “party,” that the greedy, blood-thirsty psychopathic rhetorician named Lincoln eloquently labeled “an internal improvement system.” Slick!
Yes, the modern-day crony system that helps most every politician become filthy rich in only a few years, is nothing more than the “Hamilton-Clay-Lincoln” Family Tradition.
Mr. Kalamata
“There is no natural right of independence!”
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them . . .
It is hard to argue with someone who has never read the Declaration of Revolution; I mean the Declaration of Independence.
“Davis, a mindless pawn in Lincoln’s scheme to control the Continent.”
This looks suspiciously like you are attempting to establish a record on which you can walk away from your recent posts under the theory of temporary insanity due to . . . post traumatic stress, perhaps.
I am already sympathetic to your making that case.
I’ve read it many times and own multiple copies. What the founders were doing was invoking the natural right to rebellion.
In political philosophy, the right of revolution (or right of rebellion) is the right or duty of the people of a nation to overthrow a government that acts against their common interests and/or threatens the safety of the people without cause.
Secession-the action of withdrawing formally from membership of a federation or body, especially a political state.
The southern rebels claimed they had a right to secede from the constitution. I’ve read the constitution multiple times and have yet to come across that word.
The United States said they were insurrectionist and were rebelling against the supreme law of the land, the constitution. I find insurrection and supreme law of the land in the constitution. I even see that congress passed a militia act giving the president authority to call out the army and navy in times of insurrection or rebellion.
These are two different things. I’d say it’s not a hard concept to grasp but you and the rest of the lost cause brigade seem unable to.
“routinely plundered the resources of the South”
What resources would that be?
Skirting the edge of it. He probably didn't want to blow up the fragile coalition by defying it outright.
He went to so much work to put it together that he was loath to strain it.
When you use the word “we” are you including, or excluding, the 61,000,000 children that have been put to death under the aegis of the 14th amendment?
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.