Posted on 03/29/2021 5:44:24 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson
WASHINGTON, Thursday, March 28.
I am informed by one of the Commissioners of the Southern Confederacy that they have not received any dispatches indicating the policy of the present Administration. They are satisfied that Fort Sumpter will be, if it be not already, evacuated, and they await advices from the Provisional Government at Montgomery. They expect to know in a few days what course Mr. LINCOLN will pursue in relation to their new Confederacy, but they deny utterly the story current here to-night that they have received advices of Sumpter's evacuation.
SOUTH CAROLINA AND THE CONSTITUTION.
Advices received here from Charleston indicate that a violent debate is likely to take place in the confidential caucus of the Convention relative to the adoption of the new Constitution for the Confederate States, the objection being to the Slave-trade clause and the admission of non-Slaveholding States. It will probably be ratified, however, by a large majority.
NEWSPAPER MEN IN OFFICE.
Newspaper men had better keep away from Washington, for Secretary SEWARD seems to nab and exile every one of them who happens within his reach. Two more unfortunates went by the board to-day, viz.: J.S. PIKE, of the Tribune, who was nominated and confirmed Minister to the Hague, and JAMES E. HARVEY, of the same establishment, Minister to Portugal. In view of these appointments, nobody henceforth can doubt Mr. SEWARD's magnanimity, whatever else they may say of him. Of course, there are those ill-natured enough, to charge their success to a desire of the Administration to get rid of them.
A SATISFACTORY CHANGE.
CASSIUS M. CLAY is much gratified with his transfer from the Madrid to the St. Petersburgh Mission, as the latter, strange to say, was his choice.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
First session: November 21, 2015. Last date to add: Sometime in the future.
Reading: Self-assigned. Recommendations made and welcomed.
Posting history, in reverse order
https://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:homerjsimpson/index?tab=articles
To add this class to or drop it from your schedule notify Admissions and Records (Attn: Homer_J_Simpson) by reply or freepmail.
Link to previous New York Times thread
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3945877/posts
Would you please insert “1861” at the very beginning of the headline so most of us can automatically know to not waste time and just skip over this thread?
Hi.
“1861” is in the thread title.
But, I understand where you are coming from.
Difficult to determine the year given the current administration.
5.56mm
If the 5th and 6th words are “Fort Sumpter” it should give a clue as to the period the post was originally published. Besides, I have been posting historical items in this format since 2008 and I don’t want to change now. Perhaps you could save valuable time by reading the headlines from end to beginning. That way, when you come to the one post I make each morning between 5 and 7 a.m. Pacific time you won’t be discomfited.
“Perhaps you could save valuable time by reading the headlines from end to beginning.”
Asinine. I saw Ft. Sumpter this time but it reminded me of these postings that are not nearly as obvious as to time frame and I read them to the end, and ...1861. Waste of time. And, as the guy posted, sometimes the subject matter fits a bit close to today.
If reading a title is waste of your time, perhaps you shouldn’t waste your time on FR at all; you are far too busy.
“If reading a title is waste of your time, perhaps you shouldn’t waste your time on FR at all; you are far too busy.”
There are hundreds of titles on FR, I rapidly scan the ones that have words that catch my attention.
I don’t have a problem with reading titles, but, then again, I learned to read decades ago and have lots of practice.
Oh, my mistake. I wasn’t posting to you originally. Screw off, prick. It is not about ability to read, it is time.
Said like a southern gentleman... antebellum.
Pistols at 25 paces. Bring your Second.
LOL.
5.56mm
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"
A lot of people know what they know and don't want to learn anything different.
Especially in today's cancel-culture it's much easier just to shut down what you don't like, than to deal with facts that don't match your ideology, isn't it?
Curiously, this report comes from New Orleans.
Britanica says the Southern Pacific was first formed in 1861, but by the "Big Four" of the Central Pacific railroad, so having nothing to do with Louisiana or Confederacy.
Wikipedia says the Southern Pacific was first formed in 1865, in San Francisco, so again having nothing to do with the early Confederacy or New Orleans.
But Wiki does mention several predecessor railroads in the 1840s & 1850s in Texas, even though those seem to have no connection to the San Francisco Southern Pacific.
In years past our FRiend rustbucket has schooled me on Texas Civil War era railroads...
Your misapplication of a Shakespeare quote is a sufficient warning of the nonsense that follows.
“A lot of people know what they know and don’t want to learn anything different.”
As a Civil War buff, I would not learn anything different from reading those posts.
“Especially in today’s cancel-culture it’s much easier just to shut down what you don’t like, than to deal with facts that don’t match your ideology, isn’t it?”
In context, it is hard to address such stupidity.
You mean you think Civil War history is ideology? Civil War history does not belong to me. As the British say, you are too smart by half.
Well, you wasted a lot of time with your stupid post.
I consider myself a civil war buff. I still find lots of information in the times and Harper’s Weekly that I was unaware of.
I guess I am not the expert you are.
I take it you have already read all the times from 1861.
Anyone can see these are historical posts by reading the headline of the poster, who has been doing this for years.
“I guess I am not the expert you are.”
Probably not.
No, what I think is you're way too hostile, by half.
Why go out of your way to criticize a thread you won't read because... because... because you're a Civil War buff and already know everything there is to know about it?
I doubt that.
“Why go out of your way to criticize a thread you won’t read because... because... because you’re a Civil War buff and already know everything there is to know about it?”
I tell you what, you are seriously in need of a reading comprehension lesson. My complaint was waste of time. I said not a word about what I know about the Civil War. I quit being a Civil War buff some years ago. My initial irritation was that the headlines were a bit too close (as another poster pointed out) to what is going on now, and they would draw me in, and then I would read through it and see 1860. My hostility was because it was a bit too early in the day to be lectured for a charge that was not in my mind or motivations, as you still insist on doing.
My reading comprehension is just fine, thank you.
I read that you are vastly more hostile than any reasonable person should be, and out of kindness I accept your explanation of "too early in the morning".
So have some coffee... and have a nice day!
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.