Posted on 04/22/2021 5:16:46 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson
A gentleman who left Washington at half past four o'clock on Saturday morning, informs us that the general belief in that city in the best informed circles, was that JEFFERSON DAVIS was on his way North--at the head of a considerable force, which he was augmenting on the way. As all communication by telegraph with the South has been cut off, it was impossible to procure any positive information on this subject; but it was considered beyond dispute that he was en route for the Capital and not very far from it at the present time.
Our informant states that the railroad bridge at Canton, two or three miles out of Baltimore, on the road to Washington, was burning as he came through, and that the telegraph wires were also destroyed at that place. Baltimore, he states, seemed to be in a perfect whirlwind of excitement. Thousands of people thronged the streets, who appeared to have lost all control of themselves, and were more like fiends than human beings. At that time the military and police had not, apparently, established any authority over the city. At 1 o'clock our informant left Baltimore by a propeller through the Elkton Canal. He met two barges, which seemed to be filled with troops, though not many were visible, as they were all housed. The captains of the barges, on being hailed, denied that they had troops on board, but the gentlemen on the propeller were confident from what they heard that there were not less than 1,700, and that they were of the Pennsylvania Volunteers.
The road from Philadelphia to Baltimore is completely interrupted, no trains passing over it at all.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
In post 217 (April 12, 1861: The Civil War Begins) you used my name in vain without sending me a copy.
I post your comment below in its entirety:
“Hello Bro Joe K. Nice to see you here. As always your posts are illuminating and informative, cutting through the fog of Confederate revisionism that runs like a muddy stream through here. Time and again I ask the Johnny Reb wanna be’s a simple question: If the South had won the war would it have ended slavery? I ask this since the constant argument of these people is ‘’slavery was a dying institution’’, or ‘’The South didn't go to war to preserve slavery’’’, it was a’’state's rights issue’’.
None of them ever attempt an answer. They run from it like roaches when the kitchen light goes on. I asked it just recently of ‘’jeffersondem’’. He's gone to ground.”
I didn't think there would be anything wrong with doing what you do.
“They were roughly equivalent to the 4 million southern slaves working to support the Confederate war machine.”
And there were, by some accounts, a population of 18.5 million people - not all slaves - in the Union states working to support troops that invaded the South.
So answer the question.
“So answer the question.”
You have already embarrassed yourself a couple of times in past days.
Take care not to do it again.
Well you sure told me. I guess i'll go over in the corner and sulk. :)
Point by point the man takes your positions and arguments apart and like a child throwing a tantrum you come after me.
Disagree. Most of his points are irrelevant. He throws a lot of "noise" into any discussion.
Admittedly I'm not the Civil War scholar Joe is. That's why you like to chastise me.
I don't single you out. My methodology is simple. I start reading a thread and when I come across a comment I think is wrong, I respond to it. The exception is when it is huge and would require more effort than a wise man has time for.
I usually don't even look at the names until after i've gotten through the comment. Often I respond before i've even glanced at the name attached to a comment.
You may feel picked on, but I cause as much consternation with others as I do with you.
What you are repeating is the propaganda created by their enemies. *They* didn't rend the nation in two, it simply evolved in different directions, and if you look around today, you still see it trying to go in two different directions.
This claim that they "fought for the purpose of keeping a people enslaved" is also just propaganda. The people were going to stay enslaved if they didn't fight and simply remained in the Union, so it's sorta dishonest to claim the fight was over freeing enslaved people whom nobody intended to free when they went to war.
Also you lay all the blame for the deaths on the Southerners, when the Northerners could have prevented the loss of any life simply by remaining in their own states and living their lives peaceably.
The North invaded. *THEY* caused the loss of life, and the Southerners were merely defending their homeland from an invading army.
So yeah, you are regurgitating propaganda rather than looking at the situation objectively. It's just scapegoating.
Sir, I reject your premise. I also reject your premise that Fort Sumter is in any manner equal to Pearl Harbor.
But we've been over this before, and I now consider it to be a waste of my time to debate the point.
They thought Republicans would weaken slavery to the point where it would collapse. Republicans could build an anti-slavery party in the Border States and the Upper South that would eventually lead to the Deep South being isolated, so it was better to leave when they could in order to secure slavery and their social order from Northern interference. We've gone over this many times already and it's sorta dishonest to ignore all that..
No I don’t feel ‘’picked on’’ pal.
I just recognize a pattern. The man cleans your clock every time.
I should think just being a Lost Causer like you embarrassment enough. So if I am what you say then you should have no problem answering the question I posed to you. But you won't answer the question because you can't. You can't because you know damn well the South would not have freed the slaves if it had won the war. 156 years on and you Rebs still won't give up.
“. . . you should have no problem answering the question I posed to you. But you won’t answer the question because you can’t.”
I already answered your question. Weeks ago.
You may have missed my response due to your being upset; you know how you get when you are upset.
No you didn’t.
For a second there, you had all the Q-berts in a tizzy over that headline...
Our FRiend DiogenesLamp claims the Union outnumbered Confederates by 4 to 1.
But to reach that ratio he's only counting white citizens, not African Americans.
If we include African Americans in the counts, then the ration of Union to Confederate is approx. 2.5 to one.
That is also the ratio of total Union troops who served to Confederate -- 2.5 million Union troops (including colored) about one million Confederates (not including slaves).
And the fact remains that while Union troops did outnumber Confederates in any given battle, those numbers were very seldom, if ever, even 2.5 to one.
So one could well argue, as DiogenesLamp does, that while Confederates were usually outnumbered, they were better at organizing & using their scarce resources.
“No you didn’t (answer the question posed to you).”
You say no; I say yes.
Are you putting your reputation at risk based on an actual review of my posts since you asked the question, or are you just guessing about what I may or may not have posted to you?
And if it is the latter, have you already forgotten the good counsel our mutual friend Brother Joe gave you recently about not getting confused and tripped up? He addressed that advice to you specifically because he has observed something in your posts of which you may not be aware.
Confederate Memorial Day is over for this year; if you continue to taunt you can not expect my reckless generosity to continue forever.
It reminds me of the hubris of Europeans in August 1914 as they sent their boys off to war. The Europeans, however, had even less of an excuse. The takeaway their military observers should have learned from the American Civil War was the frightful butchers bill that rapidly improving military technology would inflict.
I recently saw a documentary on the history of tanks. There was an Austrian officer and engineer who seemed to understand this. Plus, advances in artillery between 1865 and 1914 made the battlefield an incredibly dangerous place for infantry. So, he designed a tank in 1911 as his solution for how to fight a war with modern technology. Both Austria and Germany rejected it.
That is the stupidest answer I’ve ever seen posted here. No, the South would not have ended slavery if it had won the war, the very reason it went to war was to not only preserve the institution of slavery but to expand it into the Kansas territory and beyond.
As to Bro Joe K in private conversation with the man he has
stated he enjoys reading my posts and we have a very cordial relationship. “Reckless generosity’’? There’s a contradiction in terms. Don’t attempt to intimidate me Reb, I’ve gone rounds with better that you here and as far as your supposed gift of ‘’reckless generosity’’, stick it.
I’ve often held that the South had to know they launched a war they couldn’t possibly hope to win.
The number of factories for instance put the South at a disadvantage.
The South had around 21,000 while the North had some 100,000.
The Anaconda System choked the South as well as the Union naval blockade.
Rather reckless of the South to undertake a war with no navy to speak of.
Certainly before any battle can be won on land it must first be won at sea.
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.