Wow! A pre-WWI tank design, had to look it up -- "Motorgeschütz":
I doubt if we'll see anything like this in the US Civil War, but maybe some railroad guns?
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 ...
Post #35 is not one I made to rockrr; it is a post you made to me.
I'm not following your thinking here.
Wow! A pre-WWI tank design, had to look it up -- "Motorgeschütz":
I doubt if we'll see anything like this in the US Civil War, but maybe some railroad guns?
Thank you for acknowledging that I did directly answer your question. Weeks ago.
I tried to discretely ignore your repeated taunts and denials but you would have none of it. And that I don't understand.
My best guess is that you were angry several weeks ago, got confused and tripped up, and went off the rails. Like you did that other time.
Regardless, it doesn't seem like your taunts and denials did any real harm. Let's just forget about it and don't call attention - not even by omission - to your blunder going forward.
Well... to begin with Confederates like Jefferson Davis knew well all the Union leaders, took their measure and believed Confederates could easily handle them.
But so far as I know, Davis never met Abraham Lincoln, knew of him only as some back-country rube and expected more... ah... "sophisticated" Northerners like NY Senator Seward to manage Lincoln.
So Davis & Co. expected to fight & win a few battles, then Union leaders would come asking for peace terms.
Most Confederates did not originally understand that Lincoln intended to defend the Union until or unless Union voters told him to stop -- which they nearly did in 1864.
Those who did know Lincoln -- i.e., CSA VP Alexander Stephens -- counseled in early 1861 against rushing into war against the United States.
In the meantime most knowledgeable people understood the Union had huge advantages in population & production and so must eventually win a protracted war.
But, like you, the part I've never fully understood is why Confederate leaders refused to negotiate terms better than "Unconditional Surrender."
Seems like they could have had better terms as late as early 1865, but for some reason were not interested.
And so the war continued...
I asked you a simple question Reb and you’ve yet to answer it. Yes or no? Would the South have ended slavery if it had won the war. You said ‘’Yes’’ and I replied that was dumbest thing I’ve ever seen posted here.
He was, by nature,an obstinate and inflexible man who engaged in public feuds with contemporaries and wouldn't accept the counsel of associates. As U.S. senator from Mississippi he once declared "I make no terms, I accept no compromises''. This inflexibility made it hard for even his admirers to warm to him. His own wife once described him as a ''nervous dyspeptic by habit''.
OK can you stop with the name calling?
There is a valid argument that can be made that slavery was on it’s way out.
The civil war was about SATES RIGHTS, slavery was just a vehicle.
Northern sates economics were failing and Southern states didn’t want to bail them out. The north needed to force them to stay in the union.
If this is the “dumbest things you ever heard” then you have not been listening to anything coming out of Joe Biden’s mouth.
The South went to war to preserve the institution of slavery and to expand it into the Kansas Territory and beyond. Yours is just another echoing of a revisionist argument that has advanced the STATES RIGHTS''nonsense. "States Rights'' to do what? To have the right to own another another human being. Slavery was codified in The Confederate Constitution. One of my ancestors was William C. Grace. He was the Chief Medical Steward for The Surgeon Generals Office in Washington DC during The Civil War. He wrote The US Army Surgeons Manual(Google it). He spent the war dealing with the carnage your ''states rights'' advocated. Honestly it never ceases to amaze and gall me at the same time that people who call themselves conservatives come to a conservative web site venerating a bunch of treasonous southern Democrats.
No, the only valid & true argument here is that Deep South slavers, aka "Fire Eaters", felt their "peculiar institution" threatened by abolitionist "Black Republicans".
In 1856 Fire Eaters threatened secession if abolitionist Republican John Fremont was elected President.
Fremont lost (only 33% of popular vote) to a united Democrat party, James Buchanan was elected President, and he supported the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision.
In 1860 Fire Eaters again threatened secession if Republican Lincoln won, but this time they also split their own Democrats so Lincoln won with only 39% of the popular vote.
Deep South Fire Eaters then immediately began declaring secession, because, they said, of Republicans' threats against slavery.
Sure, you might argue that slavery was weakening in Border States like Maryland and Missouri, but that was largely because slavery was ever more profitable (and therefore more powerful) in the Deep Cotton South.
And, absent Civil War and the South's loss of control over Washington, DC, there's every reason to think slavery would have prospered indefinitely.
Mr. K: "The civil war was about SATES RIGHTS, slavery was just a vehicle."
But "just a vehicle" is the wrong description for slavery's role.
In fact, slavery was the only political issue powerful enough to flip millions of otherwise patriotic Southern American voters from Unionists to secessionists.
So, sure, you can easily argue that Southern propagandists grossly exaggerated the Republican threat against slavery, for their own ulterior motives, but it doesn't matter because no other political issue was powerful enough to move Southern voters.
The fact is that in 1860 Southern voters were convinced slavery was threatened by Republicans, and that's why they began to vote for secession.
Thank you that was a very cogent, intelligent, and eloquent response.
Although it basically makes MY point (Thank you) it was much better than calling somebody stupid because they disagree with you.
Hey little boy if you can’t discuss something without resorting to name calling why don’t you take it over to Dummy land.
I did make my argument a$$hole. I’ve been called every name in the book here by you Lost Causers. Even been threatened with violence.
You don’t like it, don’t post to me.
There’s a good little boy... Go all stompy feet
Pal, you are no where important enough to me to get all ‘’stompy feet’ over. Piss off.
Did somebody not get a trophy...??
Awwww you poor thing.
Yeah. I got a trophy.
When I was fifteen I got a certificate from the NRA for learning how to shoot a rifle.
When I was 23 I earned a black belt in karate.
Hows that?
“But, like you, the part I’ve never fully understood is why Confederate leaders refused to negotiate terms better than “Unconditional Surrender.””
Of course Confederate leaders such as Robert E. Lee and Joseph E. Johnston - who led two of the South’s larger armies - did not surrender unconditionally.
I’m not sure of the terms Edmund Kirby Smith negotiated. He was the last white Confederate General to surrender.
Well that's what they keep telling us, but i'm starting to doubt the truth of statements originating from Washington DC and their corrupt power cartel.
And this is how much slavery you would have had in Kansas according to reality.
Here is your evidence.
If the map went back to 1776, it would show an even better trend, because when the nation started, all of the states were slave states, and the movement was all in the direction of abolition.
You think the other states would buck the trend indefinitely?
“And there is no ‘’valid’’ argument that slavery was on it’s way out.”
It doesn’t appear you fully understand the importance of the Florida Supreme Court’s 1860 ruling in Cato a Slave, vs. The State.
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.