By moving to Fort Sumter Anderson in effect broke Buchanan's promise and Anderson's last instruction from the Secretary of War (dictated by Buchanan).
That was the breach of faith; a faith made by Buchanan, a lying Democrat slaver himself? A lie made to his cabinet in order to keep cabinet members? That is Rich!
Buchanan slumped into a chair. "My God!" he cried wearily. "Are calamities ... never to come singly! I call God to witness -- you gentlemen better than anybody else know that this is not only without but against my orders. It is against my policy."
And Buchanan, the Democrat slaver President didn’t bother to dismiss Anderson, the man who “supposedly” was responsible for the war.
LOL. Perhaps you don't know that the New York Times was a thoroughly Republican newspaper back then …
Totally unbelievable considering the NYT article you source is so sympathetic to the Democrat slaver’s cause.
… or that on many matters the Republican and Democrat Parties (and the NY Times) have switched political philosophies, with the exception of race, since those times.
Yeppers, I’ll agree with you somewhat there; except they have not “switched”; both Parties have gotten worse. The Republicans have grown spineless in support of their philosophy; with the exception of most Tea Party members. The philosophy of the Democrats slavers is now a, I reiterate, anti-God, anti Bible, slaughter the unborn by the millions, etc., a straight up evil Party.
President Lincoln in deciding the Sumter question had adopted a simple but effective policy. To use his own words, he determined to "send bread to Anderson"; if the rebels fired on that, they would not be able to convince the world that he had begun the civil war."
So what this tells me is that Lincoln also wanted to win the propaganda war that the Democrat slavers started; thank you for proving my point.
I repeat, think about it; you are defending Democrat slavers of today by defending the Democrat slavers’ history. You would do better to remind Democrat slaver of their history of not only slavery, but of their racism, their KKK, their Progressive to socialists, communism, their hatred for god and Bible, their holocaust of babies, etc. Before I respond to anything else, I have but one question for you; why would you want to defend the Democrat slavers of then and now?
Only a fool views the 19th century thru a 21st century microscope. Lincoln was a racist of the highest order. Today he would be in line with the Klan.
The lie was made to the public after he gave in to several of his cabinet members to keep three of them from resigning. He had already lost two cabinet members in the previous month and was about to lose two others to scandals. The loss of three more would have meant his government had collapsed. I'm not excusing Buchanan. I'm just reporting what went on.
I have cited Stanton's letter and Holt's confirmation of its contents in the past as proof that Buchanan had indeed made the promise about the forts that some of the Northern posters on these threads have said he didn't make and have pointed to his public statements made after these cabinet meetings to refute claims that he ever made the promise.
And Buchanan, the Democrat slaver President didn’t bother to dismiss Anderson, the man who “supposedly” was responsible for the war.
Buchanan argued that Anderson should leave Fort Sumter go back to Fort Moultrie, but IIRC the Northern cabinet members (and SC Governor Pickens) said "No deal."
Totally unbelievable [that the NY Times was Republican] considering the NYT article you source is so sympathetic to the Democrat slaver’s cause.
I assure you that I am correct. Perhaps your comment is based on how today's liberal newspapers and liberal TV channels usually report only one side one side of the news (their side) and present a slanted interpretation of the news. That bias is no longer on just the editorial pages. The slant in today's liberal newspapers can be seen in the news they ignore, the news they decide to print, and where in the paper they print items unflattering to their side, if they choose to print them at all.
The old New York Times of the 1860s did report what was going on in other parts of the country, hence their reporting of an article from the Charleston Courier about the situation in Charleston. It doesn't mean that the NYT supported what the other newspaper said. It means, however, that the readers of the Times of that period were informed about attitudes and happenings in other parts of the country. That is useful reporting. The editorial page was still slanted pro-Republican.
Yeppers, I’ll agree with you somewhat there; except they have not “switched”; both Parties have gotten worse. The Republicans have grown spineless in support of their philosophy; with the exception of most Tea Party members.
There is truth in what you say.
I repeat, think about it; you are defending Democrat slavers of today by defending the Democrat slavers’ history.
Not so.