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.
Buchanan’s statement was ambiguous, and his orders gave Anderson latitude.
Anderson took advantage of the latitude to prevent his men from being shot in the back.
When you state "Not true" to my comment "think about it; you are defending Democrat slavers of today by defending the Democrat slavers’ history", it infers somewhat of an answer to my question; but it is not a direct answer to it and is without explanation.
The Democrat Party has had and still has this evil slavery mentality which it has not turned away from before the Civil War; and it is worse now than before. If the Democrat slavers had gotten away from this mentality, I could see why you would say "Not true", but it is true because, like I stated, The Democrat Party has had and still has this evil slavery mentality which it has not turned away from before the Civil War; and it is worse now than before. They may claim that they abhor the likes of the slavery of old, but in reality they just use different methods for the same means; some more ruthless then that of the 1800’s. So, it is true that you defend the Democrat slaver Party as a whole, the whole being how they were and how they are (worse) today.
So I will ask one more time; "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? And please explain your answer. "