Posted on 04/30/2019 4:06:09 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
President Trump sent certain segments of population into outraged spasms on Friday when he described Robert E. Lee as a "great general." Trying to lend context to his infamous "very fine people" remark about the 2017 Charlottesville protests, Trump said this:
“I was talking about people that went because they felt very strongly about the monument to Robert E. Lee, a great general. Whether you like it or not, he was one of the great generals. I have spoken to many generals here, right at the White House, and many people thought — of the generals, they think that he was maybe their favorite general.”
Trump is, of course, completely correct. Robert E. Lee has always been regarded as a military genius, and for good reason. This is not controversial to anyone with a sixth grade education in American history. But surveys show that many Americans don't even know when the Civil War took place, and a sizable number think Lincoln led the Allied Forces rather than the Union Army, so it's no surprise that basic statements of historical fact have become contentious in our age of aggressive stupidity.
I found myself in the crossfire of the controversy when I posted on Twitter in support of Trump's statement and provided my personal list of the best Civil War generals. I give Lee the top spot, followed by Jackson, Grant, Sherman, and then Nathan Bedford Forrest. You could certainly make an argument for Longstreet, Sheridan, Thomas, or Cleburne in any one of those spots. But you cannot make an argument for a list of top Civil War generals that completely excludes all Confederates. There aren't five Union generals better than Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson. There isn't even one, in my view. In his Valley Campaign, Jackson marched his brigade of shoeless farm boys 600 miles through the mountains over the course of a month and a half, winning five pivotal battles against a combined force that outnumbered his 2:1. Grant never did anything quite like that, though he was impressive in his own right — and the victor, after all.
But I was informed by hundreds of people that I am a racist, just like Trump, for daring to give the Rebels any credit at all. We have reached a point where we cannot acknowledge any of the achievements of morally flawed historical figures. We must pretend they never existed. Driving this point home, a number of people insisted that ranking Confederates as great generals is like ranking Nazis as great generals. That's ridiculous, because of course some Nazi generals were great generals. Erwin Rommel was a great general, as anyone who has studied WW2 knows. The fact that he was fighting on the side of abject evil does not erase his military genius.
If we cannot acknowledge the greatness of morally compromised military commanders, then we cannot acknowledge the greatness of any military commander. Not a single one of them would pass muster by the standards of today's anachronizing blowhards. Napoleon, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great — all must be removed from the history books. Even the Union commanders in the Civil War get thrown out with this bath water. Grant was an anti-Semite who tried to evict all the Jews from his military district. Sherman was a war criminal. Lincoln was a racist who publicly professed his bigotry during a debate with Stephen Douglas:
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
If we are not willing to see things in their historical context, and to accept that people in the past weren't as racially enlightened as we are today, then we will be left with no heroes, no great men at all. But if we are willing to forgive Lincoln his virulent racism, and Grant his predilection for ethnic cleansing, then we must extend a similar generosity to men like Robert E. Lee.
Nothing will make slavery anything less than a moral abomination. And it is true that slavery was a very significant motivating factor behind secession, as Texas, Mississippi, Georgia and South Carolina all made abundantly clear in their Declaration of Causes of Seceding States. But it is equally true that many men who did the fighting on both sides did not perceive themselves to be fighting over slavery. There's a reason Lincoln waited two years to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. He said early on that if he could keep the country together by keeping slavery, he would do it. To him, and to the Union soldiers on the ground, it was a fight to preserve the Union. The sad fact of the matter is that most Northerners were racist themselves and would not have charged into gunfire for the sake of liberating the slaves, no matter how distasteful they found the institution.
For their part, many southern soldiers thought they were fighting a war of defense against hostile invaders. There's a reason Jefferson Davis did not send his army to capture Washington, even though perhaps they could have done so after the stunning Confederate victory at Bull Run to start the war. This is the reality Robert E. Lee confronted. He was offered command of Union forces but declined because, as a loyal Virginian, he could not march against his home state. He saw it as a choice between defending his home or the Union. He chose his home.
Perhaps you would have chosen differently. Perhaps you would have taken up arms against your own family. Perhaps you would have been more enlightened than almost everyone else and seen the struggle in the same light that spectators in the future would see it. I congratulate this hypothetical version of yourself, in that case. It's true that Robert E. Lee lacked this sort of enlightenment. It's also true that when he was faced with a difficult dilemma, he made the choice he thought was right, and then proceeded to win battle after battle against a foe with superior numbers, superior weaponry, and superior resources. That's why he's a great general.
But the DEMOCRATS wanted a war. The DEMOCRATS thought they would win the war - with the initiative and momentum for provoking said war on their side.
South Carolina made their wishes clear too.
Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.
And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.
In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, “that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.”
They further solemnly declared that whenever any “form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government.” Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies “are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.”
In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments— Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article “that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.”
Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: “ARTICLE 1— His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.”
Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.
In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.
The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.
If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were— separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.
By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.
Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.
We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.
In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be “to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.
On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.
We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.
Adopted December 24, 1860
Much has been made of the declarations of causes by the 4 states that issued them - though I note Rhett’s Address which was attached to and sent out with South Carolina’s declaration of causes was not included.
Yet these 4 states along with the other 3 original seceding states were offered a constitutional amendment which would have expressly protected slavery effectively forever by the Northern dominated Congress and by Lincoln and yet they turned it down. They also made no claim to the territories of the US when seceding. Very strange if protection of and expansion of slavery were their real concern instead of merely the legalistic means of saying it was the Northern states which had violated the constitution.
I have absolutely no interests in reading about or discussing the asserted "cause" for secession. It is irrelevant to the fact that the Declaration of Independence guarantees a right to independence, and it guarantees this right for whatever "cause" those seeking it want.
I don't give a D@mn what their "cause" was. If they didn't like the autumn leaves in Connecticut, so far as i'm concerned, that was sufficient "cause" for them to have a right to leave if they wish.
You see, the thing about a fundamental right is that you don't have to justify it. You can exercise it even if other people don't approve of your reasons for doing so.
Their reasons for seceding also have no bearing on why the Northern states sent armies to invade the South. Presumably the Northern armies would have invaded, no matter what the "cause" of secession was.
Captain Parker hastily assembled his minutemen again. When Pitcairn’s forces and Parker’s minutemen met, there were 77 minutemen prepared to fight nearly 250 British soldiers. A shot was fired; although it’s not clear which side fired first. More shots ensued. After the fight came to a close, eight Americans were dead and ten were wounded. This is in comparison to one wounded British soldier and several bullet wounds in Pitcairn’s horse.
I'm sure the British said we fired first, and of course we said they fired first.
But it's a very different thing when your own lives are put at risk because you are waiting for the enemy to open up on you. According to the ships orders they had received, the Union fleet was going to attack them if they didn't let them put supplies in the fort.
They faced the prospect of being attacked by the ships *AND* the Fort at the same time. Their loss of life would have been far greater if they allowed this to happen, and so they did what any rational military commander would have done. They neutralized the enemy they had in front of them at that time so that they would not have to deal with two attacks from different directions.
Had the South been smart enough to allow either those ships or the fort to fire first, the diplomatic front of the war with Europe might have been a bit more receptive.
Yes, but that would require them to sit there and get killed. General Beauregard would have been decreed a fool for allowing both the fortress and those ships to kill his men. Beauregard had no way of knowing those ships would never attack him because the command ship had been detached by secret orders direct from Lincoln sending it away from Charleston. So far as Beauregard knew, he was facing a serious attack.
Look, i've read both the Union and Confederate communications regarding Operations in Charleston Harbor, and much of Beauregard's planning was to deal with that attack by the Warships. He deliberately held many cannon batteries in reserve in case he found himself fighting a two front engagement.
What Lincoln did is tactical genius by sending those ships and forcing Beauregard to make an impulsive and impetuous decision to fire on Sumter, force it’s surrender, and use it as a rallying call to muster gullible volunteers to fight his war.
Propaganda genius. Tactically it was stupid. Admiral David Porter said that if those ships had gone through with their stated mission, they would have been sunk. Lincoln had detached the command ship (USS Powhatan) and sent it to Pensacola, where it proceeded to attack confederate ships with no knowledge of events in Charleston.
This caused these ships to rendezvous at the entrance to Charleston Harbor, but paralyzed them from taking further action. The whole thing was just a feint to get the Confederates to fire. It was designed to look like a credible act of war to the Confederates, but hamstrung so that no actual act of war could have occurred.
Then Lincoln presented it as the Confederates attacking the Union, and locked up any newspaper editors that disagreed.
We’ll never know if those ships were sent to evacuate the troops or attack Beauregard’s forces - sure folks can write about the so called intentions all day long and centuries later, but that doesn’t make their presumptions correct.
We know exactly what the ships orders were. They were to put supplies in the fort, and if resisted, to use their entire force to place both men and munitions into the fort.
What Beauregard should have done (hindsight of course), was to allow it’s starved out occupants a surrender - boat them back to DC or Baltimore.
Exactly what they intended to do. CSA secretary of War Walker sent this telegram.
'Do not desire needlessly to bombard Fort Sumter. If Major Anderson will state the time at which, as indicated by him, he will evacuate, and agree that in the meantime he will not use his guns against us, unless ours should be employed against Fort Sumter, you are authorized thus to avoid the effusion of blood. If this, or its equivalent, be refused, reduce the fort as your judgment decides to be most practicable.'
In fact Anderson had already written his evacuation order. He said he would evacuate April 15th, if he didn't receive any supplies. Had those ships only arrived a few days later, the war would not have started at Charleston. (It would have started at Pensacola, because the Powhatan was heading there and would be firing on Confederate ships. )
Well-clothed, well-fed, treated respectfully and then allowed Lincoln to make his next provocation.
Lincoln's next provocation was already sent. When the Powhatan arrived in Pensacola, it immediately set to trying to start a war with the Confederates. Were it not for the quick intervention of Captain Meigs, the Powhatan would have immediately fired upon the Confederate shore batteries.
+1.
I can only speak to direct conversations with my ancestors from two sides of the family. They never spoke of financial inequalities.
They spoke about the Fugitive Slave Act and its slave hunters coming north and conducting searches and arrests. That was a big issue.
Also, the Methodists in my family were militantly opposed to slavery.
The Iowa regiments did attack Missouri and occupied some of the state.
Most of the regiments were later sent to Vicksburg and other theaters.
I think you are referring to my statement that most Northerners hated slavery because they saw it as a threat to labor and wages, but it's not clear if this is what you are saying.
I think it's also important to point out that once the propaganda went out that the war was fought for "freedom of the slaves", nobody would want to ever admit they hated black people, and most would claim to have always been in favor of freedom for slaves. The reality can be some what different than people wish to remember.
Both Indiana (1816) and Illinois (1818) abolished slavery by their constitutions. And both followed the Ohio policy of trying to prevent black immigration by passing laws requiring blacks who moved into the state to produce legal documents verifying that they were free and posting bond to guarantee their good behavior. The bond requirements ranged as high as $1,000, which was prohibitive for a black American in those days. Anti-immigration legislation passed in Illinois in 1819, 1829, and 1853. In Indiana, such laws were enacted in 1831 and 1852. Michigan Territory passed such a law in 1827; Iowa Territory passed one in 1839 and Iowa enacted another in 1851 after it became a state. Oregon Territory passed such a law in 1849.[8] Blacks who violated the law faced punishments that included advertisement and sale at public auction (Illinois, 1853).
Even though slavery was outlawed in northern states such as Iowa, African-Americans were not always welcome. Many northern states passed laws known as "Black Codes" to discourage African-Americans from moving north. Iowa was no different. In 1838 lawmakers passed laws that made it difficult for African-Americans to move to Iowa.Another of Iowa's Black Codes, called the "Act to Regulate Blacks and Mulattoes," included bills that limited the rights of African-Americans. They were not allowed to vote, serve in the military, or testify in court against a European American person. African-American children were not allowed to attend Iowa's schools. A year after these laws were passed, legislators made interracial marriage illegal.
.
They spoke about the Fugitive Slave Act and its slave hunters coming north and conducting searches and arrests. That was a big issue.
Are you aware that the US Constitution required this? To fight against it was to fight against Constitutional law. The fugitive slave act merely said the same thing as article IV, section 2 of the US Constitution. It had been temporarily stopped by Justice Story in Prigg v Pennsylvania, but constitutional law had always required that slaves be returned to their masters.
The Iowa regiments did attack Missouri and occupied some of the state.
On what legal grounds did they do this? So far as I know, this is defying Federal authority, and not so very different from what the Confederates were claimed to have done.
Many northerners in the more industrialized areas disliked slavery because they felt it kept their own wages down.
My family were farmers and they welcomed free blacks that offered seasonal help and specialty temp labor such as farriers and blacksmiths. But my family did not want them to stay permanently and raise families.
Also, many northerners did not want former slaves to come north and bring down wages.
I agree with you on that point.
“the US Constitution required this? To fight against it was to fight against Constitutional law.” Correct, my family well understood that they were violating federal law and could be jailed. They followed their moral imperative.
The self-financed Iowa volunteer regiments attacked Missouri, on their own volition, under orders from the governor, after war was declared, in their gray uniforms. Later, the regiments were federalized and brought to heel as Union soldiers.
He was blessed with a succession of cowards, blunderers, and buffoons the United States Army sent against him: McClellan, Burnside, Hooker, Meade. Once Grant took command and stepped off on the Wilderness Campaign, Lee was trapped in 9 weeks and the rest was siege and endgame stalling.
1) He was a politician. He praised Lamar to please Southerners, and Sam Houston to win over Texans. He praised Robert Taft (and Progressive Republican George Norris) to appeal to Republicans and Midwesterners.
2) You do realize Kennedy didn't actually write the book, don't you?
3) Since when is JFK the standard of what to like and what not to like.
Why would the governor order them to attack Missouri?
Well to be fair, Grant only encountered Lee on the third year of the war. By then he’d lost half of his worthy commanders and was using a skeleton army compared to a year previously.
McClellan and Burnside certainly boosted his “idol status” among historians and the Army of Northern VA. I will say though that his Seven Days Campaign was probably one of the highlights of his tactical genius.
The reason Lincoln urged passage of the Corwin amendment was because they wanted those slaves to remain in the status quo of producing all that money which was flowing through New York and Washington DC hands!
The sticking point of the war was independence. There was no sticking point about keeping slaves in slavery. Both sides had intended to do that when the war began. The North continued keeping slaves for 8 more months after the war ended.
That's why I say that people have been misled about the cause of the war. Slavery is only indirectly involved. The real cause of the war was a fight over money.
You poor misguided creature. That is the most convoluted argument I’ve ever heard. You are pulling the wool over your own eyes.
Lee had smaller forces and took larger losses than McClellan in those battles.
That was probably inevitable: to win battles generals sacrificed troops.
But the idea that Grant was the butcher or the plodder who only won by taking higher losses and Lee the surgeon who could win campaigns through genius, rather than loss of life, is revealed to be false by those 1862 battles outside Richmond.
"The people of Charleston considered the spiking of the guns and the burning of the gun carriages to be the first belligerent act of the war."
Cause spiking your own guns and burning their carriages is certainly not a 'belligerent act' in any rational persons mind. In fact, that is the direct opposite of a belligerent act. NEXT !!!
Dickens was a fine novelist, but if I were to seek the political analysis of a 19th century Englishman, I would defer to what John Stuart Mill had to say on the matter.
Well, except for Robert E. Lee invading Maryland in 1862...
"If he remained in Virginia, Lee would be forced to react to Union movements, whereas in Maryland or Pennsylvania he would hold the initiative. Lee believed he could easily flank the enemy by crossing the Potomac upriver from Washington and marching the Army of Northern Virginia through Maryland. A short thrust into Union territory would not be enough; a protracted stay would be the key to Confederate success. Lee hoped to keep his army on United States soil through much of the autumn, not with the intention of capturing and holding territory but with an eye toward accomplishing several goals before returning to Virginia as winter approached."
Oh, and except for General Bragg and Smith invading Kentucky that same year.
"Generals Braxton Bragg and Edmund Kirby Smith held similar ambitions with their invasion that fall, with the less sweeping hope of pushing Kentucky into official, active support of the Confederacy"
Oh, and then General Lee's second invasion in July of 1863.
"In June 1863, Confederate general Robert E. Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia invaded the North in hopes of relieving pressure on war-torn Virginia, defeating the Union Army of the Potomac on Northern soil, and striking a decisive blow to Northern morale. George G. Meade had commanded the Union army only three days when his advance columns collided unexpectedly with Confederates at the small town of Gettysburg in southeastern Pennsylvania. Fighting raged for three days, inflicted a combined 51,000 casualties, and climaxed on July 3 with the doomed Confederate frontal assault known as Pickett's Charge. "
But other than that...
Nay, you are just totally wrong !
And again he was blessed by the fact that McClellan was utterly incompetent if not completely checked out and hiding on a boat in the James rather than directing his army during much of that campaign, never getting more than two of his five corps into action at the same time. Then Lee botched the placement of his artillery at Malvern Hill ("most farcical" is how Gen. Hill described it), launched a series of charges into the United States positions, and was beaten. McClellan could have held that position, not that far from Richmond, indefinitely. But instead he snuck off in the night to lick his wounds, and the stain of his incompetence and cowardice would haunt him the rest of his life.
That's the main problem with all of the US generals before Grant. They'd fight a battle, lose, then retreat back to where they came from. Grant was beaten at the Wilderness, but instead of retreating, just did a flank march and kept working his way around Lee. The US soldiers realized what was happening and morale soared, and Lincoln said "This man fights," while Lee realized he was finally facing a foe that wasn't going to back down and that the game was up.
So why was General Custer promoted 5 ranks?
Who were the other two promoted at the same time?
What were their fates?
I am pointing out that Lincoln was willing to sell all the slaves down the river to keep economic and political control of the Southern states.
A second false position.
Therefore the primary issue of the war was not concern about slaves, it was concern about keeping the South's economic system under the control of Washington DC, where the more numerous Northern advantage in Congress could keep Southern money flowing through New York and Washington DC hands.
Third false position
You are aware that Lincoln sent a battle fleet to Charleston to attack the Confederates there, and perhaps this is how people knew war was "Just weeks prior to the outbreak of the Civil War..." ?
Fourth false position.
Lincoln's cabinet certainly made it clear that if sent those warships, it would cause a war.
You are making the democrats in the house and senate look honest !
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.