Posted on 01/17/2015 2:31:16 PM PST by BigReb555
During Robert E. Lee's 100th birthday in 1907, Charles Francis Adams, Jr., a former Union Commander and grandson of US President John Quincy Adams, spoke in tribute to Robert E. Lee at Washington and Lee College's Lee Chapel in Lexington, Virginia. His speech was printed in both Northern and Southern newspapers and is said to had lifted Lee to a renewed respect among the American people.
(Excerpt) Read more at huntingtonnews.net ...
The survivors were no doubt relieved to learn that.
The survivors of Sumter (which apparently was everybody) were probably just delighted to be alive.
Why did the South consider itself at war? Were they that eager for a conflict?
I don’t believe anyone in the garrison was killed and they all were allowed to leave peacefully the next day.
The South bombarded the fort for over a day and you're claiming that they weren't trying to kill anyone?
Of course in war the victor claims the moral high ground and gets to define what’s legit.
And the loser gets to make up the myths to justify their actions.
Sumter AND Dresden were legitimate acts of war, at least as far as I’m concerned.
Sure they were. But the difference is one started a war and one occurred close to the end of one.
“He never was known to suffer from the common cold, so uncommon was he. His hatters knew to make his headwear especially capacious, the better to fit his halo, and no perspiration ever dared stain their headbands. And when, because of the spartan meals he ate—a cup of cold gruel once a day—he experienced unfortunate flatulence, all remarked on it’s fine smell.”
Ooh! Ooh! The Appendix!
In the same way a cyst is entertainment.
That’s the 14th time he’s posted it.
I did share that I was a Yankee. :-)
But who’s counting, DOODLE!? LOL! :)
I suppose to their way of thinking, it was that whole "long train of abuses and usurpations" thing.
Were they that eager for a conflict?
Not to hear them tell it. They wanted to leave the Union which they saw as their right to do. To go their own way in peace.
The South bombarded the fort for over a day and you're claiming that they weren't trying to kill anyone?
Well, it certainly wasn't a sneak attack. Beauregard's actions leading up to the bombardment strongly suggest he didn't want to kill anybody, and ultimately he didn't.
Anderson was given warning upon warning to leave and was even finally told on April 11th that firing would begin the following morning if he didn't.
As it turned out, he ended up surrendering two days later anyway. He and his men were allowed to leave Charleston unmolested on a Union frigate, IIRC.
Do you think Beauregard wanted to kill anybody? If so, didn't he have a pretty strange way of going about it?
I just read that there were indeed casualties at Ft. Sumter. Not combat casualties, but after the surrender during the flag lowering ceremony involving an exploding cannon and cartridges.
http://readme.readmedia.com/New-Yorker-Was-First-Casualty-of-the-Civil-War/2213587
Thanks kiry. It would seem that the Union was far more fearful of losing tariff revenues than the southern states were of having to continue to pay them. To the south, it was one of a number of abuses. To Lincoln and the Union, it was everything. The first GIBSMEDATS!
Any excuse to blame someone else then.
Not to hear them tell it. They wanted to leave the Union which they saw as their right to do. To go their own way in peace.
Walking out, leaving behind responsibility for debt and national obligations while seizing every bit of government property in sight and shooting at anything waving the stars and strips, is not "going in peace".
Well, it certainly wasn't a sneak attack. Beauregard's actions leading up to the bombardment strongly suggest he didn't want to kill anybody, and ultimately he didn't.
I'm sorry but I find that to be absolute nonsense.
Anderson was given warning upon warning to leave and was even finally told on April 11th that firing would begin the following morning if he didn't.
Why should he leave? The fort was the property of the federal government and it was his command. The garrison didn't take any hostile actions towards Charleston; didn't bombard the town or halt shipping entering or leaving. The South demanded surrender of property that did not belong to them. And you insist their intent was peaceful?
Do you think Beauregard wanted to kill anybody? If so, didn't he have a pretty strange way of going about it?
A 24-plus hour bombardment is a good sign that he wanted to kill someone.
If the U.S. was so completely dependent on the South for tariff revenue then one would think that with the beginning of the war the federal revenue stream would dry up to nothing, wouldn't you? No money coming in? No way to pay for anything? Yet in his State of the Union message to Congress in 1864 Lincoln reported tariff revenues of over $102 million. The year before it had been $70 million. So where did it come from?
Who do you think he had in mind? Who specifically was he gunning for? The bombardment lasted 34 hours. If he wanted to kill someone he had ample time to improve his aim.
Since in your view "he wanted to kill someone" and his bloodlust hadn't been satiated by the end of the bombardment, what was the man to do?
Well, he could have slaughtered them all at the surrender ceremony and cut off their ears and sent them to Lincoln.
But he just didn't.
He honored their surrender and their flag lowering ceremony that followed.
He let them go in peace.
If only Lincoln could have been so magnanimous.
So are you honestly trying to claim that the Confederate gunners were making every attempt not to kill anyone while at the same time bombarding the fort to pieces? Really?
He let them go in peace.
After pounding their fort to pieces.
If only Lincoln could have been so magnanimous.
So your complaint is that Lincoln did not react to the Confederate act of war by immediately surrendering. One could easily say that had the Confederates not started the war in the first place then the death and destruction that followed could be avoided. The question now is who is more to blame? The party that accepted war and fought back? Or the party that started the war to begin with? My vote is for the later.
Of course not. Are you saying all ports were southern ports? Did anyone tell New York?
But according to your numerous posts on the subject, Southern consumers accounted for somewhere between 75% and 87% of the tariff revenue. In April 1861 that revenue stopped. U.S. tariff revenue in 1860 was, if I recall correctly, roughly $50 million dollars. By your sources that amount should have dropped to somewhere between $12.5 million and $6.5 million. Yet it grew exponentially, even with a protective tariff meant to discourage imports rather than encourage them. So who was buying all those imports? And why didn't they buy them before the war?
So your complaint is that ...etc...etc...
I have no complaints, I'm merely pointing out what I believe was the southern point of view. It really doesn't matter what you or I think now. All that matters is what they thought and did then. Obviously you and I do not agree on who started the war, and that's fine by me. I have no interest in re-fighting that tragic conflict, it can't be done.
Photo number 6 on this website shows Sumter after the rebel bombardment. As you can see the damage was considerable, and the claim that Beauregard was trying to avoid casualties is, frankly, ridiculous.
I have no complaints, I'm merely pointing out what I believe was the southern point of view.
A point of view you clearly agree with. So I would suggest that their complaints are your complaints.
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.