Posted on 08/09/2002 3:38:13 AM PDT by GOPcapitalist
Nonsense. Lincoln's provocation caused them to fire on Sumter. There's no way around it.
Linclon's actions in reinforcing Sumter were consistent with his position outlined in the Indianapolis speech.
Consistent or not, they still instigated a war.
After that Lincoln pursued the war that was forced on him.
The invasion of Virginia was never forced on him. He did it on his own.
His only other choice was to give in to the confederate actions he saw as illegal.
Why couldn't he have tried negotiating peacefully? Why couldn't he have let them go on their own peaceful way?
The south brought death and destruction on itself through it's own reckless actions.
In other words, you are back to that same silly old argument - "the south made us do it"
Why did Lincoln go to war? The south made him do it.
Why did Lincoln invade Virginia? The south made him do it.
Why did Sherman burn Atlanta? The south made him do it.
Why did did the yankees rape civilians? The south made them do it.
Why did Butler order that New Orleans' women be used as prostitutes? The south made him do it.
Why did the yankees starve thousands at Point Lookout? The south made them do it.
It appears that the yankees have found themselves an argument to avoid RESPONSIBILITY of anything bad, immoral, unjust, or inhuman about their conduct during the war! If it's something that makes them look bad, just blame their own actions on the south!
In other words, Lincoln himself is spewing the same line of argument Non-Seq just tried.
Forget responsibility for one's own actions. "The South made Lincoln do it"
Is that so, Walt? You have said it anonymously many times but thus far I have yet to see you identify these so-called observers nor acknowledge the fact that others among them thought differently.
In the meantime I have provided a number of cases from prominent northerners who predicted a quick march to Richmond with the whole thing being over in a matter of months, not the least of them being William Seward himself.
Do you expect that he should have simply sat back and let Lincoln invade?
They knew exactly what he was going to do, he had made it clear in speech after speech, it should have been no surprise.
Actually it was intended as a surprise. Lincoln promised Pickens a food-only mission, but sent a fleet of warships with other instructions knowing fully well that the southerners would not let them in the harbor. Beauregard caught word of it all and preempted the thing.
Yet you seem to believe that Davis, knowing all that, fell right into Lincoln's trap.
To the contrary. He preempted it.
"The North made us do it."
If by that you mean defending one's home territory, yes, it was provoked by Lincoln.
So why Sumter? Are you suggesting that the confederacy would have collapsed and died without it?
I think that is a better question for you to be asking yourself. Why Sumter? Are you suggesting that the union had to have a fort in the middle of a foreign harbor hundreds of miles away?
Davis couldn't have waited Lincoln out?
Had he done so Lincoln would have arrived a day later to fight his way in. Acting when he did was the best way to ensure the least casualties from seizing the fort on either side, and it worked as the casualties of the battle were zero.
Oh, and Lincoln too.
But the night of First Bull Run he wrote down some notes that did in fact presage what the government would do, and how it win the war.
As to the observers overseas, it is Dr. McPherson who points this out, although I am sure it can be found elsewhere also.
I don't "acknowledge" that anyone took the other side-- that the government was bound to prevail.
I don't think you can show that in the record. It is just more of your supported drivel.
Walt
This is substantially incorrect. More later.
Walt
But Lincoln wasn't invading. There were Federal troops in Sumter to begin with. How would the addition of a few hundred more posed a threat to the confederacy?
Actually it was intended as a surprise.
Is that why Lincoln sent Robert Chew to Governor Pickens on April 6 with a letter announcing his intention to resupply Sumter, but reinforcements would not be landed unless opposed? Kind of ruins the surprise, doesn't it?
To the contrary. He preempted it.
He acted with full knowledge of what firing on Sumter meant. He knew it meant war. He was prepared to accept that.
If by that you mean defending one's home territory, yes, it was provoked by Lincoln.
Sumter wasn't the confederacy's 'home territory'. It was a facility owned and occupied by the Federal government. It belonged to them.
I think that is a better question for you to be asking yourself. Why Sumter? Are you suggesting that the union had to have a fort in the middle of a foreign harbor hundreds of miles away?
But it wasn't in a foreign harbor. It was in the harbor of a city of the United States.
Had he done so Lincoln would have arrived a day later to fight his way in. Acting when he did was the best way to ensure the least casualties from seizing the fort on either side, and it worked as the casualties of the battle were zero.
If he had waited Lincoln would have reprovisioned the fort and the stand-off would have continued and a negotiated settlement might have been reached. Even if Lincoln had gone against his letter and landed the 200 or so soldiers the fleet had with them then the stalemate would have continued and a negotiated settlement might have been reached. Acting when he did was the best way for Davis to ensure a war. Far from zero casualties as a result of Sumter, there were hundreds of thousands.
the real sickos are the damnyankees/damnfools who were/are convinced that if they scream and whine about "slavery" long enough that southrons will forget the REAL CAUSE of the WBTS: damnyankee arrogance,ignorance,power-seeking,big government, anti-semitic,hatefilled,hateful mean-spirited, self-righteousness.
to quote GEN Grant, "if the late war had been to end the institution of chattal slavery, i would have offerewd my sword to the south". i would think Grant KNEW what HE was fighting for!
for a free dixie,sw
tell me, WP, how many of MY ancestors would you have robbed,raped, tortured,abused and murdered had YOU worn the blue?
free dixie,sw
He did:
"I never was an abolitionist, not even what could be called anti-slavery, but I try to judge fairly and honestly and it became patent in my mind early in the rebellion that the North and South could never live at peace with each other except as one nation, and that without slavery. As anxious as I am to see peace established, I would not therefore be willing to see any settlement until the question is forever settled." - August 30, 1863, in a letter to Elihu Washburne.
The Japs agreed to an armistice on August 14. Elvis died on August 16. I didn't and don't see the appeal of the guy to the extent that it means to some people.
Walt
If it appears in the national archives, it appears somewhere else too. If it is online at the NA, post the link; otherwise you need to provide something that I can verify, as I am not going to be at the national archives anytime soon.
Walt
Stand Watie used to say his source was the NA all the time. Of couse that is very convenient, as people outside D.C. might not be able to run by and check your posts. You're not Stand Watie are you? Maybe using a spell checker once in a while and posting as GOPcapital?
Walt
as Grant was a SLAVEOWNER, ex-slave overseer and held HIS slaves until 1866, one wonders if YOU are actually quoting what Grant said, versus what you WISH he had said.
in other words, i'm saying that damnyankees are LIARS, hatefilled, arrogant, ignorant and mean-spirited by their NATURE.
free the southland,sw
"As soon as slavery fired upon the flag, it was felt, we all felt, even those who did not object to slaves, that slavery must be destroyed. We felt that it was a stain to the Union that men should be bought and sold like cattle... there had to be an end to slavery."
And still later, in his memoirs he wrote what he felt was the true cause of the rebellion:
"The cause of the great War of the Rebellion against the United States will have to be attributed to slavery. For some years before the war began it was a trite saying among some politicians that "A state half slave and half free cannot exist." All must become slave or all free, or the state will go down. I took no part myself in any such view of the case at the time, but since the war is over, reviewing the whole question, I have come to the conclusion that the saying is quite true."
I would ask if you were sure of your source, but you don't have any.
I have a $50 bill right here that I'll donate to whatever cause or charity you select if you can document that quote from any reliable original source. David Duke does not count! I want this kind of documentation not your fake made-up Lost Cause fables.
Here are some Grant quotations relating to the topic of slavery:
Sources used: The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant, Volume 1 (John Y. Simon, editor, 1967), The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant Volume 2 (John Y. Simon, editor, 1969), The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant, Volume 3, (John Y. Simon, editor, 1970), The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant, Volume 4 (John Y. Simon, editor, 1982), Let Us Have Peace: Ulysses S. Grant and the Politics of War and Reconstruction, 1861-68 (Brooks D. Simpson, 1991), Grant: A Biography (William S. McFeely, 1981), Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant (U.S. Grant, 1885), The Personal Memoirs of Julia Dent Grant (1975, editor John Y. Simon).
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.