< stridence >
Yelp, yelp, yelp, yelp!
< /stridence >
Posted on 08/17/2002 7:47:17 PM PDT by one2many
Many have often pointed out on this forum the similarities between Abe Lincoln and Bill Clinton. The below is from Frank Conner’s new book, The South Under Siege 1830-2000.
You may judge for yourself the content of this brief extract and the character of the so-called “honest” Abe.
Frank will no doubt attract the attention of the usual pack of black-hearted yapping little dogs who attempt to buttress the failing Lincoln myth with their strident yelping.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CHAPTER11
WAR BEGINS
p117
Congress Tries To Forestall Lincoln, but He Starts the War Anyway
By now the Congress—many of whose members had spoken in favor of evacuating Fort Sumter—had gotten word of Lincoln’s machinations. The Senate called in General Winfield Scott for testimony regarding the practicality of resupplying Fort Sumter. General Scott testified that he disapproved. On 25 March, the Senate passed a resolution requiring President Lincoln to submit to it the written reports of Major Anderson (as was the right of Congress under the Constitution). The next day, Lincoln responded to the Senate with a note that ended: “On examining the correspondence thus called for, I have, with the highest esteem for the Senate, come to the conclusion that at the present moment the publication of it would be inexpedient.”
On 28 March, Lincoln told Fox to draw up a skeleton plan to invade Charleston harbor and reinforce Fort Sumter.
The following day Lincoln called another cabinet meeting, again asking his cabinet officers for their written comments about the feasibility of resupplying/reinforcing the fort. Clearly this was put-up-or-shut-up time: was his cabinet with him or against him? He didn’t have to utter a single threat; his actions did that for him. This time the cabinet members, having tasted power and knowing full-well which side their bread was buttered on, approved Fox’s plan in writing. Now Lincoln’s back was safe.
That same night (29 March), Lincoln issued the following secret order—in his own handwriting—to Secretary of War Cameron: “I desire that an expedition, to move by sea, be got ready to sail as early as the 6th of April next (1861), the whole according to memorandum attached, and that you co-operate with the Secretary of the Navy for that object.
“(Enclosure No. 1.) Navy Department. Preliminary orders.—Steamers Pocahontas at Norfolk, Pawnee at Washington, Harriet Lane at New York (Treasury Department), to be under sailing orders for sea, with stores, &c., for one month. Three hundred men to be kept ready for departure from on board the receiving ships at New York.
“(Enclosure No. 2.) War Department. Preliminary.—Two hundred men to be ready to leave Governor’s Island in New York. Supplies for twelve months for one hundred men to be put into portable shape, ready for instant shipping. A large steamer and three tugs conditionally engaged.”
Two of the “steamers” referred to (the Pocahontas and the Pawnee) were U.S. Navy warships; the Harriet Lane was an armed Coast Guard cutter. The “large steamer” was the passenger ship Baltic. This was to be an Army expedition to reinforce the little garrison at Fort Sumter with 500 additional troops, powder, shot, food, and other supplies; thus the orders were sent to Secretary Cameron. But Lincoln put (Navy) Captain Fox in overall command of the force while at sea.
Southerners in Washington, New York, and Norfolk observed the feverish activity as Lincoln’s secret orders were carried out; and they sent word to their national capital at Montgomery that something bad was about to happen—likely at Charleston. President Davis had sent General P.T.G. Beauregard to Charleston, to command the Confederate forces there. On 7 April, when the warships were en route, the Confederate government ordered Beauregard to stop Fort Sumter from purchasing any more fresh food from Charleston. Henceforth the garrison would have to live off its (substantial) remaining staples in the fort—or be evacuated.
Lincoln’s naval force had embarked with orders to arrive at Fort Sumter on 11 or 12 April. Lincoln then sent an Army captain to Charleston, to deliver an ultimatum to Governor Pickens on 8 April, informing him that Lincoln would resupply the fort—peacefully or by force. There was no mistaking the intent of that message. General Beauregard immediately telegraphed the information to Montgomery. Also on 8 April, Secretary of State Seward ended his charade and informed the C.S.A. peace commissioners in Washington that his government would not recognize them or deal with them in any way.
Next, General Beauregard ordered that no more mail be delivered to or from Fort Sumter, and that any outgoing official U.S. mail on hand be opened and read. Among this mail was a letter from Major Anderson to his superiors in Washington, discussing the plans to invade Charleston harbor and reinforce the fort within the next few days. Now t e C.S.A.’s worst suspicions had been confirmed.
Lincoln Has Set a Trap for the C.S.A.
Abraham Lincoln clearly intended to wage war against the Confederate States of America. Beginning with his inauguration address, every move he had made regarding the South was directed toward that objective. Now—by sending the U.S. Navy to Fort Sumter—he had forced upon President Davis a situation to which there were only three possible responses.
(1) Davis could surrender, dissolve the Confederate States of America, and return the Southern states to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government.
(2) President Davis could continue to proclaim the autonomy of the C.S.A., but allow the U.S. Navy to reinforce Fort Sumter unimpeded— pretending that this was not an act of war. However, Lincoln had declared unmistakably his intent to wage war against the C.S.A.; and his present move was an act of war. If Davis allowed him to get away with that, Lincoln would undoubtedly reinforce Fort Pickens at Pensacola next (which he did), and then reoccupy the other Southern coastal forts now manned by Confederates—until, by some means or another, he finally forced Davis to fight. The longer Davis delayed, the stronger the U.S. forces would become militarily in the South, and the more difficult it would be for the C.S.A. to win the inevitable war.
(3) Davis could prevent Lincoln from reinforcing Fort Sumter. If Davis waited until the U.S. Navy began the reinforcement of the fort before making his move, Beauregard’s artillery would have to fight both the fort and the U.S. Navy warships at the same time; and his men might not succeed. But if Beauregard captured the fort before the Navy arrived, then he stood a better chance of defeating the naval force too.
Lincoln had stacked the deck carefully, such that Davis was left with only one real choice: capture the fort immediately.
(Most governments [at the time] accepted the dictum of English historian Henry Hallam: "The aggressor in a war [that is, he who is responsible for starting it] is not the first who uses force, but the first who renders force necessary.")
There are two books that, IMO, you must have to know truthful American history. Both deal with the Socialist-Unitarian-Communist-humanist-egalitarianist rejection of Christianity. Frank Conner's book goes into great detail in exposing what has been and is being done not only to the South but to civilisation as we know it. In other words, all men and women who are not simply fair-weather Christians MUST read these books!
Is Public Education Necessary? by Samuel Blumenfeld
The South Under Siege 1830 - 2000/ A History of the Relations Between the North and the South by Frank Conner
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
An e-mail from Frank Conner:
SOUTHERN HISTORY WITH THE HAIR ON
A new book titled, "The South Under Siege 1830 - 2000/ A History of the Relations Between the North and the South," by Frank Conner (me) will go on sale Monday (7/15/02). It is a 6 X 9 hardcover book, 752 pages, with bibliography and index, but no footnotes. (However, when discussing controversial material in the book, I generally cite my source.)
The thesis of this book is that various groups of Northern liberals have been waging a nonstop ideological war against the conservative white South from the 1830s to the present, using black civil rights as their primary weapon against us. The book tells what the liberals have done to us; why they said they were doing those terrible things; why they were actually doing them; and what the results have been. When you see that history from 1830 to 2000 laid out in one volume, you see that the liberals had a very different primary motive than that of aiding the blacks. I contend that they have been using the South as their battleground for the past 170 years to discredit Christianity in the US, and replace it with secular humanism (ideological liberalism) as the official religion of the US.
This book exposes the sickening hypocrisy and blatant viciousness of the Northern liberals in dealing with the conservative South. I believe that if you read this book, it will change forever your impressions of the North and the Northerners, and the South and the Southerners.
In its final chapter, the book proposes a fairly-detailed plan whereby the Southerners can --with the resources presently available to us-- mount a lawful ideological revolutionary war (i.e. of carefully-chosen words, not bullets) to reclaim our souls and our region from the ruinous rule of the liberals.
In researching this book, I just followed my nose --as is my wont; consequently, in its pages I gore some hitherto-sacrosanct sacred cows. In other words, this book is politically incorrect. If you like the way things are going in the South, don't buy this book! If you have delicate sensibilities, don't buy this book! If you are an ideological liberal, don't buy this book! For everybody else, there is nothing else like this book on the market-- and there may never be another one like it.
The price of the book is $37.40 postpaid to residents of Georgia; or $34.95 postpaid to everyone else in the continental US. To order it, please send your check to:
Collards Publishing Company
P.O. Box 71996
Newnan, Georgia 30271-1996.
Sorry, no e-mail or telephone orders, or discounts for volume, or sales to booksellers (whom I admire tremendously, but I simply don't have the margin for that built into this first edition), or via other venues.
Frank Conner
< stridence >
Yelp, yelp, yelp, yelp!
< /stridence >
WFTR
Bill
< /waste of breath >
Point is spot on though.
What an utterly ridiculous argument this is. President Lincoln believed (correctly) that his oath of office (a) precluded him from recognizing any "Confederate States of America" and (b) required him to quash the slaveholders' rebellion as best he could. He obviously would have preferred to that without any bloodshed.
...he had forced upon President Davis a situation to which there were only three possible responses... Lincoln had stacked the deck carefully, such that Davis was left with only one real choice: capture the fort immediately.
Why was surrendering not a "real choice" for Jefferson Davis and the other members of the slaveholders' rebellion? They were all too stubborn and foolish to recognize the futility of their rebellion, yet their modern day apologists follow in their bloody footsteps by demonizing Abraham Lincoln.
Many have often pointed out on this forum the similarities between Abe Lincoln and Bill Clinton.
What similarities? One was a conniving scoundrel who repeatedly cheated on his wife and lied under oath about it, and the other was a loving family man who was honest almost to a fault. One got the U.S. into all kinds of trouble and the other got the U.S. through its worst crisis, freeing 4 million enslaved Americans in the process.
You may judge for yourself the content of this brief extract and the character of the so-called “honest” Abe.
Abe Lincoln had no more of a duty to be honest with Jefferson Davis than George Bush has a duty to be honest with Saddam Hussein.
You forgot Satanic and Liberal.
I think I know those two FReepers!
No, but he did have a duty to be honest with Congress, and he was not.
I teach college level 'real' American History and I am surpirsed how much spin has been put on top of the Civil War. I am more surprised by how may 'educated' people believe the revisions to history that began to be taught by the North within one generation of Lee's surrender.
Like it or not, the end of slavery in this nation was an UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE of the Civil War.
Until January 1863 slavery was LEGAL on both sides of every battlefield - supported by the Dred Scott decision by the United States Supreme Court. (I elaborate on this in my classroom, but for the sake of space will save a more detailed post for later....)
Anyway, as far as those who insist on defaming our Southern patriots who fought against the aggression of the Federal Government - I suggest they re-read the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution - both provide the right of the people and the States to abolish or establish the type of Government they choose to live with. Has everyone forgotten the 10th Amendment?
Anything not specifically stated in the U.S. Constitution belonged to the states and the people - this would included the right to EXIT the Union for the simple reason that there was no prohibition against it. Read some of the primary documents from early 1860 - 1861 and opinions on the constitutionality of forcing states to remain with the Federal Government actually ended up supporting the states right to leave.
In truth, there was actually a quite orderly and civil transfer of governmental functions, property etc. between the repective states and the federal government while James Buchanan was president .
It was not until Lincoln took over the Oval Office and chose to raise federal troops to force the states back into the union fold - against the consent of the 'governed' peoples of those states through their elected state assemblies - that the Civil War began.
Abraham Lincoln, in fact, began the Civil War. North Carolina and Virginia both voted to leave the Union only after Lincoln revealed his intentions to force the people of the South back into the Union.
Fort Sumter was a preemtive strike - taken after Lincoln took action to use the Fort as a base of aggression against the peaceful South - much like what Pres. Bush is planning for Iraq.
My past, present and future is about our rights under God, the right's of individual self government ....by the people and our U.S. Constitution and it's preservation for my children's children as it was intended by the fouding fathers.
Southern and Proud! - Katherine Jenerette
P.S. - I hate to think that in the future, long after I am gone, that some revisionist historians could say that the American soldiers who fought in Desert Storm fought to preserve the rights of women to have abortions; because that is what they have done to the thousands of honorable Southerners who fought for the Constitution as it was framed and adopted by the founding fathers. For extra credit - read the Constitution of the CSA....
P.S.S. - Oh, before I forget....what if a SCANA employee has a SC Sons of Confederate Veterans license Plate
which is legal and available from the South Carolina DMV. They can't park anywhere....hmmm...
Check out the pretty patriotic plate yourself:
http://www.scdps.org/dmv/specialty.html
�
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.