S.H.A.P.E.
 
Main Menu
 Home
 About SHAPE/ Joining
 Forum
 Downloads
 Members
 Image Gallery
 S.H.A.P.E Store
 Other Websites
Welcome
Username:

Password:


Remember me

[ ]
[ ]
Online
Members: 0

Click To Show - Guests: 12

Last Seen

gpthelastrebel Tue 11:26
Patrick Sun 22:38
Robray Wed 10:28
D. L. Garland Wed 14:09
dong fang Sun 21:55
Forums
Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education :: Forums :: General :: Did You Know
 
<< Previous thread | Next thread >>
Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
Go to page   <<        >>  
Moderators: gpthelastrebel, Patrick
Author Post
Lady Val
Tue Feb 24 2009, 08:25PM
Registered Member #75
Joined: Sat Nov 01 2008, 11:22AM
Posts: 475
It was in the piece I gave you about Lincoln & Sumter:

In a strategy later used by the propagandists of such notaries as Stalin and Hitler, Lincoln then began leaking stories to supportive Northern newspapers that the Federal troops at Fort Sumter were near starvation and in desperate need of provisions. This, of course, was an outright lie and is refuted by the communications and records of Major Anderson himself. Additionally, the records reveal that the merchants in Charleston were daily selling foodstuffs to the garrison at Fort Sumter. Nonetheless, Lincoln's ploy worked and there was outrage in the North over the mistreatment by South Carolina of the troops at Fort Sumter. The President knew he would need Northern public opinion behind him to engage in a war with the South but that the prevailing opinion of the time had shown to be just the opposite. So, in point of fact, Lincoln needed a cause celeb, a perceived “criminal act” committed by the South against the Union to outrage the public and change the prevailing opinion. Therefore, he ordered a force of three warships to Charleston to reinforce Sumter with an estimated date of arrival of April 15th. This action left President Jefferson Davis in a quandary. Through reports from his own people he was aware of all this activity by Lincoln and he wanted to avoid being goaded into a position where the South fired the first shot which, of course, was exactly what Lincoln wanted.

[ Edited Thu Dec 11 2014, 11:28AM ]
Back to top
gpthelastrebel
Wed Feb 25 2009, 07:40AM

Registered Member #1
Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 10:46AM
Posts: 3631
I found it!! Thanks I read it it just didn't register. Now this fact is at least verified bytwo sources in this thread.

GP
Back to top
gpthelastrebel
Wed Feb 25 2009, 07:54AM

Registered Member #1
Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 10:46AM
Posts: 3631
Val,

I noticed in the article that 3 ships of war were dispatched to Charleston. My good friend David Upton provided me with a list of all the ships in the armada sent to Charleston. It is plain to see these was no re-supply fleet.


GP
*************************************************

The following list embraces the names, with armaments and troops, of Lincoln's supply fleet dispatched from New York and Washington to Charleston harbor, for the relief of Fort Sumter:-

Vessels of War
Steam sloop-of-war Pawnee, Captain S. C. Rowan, 10 guns and 200 men. The Pawnee sailed from Washington, with sealed orders, on the morning of Saturday, April 6.
Steam sloop-of-war Powhatan, Captain E. D. Porter, 11 guns and 275 men. The Powhatan sailed from the Brookyln Navy Yard on Saturday afternoon April 6.
Revenue cutter Harriet Lane, Captain J. Faunce, 5 guns and 96 men. On Saturday, April 6, the Harriet Lane exchanged her revenue flag for the United States navy flag, denoting her transfer to the Government naval service, and sailed suddenly on last Monday morning, with sealed orders.

The Steam Transports
Atlantic, 358 troops, composed of Companies A and M of the Second artillery, Companies C and H of the Second infantry, and Company A of sappers and miners from West Point. The Atlantic sailed from the steam at 5 o'clock on Sunday morning last, April 7.
Baltic, 160 troops, composed of Companies C and D, recruits, from Governor's and Bedloe's islands. The Baltic sailed from Quarantine at 7o'clock on Tuesday morning last, April 9.
Illinois, 300 troops, composed of Companies B, E, F, G and H, and a detachment from Company D, all recruits from Governor's and Bedloe's Islands, together with two companies of the Second infantry, from Fort Hamilton. The Illinois sailed from Quarantine on Tuesday morning at 6 o'clock.

The Steamtugs
Two steamtugs, with a Government official on each, bearing sealed dispatches, were also sent. The Yankee left New York on Monday evening, 8th, and the Uncle Ben on Tuesday night.

The Launches
Nearly thirty of these boats-whose services are most useful in effecting a landing of troops over shoal water, and for attacking a discharging battery when covered with sand and gunny bags- have been taken out by the Powhatan and by the steam transports Atlantic, Baltic and Illinois.

Recapitulation
Vessels Guns Men
Sloop-of-war Pawnee 10 200
Sloop-of-war Powhatan 11 275
Cutter Harriet Lane 5 96
Steam Transport Atlantic 353
Steam Transport Baltic 160
Steam Transport Illinois 300
Steamtug Yankee Ordinary Crew
Steamtug Uncle Ben Ordinary Crew
Total number of vessels 8
Total number of guns (for marine service) 26
Total number of men and troops 1,380

It is understood that several transports are soon to be chartered, and dispatched to Charleston with troops and supplies.
________________________
Those ships that were assigned specifically to Charleston.
The ships assigned were the steam sloop-of-war USS Pawnee, steam sloop-of-war USS Powhatan, transporting motorized launches and about 300 sailors (secretly removed from the Charleston fleet to join in the forced reenforcement of Fort Pickens, Pensacola, Fla.), armed screw steamer USS Pochaontas, Revenue Cutter USS Harriet Lane, steamer Baltic transporting about 200 troops, composed of companies C and D of the 2nd U.S. Artillery, and three hired tug boats. The rest of the ships listed in the New York paper went to Pensacola.


(Research by David Upton)

[ Edited Tue Jan 31 2012, 08:31AM ]
Back to top
Lady Val
Wed Feb 25 2009, 03:04PM
Registered Member #75
Joined: Sat Nov 01 2008, 11:22AM
Posts: 475
I am not familiar with this information, though I'm sure that it has been "vetted". What I find fascinating is that General Winfield Scott sent "The Star of the West" to Sumter WHILE BUCHANAN WAS STILL PRESIDENT. In other words, Buchanan's administration had an accord with South Carolina which his own top general saw fit to dismiss. I don't remember when this happened (I'll have to find the book), but I seem to recall that it happened after Lincoln's election and that there might have been an agreement between Scott and the President elect. If that is true, then the matter is even more egregious since until Lincoln's inauguration, Buchanan remained the President of the United States with all that that entails.
Back to top
red house
Thu Feb 26 2009, 05:40AM
Registered Member #89
Joined: Wed Feb 18 2009, 11:07PM
Posts: 40
Assuming that you people here speak on behalf of the general sentiment and beliefs of the South and after reading your responses, Mr. GPthelastrebel, Ms. Lady Val, and Mr. 8milereb - I am left with the feeling that the Civil War (or "War Between the States" or "War for Southern Independence) - whatever you prefer, is one that has not come to any resolution, nor agreeable conclusion. In fact, anyone acquainted in the slightest with the historical account from either side knows that it continued well after Appomatox - and persisted well beyond the 12 years of military occupation that followed.


The Civil War persists to this day. I believe it is a war that is now being fought over the truth of our nation's historical narrative. And, as a PATRIOT – I promise to fight as tenaciously and stubbornly to preserve the facts and historical integrity of our Nation's documented story – as I will for the historical freedoms and opportunities that our nation offers us in our present day—to each and every-one of its people—of any and every religious or irreligious sect, and of course to any person of caucasian or of color.

Provided someone is willing to salute—without approbation or qualification—the United-Stars and Stripes that symbolize our collective rights of absolute freedom of expression—the right that our nation, and only our nation preserves... and—trusting that every thinking American man and woman acknowledges that, with our absolute First Amendment freedoms, comes a commitment to the tolerance of absolute-free expression... and—last but not least important; affirming that with this comes a responsibility to contribute a fully considerate rebuttal - or reaffirmation - of whatever ideas are expressed in the public discourse—with these few necessary conditions; I will welcome any and all of the above to our American discourse—and each and every contributor should also understand that I will not hesitate to exercise my own Constitutional Right to defend or disagree with the ideas of any who wish also to exercise their rights of expression.



And accordingly so; while I respect your rights to express your views—I will not silently abide by them and permit you all the last word on these matters of outstanding disagreement.

I have read (from LadyVal's 'lincoln__fort_sumter.doc' and from GPthelastrebels accts) of how President Lincoln apparently goaded the South into starting the war – by bombarding our countrymen held up at Fort Sumter with over 4000 shells fired on the besieged compound—(albeit to force surrender before reinforcements could arrive). I do not know the intricacies of the actual History of this event well enough to dispute these versions put forward by you all—AND—I must state that; neither do these details matter to me in the slightest—because to me, the fact no-less remains; that the Southern army of the 'confederate states' undertook the preemptive decision to FIRE UPON, if not—their-own—than those of; OUR–OWN COUNTRYMEN. One thing that was apparently absent from either LadyVal or 8milereb accounts, was that the commander of Fort Sumter, Maj. Robert Anderson, was a member of the United States Army – and, was in fact, a Southerner himself – he was a Kentucky planter whose sympathies clearly lay with the South—but whose loyalties and duty lay with the UNITED States of America—of which forces he Honorably served. He made this clear to his Southern 'confederate' countrymen, he appealed to his fellow Southerner's sense of honor and comradery – but all to little if any avail. As LadyVal's document says of Pearl Harbor; that "these attacks against the American flag were not as simple and straightforward as was believed by the public at the time"... it does not matter. Whatever the context of December 7, 1941—it does not matter to Americans anywhere. What matters is that we were attacked by a tyrannical power, and what matters is that we were stronger – and that we would stop at NOTHING to CRUSH THEM—completely and without apprehension. Similarly, it does not matter that American forces were based on the Islamic "holy-lands" of Saudi-Arabia or that we were enforcing a no-fly-zone over Northern and Southern Iraq or that the USA supported the Israelis as they occupied Palestinian territories and fought against Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon... none of that mattered one-bit – when alQaeda attacked NYC and the Pentagon and caused the plane full of AMERICANS to crash into cornfield in Pennsylvania. What mattered was that we wanted justice—and we demanded blood... and rightfully so. They not only attacked America—they attacked American-symbols, American-values, and American Citizens on American SOIL. The alQaeda Islamic holy-warriors just decided to disregard the entire history of our involvement in World War II, they ignored and dismissed the charred ruins of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and the incinerated remains of the once-prized industrialized Tokyo. And now, in this present day; we will never leave Afghanistan—not until; the Arab/alQaeda mujihadeen are exterminated, and not until their once-proud taleban guardians are made humble and are submissive to our demands. We will continue to make them fear us us—just as we have made the once boastful fascist arab nationalists of Iraq cower in front of us – after they plotted an assassination of a former US head-of-state, and after they starved their own people under Int'l embargo instead of disarming before the US and the International community.

Saddam, and alQaeda, and Japan and Germany, and Spain, etc. etc – all failed to learn the lesson that Lincoln laid out before them. Once attacked—we assembled an army of millions—and willingly sacrificed over 360,000 Federal fightingmen to exact revenge for an attack against our countrymen—an act of betrayal against our Republic—that was brought about over the preservation of slavery. Slav⋅er⋅y—not 'state's rights', nor tariffs; but slavery. As Lady Val (who appears to know the history as well as I or any other) will – and has attested; it was slavery that divided the states, and it was the "insult" to 'Southern honor'—that made them protest and threaten secession if-or-when California was admitted as a 'free-state' (with its "illegally" drafted and agreed upon state constitution). It was the South that not only objected to the Wilmot Proviso—but which even rallied against the principle of 'popular-sovereignty' (aka; "squatter sovereignty")—insisting instead that any–and–all states that lay south of the 36°30' Missouri-Compromise line be admitted to the Union only as slave-states. In fact, everyone who knows the History knows that the 1850 Compromises most likely would not have appeased the South—if not for the eminently timely death of President Zachary Taylor—(who against the South's wishes – favored the state's-rights principle of 'popular sovereignty')—and the ascendancy of Millard Fillmore – who helped delay the secession of Southern states by promising stronger commitments in upholding the 1850 fugitive-slave return statute, and by supporting the admittance of New Mexico and Utah as states one the condition that slavery would not be proscribed from them.



Madame Val; whilst I trace most of my roots to my New England Scots-Irish immigrant heritage—which predates our Seven-Years war with France, my Grandfather (of three prior generations/grates) – was nonetheless a man of Southern Heritages. Tho (to my knowledge) he was not from Kansas or Missouri—but rather from Louisiana; born of one-quarter Seminole-American Indian/one-quarter Yoruba African/and one-half Dutch – he was – like his northern kin; 100 percent AMERICAN, and a Patriot. My Grandmother referred to him fondly as a 'Jay-Hawk' and on top his dresser cabinet my father proudly displays his 11-inch "tennessee-toothpick" – that was used to sever the ears off of many a CSA east-tennessean – who took up arms to preserve an archaic–aristocratic order which kept enslaved over four million human-beings and in doing so deprived the common free-man of waged-labor or upward economic mobility.

Now, someday that bowie-knife will be mine; but until then—I am happy to wave my Flag and defend my freedoms and purpose—with knowledge and common sense (and with force of arms if need be).



God bless the land of much media bias and of much more free-speech for all. God bless the land where we can wave or burn our most sacred of symbols—including the; Star-&-Stripes and/or the Stars-&-Bars. God keep our Separation of State and Church strong and healthy—keep our land free of monarchy and free of any official-Nat'l "Church-of-State" and may Providence keep our prisons and courts free of 'hate-speech' criminals - who dare to question the Nazi–'Holocaust' or dispute the "Armenian genocide" – AND I pray we remain the land where our jails and detention halls are kept 'free' of those who disrespectfully salute the St. Andrews cross studded with her 13 stars—rather than, or in addition to—our Nation's Glorious Etats-Unis of Fifty of the freest, most industrious and enlightened—and most United–States of any Republic on this Earth.




God-bless y'all... and Amen.



(I deem the caption on the photo not appropriate for either the photo or this website.)

George Purvis
Website Admin.


[ Edited Thu Feb 26 2009, 11:05AM ]
Back to top
gpthelastrebel
Thu Feb 26 2009, 09:12AM

Registered Member #1
Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 10:46AM
Posts: 3631
Lady Val wrote ...

I am not familiar with this information, though I'm sure that it has been "vetted". What I find fascinating is that General Winfield Scott sent "The Star of the West" to Sumter WHILE BUCHANAN WAS STILL PRESIDENT. In other words, Buchanan's administration had an accord with South Carolina which his own top general saw fit to dismiss. I don't remember when this happened (I'll have to find the book), but I seem to recall that it happened after Lincoln's election and that there might have been an agreement between Scott and the President elect. If that is true, then the matter is even more egregious since until Lincoln's inauguration, Buchanan remained the President of the United States with all that that entails.


I can ask David what is exact source is. I do know that he often uses the Ors (Official Records) for his research, in fact he is the best person I know doing lookups in the Ors.

GP
Back to top
gpthelastrebel
Thu Feb 26 2009, 11:25AM

Registered Member #1
Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 10:46AM
Posts: 3631
Red House I am going to address your remarks one at a time you will see what you wrote and my response in bold.





Assuming that you people here speak on behalf of the general sentiment and beliefs of the South and after reading your responses, Mr. GPthelastrebel, Ms. Lady Val, and Mr. 8milereb - I am left with the feeling that the Civil War (or "War Between the States" or "War for Southern Independence) - whatever you prefer, is one that has not come to any resolution, nor agreeable conclusion. In fact, anyone acquainted in the slightest with the historical account from either side knows that it continued well after Appomattox - and persisted well beyond the 12 years of military occupation that followed.

First of all we are not “you people” we have extended every courtesy to you and we only asked that you be civil with no snide remarks. You are failing that simple task. You can either address us by name, SHAPE members, or Sirs and Madam or anything in an appropriate manner. In addition I believe that each and everyone of us is quite familiar with the War For Southern independence, this should be evident to you by the facts we have been posting. This war is still going on today as the South and our culture is under constant attack, as evident by your posts.

The Civil War persists to this day. I believe it is a war that is now being fought over the truth of our nation's historical narrative. And, as a PATRIOT – I promise to fight as tenaciously and stubbornly to preserve the facts and historical integrity of our Nation's documented story – as I will for the historical freedoms and opportunities that our nation offers us in our present day—to each and every-one of its people—of any and every religious or irreligious sect, and of course to any person of Caucasian or of color.

If that is your stance, quit ranting and post some facts. We welcome all civil and factual exchanges. Why bring race into the discussion?I think we all know there are many people of different races, creeds and colors here in the United States.

Provided someone is willing to salute—without approbation or qualification—the United-Stars and Stripes that symbolize our collective rights of absolute freedom of expression—the right that our nation, and only our nation preserves... and—trusting that every thinking American man and woman acknowledges that, with our absolute First Amendment freedoms, comes a commitment to the tolerance of absolute-free expression... and—last but not least important; affirming that with this comes a responsibility to contribute a fully considerate rebuttal - or reaffirmation - of whatever ideas are expressed in the public discourse—with these few necessary conditions; I will welcome any and all of the above to our American discourse—and each and every contributor should also understand that I will not hesitate to exercise my own Constitutional Right to defend or disagree with the ideas of any who wish also to exercise their rights of expression.

We do not have absolute freedom of expression, why do you think we do? I gave you some examples of how our freedom is speech is regulated yet you persist in this line of discussion. Here are a couple of links that prove my point –

http://www.whnt.com/news/sns-ap-al--mayor-comments,0,483009.story

http://www.georgiaheritagecouncil.org/site2/commentary/dean-hatebills022509.phtml

http://www.dcexaminer.com/local/Maryland-state-song-may--lose-the-Northern-scum-40003982.html

These are just 3 quick samples of how our freedom of speech is regulated. Also you may or may not remember Howard Cosell was fired because of his comments so was Inmus. You can also add to this list the TV shows Amos and Andy, Buckwheat of the “Little Rascals’” the movie “Song of the South”, Dixie, and I also understand Suwanee River the state song of Florida is under attack, as well as the Florida SCV being denied a SCV tag. It actually seems to me that is this category you actually have no idea what you are talking about. And what about the cartoon in New York Post??

And accordingly so; while I respect your rights to express your views—I will not silently abide by them and permit you all the last word on these matters of outstanding disagreement.

Let me put this in the proper perspective for you -- We really do not care if you respect our rights or not. As to getting the last word, that sounds like a threat to me and rest assured that depends on the facts you post and your attitude. We extended our hospitality to you, you want to abuse the privilege and take advantage of this extended courtesy. We can just as easily take away this hospitality and your welcome and have the last word in the matter . It is up to you. What you will do is you will not come here rant and rave, disrupt this board, use snide remarks and insult our intelligence. You are welcome to post your opinions which disagree with us if they are backed by fact. I have a good idea who you are and how you got here, it is obvious you didn’t just discover this board by running a goggle search. If needed I can cross reference IP addresses and be certain. THIS IS THE ONLY WARNING YOU WILL GET.

I have read (from LadyVal's 'lincoln__fort_sumter.doc' and from GPthelastrebels accts) of how President Lincoln apparently goaded the South into starting the war – by bombarding our countrymen held up at Fort Sumter with over 4000 shells fired on the besieged compound—(albeit to force surrender before reinforcements could arrive). I do not know the intricacies of the actual History of this event well enough to dispute these versions put forward by you all—AND—I must state that; neither do these details matter to me in the slightest—because to me, the fact no-less remains; that the Southern army of the 'confederate states' undertook the preemptive decision to FIRE UPON, if not—their-own—than those of; OUR–OWN COUNTRYMEN. One thing that was apparently absent from either LadyVal or 8milereb accounts, was that the commander of Fort Sumter, Maj. Robert Anderson, was a member of the United States Army – and, was in fact, a Southerner himself – he was a Kentucky planter whose sympathies clearly lay with the South—but whose loyalties and duty lay with the UNITED States of America—of which forces he Honorably served. He made this clear to his Southern 'confederate' countrymen, he appealed to his fellow Southerner's sense of honor and comradery – but all to little if any avail. As LadyVal's document says of Pearl Harbor ; that "these attacks against the American flag were not as simple and straightforward as was believed by the public at the time"... it does not matter. Whatever the context of December 7, 1941—it does not matter to Americans anywhere. What matters is that we were attacked by a tyrannical power, and what matters is that we were stronger – and that we would stop at NOTHING to CRUSH THEM—completely and without apprehension. Similarly, it does not matter that American forces were based on the Islamic "holy-lands" of Saudi-Arabia or that we were enforcing a no-fly-zone over Northern and Southern Iraq or that the USA supported the Israelis as they occupied Palestinian territories and fought against Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon... none of that mattered one-bit – when alQaeda attacked NYC and the Pentagon and caused the plane full of AMERICANS to crash into cornfield in Pennsylvania. What mattered was that we wanted justice—and we demanded blood... and rightfully so. They not only attacked America —they attacked American-symbols, American-values, and American Citizens on American SOIL. The alQaeda Islamic holy-warriors just decided to disregard the entire history of our involvement in World War II, they ignored and dismissed the charred ruins of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and the incinerated remains of the once-prized industrialized Tokyo . And now, in this present day; we will never leave Afghanistan —not until; the Arab/alQaeda mujihadeen are ex⋅ter⋅mi⋅nated, and not until their once-proud taleban guardians are made humble and are submissive to our demands. We will continue to make them fear us us—just as we have made the once boastful fascist arab nationalists of Iraq cower in front of us – after they plotted an assassination of a former US head-of-state, and after they starved their own people under Int'l embargo instead of disarming before the US and the International community.

Well there is your problem you do not care about the historical fact—thank you for making that clear. You are free to wallow in your own ignorance or prove us wrong. Either way doesn’t matter to me you have just put on public display the sentiment of most Northern supporters who would argue the start of the war. Good job. Just to show you how ignorant of facts you are you suggest we should fire own our own. How absurd, we are not the army of the North killing our own people such as was done at “The Crater>” Don’t tell me about firing on ”our countrymen” when in another post you were defending the actions of war criminals like Sherman and Butler . Good effort in trying to twist the fact that the United States made the first aggressive move. The Confederate states did the right thing and defended their homes against an invader who actions are no more honorable than those who have fought in later wars against us. Now you want to rant and rave about the military, I suggest you do a little research and you will find the United States military is rationally made up mostly of Southerners.

Saddam, and alQaeda, and Japan and Germany , and Spain , etc. etc – all failed to learn the lesson that Lincoln laid out before them. Once attacked—we assembled an army of millions—and willingly sacrificed over 360,000 Federal fightingmen to exact revenge for an attack against our countrymen—an act of betrayal against our Republic—that was brought about over the preservation of slavery. Slav⋅er⋅y—not 'state's rights', nor tariffs; but slavery. As Lady Val (who appears to know the history as well as I or any other) will – and has attested; it was slavery that divided the states, and it was the "insult" to 'Southern honor'—that made them protest and threaten secession if-or-when California was admitted as a 'free-state' (with its "illegally" drafted and agreed upon state constitution). It was the South that not only objected to the Wilmot Proviso—but which even rallied against the principle of 'popular-sovereignty' (aka; "squatter sovereignty")—insisting instead that any–and–all states that lay south of the 36°30' Missouri-Compromise line be admitted to the Union only as slave-states. In fact, everyone who knows the History knows that the 1850 Compromises most likely would not have appeased the South—if not for the eminently timely death of President Zachary Taylor—(who against the South's wishes – favored the state's-rights principle of 'popular sovereignty')—and the ascendancy of Millard Fillmore – who helped delay the secession of Southern states by promising stronger commitments in upholding the 1850 fugitive-slave return statute, and by supporting the admittance of New Mexico and Utah as states one the condition that slavery would not be proscribed from them.


I read farther down this post and I see why you are so set to prove that everything thing was about slavery and why you are so against. the South, your opinions are race based. Not only does your argument lack the basis of fact, you are determined to twist the truth and force misinformation on the casual reader. First of all slavery was a reason for secession, not the whole cause of the war or every wrong that has happened since. Val and I have provided documents to attests to the fact, second the Crittenden Resolution says the war was not about slavery, third no Union state declared slavery as a cause for going to war, fourth West Virginia was admitted as a slave state, and fifth slavery as the cause of the war was not admitted as part of the language of the recent slavery apology by the House of representatives. The war was fought solely over the aggressive actions of Major Anderson and Lincoln. Bring some actual fact to the table to prove me wrong.

Madame Val; whilst I trace most of my roots to my New England Scots-Irish immigrant heritage—which predates our Seven-Years war with France, my Grandfather (of three prior generations/grates) – was nonetheless a man of Southern Heritages. Tho (to my knowledge) he was not from Kansas or Missouri—but rather from Louisiana; born of one-quarter Seminole-American Indian/one-quarter Yoruba African/and one-half Dutch – he was – like his northern kin; 100 percent AMERICAN, and a Patriot. My Grandmother referred to him fondly as a 'Jay-Hawk' and on top his dresser cabinet my father proudly displays his 11-inch "tennessee-toothpick" – that was used to sever the ears off of many a CSA east-tennessean – who took up arms to preserve an archaic–aristocratic order which kept enslaved over four million human-beings and in doing so deprived the common free-man of waged-labor or upward economic mobility.

So your folks came over here before the 7 Years War!! Mine were here before Bacon’s Rebellion and in fact took part in that rebellion!! You can brag about what you grandfather did but facts are more Union men were killed by the vastly outnumbered Southerners and it is also a fact that more Union men deserted their posts. I do believe the Union holds the record for more civilian men, women and children killed, more pillaging, and more men dieing in the concentration camps of the North. The same army you think was fighting to free the slaves are also responsible for the massacre of thousands of Native Americans. Oh yes you forgot to mention poverty is still in existence today, look around at the projects and tell me it is not. Tell me we are not a near welfare state. A slave had everything given to him; it was equal compensation for work performed. That in itself is more security than most people enjoy today.

Now, someday that bowie-knife will be mine; but until then—I am happy to wave my Flag and defend my freedoms and purpose—with knowledge and common sense (and with force of arms if need be).

God bless the land of much media bias and of much more free-speech for all. God bless the land where we can wave or burn our most sacred of symbols—including the; Star-&-Stripes and/or the Stars-&-Bars. God keep our Separation of State and Church strong and healthy—keep our land free of monarchy and free of any official-Nat'l "Church-of-State" and may Providence keep our prisons and courts free of 'hate-speech' criminals - who dare to question the Nazi–'Holocaust' or dispute the "Armenian genocide" – AND I pray we remain the land where our jails and detention halls are kept 'free' of those who disrespectfully salute the St. Andrews cross studded with her 13 stars—rather than, or in addition to—our Nation's Glorious Etats-Unis of Fifty of the freest, most industrious and enlightened—and most United–States of any Republic on this Earth.

Can you describe The Stars and Bars for me?

I have seen this tactic many time, you are not the first to use it, you are hiding behind the cloak of patriotism to disguise you own biased opinion, your racism and your one sided views. I’ll give you credit you may know a good bit about history, but your try totwist and turn the facts to match you own views and agenda while offering no historical facts as in your argument. In fact I remind you said you didn’t care about fact.



I have taken the time to address each and every point you made. I will say again, and do be very careful how you respond -- You may disagree with us in a factual response if you chose, however I WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY RANTS AND RAVES ON THIS WEBSITE. One more time and you will be banned.


God-bless y'all... and Amen.

Have a Dixie Day.

George Purvis
Site Admin.


[ Edited Thu Feb 26 2009, 11:43AM ]
Back to top
Lady Val
Thu Feb 26 2009, 04:51PM
Registered Member #75
Joined: Sat Nov 01 2008, 11:22AM
Posts: 475
In the 19th Century, Americans developed a particular viewpoint called "American exceptionalism", the belief that somehow Americans were morally superior to other people. This invidious and malignant ideology originated in the North and eventually led that section of the nation to believe that it's moral superiority gave it the right to destroy the South and its people when they apparently refused to accept Yankee rule. The genocide Sherman pointed this out clearly in a letter to his friend Sawyer in which he said:

"The War which now prevails in our land is essentially a war of Races(*). The Southern People entered into a clear Compact of Government with us of the North, but still maintained through State organizations a species of separate existence with separate interests, history and prejudices. These latter became stronger and stronger till at last they have led to war, . . . We of the North are beyond all question right in our cause but we are not bound to ignore the fact that the people of the South have prejudices which form a part of their nature, and which they cannot throw off without an effort of reason, or by the slower process of natural change. The question then arises Should we treat as absolute enemies all in the South who differ from us in opinion or prejudice, kill or banish them, or should we give them time to think and gradually change their conduct, so as to conform to the new order of things which is slowly & gradually creeping into their country?" (*by "race", Sherman meant the difference between the philosophy of those in the North and South, not differences in color; the people of the North were one "race", the people of the South, another.)

Sherman was an ideologue who worshiped the US Government and the Yankee nation. He would welcome back into the fold all who submitted and burned incense at the altar of the Union, but he was prepared to murder every man, woman and child who refused to bow the knee to Washington! And that is the prevailing sentiment that exists today, the only difference being that the Washington of today - a tyranny of centralized power at the expense of our God-granted liberties - is the natural result of the Washington Sherman worshiped.

By all means let us pick up the banner of freedom once again (and that banner is the Stars and Bars, not the Stars and Stripes) while a few precious moments remain for us to do so. The shroud of slavery descends upon us all - white, black and all others as well. I will pledge my allegiance to the last Republic that existed on these shores - the Confederate States of America. For though it was overcome by the might of a despotic "Union" and forcibly returned to live under a government its people totally rejected, the Confederacy never surrendered! The undercurrent of its people's desire for freedom was never wholly extinguished and as the times grow more tyrannous, it begins to rise, like a phoenix, from the ashes of defeat - as Jefferson Davis once predicted would be the case. Deo Vindice.
Back to top
red house
Thu Feb 26 2009, 05:10PM
Registered Member #89
Joined: Wed Feb 18 2009, 11:07PM
Posts: 40
gpthelastrebel:

Red House I am going to address your remarks one at a time you will see what you wrote and my response in bold.


Thank you.




First of all we are not “you people” we have extended every courtesy to you and we only asked that you be civil with no snide remarks. You are failing that simple task. You can either address us by name, SHAPE members, or Sirs and Madam or anything in an appropriate manner. In addition I believe that each and everyone of us is quite familiar with the War For Southern independence, this should be evident to you by the facts we have been posting. This war is still going on today as the South and our culture is under constant attack, as evident by your posts


My genuine apologies for that remark - if the grammar of what I said was taken in a crude or crass manner. You are right, I would have been better to type 'the people here' (rather than "you people...")


And yes sir, as to your second point, we are very much in agreement—and unapologetically so.

The manner you currently feel about your 'culture and heritage' coming under attack, is probably indistinguishable from the manner I feel that my country's historical narrative is being mishandled by way of misrepresentation and false accusations—to the detriment of the integrity of the people who shaped it to give rise to our shared realities of the present day. One can not be a Patriot or appreciate their Nation for what it is—without some understanding of its story. I feel it is a knowledge that is shared by too few—and so of course I resent and will defend that precious knowledge against any whom I feel is doing it an injustice. (Just as you would, and just as you are presently doing vis-a-vis your own understanding of it).





If that is your stance, quit ranting and post some facts. We welcome all civil and factual exchanges. Why bring race into the discussion? I think we all know there are many people of different races, creeds and colors here in the United States.


It was not my intent to bring my race (or my religion for that matter) into the discussion, and nor was it my intent to avoid any mention of it either. This is the internet after all, I reserve (or try to at least) my filter of political-correctness and self-censorship for my tyrades and discussions within the work-place, and of course, I try to remove all pretense of it when engaged in any serious discourse in a public forum (such as this one).







We do not have absolute freedom of expression, why do you think we do? I gave you some examples of how our freedom is speech is regulated yet you persist in this line of discussion. Here are a couple of links that prove my point –



http://www.whnt.com/news/sns-ap-al--mayor-comments,0,483009.story


With freedom – comes responsibility. This man had every 'right' to say what he did—and there is no law to prevent him from doing so, as did the protesters that took offense to his sentiments. He was an 'elected' official—perhaps he should have been more politically astute to the opinions of his constituents and held his tongue—or maybe his cause was best served by him becoming a 'martyr'. Either way, that we have certain absolute freedoms – does not mean that there are not going to consequences for how we exercise them. Just ask the Imus-in-the-Morning guy; he freely spoke a few ill-advised utterances, and many of his sponsors and commercial backers just as freely dropped him or refused to extend their contract.



http://www.georgiaheritagecouncil.org/site2/commentary/dean-hatebills022509.phtml

**@ 1:00–2:00 minutes into the video:

"...the David Ray Hate Crimes Convention Act of 2009 HR 256:

[provision] a. Whoever commits an offense against the United States, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable, as a principle.

What does this really mean? A talk show host, writer, Pastor, or even person on the street, can go to prison—if he repeats the Bible's counsel—that homosexuality is "AN ABOMINATION" to God. If an unstable person hears that counsel, and then attacks a homosexual, the Pastor or talk-show host can be tried as a federal 'HATE CRIMINAL'
.
"


Is the above statement not a rather incredible leap of logic? The principle of free-speech obviously does not extend to coercive threats or acts of intimidation—precisely because threats of violence and intimidation are intended to forcefully stifle and oppress free expression (just ask novelist Salman Rushdie – the man who was on the receiving end of Khomeini's death fatwa, and who was forced to disappear from the public life and go "underground" for over a decade as a consequence).


Contrary to what that man said, we are not Canada. Yes, w have "hate crime" laws that proscribe and punish acts of violence—or a clear and direct incitement thereof; but unlike Canada and all of europe and the UK—we do not have laws to proscribe acts of "hate speech" – and the very concept of a "hate-speech crime" is alien to our political and national culture. We are the only nation on earth where our First-Amendment rights are enshrined above all others. The First Amendment is our national-religion, and the moment that any law maker or Supreme court Judge attempts to legislate away that freedom—I and many others like me will take to the streets and demand, debate, and delegitimize them until they've resigned from office (at which point they can take all the time they need to 'reconsider' of their own priorities).



http://www.dcexaminer.com/local/Maryland-state-song-may--lose-the-Northern-scum-40003982.html

Del. Jolene Ivey, D-Prince George’s, a co-sponsor of the bill, said she “understand[s] the role that the Confederacy played in the history of Maryland, [but] it’s time to no longer glorify that in our state song.”


I agree with this congressman's opinion that such overtly partisan themes should not be 'glorified' at taxpayer expense within Publicly funded institutions (like Public schools). However, I would strongly take issue with any public official who wished to omit the song or white-wash its historical context from the educational curriculum. Their past is theirs to own and learn from, and that should apply to both the proud aspects as well as the unpleasant parts.


These are just 3 quick sample s of how our freedom of speech is regulated. Also you may or may not remember Howard Cosell was fired because of his comments so was Inmus. You can also add to this list the TV shows Amos and Andy, Buckwheat of the “Little Rascals’” the movie “Song of the South”, Dixie, and I also understand Suwanee River the state song of Florida is under attack, as well as the Florida SCV being denied a SCV tag. It actually seems to me that is this category you actually have no idea what you are talking about. And what about the cartoon in New York Post??


Yes, there are federally enforced "decency standards" on language and gratuitous violence and sexuality for our publicly received broadcasts of the prime-time networks. There are laws governing certain channels of our AM and FM, UHF and VHF broadcasts—and without this coordination these modes of communication would be rendered nearly useless by all the interference of competing broadcasts along the same or similar frequencies. However anyone is free to purchase time on their own private-access station (i.e. cable) or transmit freely within a certain wattage (like HAM radio) so long as it does not excessively interfere with commercial broadcasts.

We are however, free to convey and contribute our spoken word, print, or imagery to distribute our ideas and critiques of anyone or anything – in a public forum. Words and ideas will always bring consequences (that
s the idea) - but when conveyed in the public domain, they should not, and in so far as I know – are not restricted by government. We should never confuse American freedoms with those of Iran, or Canada, or Austria or the UK. Unlike the UK, we do not have a national church – nor do we have blasphemy laws to protect it from criticism or slander, and unlike Austria and Canada we are not forbidden from openly disputing historical events like the Holocaust or the Armenian genocide. And we are not prohibited from condemning homosexuality—nor are we prohibited from condemning those who condemn such behaviors. Compared to countries like the Netherlands or Canada, America is crystal clear on the concept and virtues of preserving our freedoms-of-expression, we are not a nanny-state where 'tolerance' is legislated for the "public good"... And until it is otherwise demonstrated—I will continue to reject any assertion to the contrary.








Let me put this in the proper perspective for you -- We really do not care if you respect our rights or not. We extended our hospitality to you, you want to abuse the privilege and take advantage of this extended courtesy. We can just as easily take away this hospitality and your welcome...



Good. I do not expect or demand that you "respect" my point-of-view or my convictions, nor would I want to wield that kind of power and authority over you or anyone else to force those upon you. And I do appreciate your hospitality and your willingness to allow me to express them, and I recognize that this is a 'private' forum—and not a public "free-speech zone." I am permitted to participate here on this forum – only to the extent of your willingness to allow me to.

And I also appreciate the opportunity to expose my-self to your views and beliefs, though—I would object in equal measure that I be made to confer a pretentious offer of "respect" or recognition of them as being valid – simply because of the popular consensus and povs that are most commonly shared here. In other words; I will not change my views - simply to suit your own, nor would I ever expect or demand the same from you.






Well there is your problem you do not care about the historical fact—thank you for making that clear. You are free to wallow in your own ignorance or prove us wrong. Either way doesn’t matter to me you have just put on public display the sentiment of most Northern supporters who would argue the start of the war. Good job. Just to show you how ignorant of facts you are you suggest we should fire own our own. How absurd, we are not the army of the North killing our own people such as was done at “The Crater>” Don’t tell me about firing on ”our countrymen” when in another post you were defending the actions of war criminals like Sherman and Butler . Good effort in trying to twist the fact that the United States made the first aggressive move. The Confederate states did the right thing and defended their homes against an invader who actions are no more honorable than those who have fought in later wars against us. Now you want to rant and rave about the military, I suggest you do a little research and you will find the United States military is rationally made up mostly of Southerners.


I acknowledge that thanks to LadyVal's attached documents that she included and the details that you and others have shared—and because of this I now know more of the events leading up to what took place at Fort Sumter, and I am certainly not any worse off for knowing more about these things. However, I have stated already why I am unmoved by them. Where I live – in Cambridge Massachusetts – there are many scholarly "intellectuals" like Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn who time and again—without fail will find some "valid" chain-of-logic that seeks to blame the events of September 11th or December 7th, 1941 on some misguided actions or policies of my country. And I do not dispute the facts or the logic of such people or their claims – because they are simply unmoving to me and unworthy of response – in that they insult both my own world-view and those of my country. To me, it doesn't matter at all what the rational was or is that caused a hostile party to knowingly attack my country—what matters to me is that they acted impudently and aggressively against a much more powerful adversary that time-and-again has shown itself willing and ready to retaliate against any military assault or violent provocation.

I do not regret the actions of FDR or GWB, I feel no need to 'excuse' or justify what took place in Afghanistan or Iraq following the events of September 11—anymore than I do the events of Nagasaki or Dresden during WW2. And I do not harbor any contempt or enmity against the German and Japanese people for what took place in the past—with the sole exception of those among them who try and rewrite or revise what took place in a manner that is disingenuous or unjust and incomplete. The only Germans and Japanese I would take exception with are those who try to dispute the Holocaust or those who would make excuses for the kinds of animalistic behaviors that were perpetrated against the people of Indochina - by the occupying forces of the imperial Japanese. My sentiments are likewise for my Southern Compatriots; I take no issue with any among them who salutes our National ensign without apprehension and who appreciates what the values and sacrifice of what it represents; but you can hopefully at least understand why I take or any other might receive considerable offense at the displays that make tribute to the Confederate battle-flag... Some symbols are just powerful that way, and yes; they can, and obviously do represent different things to different people.




I read farther down this post and I see why you are so set to prove the very thing was about slavery and why you are so against. Not only does your argument lack the basis of fact, you are determined to twist the truth and force misinformation on the casual reader. First of all slavery was a reason for secession, not the whole cause. Val and I have provided documents to attests to the fact, second the Crittenden Resolution says the war was not about slavery, third no Union state declared slavery as a cause for going to war, fourth West Virginia was admitted as a slave state, and fifth slavery as the cause of the war was not admitted as part of the language of the recent slavery apology by the House of representatives. The war was fought solely over the aggressive actions of Major Anderson and Lincoln. Bring some actual fact to the table to prove me wrong.


Well yes, there is obviously much we can disagree on, though; there is also the possibility for some common ground as well. I think we will forever be at loggerheads about who 'started' the war. To me and probably to the majority of people residing outside the former Confederate states in the South, the preemptive shelling of over 4,000 projectiles directed at federal soldiers occupying a federal compound – is for me; an open-enough act of hostility to constitute a flagrant act of war. I understand that many folks in the South maintain that it was their Constitutional 'right' to secede and declare themselves a sovereign and independent republic from the Union—and believe henceforth that Maj. Anderson and his men had no right to occupy that compound after December the 20th when South Carolina declared its own independence. I will concede to you that Maj Anderson and his men may well have been infringing on the sovereignty of a separate and foreign nation at that point; but I do not acknowledge that it was our 'obligation' to respect the autonomy of this newly proclaimed republic nor should we have legitimated its motivations for declaring itself an separate and independent entity. As a nation we are under no obligation to acknowledge any sovereign or foreign power as 'legitimate' - if it is not deemed in our National interests to do so. We undertook no obligation to recognize and legitimize Saddam Hussein's regime, nor Khomeini's Islamic Republic, nor the Vichy government in France, nor Jefferson Davis's government and his authority over the CSA. Likewise, the newly convened CSA saw no need to respect or recognize the autonomy and independence of the states of Kentucky or Missouri – when these two states were 'officially' annexed by the Confederate congress in 1861.


I'm not sure I understand what you have been referring to with regards to the Crittenden Compromise (about it not being about slavery) or its connection to the 'war' that followed. We can both agree (hopefully) that the war was prosecuted by the Federal side first and foremost for the purposes of restoring the Union. And since the issue of slavery was the sole cause of that rupture (as is evident from Stephen's "cornerstone speech", the Crittenden compromise, and the proposals of the 1861 "Washington Peace Conference") – it follows that bringing about its permanent abolition became a necessity for accomplishing the aims of the war effort – and was necessary as well as to prevent any future secession movements from again arising over it.




[censored] you folks came over here before the 7 Years War!! Mine were here before Bacon’s rebellion and in fact took part in that rebellion!! You can brag about what you grandfather did but facts are more Union men were killed by the vastly outnumbered Southerners and it is also a fact that more Union men deserted their posts. I do believe the Union holds the record for more civilian men, women and children killed, more pillaging, and more men dieing in the concentration camps of the North. The same army you think was fighting to free the slaves are also responsible for the massacre of thousands of Native Americans. Oh yes you forgot to mention poverty is still in existence today, look around at the projects and tell me it is not. Tell me we are not a near welfare state. A slave had everything given to him; it was equal compensation for work performed. That in itself is more security than most people enjoy today.



I would rather be a ''wage-slave'' with individual rights and freedoms—than be someone else's property that is literally chained to a plantation or a place of residence, and deprived of any right to privacy by an all-entitled overseer with a bull-whip. I sincerely believe that even the most deprived and exploited "sweat shop" laborers in the developing-third world would also concur with this sentiment.

Just as the illegal trafficking of the women for the sex-trade industry demeans and ultimately devalues the humanity of both prostitute and pimp alike – so too does chattel slavery; it is an institution that degrades the human condition of the slave – and the slave-owner who asserts and presumes total dominion over them.



Can you describe The Stars and Bars for me?


Yes, I was and am referring to the Confederate Battle Ensign: a blue cross of St. Andrew - with 7 stars alining each arm - that are both draped across a backdrop of bright red. We are both referring to the same version of the same thing (I think).






I have seen this tactic many time, you are not the first to use it, you are hiding behind the cloak of patriotism to disguise you own biased opinion, your racism and your one sided views. I’ll give you credit you may know a good bit about history, but your try totwist and turn the facts to match you own views and agenda while offering no historical facts as in your argument. In fact I remind you said you didn’t care about fact.


I have taken the time to address each and every point you made. I will say again, and do be very careful how you respond -- You may disagree with us in a factual response if you chose, however I WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY RANTS AND RAVES ON THIS WEBSITE. One more time and you will be banned.


Have a Dixie Day.

George Purvis
Site Admin.





So noted. And thank you for this site and this discourse. As I mentioned, I have learned some new things from it and have gained some insight because of it.



A good day to you too.
Back to top
gpthelastrebel
Fri Feb 27 2009, 09:50AM

Registered Member #1
Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 10:46AM
Posts: 3631

Val, Here are David's sources on Lincoln's "Supply Fleet. "I haven't went to the links yet, but will do so when time allows. As noted this was published in Northern newspapers. It would be amazing if Davis or no Confederates knew about this fleet. It is a clear intention of hostilities.

GP ********************************************************************************

The armament of each ship comes from the Naval Historical Center. I've posted list of the fleet and troops embarked from newspaper articles from the New York Times.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9904E0DA1230E134BC4053DFB266838A679FDE

http://digitalnewspapers.libraries.psu.edu/Default/Skins/BasicArch/Client.asp?Skin=BasicArch&&AppName=2&enter=true&BaseHref=RCM/1861/04/08&EntityId=Ar00212

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9403EED81230E134BC4153DFB266838A679FDE http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9B02E0DA1230E134BC4053DFB266838A679FDE The New York Herald had this...

The following list embraces the names, with armaments and troops, of the fleet dispatched from New York and Washington to Charleston harbor, for the relief of Fort Sumter:-

Vessels of War Steam sloop-of-war Pawnee, Captain S. C. Rowan, 10 guns and 200 men. The Pawnee sailed from Washington, with sealed orders, on the morning of Saturday, April 6.

Steam sloop-of-war Powhatan, Captain E. D. Porter, 11 guns and 275 men. The Powhatan sailed from the Brookyln Navy Yard on Saturday afternoon April 6.

Revenue cutter Harriet Lane, Captain J. Faunce, 5 guns and 96 men. On Saturday, April 6, the Harriet Lane exchanged her revenue flag for the United States navy flag, denoting her transfer to the Government naval service, and sailed suddenly on last Monday morning, with sealed orders.

The Steam Transports Atlantic, 358 troops, composed of Companies A and M of the Second artillery, Companies C and H of the Second infantry, and Company A of sappers and miners from West Point. The Atlantic sailed from the steam at 5 o'clock on Sunday morning last, April 7. Baltic, 160 troops, composed of Companies C and D, recruits, from Governor's and Bedloe's islands.

The Baltic sailed from Quarantine at 7o'clock on Tuesday morning last, April 9. Illinois, 300 troops, composed of Companies B, E, F, G and H, and a detachment from Company D, all recruits from Governor's and Bedloe's Islands, together with two companies of the Second infantry, from Fort Hamilton.

The Illinois sailed from Quarantine on Tuesday morning at 6 o'clock. The Steamtugs Two steamtugs, with a Government official on each, bearing sealed dispatches, were also sent.

The Yankee left New York on Monday evening, 8th, and the Uncle Ben on Tuesday night. The Launches Nearly thirty of these boats-whose services are most useful in effecting a landing of troops over shoal water, and for attacking a discharging battery when covered with sand and gunny bags- have been taken out by the Powhatan and by the steam transports Atlantic, Baltic and Illinois.

Recapitulation
Vessels Guns Men Sloop-of-war Pawnee 10 200 Sloop-of-war Powhatan 11 275 Cutter Harriet Lane 5 96 Steam Transport Atlantic 353 Steam Transport Baltic 160 Steam Transport Illinois 300 Steamtug Yankee Ordinary Crew Steamtug Uncle Ben Ordinary Crew Total number of vessels 8 Total number of guns (for marine service) 26 Total number of men and troops 1,380 It is understood that several transports are soon to be chartered, and dispatched to Charleston with troops and supplies. Also, I just found a blurb from a Hartford Connecticut newspaper from early April 1861 that states "Davis telegraphed to Charleston not to fire on any vessels entering the harbor merely for supplying Fort Sumter with provisions", I need to find the whole paper.

David


[ Edited Thu Oct 13 2011, 12:39PM ]
Back to top
gpthelastrebel
Fri Feb 27 2009, 10:21AM

Registered Member #1
Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 10:46AM
Posts: 3631
Redhouse now that we have the introductions behind us, let's get on with the business of posting historical fact. You are more than welcome to post your opinions based on historical fact, and in the context of history you may discuss any subject as long as it is discussed in an appropriate manner. One point I want to make perfectly clear, it is my obligation to protect you on this board as well everyone else. Also in the future I hope that this site and its contents can be allowed in schools as a historically accurate site. We do have a lot riding on our conduct in these forums.

That being said lets drop some of these subjects we have been brushing over and take one or two issues at a time. The reason the threads are just getting to long and unwieldy for my comfort and ease of replying.

As per your statement admitting that you did not know a lot about the Fort Sumter incident, I have no problem with that. You are at least opened minded enough to read what has been posted and have made comments. Rest assured none of here has any agenda except to promote anything other than the truth. That being said I would like to offer this website to visit and read. I'll admit I do not know who wrote it or for whom, but it will verify what Val and I have been saying. This is not as you would suspect a pro Confederate site, but instead in a National Parks site.

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/fosu/decision.pdf

The only thing I disagree with in this article is the fact they give Lincoln and Davis equal blame for the start of the war. I believe this shows that Davis actually made more effort to avoid war than Lincoln.

Do you read the other forums? We can post info to "General Discussions" if you like since some of these subjects are getting way off topic for this particular thread.

GP
Back to top
8milereb
Fri Feb 27 2009, 12:42PM

Registered Member #2
Joined: Thu Jul 19 2007, 11:39AM
Posts: 1030
Bottom line here folks is the South wanted just to be left alone, without any war. Lincoln persisted as he knew that although secession was in fact legal as taught at WestPoint, he engaged the USA in an illegal war against another Nation, The C.S.A.
Back to top
red house
Fri Feb 27 2009, 08:57PM
Registered Member #89
Joined: Wed Feb 18 2009, 11:07PM
Posts: 40
8milereb wrote ...

Bottom line here folks is the South wanted just to be left alone, without any war. Lincoln persisted as he knew that although secession was in fact legal as taught at WestPoint, he engaged the USA in an illegal war against another Nation, The C.S.A.




Well, that's the thing with secessions; one may be constitutionally entitled to divorce and declare their own independence—but once you do; you become a foreign entity, and the question then becomes one of whether you are friend or foe, ally or adversary. And no amount of secessioning—no matter how finalized or complete—was going to remove the Southern States of the CSA from our borders; hence if we were incompatible neighbors – there was certain to be issues, a quarrel was bound to happen sooner, or later. Israel/Palestine; Jews and Arabs; North and South; Wage-labor and Slave-states = recipes for trouble and lots of hurt feelings.


I honestly feel it's best we got through the worst of it – sooner than later.
Back to top
Lady Val
Fri Feb 27 2009, 10:10PM
Registered Member #75
Joined: Sat Nov 01 2008, 11:22AM
Posts: 475
Now that is just plain nonsense!

If you read everything from Thomas Jefferson to Horace Greeley, the prevailing opinion of any breakup of the Union on both sides was that there should be good wishes sent to those wishing to depart the old compact and that both the old and new nations should and would live in peace in, perhaps even in the hope of eventual reunion! Indeed, such might well have been the case if the Union had allowed the Southern states to leave peacefully. Many in the South actually believed until the guns began to fire that they would be permitted to depart in peace so sure were they of their constitutional guarantees! Of course, they really had no idea of how obsolete Lincoln and the North considered the Constitution!

There was never a question that the South would be hostile to those states remaining in the Union. To begin with, what would be the point? The Confederate states simply wished to be left alone. It was the Union - and especially its commercial interests - that could not afford to let the South go in peace. For had the South established a separate nation, the Union knew that it would not buy goods from the North and because of mandated low tariffs, cheaper (and better) European goods would flow into the South, thus increasing its power and decreasing the profits made by Northern commercial interests supported by the Federal Government. As usual, if you follow the money, you find the reason for the war! My first post presented such an argument from a Northern source which makes perfectly clear that the North for reasons of money could not permit the South to secede and form its own nation.

To suggest that the Union would not permit secession because it feared a hostile neighbor on its borders smacks of gross ignorance or worse, intentional deceit. There is nothing in the writings of anyone - North or South - at the time that could lead to that conclusion.

And as for any suggestion that, well, it all might have been "for the best" no matter who was to blame and what was done, I think our present situation with an out of control tyranny in Washington clearly demonstrates that it wasn't "all for the best" and that had the South succeeded, maybe we would not only be one nation today without all the racial bitterness arising from Northern actions during reconstruction, but our personal liberties and the power of the sovereign states might still be intact - something which is certainly not the case today!

Oh, and it really would be nice, dear red house, if you addressed Sherman's quote about murdering men, women and children as a means of bringing them to heel at Washington's feet! How you can blithely ignore that seminal comment delineating the motives and actions of the Union in the person of one of its stellar "heroes" astounds me. Even if you said "I didn't know!" - because I sure in hell didn't until somebody presented me with it - I would be satisfied. But to just pretend it was never said and that that particular mindset did not exist in the Yankee North rather disqualifies all of your arguments regarding the "goodness" of the United States, don't you think? Or do you?

I am reminded of that verse in Innes Randolf's song, "I'm a Good Old Rebel" - "I hates the glorious Union, 'tis drippin' with our blood." Yes, it was - and still is because the nation (Union) still refuses to acknowledge the crimes and injustice perpetrated upon the South. In fact, quite the opposite! There remains a continuing effort to make the South and Southerners - then and now - into villains using the ever present "race card". There can be no "forgiveness" where there is no admission of guilt and the Union adamantly refuses to admit any such thing. Those defending the actions of Lincoln and his criminal cohorts simply repeat the same self-righteous and mendacious clap-trap that has been the standard Yankee response since 1861. Thank God it would seem that more and more Southerners are refusing to be made into the Empire's whipping boys.
Back to top
red house
Sat Feb 28 2009, 12:37AM
Registered Member #89
Joined: Wed Feb 18 2009, 11:07PM
Posts: 40
Now that is just plain nonsense!

If you read everything from Thomas Jefferson to Horace Greeley, the prevailing opinion of any breakup of the Union on both sides was that there should be good wishes sent to those wishing to depart the old compact and that both the old and new nations should and would live in peace in, perhaps even in the hope of eventual reunion!




Yes, it's funny you should mention Jefferson, as he was the living embodiment of these irreconcilable differences. He was obviously aware and forward thinking enough to recognize the glaring contradictions between the existing institution of chattel slavery and the values of the enlightenment and republican freedoms that are prescribed in our Bill of Rights—and he also knew as well as anybody that slavery was too profitable and culturally entrenched within the southern colonies for them to consider abandoning it (and that was four years before to the invention of the cotton gin).

I believe that the constitutional compact of 1789 was one that should not have been entered into by the Southern colonies to begin with. I think it is obvious in hindsight that New England, Pennsylvania and the Northwest territories were joined in an unnatural and unsustainable union with the agrarian slave colonies of the South. Industrial societies can not coexist well with bourgeois aristocracies that shun competition and entrepreneurialism. Lincoln did not re-unite the Republic—for all intents and purposes the two behaved as separate societies—each with separate identities and values that continued to grow more alien and apart. And the fact that among the South's most contentious grievances with the North—was their failure to fulfill the fugitive slave clause to the satisfaction of the Southerners – convinces me that these two societies could not have coexisted harmoniously or autonomously. The studies of Robert William Fogel have proven that the plantation regime run by chattel slavery was a far more lucrative and "efficient" enterprise than previously assumed, the institution was not likely to go away peacefully—and I don't think it could have ever coexisted peacefully side-by-side with the free and industrial society along its borders.



Indeed, such might well have been the case if the Union had allowed the Southern states to leave peacefully. Many in the South actually believed until the guns began to fire that they would be permitted to depart in peace so sure were they of their constitutional guarantees! Of course, they really had no idea of how obsolete Lincoln and the North considered the Constitution!



That's incredible..


I am not a Constitutional scholar, though I'd like to think that there is an unwritten 'annulment clause' in the Constitution with regards to preemptive military assaults against us. If, in any sense such a thing existed, I would refer to it as the "common-sense clause"... and I'm pretty sure we Yankees knew all about it—even back then. Though—there are obviously many others who have continued to overlook it (usually to their detriment).
Back to top
red house
Sat Feb 28 2009, 12:46AM
Registered Member #89
Joined: Wed Feb 18 2009, 11:07PM
Posts: 40
*edit*


My mistake; I overlooked the 'until' part of your last sentence in your previous post LadyVal. I am able to understand you a little bit better now... though, it still raises questions as to why–then did the guns begin to fire to start with (?) ... I have read enough about the Civil War to understand the reasons why the North was able to win it, but I am still unclear as to what convinced the Southerners that they could succeed if it erupted into a military conflict.

[ Edited Sat Feb 28 2009, 12:58AM ]
Back to top
gpthelastrebel
Sat Feb 28 2009, 02:56AM

Registered Member #1
Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 10:46AM
Posts: 3631
"the glaring contradictions between the existing institution of chattel slavery and the values of the enlightenment and republican freedoms that are prescribed in our Bill of Rights—and he also knew as well as anybody that slavery was too profitable and culturally entrenched within the southern"

Red House,

Wasn't it through the insistence of Jefferson the Northwest Territory was to be slave free? Wasn't it the New England states that held out joining the United States until the institution of slavery was approved? I think you history is somewhat twisted-- that is my opinion and I will do a bit of research on the subject to educate myself.

Now back to the subject at hand, can you plainly see that Lincoln was a least partly to blame for the war due to either his actions or in actions?

To pose an answer to your question "why–then did the guns begin to fire to start with." Lincoln or someone close to Lincoln let word "slip" to the newspapers about the makeup of the fleet headed to Charleston. It is not believable that this information was not supposed to fall into Confederate hands. Davis and Beauregard knew what was coming at them and were fully prepared to meet this aggressive action. Anyone having this sort of information, regardless of the circumstances would do the same.

GP
Back to top
gpthelastrebel
Sat Feb 28 2009, 04:12AM

Registered Member #1
Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 10:46AM
Posts: 3631
RedHouse,

"I am not a Constitutional scholar, though I'd like to think that there is an unwritten 'annulment clause' in the Constitution with regards to preemptive military assaults against us. If, in any sense such a thing existed, I would refer to it as the "common-sense clause"... and I'm pretty sure we Yankees knew all about it—even back then. Though—there are obviously many others who have continued to overlook it (usually to their detriment)."

Why don't you show us something that comes close to proving the above statement? Common Sense clause, come on there is no such thing. The South did not violate the constitution becasue they were a free and peaceful country which was attacked by the US Army and Navy.


GP


[ Edited Sat Feb 28 2009, 04:16AM ]
Back to top
red house
Sat Feb 28 2009, 05:48AM
Registered Member #89
Joined: Wed Feb 18 2009, 11:07PM
Posts: 40
From what I have read about the events preceding the first shots at Fort Sumter, I'm of the impression that President Lincoln played his hand in the only manner that would have placed the onus on the South—as far as how to proceed. He made a point of notifying the governor prior to the arrival of the resupply convoy... and from what I have read—I do not believe that the Northern population was anywhere near polarized to the point that they would have taken up arms over the secession of seven southern states. Also, as LadyVal alluded to—there were prominent voices from the other Southern states (like those in Virginia) that were still on the fence while waiting to see how things played out, as well as some that had already joined the confederate revolt who were demanding that some decisive action be taken to demonstrate their resolve and 'uphold their honor'—and warning that they would be forced to reconsider their position on whether to remain with the confederacy or rejoin with the union if Davis persisted in his inaction.


Lincoln was of course a master politician; if it was to come to blows—he was not such a fool to initiate the hostilities. I am still left wondering however what the people who fired the first shot were thinking... the North had the military-machine and the might to man it, apparently all they were lacking was the resolve, and the South seems to have handed them this on a silver platter with the preemptive bombardment at Fort Sumter (*and seemingly almost gleefully so: 4,000 shells on one fortress = overkill... no?)
Back to top
gpthelastrebel
Sat Feb 28 2009, 10:34AM

Registered Member #1
Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 10:46AM
Posts: 3631
You are right Lincoln played his hand so the blame would be placed on the South. I am sure you and I would have acted the same as Beauregard or Davis if we were put in that same situation. He made a point of notifying Pickens he was going to crisply Fort Sumter, but made a point in notifying the newspapers he was sending and armed armada to Charleston and Pensacola. In short Lincoln was going to have a war one way or the other and if not in Florida then South Carolina

I do not believe that the Northern population was anywhere near polarized to the point that they would have taken up arms over the secession of seven southern states.

Correct again, secession did not matter to most northern people. When Sumter was fired on the call went up to Avenge Sumter and shall we say without casting any slurs toward either side, the rest is history?

Lincoln was indeed a master politician, which is about the only thing I actually admire about him. I will go so far as to say in that respect Lincoln was most likely the best politician this country has ever seen, at least I cannot think of anyone who comes close to him. I think the people of South Carolina were thinking of the chance to throw off a government that they no longer agreed with or a government that no longer cared about them. Remember this was the sons and grandsons of the men who fought in the Revolution and the War of 1812. The ember of freedom and the document in which this freedom was built still burned brightly in their hearts. In short the contract in which they enter to become “the united states” was no longer being honored and they were exercising their right to leave in a peaceful manner. They were no less patriotic than you or I.

Have you ever read the Northern Resolutions for war?



GP



[ Edited Sat Feb 28 2009, 10:35AM ]
Back to top
Go to page   <<        >>   

Jump:     Back to top

Syndicate this thread: rss 0.92 Syndicate this thread: rss 2.0 Syndicate this thread: RDF
Powered by e107 Forum System