Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
If Lincoln was inaugurated March 4, 1861 what was Buchanan doing in the White House?
I did read that right didn't I?
Yes, that is when Lincoln entered office. The event you are speaking about, Anderson's move from Ft. Moultrie to Ft. Sumter, happened on December 26, 1860. Buchanan was still President, and that is why he was in the White House.
Don Carlos Buell gets his orders from the Secretary of War
And Anderson didn't begin the war. His orders authorized him to occupy any fort under his command with his garrison and to move from Fort Moultrie if he had tangible evidence of a plan to attack his garrison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
You apparently haven't read any actual history books on this topic.I assure you you are wrong, and you know you're wrong
Based on your posts, I assure you I'm right and I know I'm right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
Don Carlos Buell arrived in person. which proves there was no danger to him or Anderson
There was no danger to Buell. And there was no immediate danger to Anderson at the time. However, Buell himself said that after leaving Fort Moultrie he recognized the danger to Anderson was greater than he had thought and that it was growing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
There was no message to read. And the confederates did start opening and reading Anderson's mail, though not until he was already in Fort Sumter.after he demonstrated hostile intent
Wrong again. There's that leap to an unfounded conclusion again. He demonstrated no hostile intent. What he demonstrated was an intent to keep the peace by removing the garrison from a place where it was about to be attacked and was in an untenable situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
Fort Sumter commanded Fort Moultrie's position and Fort Moultrie was untenable. Fort Sumter was in the middle of the harbor and thus much more difficult to get to more shore batteries could hit Sumter than Moultrie and therefore much safer.I seriously doubt you have ever been under artillery fire - spiking the guns of Sumter would have been far easier than moving there and eliminated the threat as well - Sumter proved as untenable as Moultrie, but Moultrie was the frying pan Sumter was the fire.
You really do need to read some actual history books about this. Spiking the as yet unmounted guns at Sumter would have done nothing to stop the land attack on Moultrie that was coming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
I seriously recommend you read an actual history book about these events because the basic facts of the situation elude you. I find it very hard to take you seriously
Probably because I deal with what actually happened rather than misstatements.
His move to Sumter was under war orders, and an act of war. The United States planned an attack from the start.
Well, if that truly was the Union plan, to help facilitate an attack upon themselves by the Confederates, so as to start a war, then that plan played directly into the Confederate strategy, which was designed to bait the Union into a "provocative" maneuver, ie: Anderson's move to Sumter, so the Confederates would have "justification" to actually start shooting, which they did. It could not have worked better for the Confederate high command.They got the war they wanted so badly, and for so long. Brilliant.
Terry
__________________ "In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed. There is more involved in this contest than is realized by every one." Abraham Lincoln - August 18, 1864 Speech to the 164th Ohio Regiment
Haven't seen that argument before, Freddy. Do you happen to have the pertinent clause near your fingertips? Or a link to the document? I'd rather see the clause, but I will read the ordinance if the link is handy. Thanks.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Now I'm curious, suwanee. If you would, please, name the book on Sumter that most influenced your conclusions.
For everyone else, suwanee is either ignoring my posts or otherwise doesn't respond, so don't let him get away without answering this one.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Now I'm curious, suwanee. If you would, please, name the book on Sumter that most influenced your conclusions.
For everyone else, suwanee is either ignoring my posts or otherwise doesn't respond, so don't let him get away without answering this one.
Ole
For what its worth as far as I know he has yet to post a source of any kind whether requested or not. I believe he thinks any who fail to agree w/ him as uncivil... frankly his snipe at Neil was as uncivil, rude and uncalled for as anything I've seen on this board in a very long time.
In this case the silence of those running to his support speaks volumes.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
...as far as I know he has yet to post a source of any kind whether requested or not.
He did, in fact, cite Foner as a source. I expected some reaction from that citation. Seems Foner isn't admired as a historian from either side.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Haven't seen that argument before, Freddy. Do you happen to have the pertinent clause near your fingertips? Or a link to the document? I'd rather see the clause, but I will read the ordinance if the link is handy. Thanks.
Ole
From The Northwest Ordinance:
"And, for extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, which form the basis whereon these republics, their laws and constitutions are erected; to fix and establish those principles as the basis of all laws, constitutions, and governments, which forever hereafter shall be formed in the said territory: to provide also for the establishment of States, and permanent government therein, and for their admission to a share in the federal councils on an equal footing with the original States, at as early periods as may be consistent with the general interest: It is hereby ordained and declared by the authority aforesaid, That the following articles shall be considered as articles of compact between the original States and the people and States in the said territory and forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent, to wit:"
As I remember the argument claimed the only way the agreement could be altered was by "common consent", which I believe means unanimous agreement.
__________________ "Those who forget to remember the past are condemned to repeat it", George Santayana.
From The Northwest Ordinance:
"And, for extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, which form the basis whereon these republics, their laws and constitutions are erected; to fix and establish those principles as the basis of all laws, constitutions, and governments, which forever hereafter shall be formed in the said territory: to provide also for the establishment of States, and permanent government therein, and for their admission to a share in the federal councils on an equal footing with the original States, at as early periods as may be consistent with the general interest: It is hereby ordained and declared by the authority aforesaid, That the following articles shall be considered as articles of compact between the original States and the people and States in the said territory and forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent, to wit:"
As I remember the argument claimed the only way the agreement could be altered was by "common consent", which I believe means unanimous agreement.
I think rather than prohibiting secession itself, it was symptomatic of how they felt about the Union--that it couldn't be broken up except by common consent.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
