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.
...That is what makes all the stories about the South fighting to resist invaders so much empty noise. It didn't happen that way....
...Davis had called up over 30,000 troops before Lincoln called for a single one; he'd attacked Federal troops; he'd deliberately started the war. Pretending anything else is not believable.
...Clearly, the Confederates called for troops first, and used those troops to attack the United States, so why would anyone pretend Lincoln is at fault here?
Regards, Tim
"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Ft Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result."
Abraham Lincoln to Capt. G.V. Fox (commander of the Fort Sumter relief expedition), 1 May 1861
"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Ft Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result."
Abraham Lincoln to Capt. G.V. Fox (commander of the Fort Sumter relief expedition), 1 May 1861
Battalion,
Once again, what is it you mean by this? What is your reason for never explaining, in your own words, what you think all these little snippets of quotes, taken out of context, mean to you, and why do you think so? Or, if you cannot bear to explain your meaning, why is it that you are reluctant to do so?
There are people, who have so little confidence in their own ability for sustained, rational or coherent thoughts, that they hide behind the words of others (editorialists, etc.) who seem to think as they do, but can express themselves better.
It has the bonus that they do not feel they have to prove outrageous flights of fancy, because well 'They' didn't say it, editorialist x, y, or z Or author A, B or C said it.
If you want to post about Sumter and the secession, post on the secession thread. If you want to post about atrocities, post here.
OpnDownfall said(paraphrasing) Both sides committed atrocities, what's the point of arguing.
The trouble is, we're arguing at all. It's like, 150 years after the fact, we're refighting the battles, as partisans. Why? Emphasizing the other sides crimes and downplaying "our" side. Why?
I would like to learn some of the history of the period, especially the middle border area, and I'm getting some of the books kindly suggested. But in other forums, on other thread, you can learn a lot, but it can be "more noise than light" here.
Actually Iron john's contrast between partisan actions, and occupation policy is a valid one, in that there is a real difference, but OIJ, but I don't think arguing that one killing is good, while another is kill is very useful.
Trice's post on Ft. Pillow, where he puts the massacre in context makes it clearer for me. Not justified or excusable, but allows me to understand what happened and why. Let's work on this.
Actually Iron john's contrast between partisan actions, and occupation policy is a valid one, in that there is a real difference, but OIJ, but I don't think arguing that one killing is good, while another is kill is very useful.
Trice's post on Ft. Pillow, where he puts the massacre in context makes it clearer for me. Not justified or excusable, but allows me to understand what happened and why. Let's work on this.
Lots of things relate to Ft. Pillow. Union and Confederate Dyer County soldiers shooting at one another, looking to pay back scores. Whiskey for men who'd spent the day fighting. Slaves fighting against Confederates. The sheer inexperience and stupidity of the defense plan (probably combined with a lot of guilt and fright on the part of the Union cavalry about what had been going on the last few weeks). All mixed up with the normal savagery and fury of a close assault, with every man afarid he might die at any second.
Plus -- well, no one has ever shot at me. People I known who have gone through that experience seem to have a different idea about how people react in those situations.
Long ago, my Dad and I were reading a series of books by Alexander Kent, a typical Hornblower-style sea warfare during the Napoleonic era story. I gave him one I had just finished, and he asked me how I liked it.
I said it was good, but I didn't like the ending, the boarding action, because it was all chopped up and hard to follow, like scenes in the flashes of a strobe-light, not making a nice clear narrative.
Dad, a veteran of WWII infantry combat in Leyte and Okinawa, looked at me in surprise and said: "But that's what action is like!"
So it turned out the chaotic scene the author had written was somehow close to what these things are like, at least in Dad's view. Not too much like the ordered way I'd like to see them in so I could make sense of them.
That was, oh, 30 years or so back. Dad's still around, getting ready for his 90th birthday. Every once in a while he still tells me something about the war that shakes my attitudes and preconceptions about a bit. I noticed my nephew, back from his tours in Iraq, seems to have things he only talks to his grandfather about -- and that Dad seemed to have a much better feeling for what would matter to him than anyone else did, even the other military people in the family.
Dad tells me people still ask him what the war was like. He says they don't really want to talk about what it's like -- they want to talk about what they think it's like. If they bug him on the wrong day, he starts to actually tell them, and they always get real quiet and go away.
All these incidents and killings and fights we are looking at are probably like that. You can't really get the complete story or the true story in all details -- and it's likely you don't really want it all.
Trice's post on Ft. Pillow, where he puts the massacre in context makes it clearer for me. Not justified or excusable, but allows me to understand what happened and why. Let's work on this.
I remember once reading of the testimony given at the Union investigation, immediately after the attack on Ft. Sumter. That was a bit of a circus, but at least you can see what the survivors actually said (while wondering if it is true).
I remember one specific instance that lays the entire problem with attrocity tales out, and the difficulties involved in studying them.
One Union survivor testified about how a particular Union soldier, a man he knew personally, was brutally murdered before his eyes by Rebels after the man surrendered. This is after the assault, and so at about 4:30 PM or later.
Another Union survivor said he was standing next to the same dead Union soldier when he was shot through the forehead from a distance and killed -- at about 10 AM.
Clearly both accounts cannot be completely accurate.
Which one should we believe? Did one lie, or the other? Were they simply confused? Did one put the wrong name on a dead comrade in the midst of the chaos of battle? Did they both get it wrong? Did either of them actually see this man die? The man was dead, there is no doubt: was he simply a "normal" casualty of battle, or the victim of a "war crime"?
The only thing sure is that we will never know all of what happened that day on the river bank.
In your posts #71 & #76, you give the impression that the federal government ordered the US National Guard to fire on Kent State Students during the disturbances there and you have the impression that the federal government is going to order, or can order, the USMC into major US cities. Do you honestly think this? Can you back this up with ANY proof at all?
Google Kent State and you will find the Guard was sent in by then Ohio Gov. Rhodes, not by any federal agency. It's on the State of Ohio, NOT the federal government.
I was under the impression that you had served in the military. Where did you ever get the impression that federal troops under federal control would be given law enforcement duties in our cities? And has this happened recently?
Just pointing fingers and saying you think it is so, simply does not give proof or substance to such claims. Next, we'll be talking about FEMA, secret prison camps, and other plots by an evil government that couldn't even keep secret a presidental ..ow-job from out of the press.
Give it a rest John, it simply comes across as just fantasy role-playing and chicken little and the sky is falling routine. You can be much better than that.
Give the boys at the NSA something they can sink their teeth into!
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
There are people, who have so little confidence in their own ability for sustained, rational or coherent thoughts, that they hide behind the words of others (editorialists, etc.) who seem to think as they do, but can express themselves better.
It has the bonus that they do not feel they have to prove outrageous flights of fancy, because well 'They' didn't say it, editorialist x, y, or z Or author A, B or C said it.
What better words to use than those of the participants.
Whose words are more relevant?-
The Yankee of 2007?...or one straight from 1861?
Once again, what is it you mean by this? What is your reason for never explaining, in your own words, what you think all these little snippets of quotes, taken out of context, mean to you, and why do you think so? Or, if you cannot bear to explain your meaning, why is it that you are reluctant to do so?
Tim
I didn't think it needed any explanation.
What part do you not understand?-
The "cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Ft Sumter, even if it should fail" part...or the "our anticipation is justified by the result" part?
The "cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Ft Sumter, even if it should fail" part...or the "our anticipation is justified by the result" part?
I know how I understand it. I have no clue how *YOU* understand it because you make no attempt to inform the forum of your thought. Without your explanation, no one can tell what you mean, and so we must treat all these posts as white noise. I'd prefer to hear what you mean from you.
Almost all quotes can be interpreted in different ways. This is particularly true when someone takes them out of context, or uses "..." to leave out the parts he doesn't want presented.
Once again, what is it that *YOU* think Lincoln meant here, and why do you think it?
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
