Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Obviously, After the 'Gulf Squadron' seceded And made known their intentions of actually resisting Federal laws with force (the firing on of Ft Sumpter) the North had no choice but to respond to the Overt 'Actions' and threats of more to come from southerners in armed rebellion.
One advantage of answering newspaper articles and editorials (contemporary or not) is that one is not facing reasoned debate nor, necessarily, facts.
Posting editorials and facts 'out of the blue' as it were, does not mean the facts you post apply at all to the outcome you wish. The combative attitude you employ when trying to quote Bible verses and then attack responses that disagree or offer another view, does not aid your cause, just to put it mildly. Explaining yourself or putting your census and tariff tables in context with a bit of effort at explanation would help. I am reluctant to figure out your reasoning at such posts as I do hope you are not as easy to read and that you have ideas of your own you wish to share.
But if you do not wish to debate, exchange ideas nor view other points of view, simply continue to put up the unexplained links and web sites, the charts, and editorials in a verbal vacuum. It simply does more harm than good to the cause you claim to support and makes them easier to ignore.
As to the idea that no federal soldiers were killed during the Southern bombardment of Ft. Sumter, are you of the opinion all those cannon balls fired were from 'smart' cannon? That all those gunners knew in their heart to fire on the fort only when they knew their shells would kill no one? Talk about an absurd notion!
It was only by God's good grace and the inexperience of the gunners of both sides that no one was killed during that action and not by any lack of intent to do bodily harm. The idea that the North would not react because no one was killed simply lacks historical knowledge and is a desperate attempt at historical spin in order to put the South in some kind of 'good' light.
When you fire a loaded weapon, ANY weapon, at another person, it is an attack, a method of violence to enforce, impose you will on that person. Discussion is at an end and you have declared force, violence and bloodshed is you chosen vehicle for argument from hence forth. One should not be so shallow, shocked nor surprised when the same is then offered in return.
'0' casualities!
Simply absurd.
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
We have been through this before. You like to take isolated sentences and fragments of quotes out of context to try to "prove" something the original doesn't relate to at all. You tried it with General Lee, and when people saw what you had left out, they saw through your game clearly.
So I wondered what we might find by looking for the complete text of what a few of these pieces are from. Here, for example, you quoted Governor Kirkwood to show he was preparing for war against the South. That is a false presentation of his actual letter. Here's what you quoted:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
"I wrote on yesterday to Col. H.K. Craig, asking to anticipate now the quota of arms that will be due this State for 1862." Samuel J. Kirkwood, Governor of Iowa, to Joseph Holt, Sec. of War, Washington, 25 Jan. 1861
But here is what that letter actually says. I put the parts you omitted in Blue italics to make it clear what you left out.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE, IOWA,
January 25, 1861.
Hon. JOSEPH HOLT.
Secretary of War, Washington:
DEAR SIR:
I wrote on yesterday to Col. H. K. Craig, asking to anticipate now the quota of arms that will be due this State for 1862. Since mailing that letter I have thought the application should have been made to you, and now make it. I have been informed that during last year the same privilege was granted to other States, and hope it may be granted to Iowa. Will the quota of arms for 1862 be still under the apportionment and census for 1850?
I learn that the present unfortunate condition of public affairs has rendered necessary the transfer of the U.S. troops from Fort Kearny and other points in the West to the sea-board. It is now rumored here that large bands of Indians are gathering near Fort Kearny with hostile intentions. The northwestern border of this State has for several years last past been subject to Indian depredations, the evidence of which is on file in your Department. Should an outbreak occur among the Indians near Fort Kearny it will probably stimulate the Indians in Dakota and Minnesota again to make inroads in the northwestern part of this State. Owing to the small number of arms distributed to this State under the census of 1850 we are almost without arms and all sent to this State prior to 1860 were the old regulation muskets, altered from the flint to the percussion lock.
Can an extra number of arms be in any way sent to this State, to provide against the contingencies of an Indian outbreak? They might be stored at Fort Des Moines or Fort Dodge, in the care of a person to be selected by you, and used only in case of necessity. If a single U.S. officer were at either of these places, and had a supply of arms, he could at any moment have as many men as would be necessary for the protection of our frontier. I shall be pleased to hear from you touching these matters at your earliest convenience. And have the honor to be,
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
SAMUEL J. KIRKWOOD.
Amazingly enough, the way in which you used the quote totally misses the sense of the actual letter. How'd that happen?
BTW, the practice of anticipating arms from the US arsenals to the states (they purchased them against an annual quota) was common. It required the approval of the Secretary of War in both times of peace and war. You might want to understand that by far most of the states requesting this were south of the Mason-Dixon Line in 1860 before trying to make an issue of this -- or do you really think you'd like to show how the South was arming themselves in the year before secession?
I was going to see your outrage and raise you a snit and a pout. That appears to be unnecessary.
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
Let's take a look at this one to see what the reality is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
"We have 5,000 infantry now armed and equipped and properly officered." Wm. Schouler, Adjutant-General, Massachusetts, to Simon Cameron, Sec. of War, 13 April 1861
Here is the complete letter. As before, I have put the parts you omitted in Blue italics to make it easy on those reading it.
ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE,
Boston, Mass., April 13, 1861.
Hon. SIMON CAMERON,
Secretary of War, Washington:
SIR: I am directed by His Excellency the Governor to request of you, if consistent with law and the policy of your Department, to allow me to draw 2,000 rifled muskets from the U.S. Arsenal at Springfield in advance of our annual quota becoming due. We have 5,000 infantry now armed and equipped and properly officered. Only about 3,000 of them, however, are armed with the rifled musket; the others have the old smooth-bores, all of which have been changed from flintlocks to the percussion. If you will permit us to draw 2,000 more of the new rifled musket, we will have 5,000 as well armed, drilled, and officered infantry as ever handled a musket.
I would also suggest that a couple of regiments of our volunteers be ordered by the President to garrison Forts Warren and Independence in Boston Harbor. They are now without men, and might be taken by lawless men and turned against the Government. I believe that our troops would like to do garrison duty until called upon by the President for active service. The regiments might alternate every four or six weeks, and thus they would learn much that would be of service to them, and hold the forts against attack or surprise.
With great respect, I have the honor to be, your obedient servant,
WM. SCHOULER,
Adjutant-General, Massachusetts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
- a force of 5,000 already organized, armed and equipped, before Lincoln's call for troops.
This is the Massachusetts State Militia -- a force that all states were required to maintain at all times. The Southern states had it in plenty, and there had been a strong resurgence in militia in Southern states in 1859-1860 after Harper's Ferry, but many Northern states had allowed it to decay into near uselessness. Massachusetts had perhaps the most well-equipped and organized militia in the North.
Note that the MA adjutant-general is writing this on April 13, 1861. News has just arrived that Ft. Sumter had been fired on by the secessionists on April 12. You no doubt remember that the Confederacy has started the war that way, so how surprising is it that the state would be ready to volunteer to call out the militia in response? And you did notice when you first read this that the man is talking about having the men garrison empty forts in Massachusetts?
You also no doubt noted that the state of SC already has more than 8,000 men under arms -- many of them in Charleston, participating in the attack. These Massachusetts fellows haven't even been activated yet. You do see the difference there, don't you?
Number of Federal soldiers and employees killed or injured from the time of the Secession of South Carolina (20 Dec 1860) thru the bombardment of Fort Sumter (12 April 1861) -
0
Hmm. This would be the three months or so before the shooting started. Not very surprising that no one was killed or wounded then, is it?
If you want to include the bombardment of Ft. Sumter, the Confederacy fired over 3000 rounds of heavy artillery into the place, clearly intending grave injury and death for the garrison. The fort caught fire and came close to a catastrophic explosion of the magazine on the 2nd day of the attack. A combination of Major Anderson's decisions to spare his men exposure and great luck kept casualties down. However, there were US casualties at Ft. Sumter -- even if you do not count the killed and injured during the gun explosion after the surrender.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
Number of Southern Civilians killed or wounded by Federal troops within one month of Fort Sumter-
250
Would you care to list when and where these "Southern Civilians killed or wounded by Federal troops" happened? And what the circumstances were?
I'm going to assume that Battalion has figures to support "Southern Civilians killed or wounded by Federal troops." I'll check in sometime tomorrow to see his evidence. Could be a case. Probably not. Too much of the Gospel according to the Saints Kennedy, Rutherford and Pollard to suit me.
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
"We have 5,000 infantry now armed and equipped and properly officered.
WM. SCHOULER, Adjutant-General, Massachusetts."
This is the Massachusetts State Militia -- a force that all states were required to maintain at all times.
-On paper.
These were already armed, equipped and ready to go.
~
The State of Massachusetts having a standing army almost half the size of the United States Army is a common situation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Note that the MA adjutant-general is writing this on April 13, 1861. News has just arrived that Ft. Sumter had been fired on by the secessionists on April 12. You no doubt remember that the Confederacy has started the war that way, so how surprising is it that the state would be ready to volunteer to call out the militia in response?
Are you kidding?
You are claiming they called out the militia from all over the State, had them equipped and ready to board the trains in LESS than 24 hours?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
You also no doubt noted that the state of SC already has more than 8,000 men under arms [2,000]-- many of them in Charleston, participating in the attack. These Massachusetts fellows haven't even been activated yet. You do see the difference there, don't you?
Tim
Please re-read: "We have 5,000 infantry >now< armed and equipped and properly officered."
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
