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.
As to the promises made by Lincoln's cabinet to evacuate the fort, and their incumbent treachery to both provoke and deceive, are they not found in these and other of my posts?
No such promise was made by the Federal government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
As to the promise not to reprovision Sumter with arms and men, I believe this is handled in the Hostilities thread? Lincoln had eight warships loaded to the gills, and not 'provisions only'...
At the time, the US Navy only had three "warships" in active commission on the East Coast of the United States. The rest were on duty elsewhere or laid up in navy yards (Buchanan had left the Navy a shambles). One of those three was diverted to Ft. Pickens (the Powhattan). The rest of the ships in the expedition were a Coast Guard vessel and some hired civilian craft, including tugboats. The Baltic was hired to carry 200 troops and supplies. One of the tugboats was so powerfully armed she was seized by a mob in North Carolina when she put in to port in a storm.
Opposed to this joke of a squadron, the Confederacy had over 10,000 troops in and around Charleston, manning batteries and forts that had been preparing for war for four months. Their interlocking fire was specifically designed to cover Ft. Sumter and the approaches to it, commanded by an efficient and experienced artillery officer and engineer. Beauregard was part of the group that planned the siege batteries at Vera Cruz, for example, along with Lee and McClellan.
When you sit back and review this objectively, there is no realistic threat to Charleston in this expedition. The best the ships could have done would be to land supplies and some troops in Sumter, probably with heavy damage and casualties. Then they would have to sail out again, and the fort would still be reduced by bombardment. Any fear that this expedition would "plunder" South Carolina is poppycock: perhaps excusable in a frenzied populace whipped to a war fever by the propaganda of men like Rhett, but not believable today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
Captain Gustavus Fox is also mentioned in the WAR CONSPIRACY OF 1861, and his acts of war in being a spy for Washington at Sumter are also documented...
Beowulf
Sigh. Fox's actions are well-known, and have been since 1861. They are not "acts of war" and do not even violate the supposed promise given in March to Southern representatives about resupplying Ft. Sumter. There was no "conspiracy" -- or at least, if you apply the same rules to documented actions by Southerners going back to 1858 and before, any Northern "conspiracy" would have to be regarded as a gnat alongside the galloping and well-documented elephant of a Southern "conspiracy".
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
As to the promises made by Lincoln's cabinet to evacuate the fort, and their incumbent treachery to both provoke and deceive, are they not found in these and other of my posts? As to the promise not to reprovision Sumter with arms and men, I believe this is handled in the Hostilities thread? Lincoln had eight warships loaded to the gills, and not 'provisions only'...
They might be. The purpose of staying on topic is so that like subjects remain where they might be found.
This thread appears to be the place you've settled after starting the "Anderson's Memo" thread. So I'm asking here: bring the posts here and call them evidence of your position. Then we can discuss them here rather than on three or four different theads.
I see trice has answered the balance of your leaps of faith in silly historians.
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
No such promise was made by the Federal government.
At the time, the US Navy only had three "warships" in active commission on the East Coast of the United States. The rest were on duty elsewhere or laid up in navy yards (Buchanan had left the Navy a shambles). One of those three was diverted to Ft. Pickens (the Powhattan). The rest of the ships in the expedition were a Coast Guard vessel and some hired civilian craft, including tugboats. The Baltic was hired to carry 200 troops and supplies. One of the tugboats was so powerfully armed she was seized by a mob in North Carolina when she put in to port in a storm.
Opposed to this joke of a squadron, the Confederacy had over 10,000 troops in and around Charleston, manning batteries and forts that had been preparing for war for four months. Their interlocking fire was specifically designed to cover Ft. Sumter and the approaches to it, commanded by an efficient and experienced artillery officer and engineer. Beauregard was part of the group that planned the siege batteries at Vera Cruz, for example, along with Lee and McClellan.
When you sit back and review this objectively, there is no realistic threat to Charleston in this expedition. The best the ships could have done would be to land supplies and some troops in Sumter, probably with heavy damage and casualties. Then they would have to sail out again, and the fort would still be reduced by bombardment. Any fear that this expedition would "plunder" South Carolina is poppycock: perhaps excusable in a frenzied populace whipped to a war fever by the propaganda of men like Rhett, but not believable today.
Sigh. Fox's actions are well-known, and have been since 1861. They are not "acts of war" and do not even violate the supposed promise given in March to Southern representatives about resupplying Ft. Sumter. There was no "conspiracy" -- or at least, if you apply the same rules to documented actions by Southerners going back to 1858 and before, any Northern "conspiracy" would have to be regarded as a gnat alongside the galloping and well-documented elephant of a Southern "conspiracy".
Tim
Davis lists about eight ships involved in one way or another with both forts. I have names for a bunch more that I'll have to dig up and list for you.
Fox's actions are called acts of war.
Admiral Raphael Semmes, CSN, in 1870, told Johnstone at the Anchorage in Mobile Alabama, this:
"Captain, the secret treachery that caused the war will come to light, and justify the South. Truth is deathless!"
PAGE 4 WAR CONSPIRACY
There was an active armistice in place which Gustavus Fox and Lincoln violated in their deceptions.
Charleston cannot do business and go about its life with Yankees in the harbor, threatening to steal money from trading vessels like robber barons.
Yankees have proven over and over that Lincoln could not be trusted and should be removed from all aspects of political life. From Congress. By Secession. Then Fort Sumter. And finally, Assassination.
The last time stopped him for good, but not his Second party...
Davis lists about eight ships involved in one way or another with both forts. I have names for a bunch more that I'll have to dig up and list for you.
There were to have been eight. Two were gunships (Powhattan and Pawnee), four were tugs (Uncle Ben, Yankee, Hook and Freeborn), one was a steamer (Baltic) and one was a cutter (Harriet Lane).
Quote:
Fox's actions are called acts of war.
It's a bit hard to call it an act of war when Pickens was given advance notice of a peaceful attempt at resupply. I'm gonna declare war on you tomorrow.
Quote:
There was an active armistice in place which Gustavus Fox and Lincoln violated in their deceptions.
If there was an active armistice in place, you will surely be able to verify that.
Quote:
Charleston cannot do business and go about its life with Yankees in the harbor, threatening to steal money from trading vessels like robber barons.
Yankees have proven over and over that Lincoln could not be trusted and should be removed from all aspects of political life. From Congress. By Secession. Then Fort Sumter. And finally, Assassination.
Well. I've thought and thought and thought, but I can't remember when I've heard anything so incredibly (edited).
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
There were to have been eight. Two were gunships (Powhattan and Pawnee), four were tugs (Uncle Ben, Yankee, Hook and Freeborn), one was a steamer (Baltic) and one was a cutter (Harriet Lane).It's a bit hard to call it an act of war when Pickens was given advance notice of a peaceful attempt at resupply. I'm gonna declare war on you tomorrow.If there was an active armistice in place, you will surely be able to verify that.Well. I've thought and thought and thought, but I can't remember when I've heard anything so incredibly (edited).
ole
Verification of Active Armistice
"There was a solemn agreement, an armistice, existing at Charleston, entered into by the United States Government
and South Carolina officials on December 6, 1860; and a special agreement, armistice, at Pensacola, entered into
by the United States and Florida authorities on January 29th, 1861. (Both filed in the United States War and Navy Departments) - by which the US agreed not to reinforce
Major Anderson, nor Fort Pickens; and South Carolina
Florida, and the Confederate authorities, agreed to make
no attack on Major Anderson, or Fort Pickens, while these solemn agreements were observed".
"To violate and armistice is considered a treacherous act of war".
"For either party to prepare to act against a point covered by an armistice, is an act of war".
"It has been held, and rightly, that any person to visit a fortification, where an armistice exists, with intend to advise or plan methods or means, to strengthen such fortification is the act of a spy, a reinforcement, and an act of war".
"Bear in mind that Captain Vogdes, US Army, was sent with an armed force, on the USS Brooklyn, to reinforce Fort Pickens in January 1861, but was estopped by the 'armistice' of January 29th, at Pensacola bar, and that his armed force remained there, under Captain Vogdes, on the USS Brooklyn."
"Captain Adams averted open war on April 1st, 1861 by refusing to obey this order. In his 'report' to the Secy of the Navy, Captain Adams says:
(E)
"It would be considered not only a declaration but an act of war: and would be resisted to the utmost. Both sides are faithfully observing the agreement (armistice) entered into by the US Government and Mr. Mallory and Colonel Chase, which binds us not to reinforce Fort Pickens unless it shall be attacked or threatened. It binds them not to attack it unless we should attempt to reinforce it".
(emphasis mine)
Navy Department April 6th, 1861.
"I repeat, the United States Government committed an act of war eight days after Lincoln was inaugurated, with approval of Lincoln, and, this same day, Lincoln, personally, committed an act clearly demonstrating his intent and purpose to bring on the war."
THE TRUTH OF THE WAR CONSPIRACY - selected phrases (pages 11, and 12)
Davis lists about eight ships involved in one way or another with both forts. I have names for a bunch more that I'll have to dig up and list for you.
As Ole has already told you: "There were to have been eight. Two were gunships (Powhattan and Pawnee), four were tugs (Uncle Ben, Yankee, Hook and Freeborn), one was a steamer (Baltic) and one was a cutter (Harriet Lane)."
Two of these are USN warships, and the Powhattan was diverted to Ft. Pickens in the chaos and confusion. The Harriet Lane was a cutter of the 1860 equivalent of the Coast Guard. The Baltic and the four tugs were hired civilian vessels. Not really a very impressive fleet, and no threat to do anything but get in quickly, land supplies, and possibly 200 recruits, then get out as fast as tthey could.
You can find information like this quickly if you want to do so. You prefer to spend your time insinuating all sorts of unfounded theories instead of actually spending some time understanding the situation first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
Fox's actions are called acts of war.
Admiral Raphael Semmes, CSN, in 1870, told Johnstone at the Anchorage in Mobile Alabama, this:
"Captain, the secret treachery that caused the war will come to light, and justify the South. Truth is deathless!"
Uh-huh. So? Like many who have lost a war, Semmes had trouble accepting what had happened. If we want to speak of "secret treachery", you might start by understanding that Southern Fire-Eaters had been planning "treachery" for a generation before any of this happened. From 1858 on you can certainly find discussion among them about how they could bring secession about. The faction led by Yancy and Rhett believed the conditions already justified it; the faction associated with men like Pryor said "Not yet!", and when asked what would make them secede, said "The election of a Republican President!" That's any Republican at all; no one thought it would be Lincoln, not even Abe himself. So the Fire-Eaters worked to split the Democratic Party on the rock of slavery, to get that Republican President elected, disrupting the Charleston Convention and walking out. That is treachery indeed: deliberately wrecking their own party's hopes to get their "secession".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
PAGE 4 WAR CONSPIRACY
There was an active armistice in place which Gustavus Fox and Lincoln violated in their deceptions.
False. Deliberately so, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
Charleston cannot do businss and go about its life with Yankees in the harbor, threatening to steal money from trading vessels like robber barons.
Balderdash. No one was making such threats. They are the invention of people like you, who want to distort events with rhetoric to suit your own interest: very much like the leaders who brought the Southern people into disaster through secession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
Yankees have proven over and over that Lincoln could not be trusted and should be removed from all aspects of political life. From Congress. By Secession. Then Fort Sumter. And finally, Assassination.
Once again untrue. You post so much of that silliness we have to assume you are aware that it is false, as well.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
So? On April 3rd, 1861 Braxton Bragg, commanding at Pensacola opposite Ft. Pickens, saw what he considered an opportunity. He immediately telegraphed Secretary of War Walker in Mobile, asking for permission to attack. He believed the Confederacy was not bound by this agreement. Walker and Bragg continued discussing possible attacks on Ft. Pickens from the 3rd of April on.
What we find in all these posts, time after time, is a deliberate attempt to present a one-sided view of what happened -- and never to acknowledge that the Federal actions referred to were reactions to a long series of aggressive, arrogant actions by Southern secessionists.
Even if we assume the "right of secession" existed, what we have is a collection of seceding states who repeatedly acted in a way that could only be considered to be deliberate acts of war, time and again, against the government of the US. If that is the best light you can give us on these Southern leaders, they come off pretty badly.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
So? On April 3rd, 1861 Braxton Bragg, commanding at Pensacola opposite Ft. Pickens, saw what he considered an opportunity. He immediately telegraphed Secretary of War Walker in Mobile, asking for permission to attack. He believed the Confederacy was not bound by this agreement. Walker and Bragg continued discussing possible attacks on Ft. Pickens from the 3rd of April on.
What we find in all these posts, time after time, is a deliberate attempt to present a one-sided view of what happened -- and never to acknowledge that the Federal actions referred to were reactions to a long series of aggressive, arrogant actions by Southern secessionists.
Even if we assume the "right of secession" existed, what we have is a collection of seceding states who repeatedly acted in a way that could only be considered to be deliberate acts of war, time and again, against the government of the US. If that is the best light you can give us on these Southern leaders, they come off pretty badly.
Tim
Someone has to talk about the other side! It certainly isn't your 'centrist' bunch!
Someone has to talk about the other side! It certainly isn't your 'centrist' bunch!
Beowulf
Balderdash. I doubt there has ever been a war in all of recorded history where the losing side had so much favorable prose written about it as the Southern side in the American Civil War.
What you have in the Winter of 1860-61 is a bunch of grasping people who had a vision of the future that included a Confederacy that would be conquering their neighbors in the Gulf and Central America, bringing the benefits of slavery with them, or re-opening the African slave trade. Jeff Davis appears to have been one of these; others abound. They took their vision of the future into war, and the wheels came off their wagon.
There were some admirable people dragged along with those losers, but that is the way it was.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Balderdash. I doubt there has ever been a war in all of recorded history where the losing side had so much favorable prose written about it as the Southern side in the American Civil War.
What you have in the Winter of 1860-61 is a bunch of grasping people who had a vision of the future that included a Confederacy that would be conquering their neighbors in the Gulf and Central America, bringing the benefits of slavery with them, or re-opening the African slave trade. Jeff Davis appears to have been one of these; others abound. They took their vision of the future into war, and the wheels came off their wagon.
There were some admirable people dragged along with those losers, but that is the way it was.
Tim
Section Nine, Enumeration One of the Confederate Constitution forbids the importation 'of Negroes of the African Race' into the Southern Confederacy.
The goal, as explained by Davis, was to
allow those with slaves to travel about unhindered and
without committing any 'crimes' while taking their slaves with them.
He was also quick to point out that this was not to 'advance slavery', since the total numbers of slaves would always be the same, and no new slaves would be added, save for the offspring of the already-enslaved, and these he himself was seeking to compensatedly emancipate.
In short, he was doing what Lincoln should have been doing, and would have done, had there been any money in it, or a chance for him to be reelected...
Your views of Southern Confederate slavery are about as
wrong as anything you have ever accused the revisionists of writing!
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
bunch!
Linear Mode
