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.
Guess I've missed the point of this thread. It is well known that Anderson opposed resupply.
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
I am afraid I don't follow you here. Could you explain what you wrote, please?
If these things are such common knowledge, why aren't they 'common knowledge'? Why am I just hearing of them, lately, since jousting with you guys, and digging up stuff I found while idly perusing the site? The story I got from Sumter in high school made South Carolina look like
Edward Teach under the freaking Skull and Bones Club!
These dispatches are not to make you feel better...
This is the story. The actual story. No McPherson to hold your hand and walk you through it. No Garry Wills, no
William C. Davis, No Ken Burns.... No one making excuses for the United States... (like that HBO film BURY MY HEART AT WOUNDED KNEE... ahem! Yeah, like that! Don't know how accurate that was, but Sherman and mob are up to their old games, once again, and it is NOT pretty!)...
No, you are on you own, and in their world.
What could be better than that?
Beowulf
More empty rhetoric. I said the "dispatches" and documents were available for generations, and included in a great many serious studies of this situation because they are. If you read the books and don't see them, it is your problem.
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.
The communications with and by Maj. Anderson at Ft. Sumter, is common knowledge to all serious students of the CW. That many of the general public is not commonly knowledgeable about the Civil War is due to an inadequate education system That the Historical Record is not commonly known by revisionists is largely due to a selective reading of narrow, agenda ridden sources.
Even if the communications between Mongomery and Washington had been as direct, cordial and truthful, it would have made no difference, as far a preventing the war.
Davis was no more prepared to accept Lincoln's view that the Union was still intact, than Lincoln was to accept Davis' belief that the old Union no longer existed.
Between those two positions there was no real point of contact, from which to negotiate 'anything' except the surrender of one or the other.
In point of fact, even if a peaceable evacuation of Ft. Sumter had been negotiated, Lincoln would have been as determined to hold Ft. Pickens as Davis would have remained as determed to have one as the other. Bragg, already had instructions to attack Pickens whenever he thought it could be done successfully and Sumter was being spared, so far, largely in the hope of obtaining it undamaged as for any other reason.
Both sides had already accepted war as the outcomes for their intransigence on fundamental issues, but Lincoln was aware of the need to make political preparations to enhance the military effort, whereas Davis was mostly concerned with only the military aspects of the situation.
When it came to the political ramifications of Ft. Sumter Davis was ill-served by his West Point training, when he failed to listen to Rob't Toombs, at Davis' Cabinet meeting on April 9, 1861 (a date with prophetic significance, by the way).
The communications with and by Maj. Anderson at Ft. Sumter, is common knowledge to all serious students of the CW. That many of the general public is not commonly knowledgeable about the Civil War is due to an inadequate education system That the Historical Record is not commonly known by revisionists is largely due to a selective reading of narrow, agenda ridden sources.
Even if the communications between Mongomery and Washington had been as direct, cordial and truthful, it would have made no difference, as far a preventing the war.
Davis was no more prepared to accept Lincoln's view that the Union was still intact, than Lincoln was to accept Davis' belief that the old Union no longer existed.
Between those two positions there was no real point of contact, from which to negotiate 'anything' except the surrender of one or the other.
In point of fact, even if a peaceable evacuation of Ft. Sumter had been negotiated, Lincoln would have been as determined to hold Ft. Pickens as Davis would have remained as determed to have one as the other. Bragg, already had instructions to attack Pickens whenever he thought it could be done successfully and Sumter was being spared, so far, largely in the hope of obtaining it undamaged as for any other reason.
Both sides had already accepted war as the outcomes for their intransigence on fundamental issues, but Lincoln was aware of the need to make political preparations to enhance the military effort, whereas Davis was mostly concerned with only the military aspects of the situation.
When it came to the political ramifications of Ft. Sumter Davis was ill-served by his West Point training, when he failed to listen to Rob't Toombs, at Davis' Cabinet meeting on April 9, 1861 (a date with prophetic significance, by the way).
An inadequate education system. Thank you.
Lincoln's view. Thank you.
The Old Union no longer existed. Thank you.
The Surrender of one or the other. Thank you.
My point in doing this thread was to get you to see that Major Robert Anderson and his men are, in writing, complaining - about being used as human bait for the deceptions of the Lincoln Administration. There is more, which I shall submit when time allows. Perhaps a new thread.
Let me run this past you, and get your 'feel' for it;
In all the historical writings, Unionists and pro-Union people are synonymous with Lincoln men, and his sectional Left Wing (modern day Liberal) party of 'Radical Republicans', which had finally clawed its way out of the primordial soup - far enough, now, to cause real agitation at the North, (by joining with the Abolitionist 'fanatics'), and now, nationwide. Their goal was the destruction of the Old Union (and any ideas of Secession, states rights, and even the destruction of many of the principles found in the Constitution, what with their desires for national banks, and federally-controlled monies), higher (and higher) protectionist tariffs, massive Northern internal improvements, and a strong central government which would rule the states as their superior. This was the sectional view of this so-called 'party'. This was their crime of sectionalism.
The border states did not want this left wing government. Many who were Unionists like Baldwin did not want it. Many of the Unionists were good people who were afraid to branch out with the South and maintain the old system in the face of this new 'Collectivist'
plan to maximize federal domination of the states... The term this party of thinkers enjoys today is PROGRESSIVES. It would have applied then, as well, and much better than today.
The South was not some foreign, retarded monster... unless the founding fathers were, as well...
Both sides most certainly did not want, nor advocate a war, over Secession, although many feared their leader and his ruthless 'Jacobin' party and their hunger for political patronage at the expense of the entire country...
The support of Lincoln makes one a left wing sectional war-hungry, power-mad fanatic, according to the documentations of those days.
This information is strangely lacking from McPherson and his 'sectional' historians! What is strangely added is the love for a man many considered to be a monster... Many, I might add, who were on his 'team', (or at least found themselves sitting in his bleachers) if not on his actual, approving and bought and paid for 'side', during the war...
This is my point. Union did not absolutely mean LINCOLN and the LEFT. In fact, just the opposite pans out, particularly as the war goes on. By the Surrender, most of the vitriol that was created for Lincoln, himself, was, actually (and has been, ever since), thrown into the face of the South.
Beowulf
__________________ If the South accepted Sectional Left Wing Republican Rule, their property would be devalued, by being outlawed unconstitutionally in the territories, and suffer terrorism by Brown's mob ,... their economy would be in shambles... The effect is that the South is not any longer an equal part of the Union.
If the South tried to gain independence from these Left wing Republicans, the North will destroy them all... and curse their memory for all eternity....
......or, a general teenage population that has a hundred other things to occupy their time and interest.
Cedarstripper
Perhaps a little less of one and a bit more of the other could get them to plan for a future, rather than just be so self-absorbed and involved with absolutely nothing, most of the time?
When Davis was coming along, it was expected that they know something other than who their date would be for the ball on Saturday night!
Beowulf
__________________ If the South accepted Sectional Left Wing Republican Rule, their property would be devalued, by being outlawed unconstitutionally in the territories, and suffer terrorism by Brown's mob ,... their economy would be in shambles... The effect is that the South is not any longer an equal part of the Union.
If the South tried to gain independence from these Left wing Republicans, the North will destroy them all... and curse their memory for all eternity....
As usual, Beowulf ignores my point. He assumes that the ignorance of the general public and revisionists is prevalent on this board.
As one might logically deduce from the fact that this is a Civil War Board, that most of it's member's knowlege of the Civil War can almost automatically, be assumed to be more extensive and detailed than that of both, the General Public and Revisionists.
Historically speaking, Lincoln and the Republican Party's accession to power was with the active aid of the activist southern secessionists. The secessionists wanted (and helped) the Republicans and Lincoln to win the Election, because they wanted to use their success as the signal to secede from the Union. If the South wanted Lincoln defeated, they should have voted instead of planning and preparing for secession.
In fact Lincoln tried to govern with the help of the leaders of the border state, but he found the political leadership in those states (like those deeper south) was more interested in their slaves than the Union.
Lincoln was dedicated to reuion most Border State Leaders were not so dedicated.
To Unionists, to be lectured on the Constitution by those who were anxious to reject it and the dangers from sectionalism by those who favor sectionalism themselves, is seen as ludicrous at best.
Thanks Beowulf, for exhibiting the narrow, agenda ridden mindset of all Revisionists.
As usual, Beowulf ignores my point. He assumes that the ignorance of the general public and revisionists is prevalent on this board.
As one might logically deduce from the fact that this is a Civil War Board, that most of it's member's knowlege of the Civil War can almost automatically, be assumed to be more extensive and detailed than that of both, the General Public and Revisionists.
Historically speaking, Lincoln and the Republican Party's accession to power was with the active aid of the activist southern secessionists. The secessionists wanted (and helped) the Republicans and Lincoln to win the Election, because they wanted to use their success as the signal to secede from the Union. If the South wanted Lincoln defeated, they should have voted instead of planning and preparing for secession.
In fact Lincoln tried to govern with the help of the leaders of the border state, but he found the political leadership in those states (like those deeper south) was more interested in their slaves than the Union.
Lincoln was dedicated to reuion most Border State Leaders were not so dedicated.
To Unionists, to be lectured on the Constitution by those who were anxious to reject it and the dangers from sectionalism by those who favor sectionalism themselves, is seen as ludicrous at best.
Thanks Beowulf, for exhibiting the narrow, agenda ridden mindset of all Revisionists.
Actually, Virginia was more concerned with coercion and the provocation at Sumter than they were the 'help'...
And notice that they didn't join the YANKEES, but the CONFEDERATES.
The only people truly on your 'side' are the Blue states and the Southern Scalawag Collectivists.
As always! Your own personal sectional 'Union'! The South just figured that if you wanted that, you could certainly have it!
Composed only of yourselves, of course!
Beowulf
__________________ If the South accepted Sectional Left Wing Republican Rule, their property would be devalued, by being outlawed unconstitutionally in the territories, and suffer terrorism by Brown's mob ,... their economy would be in shambles... The effect is that the South is not any longer an equal part of the Union.
If the South tried to gain independence from these Left wing Republicans, the North will destroy them all... and curse their memory for all eternity....
We know it is not on your agenda, Beowulf, but you might want to read a little bit on the Democratic Convention. Hint, in case you don't know: it was in Charleston, S.C. in 1860.
We know it is not on your agenda, Beowulf, but you might want to read a little bit on the Democratic Convention. Hint, in case you don't know: it was in Charleston, S.C. in 1860.
Thanks. Visited the information, which seems to agree with
what Frank Conner said about those who voted for Lincoln in the North.
Page 96 The South under Siege: (emphasis mine)
"Because of the drastic population shift, Lincoln would have won even had the Democratic party not ruptured".
"with only 40% of the popular vote".
"But immediately following the election, most men perceived that the situation had changed completely and irrevocably. Now a purely regional political party had won complete control over the federal government. Now, the longstanding desire of the Northern capitalists to use the power of the government to enrich themselves by impoverishing the South was no longer just another potential nightmare for the Southerners. Suddenly it had become a harsh reality, and the South would have to deal with it - immediately.
So, besides the Blue states and the Southern Scalawag Collectivists, whom did I leave out who voted for Lincoln? Perhaps the MISINFORMED who thought he was going to bring them PEACE because he had refused to speak much about anything during the campaigns, and Lincoln was seen by these Misinformed as being least likely to bring war upon everyone?
Okay, maybe the misinformed!
Beowulf
__________________ If the South accepted Sectional Left Wing Republican Rule, their property would be devalued, by being outlawed unconstitutionally in the territories, and suffer terrorism by Brown's mob ,... their economy would be in shambles... The effect is that the South is not any longer an equal part of the Union.
If the South tried to gain independence from these Left wing Republicans, the North will destroy them all... and curse their memory for all eternity....
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
