What if Ft. Sumter had not been fired upon?

[johan_steele]

Raymond, you are correct. Both men swore oathes to their country and then betrayed their country. Both men were traitors to their country. tHe brutal truth though is that Washington won and is viewed as a great patriot... Patriotism and treason is sometimes defined only by who won and the date.

[unionblue]

Ray,

I hold the same view as Johan. Washington and Davis were both traitors but the fact is history is much kinder to GW than JD.

Unionblue

[bill_torrens]

I take exactly the opposite view. Neither Washington nor Davis were traitors.

I also have to disagree with the notion that Washington's country was obviously England. England was part of a different continent. The original colonists who arrived from England were English, but at some point over the intervening century and a half their descendants changed into something quite different.

It's all a matter of personal opinion, but I believe one can argue that political loyalty is given to the land and the people who occupy it rather than to the form of government. Washington's land was Virginia. Davis's was Mississippi. In comparison to this visceral loyalty to the land of one's birth, oaths and laws and governments are just so much legal frippery.

[unionblue]

Bill,

The debate that raged was one an Englishman or an American. At the time before the Revolution, I assure you, most people in the colonies considered themselves Englishmen.

Unionblue

[johan_steele]

Bill, both men had fought for the nation they later betrayed, both men had served faithfully before said betrayal and both men forsook oathes thya had taken before god. They were both religious men and to be brutally honest both men acted for their own personnal gain.

Davis was offered the highest position in his new country, arguably the most powerful position and I do not believe there is any doubt he was an ambitious man.

Washington joined and threw his lot in w/ the revolution for more old fashioned reasons... money. If he won his rather substantial debts to England would be moot... he won and the debt went away.

With Washington, he made something good come from his treason... Davis did not. If the CS had won perhaps Davis might have done the same, but think not. If there was a CS today... I think the US (if it survived into the 21st century and the CS would be blood enemies.

The Revolution was not a popular movement in that it was brought about by a majority... it was never supported by a majority in the US. THe tories outnumbered the revolutionaries.

So to be honest neither the American Revolution or the Civil War had splinter groups that were majorities and neither the initial US (George Washington had the opportunity to be made king!) or the CS had anything to do with Democracy. So the notion that either seceded from their parent country because they were excercising their democratic rights is so much hooie. Who ran against Jeff Davis, his presidential vote was no different than one of Sadaam Husseins. When Lincoln is called a dictator I often wonder how a man who allowed a vote that could have unseated him to go on can be called a dictator.

I think Davis is given too little credit for his political saavy. I think Davis and Washington have only a few things in common... both said they did not want the job. Washington said he didn't want command of the Continental Army but showed up in his full uniform. And Davis said he didn't want the presidency but wanted instead a field command... both lied.

Just my two cents

Ole... sorry about the trend of the discussion. Way off point!

[rbenne]

Ok, lets look at it another way, this traitor thing.
What ifs? Are popular on this board so lets try one of those.

The year is 2090. English Col Joshua Smyth is called into the office of the PM. England has received word that Italy, Serbia, Spain and Portugal have left the European Union and England is about to follow.

President of the EU, Abraham Lookin, in Brussels has called for 100,000 men to quell the rebellion. Col. Smyth must make a decision, fight for the Union or fight for his home country.

If he fights for England is he a traitor? If the PM fights for England is he a traitor?

You may say it is different because England is a “real” country. But to Lee and Davis, so was Virginia.

[rbenne]

As a side note, while doing some quick research for the above I found something interesting in Davis’s Bio that I had not realized. To quote

“the Mexican-American War. Leading a regiment from Mississippi, Davis held his position at Buena Vista thanks to some expert artillery work by a young captain named Braxton Bragg, saving Zachary Taylor from defeat.”

I always wondered why Davis gave Bragg such special treatment. Now I am beginning to understand…..

[thea_447]

Whew! I've got a few things to add here. I've been re-reading this thread and want to add my two Southern cents worth on some items that have been brought up. Ya'll might want to grab a cup of coffee, latte, or just bring out that big 'ol decanter of whatever floats your boat. Cigars may prove helpful too as well as some fine needlework for those ladies who don't step into the fray very often, but when they do, they come in with some very succinct rhetoric and totin' some "reaally" big guns.

First of all I would add that I think it's sad that suddenly the lines of courteous discourse have been dropped; name-calling ("Southern gentry"=
neo-confederate, pro CS, CS apologist ad nauseum, Davis=a bastard) has become old hat. I truly hated to see this day come. It means that we have lowered our standards and soon will reach the obvious object of desire: mediocrity, which can be found on many other boards on the internet. How sad.

And Neil, while I truly respect you as a debater, I cannot share your views that "eventually we get things right in America". By that I mean, yours is the winner mentality that still abounds about this war. I would hope that in the next 150 years, a more objective view will be taken and scholars will begin to truly question why more of an effort wasn't made to STOP this war before it began! And given that it started, questions should be raised about why it continued for so long. I am of the opinion that it was an ALL OR NOTHING situation on both sides, with Lincoln having the less to lose, since he had more expendable bodies to put in the field. The concept of the South wanting to form another nation won't be anathema in 150 years I bet. And I wish to God that I could be brought back from the dead long enough to read some really notable scholars on the subject at that time. (The idea of buying out the slave population was NEVER explored in depth, while every other nation in the world at that time had accomplished this without bloodshed. It's overlooked that the North was willing to slaughter every Southern man, woman and child to bring about this cathartic act for their banker friends, because that "ain't good PR." But here comes Lincoln,the North and their noble fight (actually a secondary bonus, but it looks good in print!) and we've got enough propaganda to choke every horse in both armies. Apologies to Dawna..)

While thinking of you Neil, I am perplexed with something you have said. You admonished me (and I took it rather meekly..<grin>) for speaking for the other Southerners on this board. But within days of this, Father Blue, you have decided it is within your scope to speak for those long ago revolutionaries:
"At the time before the Revolution, I assure you, most people in the colonies considered themselves Englishmen." Frankly, I feel the piety you assumed while on parochial duty at the reenactment has gone straight to your head. You blaspheme, sir, to speak, for those long dead souls! If the numbers of those in the colonies before the "Big R" were truly English in thought, word, and deed, we would still be part and parcel of Bill's realm. <grin>

Lastly, in trying to get this thread nearer the original intent, I ask that you read Jefferson Davis' Final Address to the Senate, Jan. 21, 1861:
http://www.wildwestweb.net/cwdocs/davisfarewell.html
"When Davis had finished, the applause in the galleries was so tumultous that the presiding officer shouted that the sergeant of arms would remove all disorderly persons. After quiet had been restored, a deep hush pervaded the Senate."

"The silence was finally broken by Lincoln's friend Trumbull, the Republican Senator from Illinois. He rose to attack Davis' speech, for he feared the effect its moving eloquence might have on his cohorts. He was contemptuous of any appeal to let the seceding states go in peace, and scornful of the idea of withdrawing the small Federal garrison from Sumter to prevent an overt clash."

"Then, said Davis in the last reply he was ever to make to an opponent in the United States Senate, "I have to say to the Senator, his ideas of honor and my own are very different; that I should hold the man to be a scoundrel who did not desire to have a garrison withdrawn, if he believed that garrison might produce bloodshed and could not do good."

The url posted above for Davis' 15,000 word Farewell speech is not a good one. I am still looking for the speech in its entirety.

(Message edited by thea_447 on February 18, 2005)

[thea_447]

Aha! You all thought Thea was through, didn't you! But wait! There's more! (I just didn't think it would all fit in one post.)

For Neil:
As for your theory of Lincoln's "let em off easy" stance, this naturally would occur to the man. He "reads" the temperature of the nation. There has been enough bloodshed, any more would be overkill; thus his saintly image will be preserved, even if the public hears those "ol' stories" about total war on women and children, + salt the earth mentality. (The only time Lincoln mis-read was when he thought he could win in 6 wks. to 3 mo. Apparently he didn't read Southerners very well.)

Regarding the post of January 30, 9:40 a.m., this is in response to paragraph four.
I believe Southerners on this board didn't respond to this young man for obvious reasons. First off, and I'm ONLY speaking here for myself, he came across as a misguided youth who had stumbled into our website thinking that we here had the same superficial, adolescent ideas that he did. (I view this as something akin to learning about sex at 7 from another 7 year old: basic facts like there was indeed a war but all the other pertinent information has been jumbled: part fairy-tale, part REAL body parts, thrown together with as much imagination as one can muster. <grin>)

If I were still in my thirties I would be tempted to go for his jugular, being careful to use big four syllable words so he'd have to use a dictionary, but with age comes a little more (albeit not much) wisdom. It's better to ignore ignorance such as his and allow it to die a lonely death than to challenge it and give him a real voice on this board. Also, hopefully, he learned a little something about acting with class. Unless youngsters like him are as dumb as posts, they pick up on the very act of "silence is deafening". He didn't get many responses to his various posts and he finally figured out that we are a serious group, intent on studying the war. Frankly, I'm sure if he looks around long enough he will find that lower type forum which will welcome his narrow bigoted thinking; certainly if he doesn't find it in "this war" he can always find some "Nazi Club". EVERYTHING can be found on the "net" if you look low enough.

Looking at the various opinions on this thread presented by my Northern counterparts it is obvious that most feel that only CS politicians should have been punished, they never look to those who ordered "total war" which had NEVER been used before on "white men". I'm thinking here from the top down, i.e. Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, etc. Ah, but I misspoke. Lincoln DID think ahead. What was that little order or law he put into play that said something about "none of these participants, including members of his Cabinet can ever be held accountable for anything they did in this war". Now there's a "Get out of Jail free card" if ever there was one! (I won't even bother to waste the reader's time with my ideas on Lincoln's "free interpretation" of the Constitution of the United States other than to say, I think he sat at his big desk with his BIG pencil and marked X's and O's for the rules he was willing to follow and those he chose to brand with his own particular "interpretation" (i.e. "I'm gonna interpret this much like people interpret a Commandment of God's : Thou shalt not kill actually means unless he's done me wrong, he stole from me, he had "knowledge of my wife", he looked at me cross-eyed, he looks like a bad 'un, I've got a feelin' about him , or that major "bad boy", he thinks different from me so he needs killin'.)

And speaking of that total war thing, war hardened everybody, so naturally the Indians were next on the hit parade. If it worked so well on Southerners, how hard can it be to kill Indians who don't have the equipment, etc? From there our progressive America decides it is capable of conquering even more lands and we've been off to the races ever since. (It's no wonder I'm an isolationist. I've always thought that if the South had won the war we would never have been involved in anything overseas and there would be a lot more Einsteins and Chopins running around in our smaller, gentler world.)

Reading further as another poster attempts to sway the masses into the "rebellion theory and 'I wouldn't have been as lenient with them as Lincoln'"
everyone and their brother has an opinion. Besides the prescribed dose I usually dole out that secession WAS legal and the states had every right in the world to leave a union that was injurious to them, I offer this:

Fort Sumter: Granted, the South fired the first shot, much to their chagrin, having been pushed to the limit by Lincoln's aggressive behaviour in sending WARSHIPS to accompany supplies that were NOT needed. And this, after his threatening tone in his inaugural address about collecting his taxes whether anybody wanted to pay or not.

This is what transpired:

1.South Carolina exercised her right to secede.
2. Fort Sumter at Charleston was manned by a Union garrison. South Carolina demanded possession of the fort and offered to pay for it.
3. The Secretary of State for the United States promised solemnly that the garrison would be removed.
4. HIS (Lincoln's) government failed to give the necessary order.
5. Resisting the temptation to take the fort by force, South Carolina nevertheless HAD given fair warning that no reinforcement would be tolerated.
6. Even though the fort was, at that moment, being supplied by South Carolina 7. Warned of the coming of the warship fleet, before reinforcements could be thrown in, South Carolina bombarded and captured Sumter.
8. With his uncanny ability to read the pulse of the North, Lincoln knew with certainty that this would be the result. Once the cry "The South has fired on the Flag" went forth, the rest is history.
9. Please refer the Lincoln/Gustavus Fox letter.
10. A leading English editor wrote of Lincoln: "He had thought that a political object was to be obtained by putting the Southerners in the wrong, if they could be maneuvred into firing the first shot."

Now...I think I'm all talked out! Somebody else take over!
Thea

(Message edited by thea_447 on February 18, 2005)

[johan_steele]

I think the prior poster needs to take a look at history of the 19th century. As to "Never" being a total War against white men... in the 19th Century: India and the British (and regardless of views the Hindi were people to), Spain and the French are just a couple and as to the treatment of the Native Americans... noone gets a pass, not the US, Dutch, Spanish, Portugese, French, English ... I think the idea is conveyed and yes that is including the illustrious CS govt.

As to mediocrity... as long as we have members such as Neil, Bill and others who put forward ideas and back them up w/ reason on this site the day will not come.

As to the rest of the two posts... I am free to disagree and do so.

Was the South tricked into firing on Ft Sumter? I give the CS govt more credit than that. Some might say that Lincoln gave enough rope for his enemies to hang themselves... I don't quite buy that either. Hot heads prevailed.

As to isolationism... look to China and the Opium Wars to see how effective that policy was.

A spade is a spade no matter how it is painted. Treason is a matter of dates and winners and losers and it is that simple.

On a final note silence tells many tales, many of them disturbing.

As usual I bid you a good day.