Hostilities Commence in the Charleston Harbor

timewalker

Cadet
Joined
Jan 7, 2008
Messages
1,123
Location
Flower Mound, Texas
Any chance I can get your thoughts on the information in the thread?

My purpose is to get the other side, but such prevarications in a court of law are often done to slow the tone of the actual case to a crawl...

Ole says that Anderson was hungry, but does not show me the hunger; just the allusion of the state of his want of supplies...

I have moved pawn to king four...

Will there be a countermove, or a forfeit?

Beowulf
My thoughts? Interesting that you should mention a court of law, because this smacks more of legal brief than history. His first paragraph sets the tone of the entire chapter. He states that "Such was Lincoln's dilemma: On the one hand, he was being pressured by the industrial and banking interests of the New England and Midwestern States, who were clamoring for the removal of the South as a viable competitor in the international and domestic markets. In addition to these were the Republican politicians who saw war against the South as the surest means to secure their newly obtained control of the Government. " Despite a plethora of later footnotes, this assertion is not supported by any documentation. Such a statement is clearly so contrary to the accepted view that I would expect some sort of attribution. Instead, it was apparently created by Durand out of whole cloth. How was the South a competitor of the New England industrial interests and the Midwestern farming interests? Was the South a large manufacturing area to compete with New England? Was it a large producer of wheat or corn to compete with the Midwest?

Next, his quotation from the New York Herald does not support his statement that "Most of the people in the North were not fooled by the conciliatory tone of Lincoln's Inaugural Address of 4 March 1861." First, how does this show the views of "most of the people"? Second, I read the quote as chastizing Lincoln for being conciliatory instead of preparing for the war which was apparently coming and not making sufficient preparations therefore. Note also, that it is the DEMOCRATIC editors of the Herald, which are neither going to represent "most of the people" nor be inclined to show much leeway to an incoming Republican administration.

Next, whether Seward made a promise to evacuate the Fort is irrelevant. It was not an official statement of the government - Seward was being Seward and flying solo in his belief that only he knew what was best for the country - and clearly was neither supported nor authorized by the President of the United States. Even if such statement were made, was there a treaty to this effect? A binding promise? No, Seward thought the Fort should be evacuated and the stand taken at Pensacola - thus he began an expedition to reinforce Pensacola at the same time that an expedition was outfitting for Sumter. I have no doubt Seward thought that he was the real power in the government and could make promised and then cajole Lincoln into carrying them out. Was the breach of this supposed promise sufficient cause for an unprovoked attack on the Fort? Clearly not. Further, the fact that Seward was not sacked or impeached means nothing. The politics of the new administration was no doubt such that Lincoln could not fire Seward and I doubt there would have been much call to impeach him for misleading a bunch of rebels who fired on the Fort. I would imagine Seward would justify his actions as trying to delay any action against the Fort - in other words, playing for time.

I would commend to you the article by David Herbert Donald in "With My Face to the Enemy: Perspectives on the Civil War" entitled "Lincoln Takes Charge." His premise is that Lincon bungled the crisis over Fort Sumter, but it was out of naivite and inexperience, not the nefarious motives posited by Durand without proper support. Indeed, he posits that one of Lincoln's real failings was in listening to Seward in agreeing to send a ship with provisions only and to warn the Governor of South Carolina that it was coming instead of trying to sneak it in under cover of darkness.

Speaking of supplies, note that Anderson was clearly speaking legally in saying that he could not by or obtain provisions outside of his authority. Further, do you really expect him to tell the South Carolina authorities exactly how many provisions that he has? I am reminded of Pemberton at Vicksburg stating that he has "plenty of provisions" when negotiating surrender with Grant and having Grant call his bluff by telling him that he can take the provisions with him to feed his army when he surrenders the place.

Others have pointed out other falacies and half-truths in this diatribe. Given its premise and obvious bias, I hesitate to label it as history. As I said, the first paragraph sets the tone of the entire Chapter and makes clear this will not be a scholarly examination, but a hatchet job.
 

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Beowulf

Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
1,173
Location
Virginia
My thoughts? Interesting that you should mention a court of law, because this smacks more of legal brief than history. His first paragraph sets the tone of the entire chapter. He states that "Such was Lincoln's dilemma: On the one hand, he was being pressured by the industrial and banking interests of the New England and Midwestern States, who were clamoring for the removal of the South as a viable competitor in the international and domestic markets. In addition to these were the Republican politicians who saw war against the South as the surest means to secure their newly obtained control of the Government. " Despite a plethora of later footnotes, this assertion is not supported by any documentation. Such a statement is clearly so contrary to the accepted view that I would expect some sort of attribution. Instead, it was apparently created by Durand out of whole cloth. How was the South a competitor of the New England industrial interests and the Midwestern farming interests? Was the South a large manufacturing area to compete with New England? Was it a large producer of wheat or corn to compete with the Midwest?

Next, his quotation from the New York Herald does not support his statement that "Most of the people in the North were not fooled by the conciliatory tone of Lincoln's Inaugural Address of 4 March 1861." First, how does this show the views of "most of the people"? Second, I read the quote as chastizing Lincoln for being conciliatory instead of preparing for the war which was apparently coming and not making sufficient preparations therefore. Note also, that it is the DEMOCRATIC editors of the Herald, which are neither going to represent "most of the people" nor be inclined to show much leeway to an incoming Republican administration.

Next, whether Seward made a promise to evacuate the Fort is irrelevant. It was not an official statement of the government - Seward was being Seward and flying solo in his belief that only he knew what was best for the country - and clearly was neither supported nor authorized by the President of the United States. Even if such statement were made, was there a treaty to this effect? A binding promise? No, Seward thought the Fort should be evacuated and the stand taken at Pensacola - thus he began an expedition to reinforce Pensacola at the same time that an expedition was outfitting for Sumter. I have no doubt Seward thought that he was the real power in the government and could make promised and then cajole Lincoln into carrying them out. Was the breach of this supposed promise sufficient cause for an unprovoked attack on the Fort? Clearly not. Further, the fact that Seward was not sacked or impeached means nothing. The politics of the new administration was no doubt such that Lincoln could not fire Seward and I doubt there would have been much call to impeach him for misleading a bunch of rebels who fired on the Fort. I would imagine Seward would justify his actions as trying to delay any action against the Fort - in other words, playing for time.

I would commend to you the article by David Herbert Donald in "With My Face to the Enemy: Perspectives on the Civil War" entitled "Lincoln Takes Charge." His premise is that Lincon bungled the crisis over Fort Sumter, but it was out of naivite and inexperience, not the nefarious motives posited by Durand without proper support. Indeed, he posits that one of Lincoln's real failings was in listening to Seward in agreeing to send a ship with provisions only and to warn the Governor of South Carolina that it was coming instead of trying to sneak it in under cover of darkness.

Speaking of supplies, note that Anderson was clearly speaking legally in saying that he could not by or obtain provisions outside of his authority. Further, do you really expect him to tell the South Carolina authorities exactly how many provisions that he has? I am reminded of Pemberton at Vicksburg stating that he has "plenty of provisions" when negotiating surrender with Grant and having Grant call his bluff by telling him that he can take the provisions with him to feed his army when he surrenders the place.

Others have pointed out other falacies and half-truths in this diatribe. Given its premise and obvious bias, I hesitate to label it as history. As I said, the first paragraph sets the tone of the entire Chapter and makes clear this will not be a scholarly examination, but a hatchet job.
As to Durand writing it, I have admitted as much. I don't speak for him, and you may contact him yourself to get the sources you seek.

As to the second paragraph, there are several problems here, which history most nauseatingly reiterates every time I hear an 'official' version of the Civil War.

They vacillate between Lincoln being a genius and an
absolute idiot who cannot be held to account for his
'naivete'. Well, that's too bad! He's being paid to do the job, and 'token' or not, he gets the responsibility.

Lincoln is responsible for everything Seward did.
This modern day Left Wing 'he's not responsible because he is an idiot' mentality doesn't cut it in real life... maybe on the History Channel!:smile: But he is responsible for misleading the South, deliberately, through Seward. Sorry about that!

And refusing to meet with the South, even if just to tell them that they were an illegitimate mob who could not
speak for the states in the South, was his duty... He had a duty to level with these people. In person, copy of the Constitution in hand, if that is what he is 'defending'...

Thomas Jefferson wanted to let the Yankees depart as friends and brothers...

That is how a real president of the United States handles Secession!

Averting war should have been Lincoln's one real goal, had he been a real president, and not a sectional thug who was trying to advance a Republican agenda!

Starting one, of course, would have greatly benefitted his
ideas of "Union!"

Unfortunately...

And Anderson says he does hope that no attempt to throw in supplies will be made... doesn't sound like he's too hungry, to me!

The Yankee Excuses get thinner and thinner with repeated wear!:angel:


Beowulf
 

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
34,431
Location
Near Kankakee
You have listed some people, here. I can admit that I am no historian, and have no idea what side these people are 'on'. I wanted to hear from people on your side. Your people, the ones who convinced you that Anderson was in dire straits... I wanted your special people to argue your side...
A real historian doesn't have a side. If I had a book that was plainly bent on proving the Union right and the Confederacy wrong, I'd use it for kindling.

Of the authors I listed, I question Hendrickson's lack of sources, although he tells a great story. I'd also question Garrison's partiality, but neither were particularly obvious. Swanberg's is an older book and therefore might not have the advantage of newer discoveries and research tools. I don't remember reading Nofi, but my impression is that it is a primer. Haven't read Nicolay either, but I suspect his coverage is during Lincoln's presidency while we're going back into November, 1860. Detzer and Davis cover the timeline in excruciating detail, so I'd suggest either of those.

Spend a little less time looking for a side and little more on real historians.

ole
 

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
34,431
Location
Near Kankakee
And refusing to meet with the South, even if just to tell them that they were an illegitimate mob who could not speak for the states in the South, was his duty... He had a duty to level with these people. In person, copy of the Constitution in hand, if that is what he is 'defending'...
Here you've shown that not only do you know nothing about the war, but you also know nothing of politics and governing.

A head of state, recognizing influential members of an opposing principle, lends legitimacy to that principle. As a beligerent, the Confederacy could have audience with foreign nations -- trade representatives and lobbyists and such -- but there would be no ambassadors. Accepting an ambassador is recognizing the legitimacy of a nation.

Buchanan didn't do it. Lincoln didn't do it. And Davis, to his honorable credit, didn't do it. Yet you go into these wild tirades about what Lincoln ought to have done -- forgetting or not knowing that he was bound, and accepted that bond, by the Constitution. You're asking George Bush to confer with leaders of the Aryan Nation.

ole
 

Beowulf

Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
1,173
Location
Virginia
Here you've shown that not only do you know nothing about the war, but you also know nothing of politics and governing.

A head of state, recognizing influential members of an opposing principle, lends legitimacy to that principle. As a beligerent, the Confederacy could have audience with foreign nations -- trade representatives and lobbyists and such -- but there would be no ambassadors. Accepting an ambassador is recognizing the legitimacy of a nation.

Buchanan didn't do it. Lincoln didn't do it. And Davis, to his honorable credit, didn't do it. Yet you go into these wild tirades about what Lincoln ought to have done -- forgetting or not knowing that he was bound, and accepted that bond, by the Constitution. You're asking George Bush to confer with leaders of the Aryan Nation.

ole
We are now dealing, in various ways, with Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and the Taliban. We are forced to deal with them, and they have never taken a single state of our's into Secession...

We dealt with one Yassar Arafat, on the White House Lawn.

And yet we accepted Adolph Hitler, the head of the "Aryan Worshipping" Nazi nation, as the leader of the German people.

And then, the North would have had to have accepted the South had the North 'lost' the war in a draw of some sort...

This is the funny part - If the Northern 'people' had been convinced it 'wasn't worth it', which they almost were in
1864, the South could have won by a DRAW (not a real win, but a situational Chess 'victory' for a lesser side...).

Since the 'Northern People' were duped by the mindlessness of Fort Sumter, we had a war!

(So, really, then, these "Northern people' were the problem!:smile:)... He who controls Northern opinion, controls the destiny of the nation! What a joke!

Think about it. It was their misinformed prejudices that Lincoln played upon.

And now, you say that Lincoln can't talk to the South because of protocol? Uhhh, this is about half the land mass of the former United States! With nearly half the states involved, and others joining all the time...

This idea the yankees keep painting of a rebellion is nonsense. It was much more than that! It was a collective decision to pull out.

Buchanan and Davis were not the aggressors in a tribal power struggle for empire and usurpation. (Besides, Davis was a little busy at the time...).

This is where DiLorenzo gets that Lincoln wanted a war.

There was nothing in the Constitution from stopping him from having peace talks to re-secure the Union, but that is not what Lincoln wanted. If he could divide Conservative and Liberal into North and South, they could actually shoot at each other to claim political dominance. Even Lee called it a Contest. That was what was 'contested'.


The government had begun RIGHT, in the which a vice president was the Conservative Loser to a Conservative Winner, with Left Wing thoughts, even then, beginning to collectivistically taint the system. And it continued, slowly heading for a Left Wing power base; consolidated and Federally dominated. The crisis was when they reached an almost 50-50 split.

The government cannot continue half Left and half Right; it will either be all one thing, or all the other. The South thought so, as well, and seceded from that 'Union'.

(Today, we have a LEFT and a CENTRIST party; the RIGHT is, of course, non-existent, and seen as the LEFT was seen at that time; an insignificant minority agitation party). Our Centrist party, save for the time of Reagan, and a few others, has dared not challenge this Left, on any points, and yet the Left screams at will against the Center...
Curious, I always thought).

Lincoln, the party of Henry Clay, was not about to come to terms with the original party of Mr. Thomas Jefferson, nor his wretched namesake!

All that Lincoln did, I see, was to further his own political party and their wretched designs on the nation... to consolidate power, bring in the Second party, and act like it had 'been this way, all along'.

It had nothing to do with The Union, Unionists, nor the patriotic flag-waving yankees from the period.

They were just his pawns. And Lincoln, himself, was the pawn of his party's ambitiousnesses which, even today, no one dares to even talk about.

One of the greatest acts of takeover in political history, with no one 'noticing' anything at all, and yet, they can't talk about it, nor allow it to be discussed, even now, because at the base of it, it is a rotten power grab, and will be seen as such!


Beowulf
 

OpnDownfall

Cadet
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
2,871
The question is Not whether Beowulf, speaks for Durand; but, whether Durand speaks for Beowulf?
Almost every line Beowulf prints should be suspect.
 

Beowulf

Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
1,173
Location
Virginia
The question is Not whether Beowulf, speaks for Durand; but, whether Durand speaks for Beowulf?
Almost every line Beowulf prints should be suspect.
Okay, you and Cotton Mather assemble the Witchfinder Generals and looks for signs of Wyechhe-Craeffte!:laugh2:

B-
 

OpnDownfall

Cadet
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
2,871
Well, Unionblue, I certainly hope you are right. Because, to me he seems to communicate in a kind of Newspeak, which means exactly what he wants it mean at any given time.
He tries to be outrageous, but seems unaware of what it it is he is saying that is truly outrageous to many of his audience.
 

Beowulf

Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
1,173
Location
Virginia
Well, Unionblue, I certainly hope you are right. Because, to me he seems to communicate in a kind of Newspeak, which means exactly what he wants it mean at any given time.
He tries to be outrageous, but seems unaware of what it it is he is saying that is truly outrageous to many of his audience.
Let me be clear, here, then...

Do I take it then, by your silence, and those other silences,
concerning the Thread Proper, you agree with Mr. Durand's
writings, otherwise?

Normally, you all enjoy a group feeding frenzy and a mass dissection of all the various points to which you take umbrage, if you have anything to offer...

No? Nothing? Very well.

I am gratified by your silences to the actual meat of these mostly period writings, and as for Durand's comments, he can defend himself, I believe!:smile:

Beowulf
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,639
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Let me be clear, here, then...

Do I take it then, by your silence, and those other silences,
concerning the Thread Proper, you agree with Mr. Durand's
writings, otherwise?

You actually have to ask this?

Normally, you all enjoy a group feeding frenzy and a mass dissection of all the various points to which you take umbrage, if you have anything to offer...

Normally, the poster we debate offers something of substance, but we'll make an exception...
IF you have anything to offer.

No? Nothing? Very well.

Refusing to answer nothing with nothing should not be construed as some sort of victory. The fact of the matter is, you are still playing a GAME, one where you think you have scored points or won a contest. You have done neither, even with the constant mention of Durand's comments.

I am gratified by your silences to the actual meat of these mostly period writings, and as for Durand's comments, he can defend himself, I believe!:smile:

While you may have convinced yourself of this, and done so LONG before you made your posts here at this forum, he and you have both failed in this area, even if you think the man can defend himself, he doesn't.

Beowulf
And another post wasted,
Unionblue
 

Beowulf

Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
1,173
Location
Virginia
And another post wasted,
Unionblue
Actually, a great many Southern victories were celebrated in complete silence. When one's homeland is invaded by enemies, there is no sweeter sound than that of their complete and total absence!

Nothing but the crickets!

Beowulf
 

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
34,431
Location
Near Kankakee
Nothing but the crickets!
I'm beginning to think that you actually, sincerely believe the **** you've been dishing out. My sympathies, suh! (Guess I'd better not say ****head.) I've been around the block a few times and have met some sympathisers who actually have something to back up what they say. I'm reminded of Hawglips, and Russ Aukerman, and Bill Torrens and APHillbilly, and even Thea and Dawna. And there were others. But they knew their history. Wrong as I considered them to be, they were not so foolish as to lean on dumb ****s for their support. They had read a book or three beyond your pitiful collection.

Where are the good old days when we had some legitimate southrons citing reasonably believable historians? Now we get this **** (Hah! Edited myself again!) who has read nothing of value and purports to know, from the nothing he's read, nothing at all. Sounds like we're trying to eat our own butts. Jackals do that. (Oh! Did I just deviate from the subject?)

Our southern-leaning brethren have some legitimate gripes. You, sir, are doing them no favor.

ole
 

Beowulf

Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
1,173
Location
Virginia
I'm beginning to think that you actually, sincerely believe the **** you've been dishing out. My sympathies, suh! (Guess I'd better not say ****head.) I've been around the block a few times and have met some sympathisers who actually have something to back up what they say. I'm reminded of Hawglips, and Russ Aukerman, and Bill Torrens and APHillbilly, and even Thea and Dawna. And there were others. But they knew their history. Wrong as I considered them to be, they were not so foolish as to lean on dumb ****s for their support. They had read a book or three beyond your pitiful collection.

Where are the good old days when we had some legitimate southrons citing reasonably believable historians? Now we get this **** (Hah! Edited myself again!) who has read nothing of value and purports to know, from the nothing he's read, nothing at all. Sounds like we're trying to eat our own butts. Jackals do that. (Oh! Did I just deviate from the subject?)

Our southern-leaning brethren have some legitimate gripes. You, sir, are doing them no favor.

ole
Now I am really confused. You want me to become like these 'reasonable' who have ideas which, still wrong, don't offend you nearly as badly as mine do?

So, I change my style to a politically-corrected viewpoint, and one in which does not rely upon anyone you absolutely detest and believe to be wrong, entirely... (such as people who were actually THERE, and our former president, and et cetera)...

And I don't guess they rag on McPherson, Wiliam C. Davis,
Cooper, and any of the other 'established' old heads in your world...

And they sit by and don't 'challenge back' when you speak with authority?

And you wonder why they aren't here?

No further, your honor. The Defense rests. Call your next witness.

Beowulf
 

cedarstripper

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
1,275
Location
western New York
Beowulf said:
Now I am really confused. You want me to become like these 'reasonable' who have ideas which, still wrong, don't offend you nearly as badly as mine do?
No, he would like you to at least attempt to make a responsive and cogent argument that does not rely 100% on spurious sources....and as a bonus, one that, unlike your above reply, is not so obtuse.

As Ole stated, there have been various posters here with confederate symathies who were (mostly) regularly good at doing this. You go on in your post to slander them, who you haven't yet held a candle to, when it would serve you better to go back and read up on some of their arguments, and then try not to hack them up too badly.

That's my friendly suggestion.

Cedarstripper
 

Dred

First Sergeant
Joined
Jun 22, 2007
Messages
1,016
Location
Tulsa, Oklahoma
No, he would like you to at least attempt to make a responsive and cogent argument that does not rely 100% on spurious sources....and as a bonus, one that, unlike your above reply, is not so obtuse.

As Ole stated, there have been various posters here with confederate symathies who were (mostly) regularly good at doing this. You go on in your post to slander them, who you haven't yet held a candle to, when it would serve you better to go back and read up on some of their arguments, and then try not to hack them up too badly.

That's my friendly suggestion.

Cedarstripper
Impossible.

Beowulf is a fictional work, about a man chasing demons and monsters. One man against the entire evils of the world. My guess is, OUR Wulfie fancies himself something of the same. One man against the evils of an entire nation! A savior in his own mind.(Which explains why he even chose that name in the first place.) Even if it IS just a work of fiction. Which just plays even more to his mindset, where everything ever done by any government was or is conspiracy, and thus a work of fiction also.

Nail.
Head.
 

Beowulf

Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
1,173
Location
Virginia
No, he would like you to at least attempt to make a responsive and cogent argument that does not rely 100% on spurious sources....and as a bonus, one that, unlike your above reply, is not so obtuse.

As Ole stated, there have been various posters here with confederate symathies who were (mostly) regularly good at doing this. You go on in your post to slander them, who you haven't yet held a candle to, when it would serve you better to go back and read up on some of their arguments, and then try not to hack them up too badly.

That's my friendly suggestion.

Cedarstripper
Who has been slandered? Because I called them 'reasonable' in your eyes, this is a slander? Or politically-corrected? Although 'wrong', in Northern eyes (or whosoever's eyes), calling them 'wrong' is not a slander, but 'reasonable' is a slander?

And Jefferson Davis is a spurious source? Or those who were there; these are spurious? Nothing in Durand's work is of use to you, being mostly period sources? Or because they do not agree with you?

These who have not been 'assimilated'?

I am not trying to impress you, merely to see if what you claim is true or false. I am the Tryer of Truths, The Tester of Legends, and the Righter of Wrongs...

... and, like my illustrious forebear, who sought to right the wrongs of his fellow men...

I seek, rather, to annihilate false History through conflict of doctrine, and, as Lee said, CONTESTS.

You bring me your North-slanted doctrine as absolute fact.
I balance that with equally off-centered Southern rhetoric, and you are offended. But this is necessary in order to get all the information brought to the table...

Once it is all gathered, then it can be sorted.

As Sherlock Holmes said, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must certainly be the truth".

This will take time. This is the Third Line.

Beowulf died from wounds received killing a dragon.

Holmes originally died killing off Moriarty.

When positive and negative cancel each other out, then you have a THIRD LINE.

We each have our Mythos, whether truth, legend, or fable. The keepers of history have declared this is to be the way...

The anger you feel towards mine is the same as the South has felt for yours, for 150 years.

I believe the South was right, but at the end of the day, still want the Third Line, even if the South dies killing a dragon, and ends up being seen as less than they see themselves. But at any rate, it is better than where you have placed them. It will be the Truth.

And it will come only through combat of words and ideas.

I'll take being proved wrong in order to end up in a third line, where the South at least fights for her rightful ending.

And not the trash 'your people' have thrown at her.

I am going to be out for a week, now, out of state.

Set up the trial, and when I return, we shall begin opening arguments.

Beowulf
 


Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top