Most Underrated General

[Elennsar]

Now we are getting down to the real bone of contention and what it portended and not what you wrote in posts 645 and 647.

What I wrote in posts 645 and 647 stands. There was no threat to Charleston posed by Fort Sumter, there was no intent at the time of the troops being sent to surround it for it to be used to pose a threat to Charleston, and nothing after it was surrounded involved the intent of threatening Charleston.

And yet because South Carolina and six other states were unwilling to accept that Fort Sumter belonged to the US government and that said government did not intend to turn over territory under its control, they decided to seize said fort.

This would be tantamount to Spain attacking Gibraltar and claiming self-defense.

 

[Elennsar]

For one thing many of these volunteers were poorly armed and secondly the territory between South Carolina to Texas is a vast thinly populated area difficult to defend.

At this point I'd like to note that the volunteers were not called to form a standing, regular army.

That comes here:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlawfield(DOCID @lit(cc00131)):

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampag...field(DOCID+@lit(cc00131))#0010110&linkText=1 Specifically.

Why does the Confederacy need to form the "Provisional Army" (to use a term later used to characterize volunteers as distinct from the all but nonexistent regulars) as well as establish a standing military force?

 

[GELongstreet]

Don´t you think that this "Only self-defence! - No, it's not!"-thing and the "Sumter is a threat or not"-thing should have their own threads?

 

[Elennsar]

Don´t you think that this "Only self-defence! - No, it's not!"-thing and the "Sumter is a threat or not"-thing should have their own threads?

In an ideal world.

Given that the discussion of "underrated generals" bogged down a while ago when generals broadly acknowledged as among the ANV's best were named, among other issues, I think the thread is already running on "no one wants to pester a mod to lock it".

 

[CSA Today]

What I wrote in posts 645 and 647 stands. There was no threat to Charleston posed by Fort Sumter, there was no intent at the time of the troops being sent to surround it for it to be used to pose a threat to Charleston, and nothing after it was surrounded involved the intent of threatening Charleston.

And yet because South Carolina and six other states were unwilling to accept that Fort Sumter belonged to the US government and that said government did not intend to turn over territory under its control, they decided to seize said fort.

This would be tantamount to Spain attacking Gibraltar and claiming self-defense.

Insistence, by an increasingly hostile power, that a holding on to and claiming as their own a fort in a major Confederate port city is not a threat.

 

[KeyserSoze]

For one thing many of these volunteers were poorly armed and secondly the territory between South Carolina to Texas is a vast thinly populated area difficult to defend.

Defend from whom?

 

[KeyserSoze]

From a the Confederate government and citizens point of view --extremely threatening.

Extremely threatening? Or the perfect excuse to start their war?

 

[Elennsar]

Insistence, by an increasingly hostile power, that a holding on to and claiming as their own a fort in a major Confederate port city is not a threat.

As asked to Rebel from Finland: How are eighty men in an unfinished fort a threat?

 

[KeyserSoze]

Insistence, by an increasingly hostile power, that a holding on to and claiming as their own a fort in a major Confederate port city is not a threat.

'Increasingly hostile power'? What single threatening act did the U.S. government commit other than hold on to what was theirs?

 

[KeyserSoze]

Don´t you think that this "Only self-defence! - No, it's not!"-thing and the "Sumter is a threat or not"-thing should have their own threads?

They have their own forum - http://civilwartalk.com/forums/battle-of-fort-sumter.97/

 

[CSA Today]

Defend from whom?

From whomever that might threaten.

 

[Elennsar]

As far as Texas at least is concerned, that would justify focusing on its western borders. But the Confederacy seems to have preferred to focus on US forts.

 

[GELongstreet]

They have their own forum - http://civilwartalk.com/forums/battle-of-fort-sumter.97/

That's what I meant ... no point in thread hijacking when there is enough interest for its own thread, let alone its own forum.

 

[CSA Today]

'Increasingly hostile power'? What single threatening act did the U.S. government commit other than hold on to what was theirs?

The lack of reassurance by the incoming Lincoln government that the whole of the seven states Confederacy wasn't "theirs."

 

[KeyserSoze]

From whomever that might threaten.

So let me get this straight. They needed an army of 100,000 men to face a threat that didn't exist?

 

[KeyserSoze]

The lack of reassurance by the incoming Lincoln government that the whole of the seven states Confederacy wasn't "theirs."

OK so if you can't point to a threat then it's OK to say, "I can't point to a threat."

 

[jgoodguy]

Actually, our Civil War Dilettante is lying about what's in Long.

As moderator.
Attack the posters post, don't attack the poster.
It appears obvious to me that some posters entice other excitable posters to do things they should not as a tactic.
Don't fall for it.

It appears to me that a poster liked his little vacation and may be wanting another.
Make sure you do not join him.

 

[CSA Today]

OK so if you can't point to a threat then it's OK to say, "I can't point to a threat."

?

 

[jgoodguy]

Don´t you think that this "Only self-defence! - No, it's not!"-thing and the "Sumter is a threat or not"-thing should have their own threads?

As moderator.
Please stick to the topic of Most Underrated General

 

[Deleted member 8452]

I got an underrated general who led his division and his performed very well at Chinn Ridge at Second Manassas.

General James Kemper