Telegraph from Major Robert Anderson

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

OpnDownfall

Cadet
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
2,871
You might want to study it youself, instead of depending on Conner (of all people).
You (and Conner) glide over, Why the Democratic Party ruptured.
Your knowledge of the Civil War Era is abysmal. If Douglas had been the Candidate of a unified democratic party, then the solid south and northern democrat would have won the election. You might study up, independent of your revisionist sources, to discover why Stephen A. Douglas was as hated by the southern leadership as Lincoln AND preferring Lincoln to be elected rather than Douglas, who was more in harmony with the southern agenda than Lincoln.
At Ft. Sumter, the southern leadership got exactly what it wanted for its narrow political goal, war; just as they got what they wanted in the the general election; Lincoln as President.
 

Battalion

Banned
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
4,810
OpnDownfall said:
At Ft. Sumter, the southern leadership got exactly what it wanted for its narrow political goal, war...
That's what Lincoln wanted...the South wanted to be 'left alone.'
 

OpnDownfall

Cadet
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
2,871
No, the historical record is quite clear. Lincoln was the one who wanted to be left along. It was the south that was disrupting the status quo of the Union, the Constitution And Ft. Sumter.
Davis needed Va. and the Border States in the confederacy and Ft. Sumter was seen as the ticket to unify the confederacy.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Beowulf

Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
1,173
Location
Virginia
That's what Lincoln wanted...the South wanted to be 'left alone.'
Thank you, Battalion.

Why is it that these Northern Sympathizers all share the same character traits?

1). They positively believe that, because of their idolatrous
worship of their sectional historians, they are the last word in anything "Civil War", up to and including that grossly inaccurate title for the war, itself...

2). They are convinced that they are right and that everyone else, if they do not agree with their assessment of things, is completely ignorant of the facts, and they try this system of 'shame' in order to silence those who do not agree with them.

3). They are completely convinced that a few mouthy Southerners were 'everyone', and only Hollywood's 'take' on the Southern (the White Trash Red Neck Stereotype)
man is the only type of Southerner who ever existed, and who is worth mentioning...

4). Lincoln was a god, above all reproach, and he and his left wing Second party could do no wrong.

THE SOUTH WANTED A WAR.

IT WAS ALL ABOUT THE SLAVES

THE SOUTH WAS ARROGANT AND IRRATIONAL

THE SOUTH PROVOKED FORT SUMTER

THE SOUTH WANTED TO CHANGE THE GOVERNMENT

THE SOUTH WERE TRAITORS TO THE UNION

Notice how that each of these actually does apply to the North!

They are indeed a one-sided curious bunch!


(After reading THEY WERE WHITE AND THEY WERE SLAVES, by Michael Hoffman II, I am ready to say that the 'Red Neck White Trash' were actually the original SLAVS, or slaves, and had worked themselves out of slavery over the generations, and the negro was expected to do the exact same thing, by the moneyed interests who owned both blacks and whites, some at the same time!)...

But one thing is for sure. the yankee attitude, manners, and disposition is the one fixed point in an ever-changing universe!

(When do you reckon they will figure out that THAT was the real reason for Southern Secession?!):smile:

Beowulf



Beowulf
 

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
34,394
Location
Near Kankakee
Let me run this past you, and get your 'feel' for it;
It was at this point -- Post #15 -- that this thread went south. Beowulf had some interesting fuel for discussion in Anderson's communications with various persons in Washington. Apparently they were untenable so again we have a thread that pretty much like every other one in which the Virginian participates -- having nothing to do with the subject; just more of the same libertarian screed and blather, filled with invective and pompous, empty words.

ole
 

Freddy

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
3,315
Location
Worcester, MA
THE SOUTH WANTED A WAR.

IT WAS ALL ABOUT THE SLAVES

THE SOUTH WAS ARROGANT AND IRRATIONAL

THE SOUTH PROVOKED FORT SUMTER

THE SOUTH WANTED TO CHANGE THE GOVERNMENT

THE SOUTH WERE TRAITORS TO THE UNION

Beowulf
Very well said! I agree!
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,918
...
THE SOUTH WANTED A WAR.

IT WAS ALL ABOUT THE SLAVES

THE SOUTH WAS ARROGANT AND IRRATIONAL

THE SOUTH PROVOKED FORT SUMTER

THE SOUTH WANTED TO CHANGE THE GOVERNMENT

THE SOUTH WERE TRAITORS TO THE UNION
...
Generally, we believe it because it can be factually documented.

For example, we believe the South wanted a war because they spent several months preparing for one and then chose to start it. Seems clear enough.

For example, we believe it was over slavery because so many of the leading Southerners of the day said it was about slavery. Several seceding states produced official declarations of what caused them to secede: they are overwhelmingly about slavery in their own declarations: South Carolina refused to include anything else (specifically rejecting a proposal to mention the Tariff, content to make the sole issue slavery). Seems clear enough.

For example, we believe that any American citizen who participates in an assault on his own country is guilty of Treason under the definition in the Constitution. That other Virginian, Congressman Roger Pryor, typifies this: he was a US citizen and serving Federal official when he participated in the assault on Ft. Sumter. Another Virginian, Edmund Ruffin, reputedly fired the first shot at Sumter. Both were US citizens at the time; both fit the definition of Treason in the US Constitution. Seems like a pretty clear example. If you don't like those, several states used armed force and seized US property in advance of any "declaration of secession" by their state. Even under secessionist theories, those acts would be called Treason under the law. Seems pretty clear there as well.

We say, for example, that the state of Louisiana and the Confederacy counterfeited US coins after seizing the US Mint because it is well-known that they did. Battalion even claims to have one of the coins (although no one can be certain if it is or not). Again, this seems to be another clear example of abusive acts by Southerners.

And on and on. By pretending that real events didn't happen, or claiming the abusive acts were justified by events that happened later, people like you make believe you actually have a case to argue. You obviously don't, or you would not bother trying to sweep so much under the rug.

Tim
 

Beowulf

Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
1,173
Location
Virginia
It was at this point -- Post #15 -- that this thread went south. Beowulf had some interesting fuel for discussion in Anderson's communications with various persons in Washington. Apparently they were untenable so again we have a thread that pretty much like every other one in which the Virginian participates -- having nothing to do with the subject; just more of the same libertarian screed and blather, filled with invective and pompous, empty words.

ole
So, you reject the notion that UNIONIST could mean anything other than Lincoln's left wing party? That the whole country had somehow gone part abolitionist/ part Radical Republican party, just that fast (or, were pretending to be, so they wouldn't be made prisoners of the state, like Mahoney was)?

UNIONIST could not mean, to you, say, in the sense of Jefferson, who was only a Unionist in a CONSERVATIVELY run country with no real threat from this WHIG Second party?

No, everyone suddenly, overnight, became absolutely blue state yankee in thought?

I find that very hard to believe...

I don't believe it. Not even with the mob pressure to subscribe to this hostile party who had overrun Washington City.

Beowulf
 

Beowulf

Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
1,173
Location
Virginia
Generally, we believe it because it can be factually documented.

For example, we believe the South wanted a war because they spent several months preparing for one and then chose to start it. Seems clear enough.

For example, we believe it was over slavery because so many of the leading Southerners of the day said it was about slavery. Several seceding states produced official declarations of what caused them to secede: they are overwhelmingly about slavery in their own declarations: South Carolina refused to include anything else (specifically rejecting a proposal to mention the Tariff, content to make the sole issue slavery). Seems clear enough.

For example, we believe that any American citizen who participates in an assault on his own country is guilty of Treason under the definition in the Constitution. That other Virginian, Congressman Roger Pryor, typifies this: he was a US citizen and serving Federal official when he participated in the assault on Ft. Sumter. Another Virginian, Edmund Ruffin, reputedly fired the first shot at Sumter. Both were US citizens at the time; both fit the definition of Treason in the US Constitution. Seems like a pretty clear example. If you don't like those, several states used armed force and seized US property in advance of any "declaration of secession" by their state. Even under secessionist theories, those acts would be called Treason under the law. Seems pretty clear there as well.

We say, for example, that the state of Louisiana and the Confederacy counterfeited US coins after seizing the US Mint because it is well-known that they did. Battalion even claims to have one of the coins (although no one can be certain if it is or not). Again, this seems to be another clear example of abusive acts by Southerners.

And on and on. By pretending that real events didn't happen, or claiming the abusive acts were justified by events that happened later, people like you make believe you actually have a case to argue. You obviously don't, or you would not bother trying to sweep so much under the rug.

Tim
I know I sound like UnionBlue, here, but i don't suppose you'd care to actually get back on THREAD, here, and answer the thread, as written?

Your objections are indeed well documented and taken under advisement, but I'll take anything the South did
over Northern war crimes (especially since I don't sit around either bragging about, or justifying counterfeit coins, like the North does its civilian atrocities under their 'generals'...)...

Now, can we answer something I posted. For example, my 'Hostilities' thread... Half of you are complaining it is TOO MUCH, and the other half are complaining NOT ENOUGH.

A mean average, then, suggests that I posted JUST THE RIGHT AMOUNT.:smile:

So, what about what I wrote? I don't care about your version of the Bible, just the thread subject! What about The telegram from Anderson?

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

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,918
I know I sound like UnionBlue, here, but i don't suppose you'd care to actually get back on THREAD, here, and answer the thread, as written?...
I don't see anything particularly worth responding to. It has all been hashed out here often enough, and on dozens of other boards on the Internet.

What is it you think that rambling mish-mash shows? None of it has ever been hidden, and the reason you even have access to those messages is that the Federal government either published them in the OR or made them available through the archives. Nothing was hidden; in fact, the world was stunned by the Federal publication of so much information as the decades rolled by (particularly the European military world of the day). You can find discussions of exactly these same messages all the way back to 1865, and possibly earlier.

I have no problem saying that Seward acted like a fool; anyone who studies the situation comes to that conclusion. But Seward, even more than Lincoln, had no authority to recognize the secession nor to meet with representatives of the secession officially. Particularly when the acceptance of their letters by itself was equivalent to granting their claims. Justice Campbell surely knew as much -- and he was in a very ambiguous position himself, acting on behalf of the secessionists when he might yet be called to hear this as a judicial matter. Do you think he would have removed himself from the proceedings because of his obvious conflict of interest if it had come before him?

So what is it you think your posts in this thread say? Leave out all the posturing and rhetoric. Boil it down to facts you think were established here that haven't been known before.

Tim
 

cedarstripper

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
1,276
Location
western New York
1). They positively believe that, because of their idolatrous
worship of their sectional historians, they are the last word in anything "Civil War", up to and including that grossly inaccurate title for the war, itself...

2). They are convinced that they are right and that everyone else, if they do not agree with their assessment of things, is completely ignorant of the facts, and they try this system of 'shame' in order to silence those who do not agree with them.

3). They are completely convinced that a few mouthy Southerners were 'everyone', and only Hollywood's 'take' on the Southern (the White Trash Red Neck Stereotype)
man is the only type of Southerner who ever existed, and who is worth mentioning...

4). Lincoln was a god, above all reproach, and he and his left wing Second party could do no wrong.
If you're quite done playing with yourself.



When you post baloney such as the following:
"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."​
you reveal that you have no regard for historical honesty nor the discussion that has gone on here. Otherwise, you could not, even in your obtuseness, ignore that the Republican party had not "won complete control over the federal government" after the 1860 election. You could not ignore that the central issue during the secession conventions, and the later Declarations of Causes was not what Conner writes (and you dutifully repeat), but instead about the preservation of slavery. You could not ignore that fantasized statements like above do not reflect the speeches of the Secession Commissioners, nor the attitudes of their audiences.

Like the Windex Magpies would say: "That is clear."

But if there is one thing that is more misguided and misfelt than your history, it is your take of what motivates and balances others in these discussions. They are not driven by your brand of malice. I now doubt that you could comment on the weather without finding it necessary to slander the Sun.

For me, its no longer entertaining. Its just boring.

Cedarstripper
 

Beowulf

Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
1,173
Location
Virginia
If you're quite done playing with yourself.



When you post baloney such as the following:
"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."​
you reveal that you have no regard for historical honesty nor the discussion that has gone on here. Otherwise, you could not, even in your obtuseness, ignore that the Republican party had not "won complete control over the federal government" after the 1860 election. You could not ignore that the central issue during the secession conventions, and the later Declarations of Causes was not what Conner writes (and you dutifully repeat), but instead about the preservation of slavery. You could not ignore that fantasized statements like above do not reflect the speeches of the Secession Commissioners, nor the attitudes of their audiences.

Like the Windex Magpies would say: "That is clear."

But if there is one thing that is more misguided and misfelt than your history, it is your take of what motivates and balances others in these discussions. They are not driven by your brand of malice. I now doubt that you could comment on the weather without finding it necessary to slander the Sun.

For me, its no longer entertaining. Its just boring.

Cedarstripper
The Windex Magpies, unlike Lee, are wrong. The clarity hides a glass they cannot penetrate. And yet they deny to their own detriment. Just because they don't see it doesn't mean it is not there...

My history is anything but misfelt, sir. Having been raised in the South, I understand full well what burdens I am expected to carry in the name of Union, and when I look in the sack, itself, I don't see anything which could possibly weigh that much!

I do, however, see that your people are not carrying their load. This will change. Believe that!

Now, I am 'quite done'.:laugh2:

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

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
34,394
Location
Near Kankakee
My history is anything but misfelt, sir. Having been raised in the South, I understand full well what burdens I am expected to carry in the name of Union, and when I look in the sack, itself, I don't see anything which could possibly weigh that much!
Feelings! Wuuwowwoh, feelings!

History is not feelings .... it is fact. And fact only. Your vaunted 3rd Line.

ole
 

OpnDownfall

Cadet
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
2,871
The posts of Beowulf, is ample evidence that he has no reliable knowledge of any history, much less of the Civil War. It is doubtful that Beowulf, can research any of his opinions, because he has shown almost no evidence of knowing what actually happened (or why) in Charleston before and during the Ft. Sumter crisis, much less any other historical event of any kind.
 

Beowulf

Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
1,173
Location
Virginia
Feelings! Wuuwowwoh, feelings!

History is not feelings .... it is fact. And fact only. Your vaunted 3rd Line.

ole
I would indeed like to see and read the Third Line.

That is my hope, not my expectation.

The first thing we shall need to do is get unbiased people to
do the researching, and be interested in telling ALL of it.

So much for the Third line:hmmm:

Anyone interested in history seems always to be on one side, or other, whether a little bit, or a lot!

It's like a football game. Unless you are in the Goodyear Blimp, you are sitting on a side!

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

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
30,093
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
I would indeed like to see and read the Third Line.

That is my hope, not my expectation.

This has never been your 'hope,' your 'expectation,' nor your 'goal.' This is the sand you have tried to throw in the eyes of those you debate here. It doesn't work, not when you site the works & sources you do.

The first thing we shall need to do is get unbiased people to
do the researching, and be interested in telling ALL of it.

Fine. Follow your own advice and ditch the idiots you seen to have fallen sway to.

So much for the Third line:hmmm:

Exactly.

Anyone interested in history seems always to be on one side, or other, whether a little bit, or a lot!

History? You mean to tell me you have been CONCERNED with history? The guy who talks to his sword, the totally one-sided AMERICAN CEASER, and Conner trite? Not even a "little bit" with this trash being waved about as "history."

It's like a football game. Unless you are in the Goodyear Blimp, you are sitting on a side!

And here is where you fail every time when you write a post. This is not "like a football game." It's not a game at all and every time you try to "score" a point with a snide remark, an insult to every "Northerner," and you just don't get that and it appears you never will. Because you have not really studied history, you've simply picked and chosen your campaign literature or your religious phamphlet from the back of the pew. Your view of the world was already fixed firmly in place when you showed up here at this forum. You've simply searched for whatever tripe supported that view, your version of the "facts." And you will not let any historical facts interfere with the "FAITH" or the "AGENDA" and heaven forbid that actual HISTORY ever enter into the fray!

That would require thought, study, evaluation, reflection, but hey, why let all that interfere with the GAME?

Whether you realize it or not, Beowulf, you fail here, not because you are not witty, charming or even at rare times, funny. You fail because you are as shallow as a mud puddle on a hot, summer day. You have no depth in history, nor width in expanding your knowledge of it.

Your here for the GAME.

Beowulf
More's the pity.
Unionblue
 

Beowulf

Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
1,173
Location
Virginia
More's the pity.
Unionblue
You are absolutely sure of all this? You are quite certain of it?

I do get a lot of factual stuff from Northern pro-yank sources. They have had an extremely coveted access to it, for all of their existence.

What I object to is the slant that is mixed irreparably in with it, and has to be tolerated.

Example: I hate Hazelnut, but invariably all the Fresh Markets and other hoity-toity little book stalls have this
flavor brewing in the pots. So, if I need a caffeine jag, I must either endure this 'taste', or get my own...

I am sick of Hazelnut. It is not the true taste and flavor of coffee!

My goal is to get hazelnut out of my coffee, which neither adds to it, nor is a true taste of coffee...

The same with my history, the third line...

REAL COFFEE.

Get me some real coffee, and we'll have a cup!

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

Beowulf

Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
1,173
Location
Virginia
Yes.

Unionblue
Then you, sir, have been well trained!

Forgive me if I haven't, but I do think there is a whole lot more to this 'fight' than you and your beloved historians are willing to admit.

And in the final analysis, of any third line, I don't think you guys would look all that great, coming out the other end!

HBO has already nailed your people with BURY MY HEART AT WOUNDED KNEE.

I am patiently waiting and hoping to see something else
said about the War, and antebellum periods, as well...

I have a dream!

Beowulf
 

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
34,394
Location
Near Kankakee
I am aware of Wounded Knee. I'm not aware that it is a subject germaine to the US Civil War. Which is, by the way, what we are talking about. Can we, at least, stick close to the subject?

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