Featured Where Do You Disagree With the "Conventional Wisdom" on the Civil War?

TheSecretSix

Corporal
Joined
Nov 24, 2014
He means the normal everyday operations of the legitimate Govt. And the upholding of the Laws of tbe United States will continue.



You answered your own question. It was rhe secessonists tbat crossed the line and initiated hostilities not Lincoln.

Here's a clue you apparently can't decipher on your own.

S. Carolina firing on a union fort is an act of treason/war.



No, they only claim they have left the Union. Lincoln and later the United States Supreme Court maintain they have not left the Union but are just in a State of rebellion / insurrection.

I seem to recall an armistice that was written to prevent President Lincoln from reinforcing the forts. If this was so, then President Lincoln initiated Civil War by showing up in warships...

S. Carolina firing on a fort that has never been commissioned, and in which a hostile if not AWOL Major and his 65 effectives have taken up residence in violation of an armistice... and against the wishes of the US Secretary of War...
would not be treason, nor war... It would be logical.

The US Supreme court has no jurisdiction to decide any such thing, nor does the executive... where are the articles to provide for that???
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Went and looked up the two books mentioned by SecretSix in his post#324 of this thread.

Prologue to Sumter, by Philip Van Doren Stern, published in 1961, ranked on Amazon's most popular book list at number 6,776,486.

First Blood at Sumter, by Swanberg, published in 1957, got some good customer reviews where one commented that Secretary of War Floyd was the real problem in Buchanan's cabinet, always pushing for secession. How that equates to Lincoln "was after the tariffs..." is beyond me.

Unionblue
Sounds like our new friend is the go to guy on the evil Mr. Lincoln. I might have an issue if he quoted 6,777,487 but 6,776 486 is just the ticket to prove Lincoln not Davis was the real villain!
Leftyhunter
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
I seem to recall an armistice that was written to prevent President Lincoln from reinforcing the forts. If this was so, then President Lincoln initiated Civil War by showing up in warships...

S. Carolina firing on a fort that has never been commissioned, and in which a hostile if not AWOL Major and his 65 effectives have taken up residence in violation of an armistice... and against the wishes of the US Secretary of War...
would not be treason, nor war... It would be logical.

The US Supreme court has no jurisdiction to decide any such thing, nor does the executive... where are the articles to provide for that???

"I seem to recall" is your most used method here at this forum. The trouble with that method is it equates to "opinion" without presenting actual sources for all here to see.

As for the fantasy of Major Anderson going "AWOL" the man had permission to move his command and the US Secretary of War (who was treasonous in his own actions) gave that permission with his own signature.

Logical? Not even in a Disney cartoon.

Unionblue
 

DanF

Captain
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
I seem to recall an armistice that was written to prevent President Lincoln from reinforcing the forts. If this was so, then President Lincoln initiated Civil War by showing up in warships

Why don't you post the relevant documents of this "armistice".

First you might want to look up the definition of armistice.

S. Carolina firing on a fort that has never been commissioned, and in which a hostile if not AWOL Major and his 65 effectives have taken up residence in violation of an armistice... and against the wishes of the US Secretary of War...
would not be treason, nor war... It would be logical.

What exactly were the "hostile" actions performed by Anderson and his men?

The US Supreme court has no jurisdiction to decide any such thing, nor does the executive... where are the articles to provide for that???

U. S. Constitution

Article lll

Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
 
Last edited:

wilber6150

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Location
deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
I seem to recall an armistice that was written to prevent President Lincoln from reinforcing the forts. If this was so, then President Lincoln initiated Civil War by showing up in warships...

S. Carolina firing on a fort that has never been commissioned, and in which a hostile if not AWOL Major and his 65 effectives have taken up residence in violation of an armistice... and against the wishes of the US Secretary of War...
would not be treason, nor war... It would be logical.

The US Supreme court has no jurisdiction to decide any such thing, nor does the executive... where are the articles to provide for that???

Its been shown time and time again that Anderson was authorized in his move to Sumter as was shown to that traitor in the Presidents cabinet that he had actually signed off on it. In addition, the so called armistace that you mentioned had ended when the state seceeded and in fact took place even before Lincoln took office.. And what a great armistace it was in which Anderson wouldn't be allowed to receive support but the Confederates are allowed to build gun emplacements and move troops into position around the fort at will, even to the point of moving the floating battery which would be used against them into position right in front of them....
Lincoln wouldn't have had to show up with warships to feed men whose food supplies were cut off, if the Confederates hadn't started firing on any ship that was flying the US flag.
 

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Location
Denmark
I seem to recall an armistice that was written to prevent President Lincoln from reinforcing the forts. If this was so, then President Lincoln initiated Civil War by showing up in warships...

S. Carolina firing on a fort that has never been commissioned, and in which a hostile if not AWOL Major and his 65 effectives have taken up residence in violation of an armistice... and against the wishes of the US Secretary of War...
would not be treason, nor war... It would be logical.

The US Supreme court has no jurisdiction to decide any such thing, nor does the executive... where are the articles to provide for that???
What armistice?

Firing on US soldiers on US ground and Firing on Ships flying the US flag resupplying the troops...
= Treason/rebellion/War
 

DR_Hanna

First Sergeant
Joined
Jun 17, 2014
Location
North East GA
On a lighter note...
I disagree that the Confederates won the battle of Chickamauga. It was great propaganda to say they won - a victory the confederacy really needed at the time, but...
This was one of the very few battles in which the Confederates had more men on the field than the Union did, and despite Hood's breakthrough and subsequent Union skedaddle towards Chattanooga some Union troops were able to form a new line on Snodgrass Hill and successfully defend it until the end of the day. The Confederates unsuccessfully charged the hill for the rest of the afternoon with great loss and were unable to take it. Out of ammunition, but unbeaten, the Union troops under Thomas left after dark.
Conventional wisdom says that whoever occupies the field after the battle is the winner, but seeing as the original goal of the Union campaign was to take Chattanooga - the Union troops did finally occupy Chattanooga.
 

wilber6150

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Location
deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
What armistice?

Firing on US soldiers on US ground and Firing on Ships flying the US flag resupplying the troops...
= Treason/rebellion/War
Anderson in my opinion, put just a little to much effort in trying to keep the peace to the point that it actually put him in a no win position, allowing the Confederates to build to their hearts content all the artillery positions they wanted to which would end up being used against him. The situation at Ft. Pickens however was different in which the Union commander said he would take it as an aggressive act attempts to build emplacments aimed at the fort.
 
Top