Cpl.Fenwick
Cadet
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2009
- Location
- Norfolk, VA
I think we might have that book...
I wonder why the people that voted for Lincoln thought he was more responsible then Buchanon?
Buchanon sent the star of the west which could have provoked the war, so again how is that different from what Lincoln did..mmmmmmmmmmmmm I wonder too. Let's see now. Could the reason be that Buchanon tried to avoid a war on his watch and abe chose to deliberately provoke one? But wait! This is "father abraham" we are talking about. That couldn't possibly be true now could it?
]Tried to avoid a war? Buchanan did nothing at all. There was a reason that James Polk called Buchanan an old woman.
R
Well this poll is real interesting anyway. Of the folks that chose to participate in the poll nearly half say "the great emancipator" was "most responsible" I reckon the truth might win out one day after all (at least in anonymous polls) The murdering terrorist John Brown coming in second is a good sign too.
mmmmmmmmmmmmm I wonder too. Let's see now. Could the reason be that Buchanon tried to avoid a war on his watch and abe chose to deliberately provoke one? But wait! This is "father abraham" we are talking about. That couldn't possibly be true now could it?
mmmmmmmmmmmmm I wonder too. Let's see now. Could the reason be that Buchanon tried to avoid a war on his watch and abe chose to deliberately provoke one? But wait! This is "father abraham" we are talking about. That couldn't possibly be true now could it?
How did Lincoln deliberately provoke the war? Other than get elected? What about the fire eaters? Do they not share some of the responsability for the breakdown of common sense and communication? I beleive there is a thread about this particular topic somewhere....
However, I vote for John Brown. Maybe if not for his raid, maybe the extremists- North and South alike, would not have been quite so willing to lure a nation into war. Cooler heads might be have given the opputunity to prevail.
Lincoln? Really?
John brown would have to be one of my picks. His actions appear, to me, to give fodder to the fire-eaters. And Yancey always comes to my mind.
In response to post #25:
"Are you suggesting that the CS politicians were too stupid to figure out that Lincoln was manipulating them?" No, I don't think they were stupid. They couldn't have lasted against such odds had they been stupid. I do think that they were manipulated by Lincoln, and I have never been so base as to even suggest Mr. Lincoln was the anti-christ. Lincoln was many things to many people and I think history which looks kindly on him at the moment may re-think Mr. Lincoln someday.
What nonsense! Jefferson Davis ordered Beauregard to demand the surrender on March 1, 1861 then the firing on Fort Sumter on April 9, 1861.As I indicated above, if I had to pick an individual Brown would be second. Of course Brown didn't act alone any more than "father abraham" did.
abe et.al. deliberately provoked the war by sending an armed expedition to Charleston and doing so BTW while they were sending "unofficial" indications to the CS government that he would soon evacuate Sumter (until the last minute of course). He knew very well that the expedition would draw fire just as the Star of the West had. Not only this the Governor of South Carolina had told him in no uncertain terms what would happen if he tried to re-reinforce Sumter. The reason the war didn't start with The Star of the West incident was that Buchanan didn't want a war (if he had the firing on that ship would have been ample excuse to call for volunteers to "suppress the rebellion" just as abe did a few months later) obviously lincoln wanted a war and set out to start one. He got what he wanted and yes he said as much himself
I see that the ever popular "We wuz so stoopid we done fell raht inta Linkum's trap" defense rears it's ugly head yet again.
Incorrect the reason the war didn't start with the Star of the West wasn't because of anything that Buchanon did, it didnt start becuse Anderson held his fire..You dont think that if Anderson started firing the war would have started then...Otherwise Buchanon was taking the same risk as Lincoln did with the Fox expedtion, ..What exactly would Buchanon had done differently if he was told that the fort would run short on supplies while he was still in office, he would have done the same things that Lincoln did as the Fox expedition was intially planned on his watch anyway. Buchannon was just stalling for time until Lincoln came into office then he could wash his hands of the affair..
If Lincoln wanted war he could have called up the militia the day after he took office to re-take the forts stolen by the Confederacy..And it wasn't Lincoln that was sending mixed signals you can lay that blame on Seward and his power grab...