Respect for the Confederacy?

Thanks for admitting my point.

 

I've provided the citations you've asked for. You've refused to provide the ones I've asked for or to address the ones I've provided that you asked for. If you can't have an informed discussion, then there is no discussion to be had. Ta ta.

 

I've provided the citations you've asked for. You've refused to provide the ones I've asked for or to address the ones I've provided that you asked for. If you can't have an informed discussion, then there is no discussion to be had. Ta ta.

 

Not at all.

None needed. You claimed slavery and prior tariffs didn't affect economics.

That's false, but you ignorantly claim that anyway. No further discussion needed.

 

I've already directed you to the post with those citations, after which you demurred. Would you like that post number again?

You mean you are unwilling to provide any. You are unwilling to back up your accusations, by your own admission.

If you are willing to respond to any of the references I gave you, which you requested, or provide any of the references that I requested, then I'm willing to continue this conversation. Is that too much to ask for?

 

Quote me ever saying that either didn't effect economics. A single quote will do. Refusal will be accepted as a white flag.

 

Ft. Sumter was actually the last federal fort in SC that hadn't been confiscated yet. The Union had retreated to that one, believing they could only defend one position with the men that they had. I can get you a list of some of the other confiscations that had happened, but I know by this point the Confederacy had complete control of the mouth of the Mississippi, for example, due to the forts they had taken.

He let them know ahead of time because he wanted them to know that he was ONLY sending food -- no additional men, no additional weapons, no additional ammunition. He just wanted to make sure they weren't starved into surrender. It was probably the least confrontational thing he could have done, short of surrendering. I don't see how it would have been less aggressive to do so in secret, rather than letting SC know of his intentions. No, I don't put much stock into the idea that he was hoping to provoke an attack, though I've heard the theory before. There was a lot of deliberation that went into this decision, and it seems clear to me it was a defensive action and that they took the most peaceful option that they could. The previous supply ship you are talking about, The Start of the West, was carrying additional men and weapons, not simply rations.

Beauregard had orders from Davis to take the fort, by force if necessary. The Secretary of State was against it for certain, calling Davis's decision and the Confederate Congress's approval of it a strike at a hornet's nest, but Davis had the final say, not the Secretary of State.

I don't know if anyone ever considered taking up the matter of secession in the courts, but I also don't see how that would have been an option. Not after the states declared secession. They claimed to no longer be under the US's federal jurisdiction, and submitting to a US Supreme Court case would be an admission that they were still under federal jurisdiction.

 

This is my main point; a hypothetical one (as would be any opinion about variations on the events leading to the Civil War), and if it was only a matter of their failure to try this option, then the blame lays squarely on the Confederate States. To reiterate: this desire to leave the Union should have been a case that the Attorneys General of those states SHOULD HAVE brought to the Supreme Court, to get a legal decision that allowed their separation from the country, before their actually proclaiming themselves out of the Union. This division would have naturally required a plan agreed upon by both parties (each state in question, and the federal govt.). President Lincoln had refused all their diplomatic overtures, but this is justifiable, because of the extra-judicial way they had gone about their separation. I just find it noteworthy, & even incredible to consider, that there had been a mechanism built into the Constitution, to deal with just such a crisis, & none of the breakaway states availed themselves of it.

 

I'll have to double-check, but I'm pretty sure that's the same conclusion the Supreme Court came to a few years later regarding secession: that it would require some sort of agreement between the states.

 

Another poster had told me differently; @Jack Hays said that, a number of years after the war, there was a Supreme Court case that made an after-the-fact ruling, that states did NOT have the right to secede. But I feel this is a greatly-tainted ruling as, in the wake of such a traumatic experience for the country, after such an unfathomable loss of life, it is just not realistic to imagine the Supreme Court issuing a decision which said, for all intents & purposes, that the Confederate states had possessed the right, all along, to sue for Secession; hence, that our Civil War had really been fought for no reason, and that, at the end of it all, those Confederate States could NOW go through the process of legal secession. It's just an impossible amount of bias, the Court had to have been dealing with; and that the opinion-writing Justice had been part of the Lincoln Administration, only underscores the surfeit of pressure the Court must have been under to validate the War.

 

The whole "Major Anderson and those poor men at Sumter starving" was a deliberate lie promoted to give Lincoln a cover story for his "resupply fleet".

Here's a breakdown of the fleet.

The ships assigned were the steam sloop-of-war USS Pawnee, steam sloop-of-war USS Powhatan, transporting motorized launches and about 300 sailors (secretly removed from the Charleston fleet to join in the forced reinforcement of Fort Pickens, Pensacola, FL), armed screw steamer USS Pocahontas, Revenue Cutter USRC Harriet Lane, steamer Baltic transporting about 200 troops, composed of companies C and D of the 2nd U.S. Artillery, and three hired tug boats with added protection against small arms fire to be used to tow troop and supply barges directly to Fort Sumter.[14][15] By April 6, 1861 the first ships began to set sail for their rendezvous off the Charleston Bar. The first to arrive was the Harriet Lane, before midnight of April 11, 1861.[16]

https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter

Additionally, the Confederates made sure that Anderson, his men and the workmen (Sumter was still under construction) at Sumter were well supplied, so well that Anderson even had his choice of butchers. Anderson was also allowed visitors and the mail was delivered to Sumter. This is all recorded in the ORs.

The Confederates did finally give Anderson an ultimatum once they found out about the so-called resupply fleet that Lincoln had secretly assembled with Gustavus Fox. Until Lincoln's action, Sumter was a frozen situation. Even given that, Beauregard notified Anderson as to what time the shelling would start so the men at Sumter could take cover. No one was killed due to the Confederate shelling of Sumter. The shelling did prevent more troops from being landed at Sumter and other points, but did allow Lincoln to get his war, as he could claim that the Confederates fired first.

As for Anderson and his men, they were allowed to ecacuate the fort, boarding a ship from Lincoln's fleet.

Anderson surrendered Fort Sumter to Confederate forces at 2:30 p.m. on April 13. Major Anderson and his men were allowed to strike their colors, fire a 100-gun salute, and board a ship bound for New York with their personal baggage. Sadly, the only casualties at Fort Sumter came during the 100-gun salute when a round exploded prematurely, killing Pvt. Daniel Hough and mortally wounding another soldier.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/fort-sumter

 

They had 6 weeks of rations remaining. Anderson informed Beauregard of this and said that he would agreed to surrender after rations ran out IF he wasn't resupplied with food and wasn't given any other orders. And Lincoln's intentions to provide additional rations were no secret. He informed SC. Lincoln didn't just "claim that the Confederates fired first." They DID fire first, after confiscating several other United States forts.

 

Yet Anderson nor Abe the illegal brought up Slavery did they?

 

Abe brought up slavery a lot. It's how he grew in popularity with the Republicans -- the Lincoln Douglas debates. As did the seceding states, who made it clear that it was their primary motivation for seceding.

 

Great report Woogs. Thanks for that report.

 

And just how do you think it was that Anderson had 6 weeks of supplies remaining? It was due to the Confederates supplying him, just as they had been doing all along. They had been at Sumter since December, and at Moultrie before that. As I said, Anderson got mail, visitors and even his choice of butchers. I would say that having your choice of butchers equates to his supplies being more than "rations".

I notice you didn't dispute the makeup of the fleet. It is obvious it was more than a resupply fleet as you stated. There were both more men and guns being brought in, in addition to the ships being warships.

And, yes, the Confederates did fire first. That is what Lincoln wanted. He got his war.

 

You must mean ahead of his election.

This is not about secession, but motive by Lincoln to invade VA. And he did not mention slavery.

You would quickly have provided proof if what you said is true.

 

Thanks Woogs for your accurate presentation of the actual truth.

 

Ahead. During. After. He spoke about slavery quite a bit. That was the main point of his party.

The thread is about the Confederacy, so the motivations for secession are a **** load more topical than Lincoln is. This thread isn't about "Lincoln invading VA" (a state that didn't even secede until later).

I took it for granted that every educated person already knew about this. What part didn't you already know about? I'll provide proof for that.

 

What was Abe's plan for the slaves he planned to purchase for export?

Why did Abe talk precisely like a racist would?

 

His initial plan? Sending freed slaves to another country. His later plan? Freed slaves staying in the country. Which . . . in case you didn't notice, is what happened.

Because he was racist. I've covered this many, many times before.

You realize none of this actually has anything to do with anything I actually said, right?

 

I took it for granted educated posters knew how Abe ran down slaves and wanted to export them to Africa, Central America and the Caribbean islands off of our Southern coast. You proved I was wrong to think you knew history.

 

And you proved that you didn't read post #246. Cute. Why did you ask when you had no intention of reading the answer?

 

Republicans wanted the slaves exported as Abe discussed to be elected.
Thank you for admitting he was truly a racist.

 

He was racist. Now that we are done with that, care to return to the actual discussion or address anything I actually said? I'll assume no.