• zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 20,813 Senior Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    ...morons on social media...

    But you repeat yourself...
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,518 Senior Member
    Interesting tidbit I found here. Lee was actually against the idea of Civil War monuments. Saying it would be wiser, "not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife."

  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,781 Senior Member
    Likely, he wanted to avoid what is happening now. He must have had many regrets, having ordered so many to their deaths in a losing cause.
  • earlyearly Senior Member Posts: 4,950 Senior Member
    I wish I could convince myself that most people are smart enough to know that complexed circumstances, characters, and events can not be accurately distilled into convenient 90 second sound bites.
    My thoughts are generally clear. My typing, not so much.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 20,813 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    Hint: this forum is social media.

    It can be called such - yet it isn't what most think of when the term is brought up. *shrug*
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 6,663 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    Another thing to consider about the pulling down of the RE Lee statue. Lee was a very proud and patriotic American, with strong roots going back to the American Revolution (against the King).
    With his father serving the federal govt against any states uprising with armed troops.
    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 6,663 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    President Buchanan was still POTUS when the first Southern states seceded. He was the one that could have, but did not, deal in a timely manner about forts and other installations of the Union in the seceded Southern states. He left Lincoln with that mess. And if you think those relief ships Lincoln had only food supplies for Ft. Sumter, then I have some info on Gulf of Mexico beach front property in Montana in which you might like to invest.

    As to Lincoln, here's a bit of what he could have done, proposed, and then reneged on what he said he would do. Read the whole thing; it's some interesting information.

    On March 5, Lincoln learned from Maj. Robert Anderson, the commander at Fort Sumter, that dwindling food supplies would force an evacuation of the fort within four to six weeks. Lincoln decided against any immediate attempt to save the fort. On March 12, however, he issued orders for the reinforcement of Fort Pickens. More accessible to the Federal navy because of its location outside Pensacola Harbor beyond the range of Confederate artillery, Fort Pickens had the additional advantage of being overshadowed in the public consciousness by Fort Sumter, a highly charged symbol of Federal resolve in the state that had started secession. Presumably, it could be reinforced with less risk of precipitating a war than could Fort Sumter.
    Lincolns initial decision not to act on Fort Sumter was also a concession to William H. Seward, his secretary of state. Seward was the chief spokesman for what was called the policy of "masterly inactivity." He believed that Unionists in the upper South were on the verge of leading a process of voluntary reunion. If the upper South were not stampeded into joining the Confederacy by a coercive act by the Republicans, Seward argued, an isolated Confederacy would soon have no choice but to bargain to rejoin the Union. Everything depended, of course, on a conciliatory Republican policy.
    In pursuing this strategy, Lincoln temporarily considered a withdrawal from Fort Sumter in exchange for a binding commitment from the upper South not to leave the Union. Seward then made the mistake of assuming that evacuation was a foregone conclusion. He was conducting informal negotiations with three Confederate commissioners who were in Washington seeking a transfer of Fort Pickens and Fort Sumter. On March 15 he informed them through an intermediary to expect a speedy evacuation of Fort Sumter. When no such evacuation was forthcoming, Confederate leaders felt betrayed, and they vowed never again to trust the word of the Lincoln administration.
    Mounting demands in the North to take a stand at Fort Sumter, combined with Lincolns growing disillusionment over Southern Unionism, convinced the president that he would have to challenge the Confederacy over the issue of Fort Sumter. On March 29 he told his cabinet that he was preparing a relief expedition. He delayed informing Major Anderson of that decision until after a meeting on April 4 with John Baldwin, a Virginia Unionist. Although no firsthand account of this meeting exists, the discussion apparently confirmed Lincolns belief that the upper South could not broker a voluntary reunion on terms acceptable to the Republican party. The final orders for the relief expedition were issued on April 6, the day that Lincoln learned that Fort Pickens had not yet been reinforced because of a mix-up in the chain of command.
    News of Lincolns decision to reinforce Fort Sumter "with provisions only" reached Montgomery, the Confederate capital, on April 8. 7 Apr being when Ole PT cut off market food to the fort leaving Anderson to say that they would be starved out by the 15thThe next day Davis ordered Gen. P G. T. Beauregard, the Confederate commander at Charleston, to demand an immediate surrender of the fort. If Major Anderson refused, Beauregard was to attack the fort. Davis always felt that war was inevitable,and decided to start one and for months the most radical of the secessionists had been insisting that a military confrontation would be necessary to force the upper South into secession.because a lot had not voted to secede until after the war started Davis was convinced that he had no alternative but to counter Lincolns move with a show of force. because turning back the relief wouldn't start a war as firing on ships hadnt in the prior 6 months
    Confederate batteries opened fire on Fort Sumter on April 12, and the fort surrendered two days later On April 15 Lincoln issued a call for seventy-five thousand stare militia to put down what he described as an insurrection against lawful authority. It was this call for troops, and not just the armed clash at Fort Sumter, that specifically triggered secession in the upper South. The Unionist majorities there suddenly dissolved once the choice shifted from supporting the Union or the Confederacy to fighting for or against fellow Southerners.

    And this link has some information that is not easily found in history books, and is annotated as to sources. It's worth reading unless the truth is scary. :tooth:

    OK, so how many men were in this resupply? Remember, Gen Scott, who led Lee in the Mex war, and who dismissed Lee (not Lincoln) when Lee said he would rather not be in the war, only later joining the South, said that 20K at a min were needed and the entire Fed army was at 16K with almost all of them being on the western boarder dealing with indians. Your basis of argument is that your quote has "with provisions only" in quotes. No matter how you slice it, there were NOT enough troops to reinforce the fort anywhere in the union or territories to any degree. If they did receive provision, Anderson would not have been starved out then the question would have been what happens now. But that didnt happen. The upper south, as in your post, was likely NOT to succeed without a flame of some sort. Davis gave them that.
    12 Apr the confederate forces fired on a federal fort after starving them out with a agreement to gain the fort on 15 Apr at noon. Act. Of. War. Your timeline is correct and I have no heartache with it.

    The link was interesting and "slightly" biased. To complain about troops getting furlough to go vote? A lot of them from a state that the south had attacked and burned and suffered at least two major incursions by the Lee family? Guys got home to burned houses and looted farms and they voted for the person who took the war into the south. Imagine that.
    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,781 Senior Member
    With his father serving the federal govt against any states uprising with armed troops.

    Err...do we have to extend this discussion of character all the way back to Lighthorse Harry's role in the Whiskey Rebellion?

    If so, can we note for the record that this was the first ever serious attempt, by the first ever president, to enforce taxes upon the American citizenry, under a brand new constitution, and that, by the way, no casualties were incurred? The posse comitatus act wasn't passed until 1878, to help cure the evils of Reconstruction, so, what's the problem?
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,797 Senior Member
    The more that I think about it, the more offended I am about the monuments to General Sherman and think that they should be removed and destroyed. Sherman was a murderer who targeted civilians to discourage them from offering any aid to Confederate soldiers. Whatever food couldn't be carried off was destroyed to keep it out of Confederate hands. In this day and age we take great care to avoid harming civilians and their property during any conflicts but a General who focused on harming the South as a whole to "show them the heavy hand of war" by terrorizing and murdering civilians and destroying their property is honored with monuments in several states with the two largest being in Washington DC and New York. Why is there no outcry to remove a monument honoring a mass murderer? Is it because he only murdered Southerners?
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Steve, the liberal bigots, especially the ones who post here, have a sort of selective amnesia when it comes to "fair and balanced" application of their talking points. Using their own words and actions against them is the equivalent of :bang: - - - - - -it really feels good when you stop, because all they're going to do is stick their fingers in their ears and yell "LALALALALALALA- - - - -I can't hear you!"
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 10,026 Senior Member
    I find this current trend towards the erasure of history disturbing. Much of it stems from the application of current social/moral norms to historical figures who lived in times with different norms. I don't think that is at all productive or useful. And strikes my as downright reckless and dangerous. It needs to stop.

    This is the same thing ISIS is doing in the middle east with destroying cultural artifacts. They do not fit in with their narrow and bigoted worldview, so they destroy them
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 20,813 Senior Member
    bullsi1911 wrote: »
    This is the same thing ISIS is doing in the middle east with destroying cultural artifacts. They do not fit in with their narrow and bigoted worldview, so they destroy them

    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction


Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services


GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.