Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lincolnís Great Gamble
NY Times ^ | September 21, 2012 | RICHARD STRINER

Posted on 09/24/2012 11:57:08 AM PDT by iowamark

Countless school children have been taught that Abraham Lincoln was the Great Emancipator. Others have been taught — and many have concluded — that the Emancipation Proclamation, which Abraham Lincoln announced on Sept. 22, 1862, has been overemphasized, that it was inefficacious, a sham, that Lincoln’s motivations were somehow unworthy, that slavery was ended by other ways and means, and that slavery was on the way out in any case.

The truth is that Lincoln’s proclamation was an exercise in risk, a huge gamble by a leader who sought to be — and who became — America’s great liberator.

Since before his election in 1860, Lincoln and his fellow Republicans had vowed to keep slavery from spreading. The leaders of the slave states refused to go along. When Lincoln was elected and his party took control of Congress, the leaders of most of the slave states turned to secession rather than allow the existing bloc of slave states to be outnumbered.

The Union, divided from the Confederacy, was also divided itself. Many Democrats who fought to stop secession blamed Republicans for pushing the slave states over the brink; some were open supporters of slavery. And if the Democrats were to capture control of Congress in the mid-term elections of November 1862, there was no telling what the consequences might be for the Republicans’ anti-slavery policies.

The Emancipation Proclamation wasn’t always part of the plan. Republicans, Lincoln included, tried push their anti-slavery program by measured degrees, since they feared a white supremacist backlash. That was what made Lincoln’s decision to issue an emancipation edict, and to do it before the mid-term congressional elections of 1862, so extraordinarily risky...

After Lee’s invasion of Maryland was stopped in the battle of Antietam on Sept. 17, Lincoln made up his mind to go ahead...

(Excerpt) Read more at opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: History; Military/Veterans; Religion
KEYWORDS: butcherabe; butcherlincoln; civilwar; dishonestabe; gop; milhist; warcriminal; warmonger
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-215 next last
Richard Striner, a history professor at Washington College, is the author of “Lincoln and Race.”

The NY Times has been running a great history essay series: Disunion, on the 150th anniversary of the Civil War.

1 posted on 09/24/2012 11:57:09 AM PDT by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: iowamark

like lyndon johnson he got everybody killed for nothing


2 posted on 09/24/2012 12:00:04 PM PDT by turdhopper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

They are preparing us for the Second American Civil War. If Obama is a great leader, if he is a risk taker, if he is like Lincoln, then Obama will move swiftly and quell the uppity whities as soon as they say “He won?? Again?? This is rigged!!!”


3 posted on 09/24/2012 12:01:02 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy (ua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: turdhopper

Ah, no he didn’t. Jeff Davis and his Dixiecrats are responsible for the deaths of 660,000 Americans.


4 posted on 09/24/2012 12:02:02 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
This is about Abe Lincoln? I assumed when I read the title that it was about the great Lincoln ~ Lincoln Chaffee.
5 posted on 09/24/2012 12:08:08 PM PDT by Sans-Culotte ( Pray for Obama- Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa
Ah, no he didn’t. Jeff Davis and his Dixiecrats are responsible for the deaths of 660,000 Americans.

Absolutely. If those Confederates had simply not invaded Maryland, we never would have needed to slap them down.

6 posted on 09/24/2012 12:11:13 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa

It’s best not to reason with Lost Causers and apologists for the Slaveholder’s Rebellion. If you really want to make them mad ask them if they’re mad slavery isn’t still legal.


7 posted on 09/24/2012 12:16:34 PM PDT by chargers fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

If the North had not called up troops in Virginia for use in South Carolina, there was hope of working something out. Of course, before that, South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter when the Union would not leave. And before that, an Abolitionist fired on Virginians and Virginia militia.

Lincoln’s gamble worked; Lee’s foolish gamble on the third day of the battle did not. Victors write the history books.


8 posted on 09/24/2012 12:23:46 PM PDT by Ingtar (Everyone complains about the weather, but only Liberals try to legislate it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

bump


9 posted on 09/24/2012 12:24:18 PM PDT by Delhi Rebels (There was a row in Silver Street - the regiments was out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa
That's the most ridiculous statements anyone on here has made in along time.

The Federal Government declared war on the South, invaded their homeland, murdered their wives and children, and burnt down their cities. I suppose you are a Holocaust denier also. Same thing.

10 posted on 09/24/2012 12:25:06 PM PDT by BubbaBasher ("Liberty will not long survive the total extinction of morals" - Sam Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: chargers fan

Reason? There was nothing reasonable about that statement. Or yours for that matter.


11 posted on 09/24/2012 12:27:00 PM PDT by BubbaBasher ("Liberty will not long survive the total extinction of morals" - Sam Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: chargers fan

Four of my GG-grandfathers fought for the Confederacy- none owned slaves (only about 5% of the southern population owned slaves). Virginia, my native state, voted against secession on April 4, 1861 and did not vote for secession until Lincoln called for troops to invade the South.


12 posted on 09/24/2012 12:29:44 PM PDT by wfu_deacons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: chargers fan
It’s best not to reason with Lost Causers and apologists for the Slaveholder’s Rebellion. If you really want to make them mad ask them if they’re mad slavery isn’t still legal.

The Legacy of Lincoln is still with us. Much of the problems we are now facing with out of Control Federal government began in Ernest under Lincoln. Who made the Federal government supreme over us all? Lincoln.

We haven't ended slavery, we've just changed masters and added more slaves.

13 posted on 09/24/2012 12:31:19 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa
Ridiculous. Davis was no fire eater, more moderate in fact - especially compared to Yancey and Rhett.

Lincoln gambled the states would acquiesce by sending troops and funds to support his war; he was wrong.

14 posted on 09/24/2012 12:32:25 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BubbaBasher
The Federal Government declared war on the South, invaded their homeland, murdered their wives and children, and burnt down their cities.

Aren't you forgetting that whole 'attack on Fort Sumter' thing?

15 posted on 09/24/2012 12:37:27 PM PDT by Delhi Rebels (There was a row in Silver Street - the regiments was out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar
If the North had not called up troops in Virginia for use in South Carolina, there was hope of working something out. Of course, before that, South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter when the Union would not leave. And before that, an Abolitionist fired on Virginians and Virginia militia.

Lincoln’s gamble worked; Lee’s foolish gamble on the third day of the battle did not. Victors write the history books.

Depends on what you mean by "worked". It had *A* result. Not sure I would call it a success. I grew up thinking Lincoln was a great President, and that he deserved a place of Honor in our National history, but as I learned more and more about the events which resulted in the civil war, I began to have less and less respect for the man.

Lincoln was the first to create and use the power of the almighty state, and the nation has never been the same. Yes, he accomplished a great good as a result of using this power, but he established the precedent for a lot more subsequent abuse of this power.

Woodrow Wilson merely built on Lincoln's established principles.

16 posted on 09/24/2012 12:39:07 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

“The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War” written by Thomas DiLorenzo in 2002.

An alternate point of view.....

your mileage may vary


17 posted on 09/24/2012 12:46:49 PM PDT by petro45acp (The question isn't "are you better off?" it should be "is it really the government's job?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: petro45acp

Here is a response to the Klan from an actual historian:

http://www.amazon.com/Vindicating-Lincoln-Defending-Politics-President/dp/B007K5FYIG


18 posted on 09/24/2012 12:50:12 PM PDT by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

What you say comes down to the last line of my post: Victors write the history books. It could be argued that if Lee had not fought the third day at Gettysburg, the South would have had time to finish implementing the changes they were working on. 300,000 Black soldiers, trained and fighting for the promise of land and equality would have changed things. Once the war began, whether Slavery was the prime mover or not, Slavery was finished. With the historical result, we moved considerably toward Federalism.


19 posted on 09/24/2012 12:55:22 PM PDT by Ingtar (Everyone complains about the weather, but only Liberals try to legislate it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Delhi Rebels
Aren't you forgetting that whole 'attack on Fort Sumter' thing?

I would attack someone who wouldn't leave my property too. But the truth is that the action was provoked by U.S. President James Buchanan and then Lincoln attempting to add more guns and resupply the fort. Also remember that not a single soldier died in the battles.

If Lincoln had withdrawn from Sumter and not launched headlong into a war there wouldn't have been 660,000 deaths. All the casualties and the later abuses of power fall squarely on Lincoln's shoulders.

20 posted on 09/24/2012 12:59:32 PM PDT by BubbaBasher ("Liberty will not long survive the total extinction of morals" - Sam Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Delhi Rebels
Aren't you forgetting that whole 'attack on Fort Sumter' thing?

I have a good friend whom i've known for 33 years. We went to High school together. He happens to be black, and he has always had an extreme interest in History, especially regarding Slavery and the Civil war.

One day he told me that he had learned a very interesting thing that day. Lincoln was a genius because he single handedly engineered the Civil War in a manner such as Patton bragged he would do to the Russians.

Lincoln was aware that the Federal troops at Fort Sumter were being blockaded by the Confederates. South Carolina wanted Federal troops removed from Charleston Harbor because they regarded the property as theirs, and the Federals as an illegal occupying force which was not respecting their sovereignty. Lincoln's officers had come to him with a plan to provide supplies to the fort from the sea, without having to confront the confederate troops blocking land access.

According to my friend, Lincoln was having none of this. He sent a letter to the Confederate leadership informing them that on a certain date, he was sending a supply train to re-supply the fort. My friend said that Lincoln knew that this would be regarded as a provocative act by the confederates, and would likely induce them to attack the contingent at Fort Sumter. My friend said that at this same time, Lincoln dispatched a letter to the commander of Fort Sumter informing him that he would soon be attacked by the Confederates, and that he was to take all steps to reduce loss of life, hold the Fort for one day, and then surrender it, which is exactly what happened.

The Confederates did attack the Fort with cannon fire, yet no one was killed as a result of it. (Were they really aiming to kill anyone, or just making noise?) The only Union casualties were the result of a surrender ceremony in which Union forces were firing a cannon that oddly enough blew up and killed three of them. (If I remember correctly.)

Lincoln knew that the newspapers of the Northern states would be behind him only if the South could be induced to attack first. Had Lincoln initiated the aggression, he would have been roundly denounced by the states he needed to wage a conflict. By maneuvering the confederates into initiating the hostilities, he got them to look like the bad guys for the Entire Northern press. (A group still causing us problems today.)

Lincoln thought the Confederates were just playing at government, and thought that a quick force sent down to chastise them would put an end to the succession nonsense. Lincoln underestimated their determination to be independent, and unknowingly triggered a conflict which exceeded anything that anyone at the time would have thought plausible. Everyone thought it would be a quick and easy little jaunt, but it escalated into the most horrific calamity in American History.

If it is true that Lincoln intentionally induced the attack on Fort Sumter, than he was just too clever by half.

21 posted on 09/24/2012 1:03:27 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

I shall not be surprised if this thread ends up getting locked and/or deleted.


22 posted on 09/24/2012 1:04:26 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar
What you say comes down to the last line of my post: Victors write the history books. It could be argued that if Lee had not fought the third day at Gettysburg, the South would have had time to finish implementing the changes they were working on. 300,000 Black soldiers, trained and fighting for the promise of land and equality would have changed things. Once the war began, whether Slavery was the prime mover or not, Slavery was finished. With the historical result, we moved considerably toward Federalism.

The sort of Federalism that Lincoln gave us is the disease from which we are currently dying. I am sensitive as to how it got into our National blood stream. It certainly does not resemble the Federalism which our Founders had bequeathed us.

Lincoln, Roosevelt, Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Obama, all followed pretty much the same philosophy but to an ever expanding extent.

23 posted on 09/24/2012 1:11:17 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BubbaBasher

That’s exactly how the union felt, considering that Sumter was their property.


24 posted on 09/24/2012 1:11:57 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
That’s exactly how the union felt, considering that Sumter was their property.

Just as much as Fort Ticonderoga was British Property.

25 posted on 09/24/2012 1:15:27 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

You forgot Roberts on that list. I think we are in agreement.


26 posted on 09/24/2012 1:16:54 PM PDT by Ingtar (Everyone complains about the weather, but only Liberals try to legislate it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

Don’t know how the klan is involved, but thanks, will check it out.


27 posted on 09/24/2012 1:21:24 PM PDT by petro45acp (The question isn't "are you better off?" it should be "is it really the government's job?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BubbaBasher
If Lincoln had withdrawn from Sumter and not launched headlong into a war there wouldn't have been 660,000 deaths

You could just as easily say that if Davis had not fired on Sumter then all those deaths could have been avoided. What threat was Sumter to the South, even had Lincoln been able to resupply the fort? Did it threaten the safety of the Confederacy? No, Charleston was one port and besides, the troops in the port had done nothing to interfere with shipping into and out of Charleston. Did the troops there take any hostile action aganst Confederate forces? No, they stood their post and didn't fire at anything. So why the attack? The only purpose for firing on Sumter was to provoke a conflict. One has to ask why Davis chose to do so if he didn't want a war with the North.

28 posted on 09/24/2012 1:27:27 PM PDT by Delhi Rebels (There was a row in Silver Street - the regiments was out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Nice post. Well stated.


29 posted on 09/24/2012 1:31:28 PM PDT by AuntB (Illegal immigration is simply more "share the wealth" socialism and a CRIME not a race!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

It would be more apt to make that comparison to purported ownership by the confeds.


30 posted on 09/24/2012 1:36:44 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“We haven’t ended slavery, we’ve just changed masters and added more slaves.”

Really? Really??? You’re going to compare anything we have now to the 1800’s practice of slavery? You are truly delusional.


31 posted on 09/24/2012 1:44:19 PM PDT by bigdaddy45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Delhi Rebels
You could just as easily say that if Davis had not fired on Sumter then all those deaths could have been avoided. What threat was Sumter to the South, even had Lincoln been able to resupply the fort? Did it threaten the safety of the Confederacy? No, Charleston was one port and besides, the troops in the port had done nothing to interfere with shipping into and out of Charleston. Did the troops there take any hostile action aganst Confederate forces? No, they stood their post and didn't fire at anything. So why the attack? The only purpose for firing on Sumter was to provoke a conflict. One has to ask why Davis chose to do so if he didn't want a war with the North.

It was just a matter of pride. It had nothing to do with any actual difficulties with the troops being there. But might I ask you how would the Founders have regarded a continuous occupation by the British of Fort Ticonderoga?

I will also point out that Federal Troops had shortly before abandoned Fort Moultrie in South Carolina. Were it so easy to abandon one Fort, why not another?

32 posted on 09/24/2012 1:50:00 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
It would be more apt to make that comparison to purported ownership by the confeds.

The British did not pursue the fight. Had they wanted, they could have kept Fort Ticonderoga, and we would not have been able to dislodge them no matter how much we tried.

33 posted on 09/24/2012 1:53:45 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: bigdaddy45
Really? Really??? You’re going to compare anything we have now to the 1800’s practice of slavery? You are truly delusional.

It is true that our chains sit lightly upon us, but do you not feel them growing heavier with each passing year?

34 posted on 09/24/2012 1:56:58 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: AuntB
Nice post. Well stated.

Thank you. I have learned that in History, all is not always as it seems.

35 posted on 09/24/2012 1:58:02 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

So a fortification, built by the French and Canadians was seized by conquest by the British. At least once it was captured from the Brits by Americans. Its ownership was calculated by possession, not title.

How again is this even remotely analogous to the seizure of Sumter by the rebels?


36 posted on 09/24/2012 2:09:12 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

What we have no is bad, no doubt about it. But any comparison to REAL slavery is ridiculous.


37 posted on 09/24/2012 2:13:19 PM PDT by bigdaddy45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
It was just a matter of pride. It had nothing to do with any actual difficulties with the troops being there. But might I ask you how would the Founders have regarded a continuous occupation by the British of Fort Ticonderoga?

The Founding Fathers did not choose to start their war with the British by attacking Fort Sumter. But had they done so, I think they would have recognized that doing so was certainly an act of war and that the Britihs would have no choice but to respond in kind.

I will also point out that Federal Troops had shortly before abandoned Fort Moultrie in South Carolina. Were it so easy to abandon one Fort, why not another?

They also gave up Castle Pinkney and the Charelston Armory and for the same reason; none of those three were defensible. Sumter was.

38 posted on 09/24/2012 2:21:57 PM PDT by Delhi Rebels (There was a row in Silver Street - the regiments was out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
So a fortification, built by the French and Canadians was seized by conquest by the British. At least once it was captured from the Brits by Americans. Its ownership was calculated by possession, not title.

Don't blow smoke. Is it, or is it not American property?

How again is this even remotely analogous to the seizure of Sumter by the rebels?

I'm thinking that if I have to explain it further, you aren't knowledgeable enough to understand it anyway. But just for kicks and grins, you do know that the United States was formerly Colonies of Great Britain, right? Well, we issued a Deceleration of Independence from them, and count the founding of our Country from that Date; July 4, 1776. Should we have let them keep an American fortress?

39 posted on 09/24/2012 2:29:12 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: bigdaddy45
What we have no is bad, no doubt about it. But any comparison to REAL slavery is ridiculous.

My point is... that is coming as well. Of course we will be more of the Soviet style of slavery.

40 posted on 09/24/2012 2:31:55 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Your friend's rendition is a bit off.

Early on, Lincoln had unilaterally decided to arrange hostile events at the forts. He had communicated this intention to the military several months before his inauguration.

After taking office, he introduced to his cabinet the idea of armed reinforcement of Ft. Sumter, and asked for suggestions. All were opposed to a greater or lesser degree except his Postmaster General, who brought in a retired naval lieutenant familiar with Ft. Sumter to help Lincoln formulate a way to provoke hostilities.

His cabinet was against the action, but Lincoln persisted and finally got tepid approval from some of the cabinet members.

Lincoln wanted the naval expedition to be a secret. He had no funds to pay for the outfitting or rental of civilian ships for part of the action, so he sent Seward to take money ($10,000) from the State Department safe to give to the civilian naval officer to pay New York outfitters and ship owners.

Early in April, Lincoln ordered the fleet to sail South, some with the names of the ships painted black.

In your description, you used the term “supply train”. There was no such proposal or act.

Also, you mentioned a letter to Anderson asking him to hold out for one day. That is also not true. There is no such item in either the Confederate or Union historical papers or accounts.

The bottom line is that Lincoln, without Congressional authority, arranged and initiated a secret military invasion of Charleston harbor, designed to evoke a military response. In the process of attacking the area, without permission, and causing a blockade of an open port, he started a war that proved to be the worst event in this country's history.

Perhaps your friend, because of his cultural values, saw this as genius, but only in the sense of a political leader that falsely believed in his supreme right to carry out efforts of one section of the country to invade, destroy, and kill the other.

41 posted on 09/24/2012 2:42:45 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Delhi Rebels
The Founding Fathers did not choose to start their war with the British by attacking Fort Sumter. But had they done so, I think they would have recognized that doing so was certainly an act of war and that the British would have no choice but to respond in kind.

The point remains, would we have insisted the British Leave an occupied American Fort? If you don't think the Founders would have tolerated it, why should you think anyone else should tolerate it?

They also gave up Castle Pinkney and the Charelston Armory and for the same reason; none of those three were defensible. Sumter was.

Apparently it wasn't. They surrendered it, if you will remember. But the point remains, why should you need to defend a Fort that is not in your own country?

42 posted on 09/24/2012 2:46:55 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

But it was our property and was in our own country.


43 posted on 09/24/2012 2:56:06 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
The point remains, would we have insisted the British Leave an occupied American Fort? If you don't think the Founders would have tolerated it, why should you think anyone else should tolerate it?

I would like to think that if the Founding Fathers chose to initiate a war with Britain over Ticonderoga they would have done it for a reason more substantial than 'just a matter of pride.' Several hundred thousand dead seems like a high price to pay for something as petty as that.

Apparently it wasn't. They surrendered it, if you will remember. But the point remains, why should you need to defend a Fort that is not in your own country?

From the viewpoint of Anderson and his men, the fort was in their own country.

44 posted on 09/24/2012 2:57:00 PM PDT by Delhi Rebels (There was a row in Silver Street - the regiments was out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

most folks see with that which they are looking...

Semper Watching!
*****


45 posted on 09/24/2012 3:05:12 PM PDT by gunnyg ("A Constitution changed from Freedom, can never be restored; Liberty, once lost, is lost forever...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
According to my friend, Lincoln was having none of this. He sent a letter to the Confederate leadership informing them that on a certain date, he was sending a supply train to re-supply the fort.

I think your friend is mistaken. Lincoln did send a letter to the governor of South Carolina informing him that he was sending supplies by ship but he didn't specify a date.

My friend said that at this same time, Lincoln dispatched a letter to the commander of Fort Sumter informing him that he would soon be attacked by the Confederates, and that he was to take all steps to reduce loss of life, hold the Fort for one day, and then surrender it, which is exactly what happened.

On April 4th Lincoln sent a letter to Major Anderson telling him that the resupply effort was underway and that he hoped Anderson could hold out till the 11th or 12th. Lincoln also stated:

"It is not, however, the intention of the President to subject your command to any danger or hardship beyond what, in your judgment, would be usual in military life; and he has entire confidence that you will act as becomes a patriot and a soldier under all circumstances.

Whenever, if at all, in your judgment, to save yourself and command, a capitulation becomes a necessity, you are authorized to make it."

Lincoln at no time specified how long he wanted Anderson to hold out should an attack by the Confederates occur.

The Confederates did attack the Fort with cannon fire, yet no one was killed as a result of it. (Were they really aiming to kill anyone, or just making noise?)

Pictures taken of Sumter following the Confederate attack show quite a bit of damage. I have no doubt that the intent of the attack was to cause casualties, and it is only good fortune that nobody was killed during the bombardment.

46 posted on 09/24/2012 3:15:37 PM PDT by Delhi Rebels (There was a row in Silver Street - the regiments was out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
But the point remains, why should you need to defend a Fort that is not in your own country?

Guantanamo, the Panama Canal Zone, Pearl Harbor, Wake Island, West Berlin? Gibraltar, Singapore, Hong Kong, the Falklands?

And of course, for the men in the fort and millions more back home, Charleston was still a part of our country.

But beyond that, you're defending stupidity and viciousness.

Someone who ever truly thought of himself as an American, as a citizen of the United States, wouldn't be such a bastard towards what was or his own country.

Someone who still had pleasant memories of what it meant to be an American wouldn't back what was or had been one's own country into a corner.

I'm not talking about you here or anybody else alive today. When I say "somebody," I'm referring to the rebel leaders of the 1860s.

But of course, those were crazy times and they brought out the craziness, and the sheer cussedness in people. To have acted thoughtfully and with restraint would have been difficult for those in power. But to make that kind of savage stupidity the norm would be a mistake.

47 posted on 09/24/2012 3:22:48 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: wfu_deacons
Virginia, my native state, voted against secession on April 4, 1861 and did not vote for secession until Lincoln called for troops to invade the South.

And then you lost about of a quarter of your white population when the Western counties with few if any slaves told the tidewater Virginia slavocrats to go to hell.

Almost heaven, West Virginia. They were never part of the slave empire and those Hillbillys never much cared for the phony aristrocrats like Bobby Lee in the first place. ;~))

48 posted on 09/24/2012 3:23:00 PM PDT by Ditto (Nov 2, 2010 -- Partial cleaning accomplished. More trash to remove in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
In your description, you used the term “supply train”. There was no such proposal or act.

I cannot speak to the rest of your comment because you mention things of which I have no knowledge, but I am pretty certain that I have the supply train letter correct. It has been a very long time since I have looked at this issue, but at the time I was doing research I found corroboration for Lincoln having sent a letter to the Confederates informing them of an overground supply train to the Fort.

As for the letter to the Fort, I have not been able to corroborate that, but that doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen. I recall my friend being very insistent on that point, so I doubt I remembered it wrongly. Apparently he saw evidence for it that I have yet to discover.

In any case, it is my understanding that the Nation accepted Southern Secession as a fait accompli, and made no bones over it. It was only Lincoln, who faced the humiliation of being the President who presided over the division of the Nation that was loath to accept what was then the status quo.

Ah, I think i've found them.

Abraham Lincoln to General Anderson:April 4, 1861

SIR: Your letter of the 1st instant occasions some anxiety to the president. On the information of Captain Fox, he had supposed you could hold out till the 15th instant without any great inconvenience and had prepared an expedition to relieve you before that period.

Hoping still that you will be able to sustain yourself till the 11th or 12th instant, the expedition will go forward, and, finding your flag flying, will attempt to provision you, and in case the effort is resisted, will endeavor also to reinforce you.

You will therefore hold out, if possible, till the arrival of the expedition.

It is not, however, the intention of the President to subject your command to any danger or hardship beyond what, in your judgment, would be usual in military life; and he has entire confidence that you will act as becomes a patriot and a soldier under all circumstances.

Whenever, if at all, in your judgment, to save yourself and command, a capitulation becomes a necessity, you are authorized to make it.

And:

Abraham Lincoln to Robert Chew: April 6, 1861

SIR: You will proceed directly to Charleston, South Carolina, and if, on your arrival there, the flag of the United States shall be flying over Fort Sumter and the fort shall not have been attacked, you will procure an interview with Governor Pickens, and read to him as follows: "I am directed by the President of the United States to notify you to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only; and that, if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the fort."

After you shall have read this to Governor Pickens, deliver to him the copy of it herein enclosed, and retain this letter yourself.

But if, on your arrival at Charleston, you shall ascertain that Fort Sumter shall have been already evacuated, or surrendered by the United States force, or shall have been attacked by an opposing force, you will seek no interview with Governor Pickens, but return here forthwith.

Pretty much what my friend said, but with a few details not quite right.

Link:

49 posted on 09/24/2012 3:24:14 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
But it was our property and was in our own country.

Just what the British thought as well.

50 posted on 09/24/2012 3:25:49 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-215 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson