Posted on 02/06/2007 10:16:07 AM PST by Hillary'sMoralVoid
Because he was constitutionally barred from ending it in the loyal slave states with a simple wave of his pen, while he could end it in the rebelling states by virtue of his power as commander in chief. He could however, end it in the District of Columbia, which he quickly did, and he pushed for the 13th amendment once the 1864 election gave him enough votes in the House to get it through.
Lincoln is on record as saying, essentially, that slavery was inconsequential, even acceptable, but what he could not abide was the destruction of the Union.
I don't suppose you have any actual quotes from Lincoln saying that slavery was inconsequential, do you? Because I've got a bunch where he expresses his moral abhorrence of it. What he did consistently say was that he didn't think he, or the federal government, had the authority to end slavery in the states where it already existed, short of a constitutional amendment (which could never pass while the southern states remained in the Union).
We are going to achieve the ultimate victory, so stop the whining and complaining because it only gives aid and comfort to the enemy. Support the Commander in Chief in times of war, that is what is required form you if you are a good patriot.
But he was slow to respond.
This war is not similar to the traditional fighting of WW II where we faced organized armies and governments.
All the more reason why retribution must be swift and severe, and the resources invested must be high. Keep in mind, I was talking about the occupation after WWII, not WWII itself.
The terrorist enemy simply dwells among the non armed population and they make sneak attacks against our troops,
Precisely, but Bush sent the troops into Iraq with orders not to fire on mosques and so forth (he later repudiated them). The point is that Bush has been trying to fight a gentleman's war with thugs. He has made policy decisions that were half-measures for PR reasons. You just don't win wars that way.
We are going to achieve the ultimate victory,
I think that the outcome is far from certain at this point. Before you repeat last post's meme, that is hardly a defeatist's point of view. A defeatist thinks that the outcome is certain--defeat. IMHO, Bush has been too weak in the past and while adding more troops is a step in the right direction, it just isn't enough.
so stop the whining and complaining because it only gives aid and comfort to the enemy Support the Commander in Chief in times of war, that is what is required form you if you are a good patriot.
I support the effort, but that doesn't mean that I have to agree with Bush's policies. Disagreeing with aspects of Bush's war no more makes me a traitor than disagreeing with Clinton on Bosnia and Kosovo. And, whatever the pundits may tell you, you can disagree with either policies surrounding the war or the war itself and still support the troops.
I see. So if you have a house surrounded and are trying to starve out the people inside, and you hear that someone is sending help to them, it's self defense to start shooting at the house.
I have several of his albums on CD.
I look for them on EBAY.
Bull, as Lincoln's message to Governor Pickens made clear. The ships were there to land food and supplies only, and that reinforcements and munitions would be landed only if the resupply was opposed. The confederates comitted an act of pure aggression.
I think someone once said that Analogy is the last refuge of a Scoundrel.
So, why use it if the facts are clear. Lincoln gave orders to Fox to fight his way in. Without Ft. Sumter there was no mission.
The Confederates took the Union mission down without killing anyone.
Then deal in facts. Fact, Sumter was the property of the federal government and the troops had the right to be there. Fact, the troops in the fort committed not a single, solitary hostile act against the confederate forces or the people of Charleston. Fact, the troops in the fort were low on supplies and the confederacy was trying to starve them into submission. Fact, Lincoln made his intent known in communications with Anderson and Governor Pickens and that intent was to land food and supplies only if the resupply effort wasn't opposed. Fact, the confederates bombarded Sumter for over 24 hours in an attempt to kill as many men as possible and force the rest to surrender. Fact, the war started there and the confederacy started it.
The pure acts of aggression were committed by the Union. For example, Lt. Adam Slemmer, without orders moved his troops at Pensacola, and fired on Florida militia on January 9; days later the Joseph Whitney docked at Ft. Jefferson, on Garden Key in the Tortugas, with Maj. Arnold and his company of artillery setting up as reinforcements for Capt. Meigs.
President Buchanan approved and sent the the sloop-of-war Brooklyn with 90 men from Ft. Monroe, Hampton Roads, to reinforce Ft. Pickens. The Brooklyn, had also been sent days earlier to help the Star of the West, loaded with war materiel and soldiers, in her attempt to aid Ft. Sumter, another aggressive move.
Then, on January 27 the Union Navy Department dispatched to Ft. Pickens at Pensacola, Fla., more reinforcements. It was the warship Brooklyn that sailed from Norfolk, Va., under sealed orders, taking the companies of men from Fortress Monroe. A newspaper freely reported she was destined for Ft. Pickens.
March 11 .....newly inaugurated President Lincoln directed
that Ft. Pickens be reinforced and the man-o-war Mohawk left New York harbor that day with orders to Capt. I. Vodges, 1st U.S. Artillery, directing him to transfer immediately his two companies from the ship Brooklyn to Ft. Pickens.
At the end of that week, The federal fleet off Ft. Pickens included the Sabine (50 guns), the Brooklyn (25 guns), the St. Louis (20 guns), the Crusader (eight guns), the Wyandotte (five guns) and the Supply (two guns).
President Abraham Lincoln issued a direct order to Capt H. A. Adams of the Man-o-war Brooklyn, lying off Pensacola, to land troops from his vessel at Ft. Pickens.
So if it is predisposition to aggression, you have it with two US presidents.
Thank you for your "facts". They appear to be more odd knowledge than fact.
The Union troops at Sumter had sneaked over under the cover of darkness to occupy a facility without orders. So the "right" to be there did not exist.
Next, the movement was hostile, and everyone said so, from Charleston all the way up to the Buchanan government.
The Confederacy was not trying to starve anyone. The Mayor of Charleston offered food, but was refused.
Despite Lincoln's bifurcated message, and historical apologia aside, it was designed to cause war. Even the Union officers at Ft. Sumter said that.
And your effort to paint the Ft. Sumter event as the start of the war is denied by both historians and the Federal government itself.
The Union military under Abraham Lincoln's orders started the war.
oh my god.. someone who knows who Dave Gardner is!!!
HALLELUJAH!!
Rejoice Dearhearts :)
You're wasting your time.
You can't teach a pig to sing.
"James Lewis, get away from that wheelbarrow, you know you doesn't know nothin' about machinery."
lol priceless
I used to have them but swapped them in for CD's that my brother burned for me. Never got tired of Brother Dave.. he's a classic :)
Like with Major Anderson, the company commander, Capt. Winder, of G Company, 1st Artillery, commanded all the army facilities in the Pensacola area. He was on leave and Lt. Slemmer was senior officer present. As such he was well within his authority to shift his men from one fort to the next to ensure their safety.
... and fired on Florida militia on January 9...
Lt. Slemmer's account of the 'action': "On January 8th the first step indicating to outsiders an intention on our part of resist was taken, by the removal of the powder from the Spanish fort to Fort Barrancas, where on the same might a guard was placed with loaded muskets. It was none too soon, for about midnight a party of twenty men came to the fort, evidently with the intention of taking possession, expecting to find it unoccupied as usual. Being challenged and not answering nor halting when ordered, the party was fired upon by the guard and ran in the direction of Warrington, their footsteps resounding on the plank walk at the long roll ceased and our company started for the fort at double-quick. This, I believe, was the first gun in the war fired on our side."
Obviously he was defending his post.
...another aggressive move.
Not as aggressive as surrounding Sumter with artillery batteries and firing on unarmed merchant ships.
The rest of your post involves steps taken to safeguard U.S. possessions. Why is that aggressive?
So if it is predisposition to aggression, you have it with two US presidents.
There is an account from William Chase, confederate officer who delivered a demand to Lt. Slemmer that he surrender the fort. When asked what would happen if Slemmer did not surrender the fort, Chase replied it would be stormed. He went on to say, "You must know very well that, with your small force, you are not expected to, and cannot, hold this fort. Florida cannot permit it, and the troops here are determined to have it; and if not surrendered peacefully, an attack and the inauguration of civil war cannot be prevented. If it is a question of numbers, and 800 is not enough, I can easily bring thousands more."
Who had the predisposition to aggression again?
Is that like "You can tell a southron supporter...but you can't tell them much?"
Of course it did. Major Anderson commanded all the forts and faclilities in the Charleston area. That included Sumter. In December Major Buell had given him verbal authority to take whatever measures necessary to safeguard his command. So yes, he was well within his authority to move his men from Pickens to Sumter.
Next, the movement was hostile, and everyone said so, from Charleston all the way up to the Buchanan government.
The fact that the confederates deemed it hostile is irrelevant. They considered anything other than surrender to be hostile. And I'm not aware of Buchanan ever condemning Anderson's actions as hostile. In fact I believe he went out of his way to refuse doing so.
The Confederacy was not trying to starve anyone. The Mayor of Charleston offered food, but was refused.
Some supplies were actually bought from shore during much of the crisis, but all access to that was ended on order of the Davis government issued on or about the first of April. The intent was to starve the garrison into surrender.
Despite Lincoln's bifurcated message, and historical apologia aside, it was designed to cause war. Even the Union officers at Ft. Sumter said that.
It was used by the confederates as an excuse to initiate war. But since we don't know what would actually had happened had Lincoln had the chance to peacefully resupply the fort then your claims are pure speculation.
And your effort to paint the Ft. Sumter event as the start of the war is denied by both historians and the Federal government itself.
By all means tell us. What was the start of the war?
The Union military under Abraham Lincoln's orders started the war.
Complete nonsense.
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.