Scourge of War Boards

When someone asks me which side do I favor (the North or the South) I reply that I am neutral. Both sides had good reasons for their actions.

Lincoln did not start the war. The war had been brewing for years, just waiting for someone to pull the trigger.

Hampton Legion HQ wrote:

By April 4, President Lincoln, discovering that supplies in the fort were shorter than he had previously known, and believing a relief expedition to be feasible, ordered merchant vessels escorted by the United States Navy to Charleston.

How about that Shirkon?
It is in hundreds of books, and websites. I know how to cross reference.
And you don't even know me. How would you know if I am good on my history or not?
But it seems you don't really research your answers as this proves.

And also, the battle of Fort Sumter was in April, not in January as you said when the Star of the West got there. Buchanan resupplied it, and his ship got through, an Ft Sumter was fine. No rebels shelled it that time, or is my history really wrong?
The supply ship that caused Ft. Sumter's bombardment was launched by lincoln.

And also, to keep to the topic, Lincoln raised 75,000 volunteers almost the day after the Fort was bombarded. There was no diplomacy, and more states seceded after the US had raised those troops. Had Lincoln gone to methods of diplomacy, he could have avoided the war. But instead of talking it out, he decides to recruit loads of troops to invade America. I am telling you that that is not really great way to stop a conflict.
"The President's raising of 75,000 men has done nothing to alleviate the crisis, but has only deepened it."

The Star of the West sent by Buchanan DID NOT get through. It was fired on by Confederate guns before it could get into the harbor so it turned back. Yes, the battle was in April, but the Confederates fired first on January 9th. Lincoln wasn't inaugurated until March 2 months after the Star of the West was FIRED upon by Confederates in South Carolina. The resupply you think Buchanan did never happened.

Lincoln called for 75,000 troops AFTER Sumpter had surrendered. He didn't find out about the surrender until after the ship with Anderson and his men arrived in New York well after the fort was fired on by the Confederates. Lincoln didn't have to use diplomacy for an internal rebellion. Did YOUR King George try diplomacy when the original 13 colonies rebelled against him, NO he sent troops to put it down. Diplomacy is never used for what the authorities of a country feel is a rebellion, then try to enforce the state by whatever means are available or necessary.

The states in rebellion were not another country in the eyes of the Lincoln administration, they were parts of the United States in rebellion. For this reason Lincoln used the power granted by the Constitution to call up additional troops to perform his Constitutional duty. As for avoiding a war, the fire eaters in the seceded states started it when they siezed property of the United States. Where was your vaunted diplomacy when they did that? Did they send diplomates asking if they could have the forts built by the United States with revenue from all the states? No, they continued to sieze arsenals, forts, US Revenue cutters and even some troops stationed in the southern states.

As far as my know whether you are good with history or not is concerned, your obvious lack of knowledge proves it everytime you post something. And Cross referencing on the web isn't the best place to find out facts. Most things on there are condensed to the point that most facts are lost or distorted. I recommend again you read a complete history of the war and they years leading up to it so you can put things more into perspective and comment from a more informed basis.

And where did I say that because I am british, I supported the King? No, I believe in the Colonists, standing up for their rights. In fact, you should in theory be standing up for King George, because you don't support secession, or rebellion, or do you?
What was different from the rebellion in the 1700s and the rebellion in the 1800s?

General Hampton, I fear the British are not great favorites of Americans right now, It seems we outside the Usa have no right to even discuss such things as american history!

Braxton Bragg

Maybe, to Northerners.

Braxton Bragg wrote:

General Hampton, I fear the British are not great favorites of Americans right now, It seems we outside the Usa have no right to even discuss such things as american history!

Braxton Bragg

You're in the UK? And our MP game the other day ran that smooth? Nice!

And I love the British! The greatest Rockers of all time were British (Beatles, Stones, Clapton, The Clash, just to name a few). Saying that you are not great favorites is complete rubbish...

Matt I have always, I repeat always held the people of the USA with the greatest pride and respect, I look on them in awe, how could I not as a long way back we and you were blood related.

It just feels these forums have a differnt feel to outsiders, shame we cannot recreate the spirite of the old MMG forum.


Braxton Bragg

To set the record straight, the first call for Federal troops occurred on 15 April 1861 and it was issued by Secretary of War, Simon Cameron, as noted in the Constitution (but undoubtedly instituted by Lincoln). This can be found in the Official Records, Series III, Volume I, 122. As noted in the formal call to arms, it was the Congress who had the power to authorize calling out the militia: "SIR: Under the act of Congress "for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, repel invasions," &c., approved February 28, 1795, I have the honor to request Your Excellency to cause to be immediately detached from the militia of your State the quota designated in the table below, to serve as infantry or riflemen, for the period of three months, unless sooner discharged.", not the president. To quote a student's paper, "The Constitution gave him no power to raise a volunteer army for the purpose of fighting any of the sovereign States of this Union. When in the convention which framed the Constitution a proposition was made to give the Federal Government power to use military force against a non-complying State, it was unanimously voted down, and no such power was ever given to the Federal Government in the Constitution." Interestingly, and correctly (?) is the usage of the term "sovereign!" :ohmy:


An interesting aspect of the initial call to arms is that the call was issued AFTER the Congress had adjourned! If the firing on Ft. Sumter was the causation of a call for troops, why wasn't that pathway followed after the first firing in January? Was it because Lincoln suspected that Congress would not agree to that measure? :blink:

Diplomacy...described as "...being to told to 'go to hell' in such a way as to look forward to the trip!" :woohoo:

J

Thank you Shirkon, It seems you have not only read your history but have formed proper conclusions with the facts presented to you. Mr. Lincoln rose up to the occasion and was able to walk skillfully the political tight rope that he was thrust onto. Mr. Lincoln hated slavery as much as the next man. He also respected and sustained the laws of the land. Slavery was legal. Ft Sumter as well as other forts, arsenals etc. were leased or given or sold to the federal govt. by each and every state and territory in the union. The South Carolinians could have fired on Charleston or some private property or state property and let South Carolina handle it. But they chose to fire on legally acquired federal property. Thus firing on the United States. Legally South Carolina should have obeyed the call from Lincoln and sent The militia to quell the uprising in her own state. They did not. Virginia was torn internally to sustain the federal govt. or seceed. Some choose to seceed ,The western half said no. They formed there own state, West Virginia, and were admitted into the union in 1863. The Emancipation Proclamation was only in effect to those portions of states that were under contol by US troops. That is the states in rebellion, and not the border states or northern states. Not every northerner intered the fracus with the intent to free the slave. Not every one was a die hard abolitionist. By the same token "almost" all men believe in honoring and sustaining the laws of the land. So when the "Hated Yankee Abolitionists" finally got enough support from eough people in the land to take the "Moral" high ground, Lincoln was able to move closer to freeing the slaves. Lincoln and the boys were right. Jeff Davis and his posse were wrong. I have a love hate relationship with politics. I honor and sustain the rule of law. You know what my opinion of the Arizona situation is. God bless America.

Kerflumoxed

Well Professor, I couldnt have put it better!

Braxton Bragg