Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 12th, 2012, 03:26 PM   #181
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Alabama
Posts: 279

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viperlord View Post
What's odd about it is that the fact that Davis called up troops first is ignored, especially when you consider that the Confederates had every intention of invading Kentucky and Missouri and installing pro-Confederate governments over the wishes of the majority in those states.
Sources? Didn't Lincoln do just that to Maryland?
Unrevised is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 12th, 2012, 03:38 PM   #182

Fiver's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,106

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankee View Post
What about his use of snipers at the rear of his army? Any truth to that?
After the problems with straggling in the Maryland Campaign, Lee ordered the creation of provost guards. Usually these were companies of sharpshooters and they were supposed to shoot men who moved to the rear unless they were wounded.
Fiver is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 03:40 PM   #183

Fiver's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,106

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wenge View Post
First why would Mr. Lee use snipers to control his troops? Southerners were passionate about their cause and grief sticken when he gave the order to lay down their arms at Appomattox.
Confederate troops were more likely to be conscripts and more likely to desert than their Union counterparts. IIRC, Jefferson Davis claimed 2/3rds of all Confederate soldiers deserted before the end of the war.
Fiver is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 03:45 PM   #184

Spartacuss's Avatar
Western Philistine
 
Joined: Jul 2010
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,705

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unrevised View Post
Sources? Didn't Lincoln do just that to Maryland?
Bad comparison. Pro south Marylanders could not even pull enough support in the legislature to convene a secessionist convention prior to Sumter. There was only a basic lip service caveat to convene one should Virginia secede. Even then they could not reach a quorum to call the question. There was no majority support for the Confederacy in Maryland. Lincoln's reactions were aimed at keeping Maryland in the Union while destroying a violent minority largely centered around Baltimore. I would have enjoyed watching him do it.
Spartacuss is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 05:16 PM   #185

Viperlord's Avatar
Scalawag
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 6,348
Blog Entries: 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unrevised View Post
Sources? Didn't Lincoln do just that to Maryland?
Community and Conflict Archive The 12th Confederate State

This was all in spite of a pro-union vote at Missouri's secession convention.

Secession and the Union in Tennessee and Kentucky: A Comparative Analysis

The Confederates had two stars in their flag for Kentucky and Missouri; they were committed to installing the shadow governments, as seen in Braxton Bragg's invasion of Kentucky.

And the Maryland situation wasn't exactly the same; that was the national government acting to maintain control of it's own territory, especially as losing Maryland would have meant losing DC. Regardless, it's not clear that Maryland would have voted for secession even if Lincoln didn't break up the possibility of the secession convention; there was no clear majority in favor of secession.

Of course, I don't know why you brought up Maryland; I mentioned Kentucky and Missouri as two clear examples of the Confederacy's aggression. Given secessionist activity in Maryland was posing an immediate threat to D.C. and it's communications, it was a matter of national defense for Lincoln to maintain control in the Baltimore area.
Viperlord is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 06:09 PM   #186

Fiver's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,106

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefany View Post
About the topic, Lee was opposed to slavery and didn't believe in it.
He even went as far as to liberate his slaves at some point, can't remember when though.
Robert E Lee inherited a large number of slaves upon his father-in-law's death on October 10, 1857. George Custis will also specified bequests of $10,000 were to be made to each of Robert E Lee's for daughters. The slaves were to be freed when these huge bequests could be paid or after a maximum of 5 years. On January 2nd, 1863, nearly 3 months after he was legally required to free the slaves, Robert E Lee finally did so.
Fiver is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 06:27 PM   #187

Fiver's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,106

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wenge View Post
Slavery was on the steep decline especially in Virginia.
The US Census shows quite the opposite. In the 11 states that formed the Confederacy, the percentage of the population that were slaves increased slightly between 1850 and 1860.
Fiver is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 06:56 PM   #188

Spartacuss's Avatar
Western Philistine
 
Joined: Jul 2010
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,705

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiver View Post
The US Census shows quite the opposite. In the 11 states that formed the Confederacy, the percentage of the population that were slaves increased slightly between 1850 and 1860.
Not to mention Virginia produced and marketed slaves to other states. Particularly after the international slave trade was outlawed.
Spartacuss is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 02:01 AM   #189

Yankee's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: Baltimore, Maryland
Posts: 567

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unrevised View Post
Sources? Didn't Lincoln do just that to Maryland?
At the request of the governor.

On the 18th of the month, Hicks took a much more advanced position towards the Federal Administration by applying to General Scott for arms and soldiers if these "should become necessary to put down rebellion in this state." Hicks feared that the passage of an act of secession by Virginia would cause an outbreak in Maryland. Scott approved of the request, and Cameron notified Hicks that assistance would be furnished him whenever he should
deem it necessary." The correspondence was not made public at the time. Indeed, there is little doubt but that there would have been a popular outcry if it had been known that Hicks was seeking the services of United States soldiers to keep order in Maryland.
Full text of "Governor Thomas H. Hicks of Maryland and the civil war"

Last edited by Yankee; November 13th, 2012 at 02:52 AM.
Yankee is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 02:59 AM   #190

Yankee's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: Baltimore, Maryland
Posts: 567

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unrevised View Post
So this makes it okay that Lincoln did it?
No, it's ok that Lincoln did it because of its own value. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the confederates and neo confederates. Lincoln didn't say one thing while his hands did another- like Davis. Who came up with this rule that this country can't employ such means to put down a violent insurrection? I don't blame Lincoln, I blame the aggression of the south for putting us in the position.
Yankee is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
lee, robert


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A Robert E. Lee WHAT IF mister Speculative History 8 May 10th, 2009 05:17 AM
Robert E. Lee kahn American History 33 March 20th, 2009 07:40 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.