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 19th, 2012, 10:19 PM   #411
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 15

Any one, as noted above, who still doesn't believe slavery and economics were not the primus casus belli for the American south; needs to journey to your Washington State. And get that now, legal for usage; personal 'weed' and, return to never never land.

Word is, a convention of reborn 'son's of the south' is planned just before 25 Dec to celebrate their 'lost causers' west coast reunion. Sounds illuminating. If your an apologist for slavery.


Or still believe in the firm conviction that it's a natural state of man-mind based on skin texture.


Ah well even though I reside and make a killing here now you Americans remain refreshing in your naivety.
Dragonborn is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 20th, 2012, 02:25 AM   #412

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rongo View Post
Will, we all know that those greedy New England fanatical, hypocritical zealots dressed up as Confederate soldiers and fired on Fort Sumter to start the war. Don't try to deny it.
Didn't the confederates make numerous attacks before Sumter? I read a quote from Sherman that they were even stealing mints.

*edit, found the quote:
You have heretofore read public sentiment in your newspapers, that live by falsehood and excitement; and the quicker you seek for truth in other quarters, the better. I repeat then that, but the original compact of government, the United States had certain rights in Georgia, which have never been relinquished and never will be; that the South began the war by seizing forts, arsenals, mints, custom-houses, etc., etc., long before Mr. Lincoln was installed, and before the South had one jot or title of provocation. I myself have seen in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi, hundreds and thousands of women and children fleeing from your armies and desperadoes, hungry and with bleeding feet. In Memphis, Vicksburg, and Mississippi, we fed thousands and thousands of the families of rebel soldiers left on our hands, and whom we could not see starve. Now that war comes to you, you feel very different. You deprecate its horrors, but did not feel them when you sent car-loads of soldiers and ammunition, and moulded shells and shot, to carry war into Kentucky and Tennessee, to desolate the homes of hundreds and thousands of good people who only asked to live in peace at their old homes, and under the Government of their inheritance. But these comparisons are idle. I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect an early success.

Last edited by Yankee; November 20th, 2012 at 02:30 AM.
Yankee is offline  
Old November 20th, 2012, 02:31 AM   #413

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankee View Post
Didn't the confederates make numerous attacks before Sumter? I read a quote from Sherman that they were even stealing mints.
Yes, they siezed multiple federal forts, arsenals, mints, ships, etc., although almost all of these were very lightly manned and were surrendered without a fight.

The United States commander in the Department of Texas, General David Twiggs (a Confederate sympathizer) surrendered all 2,000 Texas troops to the Texans without a fight 2 months before Fort Sumter. Hundreds of these men were held as prisoner of war, some of them for as long as 2 years. Twiggs' action was so egregious that even lilly-livered President Buchanan dishonorably discharged him and called him a traitor.
Rongo is offline  
Old November 20th, 2012, 08:12 AM   #414
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,485

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rongo View Post
Yes, they siezed multiple federal forts, arsenals, mints, ships, etc., although almost all of these were very lightly manned and were surrendered without a fight.

The United States commander in the Department of Texas, General David Twiggs (a Confederate sympathizer) surrendered all 2,000 Texas troops to the Texans without a fight 2 months before Fort Sumter. Hundreds of these men were held as prisoner of war, some of them for as long as 2 years. Twiggs' action was so egregious that even lilly-livered President Buchanan dishonorably discharged him and called him a traitor.
The Secretary of War in the Buchanan administration was later a Confederate general. He put southern officers in command of military instalations in the south. Most of them handed them over to the Confederacy without a fight.

Major Anderson of Kentucky was in command of Fort Sumpter and refused to turn the fort over. After Fort Sumpter, he was sent on a recruiting tour. Then he was placed in charge of a Union invasion of Kentucky. He resigned from the army on grounds of ill health and his command was given to Sherman.
betgo is online now  
Old November 20th, 2012, 08:30 AM   #415

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo View Post
The Secretary of War in the Buchanan administration was later a Confederate general. He put southern officers in command of military instalations in the south. Most of them handed them over to the Confederacy without a fight.
How is this not treason? The Union was more merciful than I would have been. And before any neo-confederates get mad, picture the same being done to you, you know you'd be screaming for blood.
Yankee is offline  
Old November 20th, 2012, 08:46 AM   #416

diddyriddick's Avatar
Forum Curmudgeon
 
Joined: May 2009
From: A tiny hamlet in the Carolina Sandhills
Posts: 13,920

Quote:
Originally Posted by botully View Post
Actually I've heard it said that the Confederates showed great restraint in firing cannons at the fort, while Lincoln the firebrand deliberately provoked the war by sending some food to the garrison.
diddyriddick is online now  
Old November 20th, 2012, 08:48 AM   #417

diddyriddick's Avatar
Forum Curmudgeon
 
Joined: May 2009
From: A tiny hamlet in the Carolina Sandhills
Posts: 13,920

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonborn View Post
Any one, as noted above, who still doesn't believe slavery and economics were not the primus casus belli for the American south; needs to journey to your Washington State. And get that now, legal for usage; personal 'weed' and, return to never never land.

Word is, a convention of reborn 'son's of the south' is planned just before 25 Dec to celebrate their 'lost causers' west coast reunion. Sounds illuminating. If your an apologist for slavery.


Or still believe in the firm conviction that it's a natural state of man-mind based on skin texture.


Ah well even though I reside and make a killing here now you Americans remain refreshing in your naivety.
Dragonborn,

This thread is problematic enough without casting aspersions on the sobriety of those espousing the southern viewpoint. Please limit your posts to the history.
diddyriddick is online now  
Old November 20th, 2012, 08:52 AM   #418

diddyriddick's Avatar
Forum Curmudgeon
 
Joined: May 2009
From: A tiny hamlet in the Carolina Sandhills
Posts: 13,920

Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo View Post
The Secretary of War in the Buchanan administration was later a Confederate general. He put southern officers in command of military instalations in the south. Most of them handed them over to the Confederacy without a fight.
I'm not sure that that, in itself, is a bad thing. Military commanders don't just command the troops-they also have to understand the civilians around them. I can't imagine a "Beast" Butler in command of anything in the south larger than a street cleaning detail.
diddyriddick is online now  
Old November 20th, 2012, 09:34 AM   #419

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 2,870

Quote:
Originally Posted by diddyriddick View Post
I'm not sure that that, in itself, is a bad thing. Military commanders don't just command the troops-they also have to understand the civilians around them. I can't imagine a "Beast" Butler in command of anything in the south larger than a street cleaning detail.
Butler commanded the occupation of New Orleans for a period during the Civil War. And supposedly, it was his response to Southern women, who were supposed to be kind, gentle, polite, and neutral in the war, repeatedly insulting and harrassing his troops, this also included a women from the French Quarter dumping her chamber pot on Admiral Faragautt, in which Butler earned the nickname "the Beast."

That was General Order 28.

HDQRS. DEPARTMENT OF THE GULF

New Orleans, May 15, 1862.

As the officers and soldiers of the United States have been subject to repeated insults from the women (calling themselves ladies) of New Orleans in return for the most scrupulous non-interference and courtesy on our part, it is ordered that hereafter when any female shall by word, gesture, or movement insult or show contempt for any officer or soldier of the United States she shall be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her avocation.

By command of Major-General Butler:

GEO. C. STRONG,
Assistant Adjutant-General and Chief of Staff.

Naturally the women of the South did not like the order that essentially threatened to unleash the army on them (treating them like prostitutes) and called Butler "the Beast" for it...

Of course, I'd also wager that if you're pouring pots of your own urine on soldiers and officers, you shouldn't expect to be treated politely in return.

Last edited by Sam-Nary; November 20th, 2012 at 10:22 AM.
Sam-Nary is offline  
Old November 20th, 2012, 09:48 AM   #420

tjadams's Avatar
Epicurean
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Texas
Posts: 25,369
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam-Nary View Post
Naturally the women of the South did not like the order that essentially threatened to unleash the army on them (treating them like prostitutes) and called Butler "the Beast" for it...
And "Spoons" Butler's 'alleged' penchant for stealing the silverware
from homes he occupied didn't endure him to the bosom of many.
Click the image to open in full size.
So funny.
tjadams is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
acw, myth, slavery


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Biggest Myth about Slavery. etamaze Middle Eastern and African History 75 March 29th, 2013 09:59 AM
The 9/11 Myth Lord Sonny Speculative History 20 March 4th, 2013 02:27 PM
History or Myth? Caracalla General History 4 October 25th, 2011 07:29 AM
Your Favorite Myth??? Salah General History 48 April 17th, 2011 08:35 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.