Were Confederate forces moved into the upper southern states before they seceded?

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,707
Unterlankers made that claim in the other thread. I couldn't find anything by Googling it. Is this true?

Union troops were certainly moved into Maryland before it voted on secession, but they had to be to get to Washington.

IMO this is worth a thread, because it is interesting not well known if true.
 

Underlankers

Ad Honorem
Feb 2013
6,724
I provided you with evidence from Tennessee and Virginia sources, you're just ignoring it. I'm not going to repeat that evidence just because you can't be bothered to read what other people post.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,707
I read what you posted. There was something about troops from the Shenandoah Valley planning to seize Harpers Ferry. That isn't troops from the Confederacy, outside of Virginia moving into Virginia. I don't have the book "Army of the Heartland", so I don't know what information is in that.

You made the claim a couple of times. It seems like an important issue. I would be interested in specific accounts of Confederate troops from the deep south moving into the 4 upper southern states that seceded late before they seceded.
 

Jax Historian

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
4,379
Here
Also, federal installations in Arkansas and North Carolina were seized before either state seceded. See James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom, 278-285.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,707
Also, federal installations in Arkansas and North Carolina were seized before either state seceded. See James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom, 278-285.
Were seized by whom? I still don't see anything about forces from the Confederacy entering those states.
 

Jax Historian

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
4,379
Here
Were seized by whom? I still don't see anything about forces from the Confederacy entering those states.
I didn't say they were forces from another state. But I think the point you believe to be so important is vapid. What you have are pro-secessionists taking unilateral action against the Federal government before their states seceded. Just another example of pro-confederate disregard for any type of democratic action. They were bullies, aggressors and thieves as they stole forts and weapons that were partially paid for by northerners.

And if you read page 201, you'll see that the Confederacy sent cannons stolen from a federal arsenal into Missouri on May 8, 1861. Missouri, if you recall, never seceded. It seems a strange thing for those non-aggressive Confederates to do before the Union moved into Confederate territory.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,707
Well, if troops from the Confederacy were moved into the upper south that would imply they were intimidating those states into seceding, so that would be more significant than cannons from a federal arsenal being brought into Missouri.
 

Jax Historian

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
4,379
Here
Well, if troops from the Confederacy were moved into the upper south that would imply they were intimidating those states into seceding, so that would be more significant than cannons from a federal arsenal being brought into Missouri.
How so? The cannons were sent to pro-secessionists in Missouri for exactly the same reason; to allow them to commit violence in a state that hadn't seceded in order to take control of the state. As usual, your point is ridiculous.

And, as usual, you skipped over most of my post. The overall point is that pro-secessionists were seizing federal forts, stealing weapons, preparing to invade border states, burning railroad bridges, and even planned to assassinate Lincoln before the Union did anything to the south. So much for your stupid "equal aggression" theory.
 

Underlankers

Ad Honorem
Feb 2013
6,724
Were seized by whom? I still don't see anything about forces from the Confederacy entering those states.
Again, I cited for you books and sources from the states in question. If you're insistent on pretending anything that disagrees with you doesn't exist, that naturally helps you 'win' a debate but it makes you a dishonest 'debater.'
 

Viperlord

Ad Honorem
Aug 2010
8,109
VA
so that would be more significant than cannons from a federal arsenal being brought into Missouri.
How about Benjamin McCulloch's Arkansas army marching into Missouri to join Sterling Price in an attempt to take over the state after the state rejected secession and Lyon drove the secessionists south? That significant, or is that somehow not aggression either?