Skip to main content

View Diary: The Tea Party's Neoconfederacy Fights the Civil War (Again) (81 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Two points (12+ / 0-)

    First, it took less than 1 minute with Google to learn that the Star of the West - an unarmed merchant ship which the Confederates tried to sink - was the first ship sent to Fort Sumter, not by Abraham Lincoln, but by his predecessor James Buchanan on 26 December 1860, after South Carolina (and six other states) had already seceded and demanded that the US abandon its military facilities within the state. The US refused that ultimatum, and Lincoln (now the President) continued to send unarmed supply ships - after notifying the governor of South Carolina of the intent and arrivals, stressing that the ships would offload supplies only - no additional troops, etc.

    Maybe the history books available to you differ in their narrative? Perhaps you think a better course would have been for Lincoln to recognize the Confederacy as a legitimate government and accede to the Confederate demand that Fort Sumter surrender?

    Second, the last time I looked, neither Cuba nor Vietnam were US states when the provocations/false flag operations were mounted in their territorial waters; you see no difference in the situations because of that?

    I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

    by Wayward Wind on Wed Apr 20, 2011 at 12:57:44 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Your research was faulty (0+ / 0-)
      On January 9, 1861, before the Confederacy was formed, the Star of the West was fired upon by cadets from The Citadel stationed at the Morris Island battery as the ship entered Charleston Harbor.  Source here.

      Then THREE MONTHS later was the battle of Fort Sumter:

      After realizing that Anderson's command would run out of food by April 15, 1861, President Lincoln ordered a fleet of ships, (emphasis mine) under the command of Gustavus V. Fox, to attempt entry into Charleston Harbor and support Fort Sumter. The ships assigned were the steam sloop-of-war USS Pawnee, steam sloop-of-war USS Powhatan, transporting motorized launches and about 300 sailors (secretly removed from the Charleston fleet to join in the forced reinforcement of Fort Pickens, Pensacola, Fla.), armed screw steamer USS Pocahontas, Revenue Cutter USRC Harriet Lane, steamer Baltic transporting about 200 troops, composed of companies C and D of the 2nd U.S. Artillery, and three hired tug boats with added protection against small arms fire to be used to tow troop and supply barges directly to Fort Sumter.[8][9] By April 6, 1861 the first ships began to set sail for their rendezvous off the Charleston Bar. The first to arrive was the Harriet Lane, before midnight of April 11, 1861. Source here

      With that many ships going to South Carolina carrying not only supplies but also troops and arms along with the ships guns, how can that not be perceived as a threat?  Lincoln purposely instilled fear and to terrorize the residents of Charleston.

      Perhaps you think a better course would have been for Lincoln to recognize the Confederacy as a legitimate government and accede to the Confederate demand that Fort Sumter surrender?

      Well gee, within a few days after the battle, Fort Sumter was abandoned and if done beforehand perhaps war could have been averted.  Fort Sumter was on a little spic of land and not worth the carnage that followed.

      Second, the last time I looked, neither Cuba nor Vietnam were US states when the provocations/false flag operations were mounted in their territorial waters; you see no difference in the situations because of that?

      Guess you totally missed the point.  War is war and the use of deception, intimidation, and putting troops or ships in harms way does not matter if war is desired with a foreign power or against your own people.  The tactics used by those in charge, Presidents, kings, dictators, and their ilk, use the same methods to initiate war and do so for the same reasons, money and riches  or what is commonly refered to as the "spoils of war."  And tell me, who benefits from the profits made because of war?  It certainly was not Jonny Reb nor Union Jack the ordinary soldier who fights and dies or gets wounded.

      In the Civil War there were two sides to the argument and neither side was completely right nor completely wrong.  Perhaps you need to study and learn more instead of just believing the propaganda of the victors of war who tend to write history in their favor.  

      Got Books? www.membranachristianbooks.com ..... Need Cables? www.yourcablestore.com

      by sweettp2063 on Wed Apr 20, 2011 at 03:36:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How? (8+ / 0-)
        Well gee, within a few days after the battle, Fort Sumter was abandoned and if done beforehand perhaps war could have been averted.

        South Carolina had seceded from the union, joined the CSA, and was demanding that the US withdraw its troops from the one remaining garrison.  

        Assuming that Fort Sumter had indeed been abandoned by Lincoln, how do you see that as preventing the Civil War?  

        There was no way that the US was going to accept succession and was prepared to go to war to prevent it, so had it not started at Fort Sumter, it most certainly would have started somewhere else.  

        I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

        by Wayward Wind on Wed Apr 20, 2011 at 03:52:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You are probably right (0+ / 0-)

          that something would have happened somewhere else.  However, nobody knows for sure.  Lincoln forced the issue in sending a fleet of ships to the harbor.
           

          Got Books? www.membranachristianbooks.com ..... Need Cables? www.yourcablestore.com

          by sweettp2063 on Wed Apr 20, 2011 at 10:43:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Can't disagree more strongly. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wayward Wind, Sun dog, k00kla, megisi
        In the Civil War there were two sides to the argument and neither side was completely right nor completely wrong.  

        The confederacy was created in order to preserve slavery.  Every other motive was secondary:

        Link, link, link.

        Let's quit the milquetoast evenhandedness.  The Union leaders had all sorts of motives, probably some of them corrupt, but the CSA was formed for one reason above all others, and that reason was irredeemably evil.  Yes, "completely wrong."

        You write as if you wish that Lincoln had assented to secession.  Is that true?  I shudder to think what our world would look like if he had.

        "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our values." Barack Hussein Obama

        by jem6x on Wed Apr 20, 2011 at 06:48:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  asdf (0+ / 0-)
          The confederacy was created in order to preserve slavery.  Every other motive was secondary:

          No.  Slavery was the main cause.  Slavery was an economic issue and a large part of the South's wealth.  Secession was a means to hold onto the economic means of the South.  

          Granted, slavery was imoral, but so is the theft of property.  Like it or not in 1861, by law and the Constitution, slaves were property and secession was to prevent the theft of legal property.  

          Got Books? www.membranachristianbooks.com ..... Need Cables? www.yourcablestore.com

          by sweettp2063 on Wed Apr 20, 2011 at 10:36:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Your argument, as I understand it, (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jem6x, Wayward Wind, Sun dog

        is the President of the United States (either Buchanan or Lincoln, take your pick), is engaged in deliberate provocation by sending ships from one part (port) of the United States to another.  Charleston, then and always, is American coastal waters.  Indeed, they now want federal ducats to dredge the ship channel.  

        One of these days I want to see the Spoleto festival there.

        "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

        by Loge on Wed Apr 20, 2011 at 07:16:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site