Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861

[klamath]

Why was it their sovereign territory? Apparently the men that occupied that island were loyal to the union and chose to secceed from the confederacy. Davis had no right to force the island into the confederacy if the whole point is about the right to seceed.

Here are some telegraph dispatches from just prior to the firing on Fort Sumter. They show that the South was not tricked into firing....rather they were informed by Lincoln that the fort would be resupplied, by force if necessary.

Really, what is a State to do in the face of this? There were 2 choices.....defend their sovereign territory or capitulation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Number 1.
Charleston, April 8.
To L. P. Walker, Secretary of War.
An authorized messenger from President Lincoln just informed Governor Pickens3 and myself that provisions will be sent to Fort Sumpter[sic], peaceably, or otherwise by force.
[Signed.] G. T. BEAUREGARD.

Number 2.
Montgomery, April 10.
To General G. T. Beauregard, Charleston:
If you have no doubt of the authorized character of the agent who communicated to you the intention of the Washington Government to supply Fort Sumter by force, you will at once demand its evacuation, and if this is refused, proceed in such manner as you may determine to reduce it. Answer.
[Signed.] L. P. WALKER

L. P. Walker

Number 3.
Charleston, April 10.
To L. P. Walker, Secretary of War:
The demand will be made to-morrow at 12 o’clock.
[Signed.] G. T. BEAUREGARD.

[No. four not received.]

Number 5.
Charleston, April 10.
To L. P. Walker, Montgomery:
The reasons are special for 12 o’clock.
[Signed.] G. T. BEAUREGARD.

Number 6.
Charleston, April 11.
To L. P. Walker, Montgomery:
Demand sent at two o’clock. Allowed til 6 o’clock to answer.
[Signed.] G. T. BEAUREGARD.

Number 7.
Montgomery, April 11.
To Gen Beauregard, Charleston:
Telegraph the reply to Maj. Anderson.3
[Signed.] L. P. WALKER.

Number 8.
Charleston, April 11.
To L. P. Walker, Montgomery:
Major Anderson replies: “I have the honor to acknowledge the reception of your communication, demanding the evacuation of this fort, and to say in reply thereto that it is a demand which I regret: but my sense of honor and my obligations to my government prevent my compliance.” He addes: “Propably[sic] I will await the first shot, and, if you do not batter us to pieces, we will be starved out in a few days.” Answer.
[Signed.] G. T. Beauregard.

Number 9.
Montgomery, April 11.
To Gen. Beauregard, Charleston:
We do not desire needlessly to bombard Fort Sumter if Major Anderson will state the time at which as indicated by him he will evacuate, and agree that in the mean time he will not use his guns against us, unless ours should be employed against Fort Sumter. You can thus avoid the effusion of blood. If this order should be unequivocally refused, reduce the Fort as your judgement decides to be the most practicable.
L. P. Walker, Secretary of War.

Number 10.
Charleston, April 11.
To L. P. Walker, Montgomery:
He would not consent. I write to-day.
Beauregard.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A few news articles from the period.......

Charleston, April 11.
General Beauregard at two o’clock to-day demanded the surrender of Fort Sumpter [sic], which Major Anderson declined. It is currently reported that negotiations will be opened tomorrow between Anderson and Beauregard.

Special despatches received at Washington to-day assert that both [Forts] Pickens and Sumpter [sic] will be attacked, but they doubt if war follows.

A Montgomery despatch to-day says it has been resolved to attack the two forts immediately.

Three steamers were seen off the coast yesterday for a long time. Anderson fired a signal gun this morning. The attack of Fort Sumter is momentarily expected. Business is suspended. It is rumored that the fight will commence at eight o’clock this evening, unless Major Anderson surrenders.

The steamer Harriet Lane4 is off the bar. Thousands of persons are lining the shores to witness the attack.

Charleston, April 11.
Interceptd despatches disclose the fact that Mr. Fox,5 who had been allowed to visit Maj. Anderson, on pledge that his puprose [sic] was pacific, employed his opportunity to devise a plan for supplying the fort by force, and that this plan had been adopted by the Washington government, and was in progress of exicution.[sic]

Washington, April 11.
[Herald Correspondence.]—The men of the West Point flying artillery, now in Washington have received orders to keep their revolvers constantly loaded, to be ready for immediate action.

Part of the volunteers will be stationed at the bridge across the Potomac, so as to defend it from an invading force. Nearly one thousand men are now enrolled for regular service from the ranks of the district militia. Those who refused to take the oath of allegiance were marched back to the armory disarmed, and their names stricken from the roll. Hisses from the spectators accompanied their departure from the parade ground.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



WASHINGTON, May 1st, 1861.

Capt. G.V. Fox:

My Dear Sir, I sincerely regret that the failure of the late attempt to provision Fort Sumter should be the source of any annoyance to you. The practicability of your plan was not, in fact, brought to a test. By reason of a gale, well known in advance to be possible, and not improbable, the tugs, an essential part of the plan, never reached the ground ; while, by an accident, for which you were in nowise responsible, and possibly I, to some extent, was, you were deprived of a war-vessel, with her men, which you deemed of great importance to the enterprise.

I most cheerfully and truthfully declare that the failure of the undertaking has not lowered you a particle, while the qualities you developed in the effort have greatly heightened you in my estimation. For a daring and dangerous enterprise of a similar character, you would, to-day, be the man of all my acquaintances whom I would select. You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.

Very truly your friend, A. LINCOLN.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Union fleet to Charleston


Vessels of War
Steam sloop-of-war Pawnee, Captain S. C. Rowan, 10 guns and 200 men. The Pawnee sailed from Washington, with sealed orders, on the morning of Saturday, April 6.
Steam sloop-of-war Powhatan, Captain E. D. Porter, 11 guns and 275 men. The Powhatan sailed from the Brookyln Navy Yard on Saturday afternoon April 6.
Revenue cutter Harriet Lane, Captain J. Faunce, 5 guns and 96 men. On Saturday, April 6, the Harriet Lane exchanged her revenue flag for the United States navy flag, denoting her transfer to the Government naval service, and sailed suddenly on last Monday morning, with sealed orders.

The Steam Transports
Atlantic, 358 troops, composed of Companies A and M of the Second artillery, Companies C and H of the Second infantry, and Company A of sappers and miners from West Point. The Atlantic sailed from the steam at 5 o'clock on Sunday morning last, April 7.
Baltic, 160 troops, composed of Companies C and D, recruits, from Governor's and Bedloe's islands. The Baltic sailed from Quarantine at 7o'clock on Tuesday morning last, April 9.
Illinois, 300 troops, composed of Companies B, E, F, G and H, and a detachment from Company D, all recruits from Governor's and Bedloe's Islands, together with two companies of the Second infantry, from Fort Hamilton. The Illinois sailed from Quarantine on Tuesday morning at 6 o'clock.

The Steamtugs
Two steamtugs, with a Government official on each, bearing sealed dispatches, were also sent. The Yankee left New York on Monday evening, 8th, and the Uncle Ben on Tuesday night.

The Launches
Nearly thirty of these boats-whose services are most useful in effecting a landing of troops over shoal water, and for attacking a discharging battery when covered with sand and gunny bags- have been taken out by the Powhatan and by the steam transports Atlantic, Baltic and Illinois.

Recapitulation
Vessels Guns Men
Sloop-of-war Pawnee 10 200
Sloop-of-war Powhatan 11 275
Cutter Harriet Lane 5 96
Steam Transport Atlantic 353
Steam Transport Baltic 160
Steam Transport Illinois 300
Steamtug Yankee Ordinary Crew
Steamtug Uncle Ben Ordinary Crew
Total number of vessels 8
Total number of guns (for marine service) 26
Total number of men and troops 1,380

Link with more info and pictures of the ships (click on any ship's name):

http://myathenaeum.com/simpson/page126.html

 

[jay_dub]

Why was it their sovereign territory? Apparently the men that occupied that island were loyal to the union and chose to secceed from the confederacy. Davis had no right to force the island into the confederacy if the whole point is about the right to seceed.

The men occupying the fort were Union soldiers, under orders. They were not citizens of South Carolina.

I think the concept of territorial waters is obvious and would apply here. Fort Sumter lies within Charleston harbor.

To cede the harbor to the Union would mean the Union having control over trade and able to impose their higher tariff. Lincoln referred to this in his Inaugural Address.

"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."

From that statement, it is no surprise that war would result.

Also revealing is the following....

"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.

Newspapers had seen the conflict for what it was.

"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"..... North American Review (Boston October 1862)

"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." ..... New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." .... Chicago Daily Times December 1860

"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." ..... NY Times 22 March 1861

"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." .... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861

 

[klamath]

The men occupying the fort were Union soldiers, under orders. They were not citizens of South Carolina.

I think the concept of territorial waters is obvious and would apply here. Fort Sumter lies within Charleston harbor.

To cede the harbor to the Union would mean the Union having control over trade and able to impose their higher tariff. Lincoln referred to this in his Inaugural Address.

"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."

From that statement, it is no surprise that war would result.

Also revealing is the following....

"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.

Newspapers had seen the conflict for what it was.

"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"..... North American Review (Boston October 1862)

"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." ..... New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." .... Chicago Daily Times December 1860

"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." ..... NY Times 22 March 1861

"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." .... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861

Why did the the confederates send the confederate Army into east TN when they voted to leave TN?

 

[jay_dub]

Why did the the confederates send the confederate Army into east TN when they voted to leave TN?

The entire state voted in a referendum to secede. The General Assembly rejected East Tennessee's bid for statehood.

That's easily looked up, though. Were you asking my opinion?

 

[klamath]

The entire state voted in a referendum to secede. The General Assembly rejected East Tennessee's bid for statehood.

That's easily looked up, though. Were you asking my opinion?

That argument doesn't fly. The counties of East TN voted to stay in the union. Why shouldn't they have had the right to break away? Why did the confederate army occupy East TN? I don't care what the whole state voted for, because if you want to use that arguement the whole country voted to elect Lincoln. The confederacy wasn't about rights to break away from unions even if you were white. It was about slavery. How many east TN rural people were inducted into the confederate Army?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

That argument doesn't fly. The counties of East TN voted to stay in the union. Why shouldn't they have had the right to break away? Why did the confederate army occupy East TN? I don't care what the whole state voted for, because if you want to use that arguement the whole country voted to elect Lincoln. The confederacy wasn't about rights to break away from unions even if you were white. It was about slavery. How many east TN rural people were inducted into the confederate Army?

Not just slavery, but slavery was part of it. Regardless, there's no counter-argument here. You need details to support this or it's just your humble opinion.

 

[klamath]

Not just slavery, but slavery was part of it. Regardless, there's no counter-argument here. You need details to support this or it's just your humble opinion.

I have presented details which you ignore.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I have presented details which you ignore.

I didn't ignore anything. I'm not trying to provoke you here. I am not versed in history enough to have a long debate with you on this subject. I've just got my humble opinion about some things I've picked up over the years. I'm just asking you to provide a substantiated opinion for the sake of moving the conversation forward.

 

[Travlyr]

That argument doesn't fly. The counties of East TN voted to stay in the union. Why shouldn't they have had the right to break away? Why did the confederate army occupy East TN? I don't care what the whole state voted for, because if you want to use that arguement the whole country voted to elect Lincoln. The confederacy wasn't about rights to break away from unions even if you were white. It was about slavery. How many east TN rural people were inducted into the confederate Army?

Yeah, secession was specifically about slavery. The seceding states declare their intentions in their seceding documents.

South Carolina,

[A]n increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding [i.e., northern] states to the institution of slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations. . . . [T]hey have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery. . . . They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes [through the Underground Railroad].

Mississippi,

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest of the world. . . . [A] blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Alabama,

. . . the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of President and Vice-President of the United States of America by a sectional party [the Republicans], avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions [slavery] and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama . .

Georgia,

A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the federal government has been committed [i.e., the Republican Party] will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia [in favor of secession]. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican Party under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. . . . The prohibition of slavery in the territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its [Republican] leaders and applauded by its followers. . . . [T]he abolitionists and their allies in the northern states have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions [i.e., slavery].

Louisiana,

Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern Confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery. . . . Louisiana and Texas have the same language, laws, and institutions. . . . and they are both so deeply interested in African slavery that it may be said to be absolutely necessary to their existence and is the keystone to the arch of their prosperity. . . . The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African slavery if Texas either did not secede or, having seceded, should not join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy.

Texas,

[Texas] was received as a commonwealth, holding, maintaining, and protecting the institution known as Negro slavery – the servitude of the African to the white race within [Texas] – a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race and which her people intended should exist in all future time.

Virginia,

On April 17, 1861, Virginia became the eighth state to secede. It, too, acknowledged that the “oppression of the southern slave-holding states” (among which it numbered itself) had motivated its decision.

Arkansas,

No concessions would now satisfy (and none ought now to satisfy) the South but such as would amount to a surrender of the distinctive principles by which the Republican Party coheres [exists], because none other or less would give the South peace and security. That Party would have to agree that in the view of the Constitution, slaves are property – that slavery might exist and should be legalized and protected in territory hereafter to be acquired to the southwest [e.g., New Mexico, Arizona, etc.], and that Negroes and mulattoes cannot be citizens of the United States nor vote at general elections in the states. . . . For that Party to make these concessions would simply be to commit suicide and therefore it is idle to expect from the North – so long as it [the Republican Party] rules there – a single concession of any value.

North Carolina and Tennessee,

North Carolina and Tennessee became the tenth and eleventh states to secede, thus finishing the formation of the new nation that titled itself the Slave-Holding Confederate States of America. Southern secession documents indisputably affirm that the South’s desire to preserve slavery was the driving force in its secession and thus a primary cause of the Civil War.

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

The confederates weren't wrong regarding their approach to government. Some of them, were wrong, regarding their treatment of certain individuals. This does not speak ill of the system/structure of government, that was the confederacy. The issue was the morality of the people during the Confederacies inception.

 

[Travlyr]

The confederates weren't wrong regarding their approach to government. Some of them, were wrong, regarding their treatment of certain individuals. This does not speak ill of the system/structure of government, that was the confederacy. The issue was the morality of the people during the Confederacies inception.

I agree. If they had not enslaved the African negro, then their Constitution would have been better than the U.S. Constitution.

 

[klamath]

Many people argue that the south seceeded because they believed in the right to break unions and they did not break away because they were trying to perserve slavery. The confederate constitution was almost an exact copy of the US constitution. All the parts about fighting a insurection and rebellions in the US constitution were also in the confederate constitution. The obvious and most glaring changes were about slavery.
Would you not believe that the confederation would have added a section in their constitution clearly stating the right to secession, especially when they were willing to fight a war over it? The fact that they refused to let east TN break away is supporting facts it was not about the right of secession.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Many people argue that the south seceeded because they believed in the right to break unions and they did not break away because they were trying to perserve slavery. The confederate constitution was almost an exact copy of the US constitution. All the parts about fighting a insurection and rebellions in the US constitution were also in the confederate constitution. The obvious and most glaring changes were about slavery.
Would you not believe that the confederation would have added a section in their constitution clearly stating the right to secession, especially when they were willing to fight a war over it? The fact that they refused to let east TN break away is supporting facts it was not about the right of secession.

You think tariffs had nothing to do with it? (even my history prof, who had a slight but noticeable anti-CSA bias wouldn't claim that tariffs were irrelevant and that slavery was the only cause of the war)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo199.html

 

[klamath]

You think tariffs had nothing to do with it? (even my history prof, who had a slight but noticeable anti-CSA bias wouldn't claim that tariffs were irrelevant and that slavery was the only cause of the war)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo199.html

Why weren't the issue of tarriffs written into any of the seceeding documents if it was an issue of such aggrivence as to go to war over? Slavery was the issue consistently cited as the aggrivence that led to the secession.

 

[Aratus]

I didn't ignore anything. I'm not trying to provoke you here. I am not versed in history enough to have a long debate with you on this subject. I've just got my humble opinion about some things I've picked up over the years. I'm just asking you to provide a substantiated opinion for the sake of moving the conversation forward.

the issue brought together parson brownlow and andrew johnson. the odds are if the South had
not sent a confederate army in, there would have been a state of franklin again. hans trefousse
has a current biography of andrew johnson that touches on the sequence of events of 1860 & 1861.

 

[Aratus]

the dispute over the tariff rates had helped to trigger the Nullifier Crisis of the 1830s

 

[Travlyr]

I want to believe that but the facts don't bear that out. DiLorenzo is not out on a scholarly limb. He is lying about facts we know.

Travlyr... DiLorenzo is technically out on a scholarly limb given that many in that
generation took secrets to their graves that we can only guess at and surmise...

Regarding Sumter and the 'first shots of the civil war', Dilorenzo says this:

Daily Bell: Why didn't the South just stand down? There's a theory that if the South had simply declared its independence and walked away that there would not have been much the North could do. Why did the South willingly embark on a shooing war?

Thomas DiLorenzo: The South did not "embark on a shooting war'" Lincoln did. The states were sovereign, and therefore had a right to secede, as they do today. Article 7 of the Constitution proves this by stating that the Constitution is to be ratified by political conventions of the states. No human being was harmed, let alone killed during the bombing of Fort Sumter. South Carolinians considered the fort to be their property, paid for with their tax dollars, and erected for their protection. Lincoln responded to Fort Sumter with a full-scale invasion of all the Southern states that ended up killing some 350,000 Southerners. For this he is hailed as "a great statesman" by our court historians.

Daily Bell: Still, there are those who believe it was a mistake for the South to have initiated hostilities at all.

Thomas DiLorenzo: Lincoln had sent warships to Charleston Harbor, and successfully duped the South Carolinians into foolishly firing on the fort. Afterwards, Lincoln wrote a letter of thanks and congratulation to his naval commander Gustavus Fox for assisting him in getting the war started in this way. It was the biggest political miscalculation in American history: Lincoln (and many other Northerners) believed the war would be relatively bloodless and last only a few weeks or months.

DiLorenzo is flat out lying. Fort Sumter was a Union fort paid for by federal tax dollars and housing Union men. The Southern Confederacy confiscated a lot of Union forts and artillery. That is how they first armed themselves ... with Union property.

The South fired the first shots (on an unarmed merchant ship no less), the second shots (bombarding a nearly defenseless small band of men), and the third shot which killed the first Union soldier, Elmer Ellsworth, who was a close friend of the Lincoln family.

The Confederate Secretary of War even admits to starting the war.

"On April 12, 1861 only hours after Confederate guns opened fire on Fort Sumter in the Charleston harbor, Confederate Secretary of War Leroy P. Walker appeared before a jubilant crowd in Montgomery, Alabama. "No man can tell when the war this day commenced will end," Walker thundered from the balcony of the Exchange Hotel, at the heart of the Confederate capital, "but I will prophesy that the flag which now floats the breeze here will float over the dome of the old capital at Washington before the first of May."

DiLorenzo describes the letter to Captain Fox: "Lincoln wrote a letter of thanks and congratulation to his naval commander Gustavus Fox for assisting him in getting the war started in this way." Why did DiLorenzo lie and say that Lincoln sent warships when the letter he referenced specifically says "you were deprived of a war-vessel, with her men"? He want us to believe the lie. He has an agenda of some sort.

WASHINGTON, May 1st, 1861.

Capt. G.V. Fox:

My Dear Sir,

I sincerely regret that the failure of the late attempt to provision Fort Sumter should be the source of any annoyance to you. The practicability of your plan was not, in fact, brought to a test. By reason of a gale, well known in advance to be possible, and not improbable, the tugs, an essential part of the plan, never reached the ground ; while, by an accident, for which you were in nowise responsible, and possibly I, to some extent, was, you were deprived of a war-vessel, with her men, which you deemed of great importance to the enterprise.

I most cheerfully and truthfully declare that the failure of the undertaking has not lowered you a particle, while the qualities you developed in the effort have greatly heightened you in my estimation. For a daring and dangerous enterprise of a similar character, you would, to-day, be the man of all my acquaintances whom I would select. You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.

Very truly your friend, A. LINCOLN.

Unfortunately, that is not a scholarly limb. DiLorenzo flat out lies over and over.

 

[Confederate]

DiLorenzo is flat out lying. Fort Sumter was a Union fort paid for by federal tax dollars and housing Union men. The Southern Confederacy confiscated a lot of Union forts and artillery. That is how they first armed themselves ... with Union property.

Hmmm...and where did these federal tax dollars come from?

 

[Travlyr]

Hmmm...and where did these federal tax dollars come from?

From the States... all the states not just South Carolina.

 

[Ender]

I want to believe that but the facts don't bear that out. DiLorenzo is not out on a scholarly limb. He is lying about facts we know.





DiLorenzo is flat out lying. Fort Sumter was a Union fort paid for by federal tax dollars and housing Union men. The Southern Confederacy confiscated a lot of Union forts and artillery. That is how they first armed themselves ... with Union property.

The South fired the first shots (on an unarmed merchant ship no less), the second shots (bombarding a nearly defenseless small band of men), and the third shot which killed the first Union soldier, Elmer Ellsworth, who was a close friend of the Lincoln family.

The Confederate Secretary of War even admits to starting the war.



DiLorenzo describes the letter to Captain Fox: "Lincoln wrote a letter of thanks and congratulation to his naval commander Gustavus Fox for assisting him in getting the war started in this way." Why did DiLorenzo lie and say that Lincoln sent warships when the letter he referenced specifically says "you were deprived of a war-vessel, with her men"? He want us to believe the lie. He has an agenda of some sort.



Unfortunately, that is not a scholarly limb. DiLorenzo flat out lies over and over.

Dude- I found out all the hijinks committed by Lincoln and co, all by myself at the ripe old age of 14. Di Lorenzo only confirms real history.

Maybe you need to get over your public school education.