New Website on the American Civil War

[ding]

You make no sense.

Quantrill

I'm pissing all over white supremacy and white supremacists and you are taking it. I call that a win.

What part of that isn't making sense to you?

 

[Quantrill]

Once Anderson violated the terms of the negotiations and moved his troops from Moultrie to Sumter, the Buchannan administration began its negotiating in bad faith. He knew Northern opinion would be against Anderson evacuating Sumter. Anderson was perceived as some sort of Northern hero standing up against the evil Southernors. Thus Buchannan started his lies that he never really agreed to anything. But his Secretary of War, Floyd, admitted that an agreement had been made. See post #(229).

After that, all of Buchannan's meetings with the South Carolina Commissioners was usually by one who he sent to represent him. And then began the stalling and deceit. Making the S. Carolina commissioners wait while the Buchannan administration deceptively planned the reinforcement of Sumter with the 'Star of the West'.

Which itself was another act of war. And of course the ship was turned back. That occurred Jan. 9, 1861. Anderson did not open fire on the gun batteries that fired on the 'Star of the West'. No doubt he didn't want to be labeled as the one who fired first to start the war. But he sent a letter to South Carolina Governor Pickens wanting an explanation for firing on a ship from his government. And Pickens replied back to him saying:

"...the political connection heretofore existing between the State of South Carolina and the States which were known as the United States had ceased, and that the state was within its rights to fire on the Star of the West. The act, is perfectly justified by me." (The Demon Of Unrest, Erik Larson, Crown Publishing Group, 2024, p. 199)

Remember this is under the Buchannan administration. Lincoln would not take office till March 4, 1861.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

On March 4, 1861 Lincoln gave his inaugural address. He was now officially the President of the United States and getting ready to inherit the problem of Sumter.

In that address he said, " I therefore consider that, in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken;" (The Annals Of America, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 2003, p. 252). Which is strange when the Constitution declares that all powers given to the Federal govt. are 'delegated'. And that which is 'delegated' can be resumed by the one delegating. Article X, known as the tenth amendment to the Constitution, the Bill Of Rights.

When South Carolina resumed the powers she delegated to the Federal govt., that is secession. She is no longer part of the Union that Lincoln claims is unbroken.

Lincoln goes on to say, "...and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the states" (Annals Of America, vol. 9, p. 252) The problem here is, the Constitution upholds South Carolina's and the other 6 lower South states secession, that had seceded by this time. They are not part of the Union.

Lincoln continues: "...In doing this, there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority." (Annals Of America, vol. 9, p. 252) Lincoln is preparing already to make sure that the Southern States will have the blame for what is to come. What he knows he will instigate.

Orville Browning was a friend of Lincoln and gave him advice on his inaugural speech. Browning told Lincoln, that it was important that the seceding States be seen as the aggressors in the conflict to come. This way the Federal govt. will be seen as justified before the country. (The Demon Of Unrest, Erik Larson, Crown Publishing Group, p. 244-245)

The South was not fooled by this speech as to what it meant. It meant war, for which the South would be blamed. And this is the base upon which Lincoln will deal with Sumter. Initiate the war, but make sure the South is the one blamed.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

In closing his inaugural speech Lincoln made it plain. Remember, the 7 lower Southern States had already seceded and the Confederate States of America were already formed. Feb. 4, 1861.

In closing Lincoln says, "In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to preserve, protect, and defend it." (The Annals Of America, Vol. 9, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. p. 255)

Such lies. The government had been assailing the South for years. The South was never the 'aggressor'. The South peacefully separated from the Union, each state giving its reasons for separation. No aggression from the South. No attempt to take over the U.S. government. Just a peaceful leaving the Union. Lincoln had nothing to 'defend', as he says.

Lincoln must make the South the aggressor. Though the Yankees are the aggressor. Lincoln knew in the court of world opinion, the North must be the defender and the South the aggressor. Yet the South just wanted to leave. But Lincoln would see to it, that the South would not just 'leave'. He would see to it, that they would bear the blame for what he was going to do. Which was to force the war and by war force the South back into the Union.

What a union? Just like the 'Hotel California'. "You can check out anytime but you can never leave".

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Just as the Buchannan administration deceptively dealt with the Southern Commissioners, concerning Fort Sumter, so would the Lincoln administration. Both would make a pledge, using it to stall as they planned for what they really were going to do. And of course the Lincoln administration out did the Buchannan in this effort.

February 4, 1861 the Confederacy was created. March 4, 1861, Lincoln took office. Negotiations would now be between the Confederate govt. and the U.S. Federal govt. And, of course Governor Pickens of South Carolina would be equally involved as it was his state where Sumter was located.

Jeff Davis, President of the Confederacy, has written much concerning this time, as he should have, as he would be in the know of many of the things that transpired. The importance of appointing commissioners to be sent to Washington was second only to establishing the new Confederate Cabinet. I will quote Jeff Davis to show the attitude he had in sending these commissioners to meet with Lincoln.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

These quotes from Jeff Davis are taken from, (The Rise And Fall Of The Confederate Government, Jefferson Davis, vol. 1, Da Capo Press, Inc.).

"Next to the organization of a cabinet, that of such a commission was accordingly one of the very first objects of attention. Three discreet, well-informed, and distinguished citizens were selected as said commissioners, and accredited to the President of the Northern states, Lincoln, to the end that by negotiation all questions between the two governments might be so adjusted as to avoid war, and perpetuate the kind relations which had been cemented by the common trials, sacrifices, and glories of the people of all the states." (p. 212)

"....if the family could no longer live and grow harmoniously together--by patriarchal teaching older than Christianity, it might have been learned that it was better to part, to part peaceably, and to continue, from one to another, the good offices of neighbors who by sacred memories were forbidden ever to be foes." (p. 212)

"The nomination of the members of the commission was made on February 25--within a week after my inauguration--and confirmed by Congress on the same day. The Commissioners appointed were A.B. Roman of Louisiana, Martin J. Crawford of Georgia, and John Forsyth of Alabama." (p. 212)

"No secret instructions were given them, for there was nothing to conceal. The objects of their mission were open and avowed, and its inception and conduct throughout were characterized by frankness and good faith. How this effort was received, how the commissioners were kept waiting, and while fair promises were held to the ear, how military preparations were pushed forward for the unconstitutional, criminal purpose of coercing states, let the shameful record of that transaction attest." (p. 213)

Quantrill

 

[Mr Natural]

Give it up.

You lost.

 

[Quantrill]

Give it up.

You lost.

Typical 'one line' sentence from ignorant yankees. That the South lost is not what is objected to. That the South was the instigators of that war, is objected to. Which I am able to prove. Which you, Mr Natural ignore because you're like all other ignorant yankees, all that matters is 'who lost'.

The depth of knowledge of the Yankee, is shallow indeed. 'You lost'. They know they can't produce validity for their actions in that war. Thus they must rely on the 1st and 2nd grade level education teaching...'you lost'. That's all anyone needs to know.

Note Mr Natural doesn't try and disprove anything I have said. He doesn't have the ability. His knowledge is composed of one sentence. 'You lost'. That is some deep stuff...what a revelation...of ignorance. It's so deep I have to scrape it off my boots.

Scared Mr Natural? Does the truth hurt your advanced education experience? Is what I have presented a lie? If so, show me.

Quantrill

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Typical 'one line' sentence from ignorant yankees. That the South lost is not what is objected to. That the South was the instigators of that war, is objected to. Which I am able to prove. Which you ignore because you're like all other ignorant yankees, all that matters is 'who lost'.

The depth of knowledge of the Yankee, is shallow indeed. 'You lost'. They know they can't produce validity for their actions in that war. Thus they must rely on the 1st and 2nd grade level education teaching...'you lost'. That's all anyone needs to know.

Note Mr Natural doesn't try and disprove anything I have said. He doesn't have the ability. His knowledge is composed of one sentence. 'You lost'. That is some deep stuff...what a revelation...of ignorance. It's so deep I have to scrape it off my boots.

Scared Mr Natural? Does the truth hurt your advanced education experience? Is what I have presented a lie? If so, show me.

Quantrill

LOL who fired the first shot? Who seized property not belonging to them. Who seized weapons not belonging to them? It wasnt the North the UNION did not even raise an army until AFTER the South Fired on Fort Sumter.

 

[Quantrill]

LOL who fired the first shot? Who seized property not belonging to them. Who seized weapons not belonging to them? It wasnt the North the UNION did not even raise an army until AFTER the South Fired on Fort Sumter.

Why don't you answer post #(303). Trying to hide? Scared? You decide to wait till you think I forget your inability to reply to my post? Then you break in here with some more bullshit.

You're just like Mr Natural. A typical one liner. 'You lost' 'You fired the first shot'. Yet you provide nothing against what I have posted.

Anderson seized property not belonging to him. Who was it that attacked John Brown at Harpers Ferry? U.S. troops. Who did Buchannan send on the Star of the west to reinforce Sumter? Yankee troops and munitions. Who did Lincoln send to reinforce Sumter? Yankee troops and munitions.

Bullshit. Lincoln was getting advice from Winfield Scott on preparing the Navy flotilla to reinforce Sumter. They had an Army and a Navy. Anderson was part of the Army. Just because Lincoln wanted more Army, doesn't mean they had no Army.

Quantrill

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The U.S. Constitution, openly supported slavery. What's to get? The Supreme Court openly supported slavery. What's to get?

You despise the Constitution. You despise America. You're the traitor...and your ilk.

Quantrill

the US constitution was a compromise to get the slave holding southern states into the US. The Confederate Constitution was no compromise it was made as is in full support of slavery. And the South left the Union because they wanted slavery to continue forever.

 

[Mr Natural]

Typical 'one line' sentence from ignorant yankees. That the South lost is not what is objected to. That the South was the instigators of that war, is objected to. Which I am able to prove. Which you, Mr Natural ignore because you're like all other ignorant yankees, all that matters is 'who lost'.

The depth of knowledge of the Yankee, is shallow indeed. 'You lost'. They know they can't produce validity for their actions in that war. Thus they must rely on the 1st and 2nd grade level education teaching...'you lost'. That's all anyone needs to know.

Note Mr Natural doesn't try and disprove anything I have said. He doesn't have the ability. His knowledge is composed of one sentence. 'You lost'. That is some deep stuff...what a revelation...of ignorance. It's so deep I have to scrape it off my boots.

Scared Mr Natural? Does the truth hurt your advanced education experience? Is what I have presented a lie? If so, show me.

Quantrill

None of that matters. The facts are, the south started a war to prove they were better than the slaves and lost.

How ******* stupid was that last?

 

[Quantrill]

the US constitution was a compromise to get the slave holding southern states into the US. The Confederate Constitution was no compromise it was made as is in full support of slavery. And the South left the Union because they wanted slavery to continue forever.

Let's see...it was still the Constitution. Meaning, the South was doing nothing wrong. The North was the one against the Constitution. The North was the traitor to the Union.

The South seceded because she was not allowed the protections given under the Constitution. Jeff Davis said concerning the Supreme Court Dred Scott decision:

"Instead of accepting the decision of this then august tribunal--the ultimate authority in the interpretation of constitutional questions--as conclusive of a controversy that had so long disturbed the peace and was threatening the perpetuity of the Union, it was flouted, denounced, and utterly disregarded by the Northern agitators, and served only to stimulate the intensity of their sectional hostility." (Rise And Fall Of The Confederate Government, Vol. 1,Jefferson Davis, Da Capo Press Inc. 1990, p. 71)

"What resource for justice--what assurance of tranquility--what guarantee of safety--now remained for the South?" (Davis, p. 71)

"No alternative remained except to seek the security out of the Union which they had vainly tried to obtain within it. The hope of our people may be stated in a sentence. It was to escape from injury and strife in the Union, to find prosperity and peace out of it." (Davis, p. 72)

So, you see Gunny....you can *****, and ***** all you want, but it was the North and you who were/are traitors to that Union. Not the South.

Quantrill

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Let's see...it was still the Constitution. Meaning, the South was doing nothing wrong. The North was the one against the Constitution. The North was the traitor to the Union.

The South seceded because she was not allowed the protections given under the Constitution. Jeff Davis said concerning the Supreme Court Dred Scott decision:

"Instead of accepting the decision of this then august tribunal--the ultimate authority in the interpretation of constitutional questions--as conclusive of a controversy that had so long disturbed the peace and was threatening the perpetuity of the Union, it was flouted, denounced, and utterly disregarded by the Northern agitators, and served only to stimulate the intensity of their sectional hostility." (Rise And Fall Of The Confederate Government, Vol. 1,Jefferson Davis, Da Capo Press Inc. 1990, p. 71)

"What resource for justice--what assurance of tranquility--what guarantee of safety--now remained for the South?" (Davis, p. 71)

"No alternative remained except to seek the security out of the Union which they had vainly tried to obtain within it. The hope of our people may be stated in a sentence. It was to escape from injury and strife in the Union, to find prosperity and peace out of it." (Davis, p. 72)

So, you see Gunny....you can *****, and ***** all you want, but it was the North and you who were/are traitors to that Union. Not the South.

Quantrill

look reject from hell, the US did NOTHING before the south left the Union and the President promised to do nothing as well. Under Lincoln the south had no fear of losing slavery as they had the votes in congress to prevent any new law or action.

The "North" did not attack the south. 2 civilians did and the Government acted against them where it could. Your claims are foolish and not based on facts.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Another good book that strongly supports most of my position on the Civil War is historian Thomas Fleming's 2013 book A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War. I can't believe I forgot about this book when I created my Civil War website! The book played a big role in shaping my views on the Civil War.

New York Journal of Books:

Do we really need another book about the Civil War? Mr. Fleming makes a solid, compelling case in the affirmative. His narrative weaves new threads through this seminal event in American history. Through his exposition of largely ignored events he affords us a clearer, much more succinct picture of antebellum America. Fleming's scholarship digs further into the prevailing Southern and Northern attitudes and mores of the period to draw into sharper relief the more widespread concerns, political and public, behind the Civil War. Certainly this book will provoke controversy of some manner, but we can ill afford to take as gospel truth what has typically been passed off as general history A Disease in the Public Mind is not simply a thoughtful read, it is another call never to forget our sordid past, to face and conquer our fears.

Booklist:

Titles regularly appear that posit the cause of the American Civil War—one indication that the war has no unassailable explanation. The prolific Fleming, for decades a fixture among American historians, pinpoints public opinion as the proximate origin of the war, specifically its acquisition by 1860 of a polarized, paranoid character, pitting Northerners’ fear of “slave power” against Southerners’ terror of a race war sparked by Northern abolitionists (John Brown was their nightmare made real). Fleming recounts attitudes of prominent Founders toward slavery, emphasizing how their general recognition of its injustice never quite trended, during the early decades of the 1800s, toward emancipation. Instead of declining, the peculiar institution retrenched and expanded. Without understanding white Southerners’ predicaments, Fleming argues, abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison damned them, their region, and the Union. An array of Southerners’ ripostes to Northern criticisms peppers Fleming’s narrative of each section’s exacerbating willingness to impute baleful motives to the other. Making a plausible presentation of antebellum attitudes and illusions, Fleming is sure to spark lively discussion about the Civil War.

The Amazon introduction to the book:

By the time John Brown hung from the gallows for his crimes at Harper's Ferry, Northern abolitionists had made him a "holy martyr” in their campaign against Southern slave owners. This Northern hatred for Southerners long predated their objections to slavery. They were convinced that New England, whose spokesmen had begun the American Revolution, should have been the leader of the new nation. Instead, they had been displaced by Southern "slavocrats” like Thomas Jefferson. This malevolent envy exacerbated the South's greatest fear: a race war. Jefferson's cry, "We are truly to be pitied,” summed up their dread. For decades, extremists in both regions flung insults and threats, creating intractable enmities. By 1861, only a civil war that would kill a million men could save the Union.

 

[Quantrill]

look reject from hell, the US did NOTHING before the south left the Union and the President promised to do nothing as well. Under Lincoln the south had no fear of losing slavery as they had the votes in congress to prevent any new law or action.

The "North" did not attack the south. 2 civilians did and the Government acted against them where it could. Your claims are foolish and not based on facts.

Again, dumbass, see post #(333). Instead of just spouting off shit, refute what was said in post #(333).

The North broke the terms of negotiations when Anderson moved his troops and seized Sumter. An acts of war. The North deceptively sent the Star of the West with troops to reinforce Sumter. Another act of war. The North sent a Naval flotilla to reinforce Sumter with troops and arms. Another act of war. John Brown attacked the South aided by Northern people and politicians. The North was complicit in waging terror upon the South. An act of war. And all those who were complicit, were they arrested and hung? Hell no...they were doing want the North wanted them to do.

I have presented 'facts'. My opinion is based upon the facts. You haven't presented anything but your usual bullshit.

Here are some more facts dumbass. Ever hear of the 'Secret Six'? Look it up and tell me their end.

Quantrill

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Again, dumbass, see post #(333). Instead of just spouting off shit, refute what was said in post #(333).

The North broke the terms of negotiations when Anderson moved his troops and seized Sumter. An acts of war. The North deceptively sent the Star of the West with troops to reinforce Sumter. Another act of war. The North sent a Naval flotilla to reinforce Sumter with troops and arms. Another act of war. John Brown attacked the South aided by Northern people and politicians. The North was complicit in waging terror upon the South. And act of war. And all those who were complicit, were they arrested and hung? Hell no...they were doing want the North wanted them to do.

I have presented 'facts'. My opinion is based upon the facts. You haven't presented anything but your usual bullshit.

Here are some more facts dumbass. Ever hear of the 'Secret Six'? Look it up and tell me their end.

Quantrill

you are wrong all those forts were US Federal Property and South Carolina had no claim to them. But then any lie will do for you won't it?

 

[Quantrill]

you are wrong all those forts were US Federal Property and South Carolina had no claim to them. But then any lie will do for you won't it?

More bullshit. They belonged to South Carolina long before Sumter became an issue. Sumter was not finished in the 3 year agreement between South Carolina and the Federal government. It went back then to South Carolina. Secession simply applied to everything Federal to get the hell out. Anderson seized a fort that belonged to South Carolina.

That's the price you pay for building on someone else's land.

Again, prove post #(333) wrong. Again, tell me about the 'Secret Six' and their end.

Quantrill

 

[RetiredGySgt]

you are delusional.

 

[Quantrill]

you are delusional.

And you're full of shit. As is proved by your inability to respond to my posts #(333), (336), and (338).

You and your ilk provide nothing of history. You provide only bullshit one liners. You say, "You are delusional". Oh yeah, that's real deep history there. No, that is more of your bullshit.

The U.S.A. today lives a lie. And it refuses to own up to the truth. It would rather live the lie then admit it's been full of shit all these years. Tear down the statues and flags of the real patriots, the South. And teach the lie of the real rebels and traitors, the North.

Glory, glory, hallelujah, glory glory hallelujah, glory glory hallelujah, his lies keep marching on.....

Everybody sing now, 'glory glory hallelujah, glory glory hallelujah, glory glory hallelujah, his lies keep marching on...

Just gives me goose bumps, that Battle Hymn of the Traitors.

Quantrill