Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


States rights and slavery - Other Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  ...  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next Page Last Page  
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 03:31 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
161st Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

The US Regular Army was about 15,000 officers and men with about 13,000 stationed west of the Mississippi at frontier forts. The remainder were stationed in coastal forts, arsenals, armories and the like. There were virtually none in Washington City.

Lincoln issued a call for 75,000 of loyal-states' militias, which set an additional four on the road to secession. He was in a virtual panic that the CSA's next step would be to capture Washington and he had no troops to prevent that. (The militia companies in Washington could not be counted on to pitch their lot with the Union.)

You also need to put some of the blame on the firing on Sumter on the Union attempting to re-enforce and re-supply Sumter, twice.


 

:shock:

ole



 Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 03:31 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
162nd Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

The US Regular Army was about 15,000 officers and men with about 13,000 stationed west of the Mississippi at frontier forts. The remainder were stationed in coastal forts, arsenals, armories and the like. There were virtually none in Washington City.

Lincoln issued a call for 75,000 of loyal-states' militias, which set an additional four on the road to secession. He was in a virtual panic that the CSA's next step would be to capture Washington and he had no troops to prevent that. (The militia companies in Washington could not be counted on to pitch their lot with the Union.)

You also need to put some of the blame on the firing on Sumter on the Union attempting to re-enforce and re-supply Sumter, twice.


 

:shock:

ole



 Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 05:22 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
163rd Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1065
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

39th Miss. Walker wrote: Johan, you have posted this a couple of times, can you elaborate.
"A 15,000 man standing army w/ about a third in CS POW camps..."

Exactly when, where, what sources? Up to a few days before the firing on Sumter Northern agents and officers were walking the streets of Charleston.
There are conflicting reports on that... there was a reason Major Anderson felt it imperitive that he move his command to Ft Sumter.
You can also give Buchannan credit for his hands off "I don't know what to do" attitude. He was worse than worthless.   I couldn't agree more.

You also need to put some of the blame on the firing on Sumter on the Union attempting to re-enforce and re-supply Sumter, twice.
As a note men attempting to reprovision is not a invitation to be fired upon.  Firing upon them is an act of war no matter who you blame.  US flagged ships were fired upon prior to the official bombardment of Ft Sumter.


Ole answered for me.  But to elaborate, all those Regulars in TX, the Nation & Arkansas found themselves on their way to a CS POW camp the day Ft Sumter was fired upon some might argue before.  Roughly a third of the entire US Army was taken prisoner.  If you need a source for the size of the US Army in 1861 they are quite plentiful.  As a note one cav unit that could have escaped to the US and their fate in a CS POW camp could have made it but they turned around when news of an Indian attack reached them... the local CS didn't care and made certain they found themselves in a camp afterwards.  The Regulars who were on the sharp end of the spear were none to enthusiastic or impressed by the "honorable" actions of the CS in the early days of the war.  Most men had their arms & gear stripped from them along w/ their wallets.

Off hand I was using: 

Johnson, Mark W. That Body of Brave Men, Da Capo Press, 2003.

Which is an account of the Regulars in the AOC, the fate of those men is quite well recorded and easy to find reference to.



 Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 06:31 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
164th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Johan-

   You maintain that the folks in South Carolina committed an act of war by firing on US flagged ships entering Charleston harbor. Of course, they had a completely different view of it.

  It is a question of sovereignty. When South Carolina seceded, the people there believed that South Carolina, including Charleston harbor, had ceased to be part of the United States. It belonged to the state of South Carolina until it joined the Confederacy in February of 1861. From that point, it was Confederate territory.

  The problem was that there were now: "foreign" troops and installations on its territory. You know as well as I do that the folks in Charleston could not even control their own harbor as long as the U.S. Government could maintain its control from Ft. Sumter. This was an intolerable situation.

  The two basic choices were to attack Ft. Sumter, or to starve it out. Initially, they chose the latter strategy. They warned the U.S. Government that if it attempted to reinforce and resupply Ft. Sumter, that U.S. ships coming into Charleston harbor would be fired on.

  The U.S. Government would not accept the concept that South Carolina was no longer part of the United States. They chose to ignore the warning and to force the issue. I would maintain that Mr. Lincoln had it in mind all along to provoke not only the firing on the ships, but also the firing on the fort.

  When the ships with reinforcements and provisions appeared, the folks in South Carolina would have said that they constituted a foreign invasion, and that it was the U.S. Government that was committing an act of war. So, the ships were fired on and driven off.

  The strategy to starve out Major Anderson would have been successful if cooler heads had been able to prevail until 15 April. But Mr. Lincoln got what he had hoped for before then.

  I still believe that there would have been war no matter what was done about Ft. Sumter. Therefore, an argument over which side committed an act of war is an exercise in futility.



 Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 07:34 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
165th Post
39th Miss. Walker
Member
 

Joined: Tue May 1st, 2007
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 80
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Also the garrison was at Ft. Moultrie where Anderson ascertained his men were vulnerable to attack. It was at this time with no instructions from Washington that he then removed his garrison to Ft. Sumter and hurried up the completion and arming of the fort.
When the US did decide to send supplies to Ft. Sumter they also chose to provoke South Carolina by sending additional reinforcements. At this time other forts were being peaceably given over to the Confederate authorities by the Federal commanders.


Johan the question I had was the 5,000 US prisoners being taken to POW camps before there even was a Confederacy.



 Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 10:33 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
166th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top


Also the garrison was at Ft. Moultrie where Anderson ascertained his men were vulnerable to attack. It was at this time with no instructions from Washington that he then removed his garrison to Ft. Sumter and hurried up the completion and arming of the fort.


Partially true. He was at Moultrie when things began to look like he would soon be attacked. However, he did have instructions from Washington (Floyd) giving him permission to vacate Moultrie if he were threatened. Following the move, Floyd threw a massive fit -- until a copy of the order was produced. He was gone shortly thereafter. Anderson didn't have the manpowere to even begin completion of the Fort, let alone hurry it up. They did manage to mount a few of the guns that were there -- a far cry from "arming the fort."
When the US did decide to send supplies to Ft. Sumter they also chose to provoke South Carolina by sending additional reinforcements. At this time other forts were being peaceably given over to the Confederate authorities by the Federal commanders.

Again, partially true. But a message from Lincoln to Governor Pickens assured the Governor that the reinfocements would not be landed if delivery of the supplies was uncontested. Many of those forts and arsenals being "peaceably" given over to authorities were manned by a couple of caretakers or, at best, less than a dozen regulars. They seemed to prefer peaceably giving over their charges than dying to protect them.

I haven't gotten into Mark W. Johnson's That Body of Brave Men deeply enough to confirm Johan's figure. But in the Prologue, Johnson he does state that, "The Federal regulars who were not able to make it out [of Texas], about 1,300 in number, were taken prisoner in Texas and New Mexico during April and May. Most of the officers were paroled, but the soldiers were forced to work as laborers at some of their frontier posts. Almost two years would pass before the last of the Texas regulars were exchanged and set free."

And on the first paqe: "America's military professionals were few in number at the time of the Ft. Sumter bombardment, numbering less than 16,000 officers and men. Making a bad situation worse was where the regulars were located. In April 1861 most of the regulars were either stationed west of the Mississippi River or marking time in Confederate prisons. Of the Old Army's nineteen regiments (ten infantry, four artillery, two dragoons, two cavalry and a regiment of mounted riflemen), the only forces available for immediate service were a handful of artillery companies scattered along the East Coast and the troops who had escaped from Texas."

ole

 



 Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2007 12:08 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
167th Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1065
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I have a question, if Spain decided to reclaim Gibraltor in say 1858 and blocaded it intending to starve it out and when they became impatient opted to do their best to blast it into oblivian would that be considered a decleration of war?

I think it would.

Ole, thank you once again for answerig for me. I am once again away from home... work is fun really it is so my resources are limited to say the least.

THe Regulars in TX were not the only regulars detained by the CS, there were several instances where arsenals were seized and the Regulars stationed there were imprisoned. Davis and the CS govt was well aware of the distribution of the Regular Army and IMHO they used it to their advantage. The US Army was scattered from hell to breakfest, defending the frontier mostly, much of it to the benefit of the soon to be CS and quite a few troops out California way. Suppresing a Rebellion that was armed and proven to be hostile was not an option for the US Army... w/out that call for 75,000 troops I have no doubt CS troops could have walked into DC and even less doubt that Davis would have thought twice about ordering such.

Recall how much trouble Lincoln had even making it to DC?

I just don't buy the argument that Lincoln outmanuevered Davis on Ft Sumter. Davis was a consumate profesional politician; to claim such simply makes Davis look incompetant. I think Davis gambled that Lincoln would be another Buchanan... he was wrong.

Lincoln swore an oath to defend the US against all enemies foreign & domestic. He honored his oath and did his job. Lincoln is often chastised for actions that Davis did as well. It's a double standard. Both were politicians, good ones, and I don't think I would invite either to dinner.

If my neighbor were to claim my house as his... doesn't make it so. If my neighbor then opted to force me out of my house at gunpoint or by shooting my house full of holes would I be in the right to defend myself and then put the law on him? Quite frankly once you start running you never stop.

Ft Sumter was built w/ federal money, heck they built the island. How SC can claim it as theirs has always been quite beyond me. Very little SC $ was spent on it's creation.

The fair compensation offer... posh. Like a neighbor stealing your brand new Dodge 1500 and after you caught him sitting in the drivers seat offering you $1500 for it. Do you think the bank would consider that acceptable?



 Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2007 12:54 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
168th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Johan-

  Your analogy with Spain and Gibraltar doesn't relate to the situation of Ft. Sumter. I don't think that we would disagree that Ft. Sumter is in South Carolina. So- whose territory does Ft. Sumter sit on? Either South Carolina is part of the United States, or it isn't.

  In 1861, the natives there would have told you that it wasn't. So, what were they to do about a foreign installation preventing them from running their harbor as they wished to?

  If "your house" turns out to be on your neighbor's property, you have no right to keep it there. You must either move it or abandon it. He might compensate you for your expenses, or he might not. If he was kind, he might give you some time to decide what to do and how to do it. He might even decide for a time not to cut off your food supplies.

  Your neighbor wouldn't be at all pleased if you tried to run in reinforcements and provisions so that you could maintain your position there, and shoot at him if you chose to.

  I am sympathetic to the plight of Jefferson Davis, but he did some boneheaded things. I don't think that he was Lincoln's equal as a politician. I think that Lincoln did outmaneuver the Confederates.

  Anderson was holding out but informed the Confederates that he would leave on 15 April- UNLESS he was resupplied. Beauregard had been instructed not to allow the fort to be resupplied. When Mr. Lincoln informed Governor Pickens that he intended to resupply the fort, he played right into the worst fears of the Confederates. They decided, wrongly in my view, that they could not wait until 15 April.

  My natural inclination is to try to put you in the position of the Confederates in Charleston, and ask you how you would have accomplished the removal of the federal forces at Ft. Sumter. But I fear that would be a waste of time, since you seem incapable of seeing the situation from their side.

  In fact, this whole discussion is a waste of time, since we have already agreed that the war was inevitable regardless of what was done in Charleston harbor.

Last edited on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 04:01 am by Texas Defender



 Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2007 11:35 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
169th Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1065
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Stand on the battery in Charleston and look out at Ft Sumter... it's just a tiny speck. The men at Ft Sumter were impeding nothing. They had enough men for a really good marching band but not a whole lot more. 10 years prior Ft Sumter and the island it sat on hadn't even been there.

I've given you the US point of view. Don't really care if you agree w/ it but hopefully you understand it.

It;s not that I choose not to see the situation from the CS view; it is that I cannot see them in the right, no matter how I look at it.

As to the neighbor anology, even if he arbitrarily moved his property line to encompas my house I believe there is reason for legal recourse prior to a blocade and gunfire don't you. We are a nation of laws, part of the reason we left England was that all too many thought English Law no longer governed in the colonies. That was true.

I see the argument that it was all the fault of the US and I grow weary of it. Thank you for at least acknowledging that the CS was at least as much to blame.

Old Bo had no choices, he had been given his orders and he followed them. I cannot fault him... I fault the leadership that gave him the orders.



 Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2007 01:58 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
170th Post
39th Miss. Walker
Member
 

Joined: Tue May 1st, 2007
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 80
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

First of all Ft. Sumter wasn't the helpless speck of dirt and bricks you made it out to be. Anderson had his engineers and laborers working to finish it for many months, ever since her took over command at Moultrie.
Secondly Sumter COMMANDED the harbor, it was hardly inconsequential. At one point Anderson threatened to fire on CS vessels. But Anderson later declined to do so.

I don't use analogies but since some of you love them here is one.
You let someone live in a house on your property. You decide to sell it. Does he have a right to forever stay in the house?

The US invades a country. Takes their land. Forces them into a war. Wins the war and keeps part of the land. What say you?

Before you answer, it wasn't the Civil War. I can tell you of a few wars with the same scenario. You would have thought the US learned from the Mexican American War, they did, might makes right.

You can't sit and believe the US was not as much an aggressor as the South. Both were hard headed and wanted war. They both were spoiling for a fight. The US invaded Virginia.

Further, as for Sumter;
An understanding had been established between the authorities in Washington and the members of Congress from South Carolina, that the forts would not be attacked, or seized as an act of war, until proper negotiations for their cession to the State had been made and had failed; provided that they were not reinforced, and their military status should remain as it was at the time of this understanding, viz., on December 9, 1860. (Confederate Military History Vol. 5)

Anderson further stated " that he could get no information or positive orders from Washington".

The Star of the West with troop re-enforcements was turned back. A second attempt was made by the Federal forces and it was only at this that the CS opened fire on Sumter.

I think if we want to discuss Sumter we should start a new thread. We have gotten off track here.



 Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2007 02:07 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
171st Post
David White
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 909
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

TD:

Since the island Ft. Sumter is sitting on is not natural and was built by the US Government, how can you claim it belonged to SC?



 Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2007 02:24 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
172nd Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

David-

  The Confederates would have said that Ft. Sumter sat in Charleston harbor. That was within the state of South Carolina which was, in April of 1861, part of the CSA.

  As you have seen, perhaps, from my exchange with Johan, there was no really wondrous solution to the problem. The fort could not be simply moved, nor could the artificial island that it sat on.

  All that could be done was to say: "Please remove all the federal property that you are able to, and we'll see about giving you compensation for the rest."

  The problem could not be resolved, because the U.S. Government was unwilling to simply abandon the fort, as they thought that it would be an acknowledgement of the legitimacy of secession. The Confederates felt that they could not allow the U.S. Government to maintain its position there, since the fort could fire on ships entering or leaving the harbor.



 Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2007 03:38 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
173rd Post
39th Miss. Walker
Member
 

Joined: Tue May 1st, 2007
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 80
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

The legal title to Ft. Sumter, as well as Moultrie belonged to the US Government by an act of the SC Legislature and the US Congress. That is not debatable. Until SC became a sovereign nation, that open another can of worms.
That being said, while the US held legal title to the forts when SC left the Union, negotiations were opened with the US Gov't. as to SC taking possession of the forts. The CS pledged not to open any hostilities upon the forts as long as they were not re-enforced in any way. This the US agreed to.
At this time other than some ongoing construction at Sumter, the fort was not occupied. Anderson, claiming no knowledge of these ongoing negotiations, chose to abandon Ft. Moultrie and occupy Sumter. In direct violation of the agreement between the US and SC.
The Confederacy still held off until such time as the US attempted to re-enforce Sumter with the Star of the West. The Confederacy did turn away the Star of the West but held off any overt acts against Sumter.
It wasn't until the US assembled a fleet outside of Sumter in an attempt to again resupply Sumter that the CS acted.
Anderson himself agreed to give up the fort on the 15th as they would have to vacate due to lack of supplies. The Union forced the CS hand with the resupply ships.
Not getting into a Lincoln vs Davis, which is another thread.
What option did the CS have? The US violated the agreement multiple times, the most egregious by Anderson occupying Sumter.



 Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2007 04:04 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
174th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

The problem could not be resolved, because the U.S. Government was unwilling to simply abandon the fort, as they thought that it would be an acknowledgement of the legitimacy of secession. The Confederates felt that they could not allow the U.S. Government to maintain its position there, since the fort could fire on ships entering or leaving the harbor.

Agreed that POTUS could not abandon the fort for political reasons. But Jeff Davis had the same reasons for wanting it. It wasn't so much fear of stopping Charleston's trickle of shipping, or even a real danger of firing on Charleston -- remember that Anderson made it known that he'd have to leave by the 15th -- it was symbolic. The CSA couldn't be considered a viable nation so long as that fort remained occupied by a Federal garrison. And JD was put on notice that Virginia wouldn't secede unless there was some action -- and he must have Virginia or the Confederacy could't succeed.

Davis could have stopped the resupply easily enough, and he might have gotten away with it, as in the case of The Star of the West, but that might not have been enough to get Virginia to secede.

ole



 Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2007 04:16 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
175th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

That being said, while the US held legal title to the forts when SC left the Union, negotiations were opened with the US Gov't. as to SC taking possession of the forts. The CS pledged not to open any hostilities upon the forts as long as they were not re-enforced in any way. This the US agreed to.

If you can find the actual agreement, I'd appreciate seeing it.

At this time other than some ongoing construction at Sumter, the fort was not occupied. Anderson, claiming no knowledge of these ongoing negotiations, chose to abandon Ft. Moultrie and occupy Sumter. In direct violation of the agreement between the US and SC.


As previously posted, Anderson did have Floyd's permission to move to Sumter if he was threatened. He felt threatened at Moultrie, so he moved.

ole



 Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2007 04:29 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
176th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Also take into account that the wave of Confederate nationalism not only had stopped but was starting to be questioned in April 1861. Fort Sumter was the perfect fuse to get it going again.


HankC



 Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2007 04:38 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
177th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Ole-

  Virginia did not secede because of the attack on Ft. Sumter- at least not directly.

  What led to the secession of Virginia was Mr. Lincoln's response to Ft. Sumter. On 15 April, he demanded troops from Virginia to suppress the states that had already seceded. On the 27th, he ordered a blockade of Virginia, while it was still in the Union. Anticipating the secession vote on May 23rd, he then made preparations for an invasion of Virginia involving thousands of troops.

  After these actions by the U.S. Government, the Unionists in Virginia could no longer prevail.

 

Virginia: Spring 1861

Note: The contention of the source above that some federal troops crossed the Potomac on May 3rd is apparently in correct. So, I have edited this posting, with a tip of the hat to Hank C.



 

 

Last edited on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 08:32 pm by Texas Defender



 Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2007 06:17 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
178th Post
39th Miss. Walker
Member
 

Joined: Tue May 1st, 2007
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 80
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

ole wrote: That being said, while the US held legal title to the forts when SC left the Union, negotiations were opened with the US Gov't. as to SC taking possession of the forts. The CS pledged not to open any hostilities upon the forts as long as they were not re-enforced in any way. This the US agreed to.

If you can find the actual agreement, I'd appreciate seeing it.

At this time other than some ongoing construction at Sumter, the fort was not occupied. Anderson, claiming no knowledge of these ongoing negotiations, chose to abandon Ft. Moultrie and occupy Sumter. In direct violation of the agreement between the US and SC.


As previously posted, Anderson did have Floyd's permission to move to Sumter if he was threatened. He felt threatened at Moultrie, so he moved.

ole

Whether Anderson had the approval of Floyd or not, it was in violation of the agreement. Telegraphs work in more than one direction. Anderson should have been so informed and not moved to Sumter.

Could you provide the directive from Floyd to Anderson? I have never seen it either.

The hero of all of this in reality was Anderson. He went way beyone what was easy or even necessary to stave off a war even he knew was coming.



 Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2007 07:42 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
179th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Texas Defender wrote:
  What led to the secession of Virginia was Mr. Lincoln's response to Ft. Sumter. On 15 April, he demanded troops from Virginia to suppress the states that had already seceded. On the 27th, he ordered a blockade of Virginia, while it was still in the Union. On May 3rd, he ordered the occupation of Arlington Heights in Virginia. He then made preparations for a larger invasion of Virginia.
 


Not sure 'demanded' is the proper word here.
 
'Call' and 'appeal' are the actual words used, along with 'I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the forces hereby called forth will probably be to repossess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union; and in every event the utmost care will be observed, consistent with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, and destruction of peaceful citizens in any part of the country. '
 
Arlington Heights was occupied just hours after the vote on May 23rd, not before the vote...
 
 
HankC
 
 



 Posted: Fri Dec 21st, 2007 12:47 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
180th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Walker wrote:

Whether Anderson had the approval of Floyd or not, it was in violation of the agreement.

And I asked for a copy of the "agreement." My take is that it was more an "understanding."

Telegraphs work in more than one direction. Anderson should have been so informed and not moved to Sumter.

There was no telegraph communication between Anderson and  Washington.

Could you provide the directive from Floyd to Anderson? I have never seen it either.

I'll be searching for it as soon as I've read the boards. Probably have it tomorrow.

ole 

Last edited on Fri Dec 21st, 2007 12:49 am by ole



 Current time is 03:44 pmPage:  First Page Previous Page  ...  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next Page Last Page  
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.4721 seconds (12% database + 88% PHP). 28 queries executed.