Abraham Lincoln Wins an Oscar

UPDATE: Comments section is closed. See Last Comment.



Congratulations to Daniel Day Lewis for his breath taking and literally believable portrayal of one of America’s greatest leaders.


      • No different than we would view the Northern slave society. However there is one big difference the Southern slave society didn’t invade the Northern slave society, make war on old men, women and children of all races under the pretense (2 years later) of freeing the slaves.

        • Actually there is a drastic difference since the South truly was a slave society and the North a society with slaves. However, by the time of the Civil War, most northern states were not even societies with slaves. And yes, the South did invade Northern society in the context of its Northern invasions, as well as its”Confederate Army of Manhattan.” All of this prompted by the secession crisis brought on by the Southern states due to a perceived attack on slavery. In connection to that secession crisis, Southern troops attacked Northern troops at Fort Sumter calling for and causing retaliation.

          • Actually there is a drastic difference since the South truly was a slave society and the North a society with slaves What does the Constitution say about slavery????

            Now what is that supposed to mean????

            “Confederate Army of Manhattan.” What????? How many old men, women and children did they kill? How many houses burned animals killed women sent south???

            Try to spin harder Rob.

            Really did Southern troops attack Northern troops at Sumter. Are you absolutely sure??? I believe that Anderson made the first aggressive move. Sounds to me like you should do more research

          • What does the Constitution say about slavery?

            Well for starters the word “slavery” is not mentioned until the 13th Amendment; though it is referred to. The political debates surrounding slavery and the constitution at its inception, were between the North and the South in most cases. Southern states would not have ratified the Constitution without provisions that supported slavery. So the argument again comes back to a “North vs South” argument over the issue of slavery. However, that still does not add to, nor take away from the fact that the North enjoyed a minority slave population while the South was a slave society.

            I assumed that you as a “defender of southern heritage” would know about Confederate history. The Confederate Army of Manhattan was a group of Southern operatives that attempted to start a massive fire resulting in the decimation of New York City. They snuck in from Canada and set fire to numerous hotels etc. These were not military installations but rather the civil population. Ultimately the plot failed.

            Men women and children died on both sides. Naturally the South lost more being the territory of war but wasn’t a defensive war their (the south’s) preference and after Gettysburg their only avenue? Of course, if Thomas Jackson had his way, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and a line of settlements up to Lake Erie would have been attacked. And no, Anderson made no aggressive moves except for refusing to surrender federal property. Perhaps you should actually know history before arguing it.

          • Section. 9.
            The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person
            There you are
            There you are
            Post a list of the Southern and Northern states holding out for slavery or give a reliable link. I have honestly tried to research that point
            Slavery had nothing to do with the war, it was legal regardless of events in the 1700s. The slave owners did not own the ships that brought slaves to the United States. It has nothing to do with Lincoln’s supposed greatness. This is just a smoke and mirror tactic.
            Check out this link, It should be fairly reliable

            Sort of pales in comparison to the destruction in the South caused by Lincoln’s men.


            But the fact is the Yankees made a practice of making war on old men, women and children. they made a deliberate practice of destroying, burning, and stealing everything in their path military value or not — all for the greatness of Lincoln!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


            Anderson, a slave owner, made the first aggressive move period. Study your history

            Off for the day, I will check back tomorrow.

          • @ George
            I’m not sure why you copied and pasted a fraction of the constitution. If you read my comments closely, it stated that slavery is not mentioned but referred to. Thanks for helping with that point I guess.

            Try “Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787” by James Madison


            To say that “slavery had nothing to do with the war” is either ignorance or dishonesty. The southern states definitely recognized slavery as the primary issue for secession leading to war. The slave owners did not own the ships, but they did fight hard for international slave trade to be extended to 1808 as you listed above. N.C., S.C. and GA to be exact. (again, see Madison’s notes)

            Thanks for the article, interesting read but it really just proves the plan a failure thanks to the actions of a double agent. You are separating intent and action, which is ok, but not when deciding which side was more “ruthless.” In this case, you are merely demonstrating that one side was more capable of carrying out a more complete version of war than the other.

            Yankees made that a practice because they conducted a “way of war” sought after to end the war in the long term. However, if certain Southern commanders had their way, the south would have practiced the same war. Woulda, Shoulda Coulda arguments aside, the mindsets were not far apart. To define one as barbaric because they COULD carry out that type of war, is misleading and does not enhance the understanding of either side.

            Anderson was actually a pro-slavery, former slave owner….and a Southerner. He did not commit the first acts of aggression. Please do not cite the ludicrous argument that because he moved his garrison from Moultrie to Sumter that he committed an act of aggression. That is one of the most erroneous claims I’ve ever come across. He was put in charge of all harbor forts, Buchanon only promised the S.C. Gov. that he would not occupy Sumter “immediately.” Occupying a fort, moving a garrison from one fort under your command to another, is not an act of aggression. Even Charleston papers at the time said Anderson violated “faith.” Again, hardly an act of “aggression.” I know my history; do you?

          • Yours and Rob Baker comments are about as wrong as the other lies told about the South Attacking the North. For your information Fort Sumter was property of the State of South Carolina. Anderson moved his Union Troop from Ft. Moultry to Ft Sumter just days before the shoot started. When he did he commited an acttack of WAR… and he knew it. Go back and read the real history.
            The South fought the war becaused the North attacked the South. No other reason.

      • I wish Lincoln had not been killed, it would be interesting to see how his recolonization of freed blacks outside the U.S. would have gone.

        • That is sort of an overplayed argument. There is no proof that Lincoln would have colonized nor that he could have colonized. That Liberal Rag, the New York Times, Disunoin blog, has a terrific post on the multiple interpretations of Lincoln and colonization of African Americans.


          On top this, I would also like to add one more thing. On April 11th, 1865 after the surrender of Robert E. Lee, Lincoln delivered what proved to be his last speech. Among other things, the speech addressed the situation of Louisiana and of course, black suffrage.

          It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers.

          You can look the speech up yourself to get the context. But I think this poses a question….

          How does Lincoln plan on allowing blacks to vote in the U.S., and forced colonization?

          • Lincoln contacted every congressman & senator after the war trying to get them to vote for his plan of recolonization of the freed blacks as he said in his own words no two racs were as far a part & different as the negros & whites. Shortly after this Lincon was murdered. I guess the Radical Republicans & abolitionist didn`t like his plan to do away with all those future votes so they tey could make political hay for their liberal ideas. Also explain why when this war first started the north claimed it was about preserving the union then abut 1863, with Lincoln`s reelection coming up it 1864 it was then all of a sudden about freeing the slaves. I guess Lincoln caved in to get those aboliionist votes to get reelected.

          • I’m sure you’ve got documentation for the interactions between Lincoln and his Congressmen…..you known, in that short period of time between April 9, and April 12.

            Actually the importance of slavery as a cause of war was prevelant Lincoln’s mind. The rhetoric was there. The Emancipation Proclamation was written before January 1st 1863, but he waited to issue it until that specific date. The election took place nearly two years later. The abolitionist vote made up a nearly insignificant number state by state. You’re making some pretty poor assumptions.

          • And you are making the same mistake by assuming you know what was “previlent on Lincolns mind”. I always reject historians words when they clain”so and so was thinking….” 150+ years ago.
            I cant even say what my brother was thinking (or my wife) if I did not see it in writing or hear it. Perhaps you have not read what Lincoln said in his debates before his first election?
            Many real historians have stated Lincoln only released his proclamination when he did was an attempt to discourage England and France from supporting the CSA. It worked but nearly cost him the election, too bad it didn’t work! His replacement would have , hopefully, brought about peace.

          • I never stated I “know” what was on Lincoln’s mind. One can only analyze this writings. Many historians stating that would be right, it was a factor though not the only one.

  1. Rob,

    You know very well what article 9 is referring to. Saying the word “slavery” does not appear is true, but not quite accurate in the tue meaning, you are just ttrying to be slick.


    I will read Madison’s works, but it has nothing to do with this discussion as I point out the “importation” clause in the constitution. Gee for 10 bucks a Yankee slave trader could bring in his slaves. 10 bucks. Was it the slave owners or slave traders who fought for international trade???


    I would guess by your comments your are referring the the Causes of Immediate Secession?? So you are telling me that four states, only two with a common border are declaring war on the US? Is that what you are trying to tell me? You are telling me these 4 states are representative of the whole Confederacy? I will play your game– show me where these 4 Southern States stated they were going to war to preserve the institution of slavery. I want to see the exact passage.


    Oh gee 8 men starting a few fires with the intent — still no comparison to the ACTUAL Yankee atrocities. Get real quit whining about nothing. Ending the war/????? Most of the atrocities commited by the Yankees had nothing to do with the war. I have dedicated a website to these atrocities, I know better. And to your comment the South fought a defensive war, only serves to prove the South was more dedicated to peace and would not have fought except they were being invaded. Thank you very much. The fact is the Confederate President,Davis and the Confederate commanders would not allow such atrocities to be commited. At the end of the day Lincoln allowed such actions to be part of his war plan. Thank you very much for supporting my argument.

    Anderson was a slave owner. If the war was about slavery, he should have been the first man to free his slaves. Anderson made the first aggressive move by moving from Moultrie to Sumter without orders or authorization while a standing peace agreement said that he would not do so. In the process of moving he destoryed US military materials, another act seen as military action and captured POWs. I know this from researching
    Anderson and the isssue at Fort Sumter. I use no Southern sources. Now the Confederates made one demand of the North, get Anderson out ofFort Sumter, when Lincoln refuse to do so, and sent his invasion fleet( I hhave a listing of ships and all guns going to Sumter, war began. Nothing to do with slavery.

    Another fleet was sent to Pensacola at the same time. Ask your partner Andy Hall about this fleet, he wrote a cute little piece “We are Number One sort of dismissing these naval action and making light of the fact there was actually a invasion fleet to Pensacola..


    Spin away Rob spin away

    George Purvis
    Southern Heritage AdvancementPreservation and Education


    Please help Andy Hall out, he does look like he has been pissed.

    • Again George, read my statement. I said the word slavery is not used until the 13th Amendment, but slavery is referred to.

      To answer your question, it was the southern colonies that fought for this. The Agricultural industry of the South was already established by 1787. However, it was common knowledge that the Revolutionary War devastated the slave population. The southern colonies needed the international trade in order to beef up the number of the labor force. However, not to say this was a case of the “evil South,” the southern governments recognized slavery as a “necessary evil.” They felt their economy would not be sustainable without that work force. Also, you can’t say that you “will read Madison’s work” implying that you haven’t, and then presume to explain what it does or does not answer. Madison writes about the very issue of international slave trade. Direct quote from Madison’s notes as stated by Representative Pinkney of South Carolina:

      Mr. Pinkney: South Carolina can never receive the plan if it prohibits slave trade. In every proposed extension of the powers of the Congress, that State has expressly & watchfully excepted that of meddling with the importation of negroes. If the States be all left at liberty on this subject, S. Carolina may perhaps by degrees do of herself what is wished, as Virginia and Maryland have already done.


      You have to explain where you are getting “4” states from. Let’s look at the facts.

      November 6th, Lincoln is elected.
      December 20th 1860 S.C. secedes: [A]n increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding states to the institution of slavery
      January 9th, 1861, Mississippi secedes: This new union with Lincoln Black Republicans and free Negroes, without slavery; or, slavery under our old constitutional bond of union, without Lincoln Black Republicans, or free Negroes either, to molest us. Commissioner William L. Harris to the Georgia Legislature.
      January 10th, 1861, Florida secedes: Florida did not publish a declaration however, their unpublished declaration talks about slavery in nearly every paragraph. http://www.civilwarcauses.org/florida-dec.htm
      January 11th, 1861, Alabama secedes: Alabama commissioner Stephen Fowler Hale to the governor of Kentucky: ….by a sectional party avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the State of Alabama
      January 19th, 1861 Georgia secedes: Do I really have to post Tombs, Stephens, their declaration and so on?
      January 26th, 1861 Louisiana secedes: Commissioner George Williamson to the Texas secession convention at a later date stated: She was impelled to this action to preserve her honor, her safety, her property and the free institutions so sacred to her people
      February 1st, 1861, Texas secedes: We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial and tolerable.

      These seven confederate states joined together in February of 1861, adapted a Constitution, and elected Jefferson Davis President with Alexander Stephens as his VP (Cornerstone Speech).

      Jefferson Davis Inaugural Address (Montgomery, Alabama Feb. 1861):
      We are doubly justified by the absence of wrong on our part, and by wanton aggression on the part of others. There can be no cause to doubt that the courage and patriotism of the people of the Confederate States will be found equal to any measure of defence which may be required for their security. Devoted to agricultural pursuits, their chief interest is the export of a commodity required in every manufacturing country.

      It is pretty obvious, blatantly laid out in black and white, what the cause for secession was, and what that new “nation” would do to protect it.


      Didn’t support your argument at all. Their is a difference between the capabilities of fighting a war and the thoughts of how that war should be carried out. The fact is, the South mounted no successful invasion of the North. They were checked each time. Therefore, occupation could not take place. However, Jackson clearly illustrates and intent. The sabateurs of New York also illustrate that intent. That waging war on civilians was not beyond the South’s thought. Also, it has everything to do with war. Maybe you should reform your “website” that you’ve dedicated so much time with. Perhaps a study of military history or specifically “total war.”


      Anderson’s devotion was to the Union before his devotion to slavery.. No one, including Lincoln, knew the future of the slave institution at the onset of the war. That does not mean that slavery was not the cause and reason of the war, or rather the South’s right to own and expand slave influence. That is easily deduced in the South’s own words above. You obviously do not know what you are talking about. First, spiking the cannons is not an act of aggression. That claim has no bearing anywhere. Second, Anderson was given command of all the forts of the Harbor. There was no standing agreement that he would not move. All forts of the harbor were in his domain of control. Moving from once position to another, within his command, is not aggression. The verbal “truce” between Buchanon and S.C. is vague and holds no where that Anderson would remain only at Moultrie. After the move, S.C. forces moved in a seized Federal property, a thing they already did in the past further proving the South’s first aggressive actions. Despite the resistance to move or give up the Ft., the South did not fire because they did not want to fire the first shots. Even they knew their actions meant the beginning of war. Later, leaders like Davis and Stephens argued that Lincoln’s actions of relief was “aggression” that warranted defensive measures. The eyes of the world, and nation, saw it differently.

      Please name the POW’s taken. Or provide citations for this little known fact.

      Seems like you are confusing “reserves” or “food for hungry men” i.e. relief with an invasion fleet. In any manner, Citadel cadets fired before Lincoln took office.

      Looks like you need to reread Andy’s piece also. It mentions no fleet and the original article says:

      Ogden and others said it’s a stretch to say what happened at Fort Barrancas started the Civil War – the would-be attackers, a small group of drunken and rowdy locals, left as soon as the warning shot sounded – if there ever was one. The National Park Service has marked some anniversaries of the incident with candlelight tours of the fort.

      Keep trying George.

      Rob Baker
      Actual Historian, Carson-Newman College, B.A. (now Carson-Newman University) and North Georgia College and State University, “The Military College of Georgia,” M.A.T., M.A. (now University of North Georgia)

      • Rob,

        Just wondering would any fact I post make a difference in your opinion? You have an obvious biased opinion?

        “Their is a difference between the capabilities of fighting a war and the thoughts of how that war should be carried out” BS BS BS BS BS BS.

        I mean look at your comments on Yankee atrocities you seem to think that because of the might of the Union army they could do anything they wanted –in other words MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. Wonder how you would like for a superior force to come on your property, gang raped your sister, make your old mother watch, your dads head bashed in, all food, livestock and valuables stolen or destroyed, graves of your kin destroyed, and the house and all buildings burned. Little children’s medicine poisoned, your male kin being deliberately staved in Elmira, Camp Douglas or another one of Linclon’s concentration camps.

        Are you OK with that.??????? Where is your human decency? I can see why you think Lincoln is a great man.


        • Well for starters George, try actually posting facts. You keep making vague references to things that happened without actually providing any actual information, names, citations etc. Sort of like your statement below.

          You stated:

          Wonder how you would like for a superior force to come on your property, gang raped your sister, make your old mother watch, your dads head bashed in, all food, livestock and valuables stolen or destroyed, graves of your kin destroyed, and the house and all buildings burned.

          Mark Grimsley, noted Civil War Military Historian:

          ….Civil War historians have long known that stories of widespread rape and murder by Union soldiers lack much historical foundation. There is simply very little evidence to support them. But until quite recently historians did tend to dwell heavily on the destructive aspects of Sherman’s marches, and the dominant portrayal was one of hardened veterans no longer animated by moral considerations.

          That assessment is one that I too shared for a number of years. But eventually I became troubled, for official Union policy plainly did not contemplate such indiscriminate destruction. And although wanton depredations certainly occurred, I discovered almost no instances in which white Southerners were killed, assaulted, or raped. Indeed, my reading of the evidence did not sustain a portrayal of unrestrained destruction even of property. After a while it seemed to me that the dominant theme of the Union hard war operations was as less an erosion of values than an on-going tension between competing sets of values. Union soldiers clearly came to understand the need to destroy Southern war resources and they also embraced the conviction that some Southern civilians deserved punishment for their role in starting or sustaining the war. But the same sense of justice that created this desire for retribution also insisted that punishment should fall upon the guilty. The result was indeed severity, but it was a directed severity aimed–and for the most part, aimed effectively–at certain portions of the Confederate population and economic infrastructure….

          He goes on http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/grimsley1/myth/myth.htm

          However, that is not to say that the fear of sexual violence and rape did not permeate society. That is a lethal tool used throughout society on both sides. Incidents that took place were isolated. The events usually involved “bummbers,” or the “ravishers” were court marshaled. This only serves to demonstrate that these actions were not condoned. Evidence in large scale is scant. This is probably because it is the Victorian age and the view of women in society was rather angelic. Cases of rape often could go unreported to protect the female virtue. However, sexual violence, or the threat of sexual violence is a tool of war and a rather nasty one. Obviously southern women felt this way during Sherman’s march, and black freed women in the post Civil War era maintained these emotions towards white southern men during reconstruction. You can find the latter of this in a book entitled “Rape and Race in the 19th Century South.” This is not a Northern or a Southern thing but a human psychological weapon that is centuries old and continues today. Soldiers used this as a weapon. Slave owners used this as a weapon. U.S. military men do it today:

          A U.S. Department of Defense report in 2008 stated that nearly 3,000 female soldiers were sexually harassed, assaulted or raped by their American comrades during the War in Iraq, in some cases by their commanding officers. Americans should find this unacceptable, especially the men who serve or have served our country honorably. http://civilwarodyssey.blogspot.com/2011/03/behind-curtain-rape-and-other-horrors.html

          Is it acceptable, no. Is it a reality of war? Absolutely.

          Also, if you knew anything about military history and theory, you would agree that there is a difference between the capabilities to wage a war and how thought of how that war should be carried out. For example, Stonewall Jackson wanted to engage in a fairly severe form of total war but Confederate government officials did not have the resources to accept his request. The Southern forces did not develop in a vacuum, they are very much apart of the evolutionary process of developing military theory.

          • “Well for starters George, try actually posting facts. You keep making vague references to things that happened without actually providing any actual information, names, citations etc. Sort of like your statement below.”

            Is that a YES or NO???? Easy question

            Once we get past this isuue I will post some facts and address the rest of your posting this came from.


            So then do I understand that you dismiss these atrocities as nothing but a widespread rumor?? You are perfectly fine that these acts if committed were committed under the guise of ” and the thoughts of how that war should be carried out”

            \Is that correct YES or NO. Another easy question.

            I couldn’t care less about any DOD reports it has nothing to do with this discussion.


          • It’s pretty simple to deduce my answers of your questions, but let me also extend this: we do not live in the 19th century.

            First, I refuse to answer that question because it is a loaded question.

            Second, I would be upset if someone came in and did that to my family. However, if you are going to play historian, you cannot make objective analysis if you are emotionally compensated.

            No. I fully believe that in a time of war “bad things” happen. That is cultural baggage that humanity shares. A practice practically centuries old. However, there is no evidence of widespread rape, only the rumor of widespread rape, which is also a century old aspect of war. People feared soldiers among their homes. Whether I am fine with it or not , doesn’t matter. That is how war was carried out on numerous fronts throughout the history of warfare.

            The DOD report is relevant to the conversation. Your dismissal further demonstrates your biased and refusal to accept facts. I’ve noticed you’ve also retreated from some of your other arguments in the vague attempt to maintain your “Lost Cause” rhetoric.

          • I was hoping you would dodge the simple question. Good job. Myself I have no problem answering, I am against all military action involving non-combantants.


            I am not as you say emotionally compensated in fact I would say Iam very much in control of my emotions. If you think otherwise prove it. As I said i have been documenting these atrocities and know very weel fabout what I speak. Unlike you I don’t just dismiss them as “bad things” I just wanted to give you one chance to say that youdo not support actions against women, children and old men. You blew it.

            As with most of your post on this blog, the DOD report is completely useless.

            I just wanted to give you one chance to say that you do not support actions against women, children and old men. You blew it.

            “There is a class of people (in the South), men women and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order.” W. T. Sherman

            I will be back in a couple of days with some more thoughts on this subject. I have to verify some dates and places.

            George Purvis
            \Southern heritage Advancement Preservation and Education

            Documenting the “bad things’ at http://confederatepows.southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?6

          • George:

            Maybe you have difficulty reading, but I didn’t dodge the question. I said that I did not specifically like that manner of war. But I recognize it as a reality. I’m sorry you cannot tell the difference. If you look, I specifically placed the statement in reference to looking at the past.

            I also don’t dismiss the bad things. I am more than willing to talk about them, as I did in other comments. Hopefully you can break out of your pre-established thought process and agenda driven statements to see that.

            The DOD report establishes a pattern of behavior. There are literally thousands of such examples throughout history. Therefore, relevant in the historical context.

            Again, already said I wouldn’t like it. Implying that I would not condone the actions (Even though you didn’t specifically ask that question). I must say it is confusing when you ask questions, and then restate the questions differently to claim I didn’t answer you.

            Great info page by the way. An “atrocities” page with O.R. Statements out of context. My favorite is the atrocities by states page. Mainly because you have none listed but instead ask other people for some. Can I send you some stories about Confederates attacking Southern Unionists families in North Georgia and East Tennessee?

            Get real George.

          • ‘First, I refuse to answer that question because it is a loaded question.”

            Not a loaded question a simple yes or no would have been enough instead you had to run in circles and still only declare the Yankee atrocities as “bad things”.

            I have no pre established thoughts


            Find the DOD reports for the years 1861- 1865 then they will be revelant.


            Perhaps you should learn to use the website. Nearly every state has some atrocities listed under it.

            I am real —-the incidents reported are real.


            Sure you can email me at gpthelastrebel@att .net but please don’t send anything unless it deals with regular enlisted Confederate forces. I do have some already.

            Post your email address and I will do the same for you.


            .“Their is a difference between the capabilities of fighting a war and the thoughts of how that war should be carried out”

            Bad things indeed

          • You said and I quote:

            “Just wondering would any fact I post make a difference in your opinion? You have an obvious biased opinion?”

            That is a loaded question. So I refused to answer it.

            My answer to what you deem as “Yankee (only) atrocities.” No only did I answer, but I amplified.

            Your initial question reveals Pre-established though.

            Do you not understand what a “pattern” is? However, the department of Defense during the Civil War was the Department of War.

            I went to every link, here is an example:

            Send us stories of Yankee Atrocities in Georgia


            George Purvis, Webmaster

            As far as my quote at the end, there is a difference. I recommend to read Weigley’s “American Way of War.” Look at Washington’s motivations in waging war against the British, Loyalists and/or Indians. There are different methods for different reasons. He wages war out of necessity, ability and manner.

          • Oh well if you think it loaded so be it

            From Alabama atrocities page 1–

            A newspaper account —

            CLARKE COUNTY [AL] JOURNAL, August 27, 1863, p. 2, c. 5
            Yankee Outrage.—A few days ago, says the Mobile Tribune of the 23d inst., a party of Yankee marines came ashore not far from Bayou la Batre, and waded to the house of a Mrs. Neill. She was alone at the time.—They endeavored to extort from her information of the number and position of our troops in the neighborhood as well as information of the localities, &c. She either had no information to give or was determined not to gratify the ruffians. The result was the most barbarous maltreatment. After beating her severely, they tied her with her child in her arms to a tree, where she was found not long afterwards by her husband, who was returning in company with other persons from the saltworks of that section. The scoundrels got off safely, although they were almost within call of a portion of our force in the neighborhood.

            From Alabama Confederate Letters and Reports—

            OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 1, vol 24, Part 3 (Vicksburg) Chapter XXXVI. CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. -CONFEDERATE. Page 769

            TULLAHOMA, April 20, 1863.

            Lieutenant-General PEMBERTON:

            Colonel Roddey reports by telegraph from Tuscumbia, on 20th instant, a large number of Federal steamers at Eastport, bringing 25,000 troops, by whom the town was burned. Also that a citizen from Paducah, Ky., says that steamboats on the Ohio River have been pressed to transport forces from the Mississippi River to Northern Alabama.

            By command of General Johnston:

            BENJ. S. EWELL,

            Assistant Adjutant-General.

            The info is there you may have to follow across for each section.

          • Sorry it took me so long to get to this comment.

            I’ll have to limit my response to directives rather than questions; you can’t answer because I’ve close the comments.

            Always approach historical accounts with skepticism. Why you may ask? People lie, as they do today. Besides lying, you have to account for other normal human emotions. Exaggerations, etc. Finally, always look out for the news papers embellishing stories just as the media does today.

            The article you sent me.

            This is an account published in the Clarke County Journal, a newspaper. However, it is a story, based on a story originally posted in the Mobile Tribune. Which is the county paper for Mobile County Alabama located in Mobile at the time, not Bayou La Batre. So we are talking about an account, based on an account in another newspaper, based on a story without reference to who actually told the story. It’s a weak source without collaboration. Besides, I’m having a hard time actually locating this person on census records. But I am looking into the story more as it interests me.

            As far as Tuscumbia, there are various accounts of what happened to it throughout the war. It was a zone of occupation throughout the war. Skirmishes caused damage as well as burnings. There were supply houses and so on. Fire damage also ravaged city hall in the early 1900’s. Civilian dwellings from the era still stand today.

        • Well for starters George I’m not sure how a document published in 1805 would have information about Ft. Sumter…which was built after the War of 1812 in 1829. The section of the South Carolina Statutes at Large Ken is referring to, actually begins on page 501 and ends on 502. In summary, it is a number of directions outlining South Carolina’s plan to cede land to the U.S. government for the construction and maintenance of forts.

          • Yes, it does not specifically name FT Sumter but it was written to include all the forts built to keep the Brits out of Charleston harbor and included many smaller forts….. and to collect the federal tax on importated good which Lincoln said numerious times that he could not do without. As you must know thoses taxes collected came from a few Souther States. Can you recall where the vast amount of that tax money was spent and who derived the benefits??? I would like to read where you explain that and how it contributed to the “War Between the States”… (not a civil war as you should know)

          • Actually the South Carolina legislature ceded that land as well, note my other comments to you. I recommend you read Andy Hall’s post on tariffs to see just how much the south paid. Also, SC seceded before Lincoln took office, making that point irrelevant. Also, it was a Civil War. The South took plenty of benefits from the tariffs. Plenty of martial fighting took place between people within the same county, region, state, county, and town to demonstrate that.

        • Ken,

          I agree with you. I will make a notation of your source for use later. I did at one time, before I sent the docs on to another researcher of Fort Sumter, own a copy of the deeds . You are absolutely correct.

          On a reply above to me your said my remarks were incorrect. Please let me know what specfic remark i kade that was not right

          George Purvis
          Southern Heritage Advancemen tPreservation and education

        • You wouldn`t believe it if I did. All I would get from you is another source you claim backs up your position whether it really does or not. I won`t waste anymore of my time on you as its a struggle in futility, as is arguing with anyone with their mind already made up. Your voice is a cry in the wilderness to those of us who see both sides of this story. Save your retoric for those who agree with your side.

        • Sure there was fighting between neighbors, same as it was during the revolutioary war, they had strong beliefs about the positions taken between the sides. That was NOT a war to overthrow their government. You need to go back to the books and read the defination of civil war.. You should also What Pres. Jefferson said as he left the congress when he asked the USA to leave the CSA alone so the South could get on with its development as a seperate country.
          If you recall… the were two seperate countries at the time of Ft Sumter and the aftermath of the USA attaching the CSA. Remember Lincoln ordered 75,000 men to go subdue South Carolina??

          • It’s funny you are telling me to go to the books.

            A Civil War is not necessarily dependent on various factions attempting to overthrow, or compete, for the government. A Civil War is a war between citizens of the same country. There weren’t two “countries.” Also, the CSA did not exist when Jefferson Davis left congress. Lincoln called for, not ordered, 75,000 volunteers to subdue rebels after the attack on federal property and U.S. soldiers.

          • You’re going to the WRONG books, sir! Virginia seceded because Lincoln demanded 75,000 troops to invade the seceding states. This was no more voluntary than was WWII.

            There WERE TWO LEGITIMATE COUNTRIES just as before the formation of the “united (with a small “u”) States, there were THIRTEEN separate sovereign nations – or do you suggest that the British were ignorant enough to sign the Treaty of Paris thirteen times with the thirteen ORIGINAL colonies?

            Secession was legal and constitutional. Had it not been so, then the three states that specifically put the RIGHT to secede into their ratification documents would not have been permitted to do so. Those three naughty states? Virginia (of course!), Rhode Island and New York. Couple of Yankees there, no?

            There was and is only ONE definition under the Constitution of treason. Article III, Section 3 identifies treason as “making war against them (the States) and aiding and abetting in that war.” Notice, NO mention is made of making war against THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT which was NOT “a state.” It was the federal government that was treasonous as was every other state that joined in Lincoln’s unjust, illegal, immoral and unconstitutional war. But then, Lincoln cared little for the Constitution except (like so many of today’s politicians) to wrap himself in it and the flag to gain legitimacy.

            Finally, the legal understanding of “starting” a war is not which side3 fires the first shot, but which side causes that shot to be fired. Again, this was Lincoln. There is far more than sufficient evidence to show that he plotted with Scott and others to re-man and re-arm Sumter in the hopes that the Confederacy would respond with military action to prevent it happening – which, of course, it did!

            Actually, however, WAR HAD ALREADY BEGUN. When Major Anderson left Fort Moultrie on Christmas Eve (where he was stationed) and, after spiking that fort’s guns and stealing whatever ordinance he could carry, ferried his command across the harbor to Fort Sumter in DIRECT disobedience to the agreement reached by President Buchanan – who, by the way, was STILL PRESIDENT! Actually, Sumter itself no longer belonged to the federal government! By failing to man and maintain Sumter, the fort had returned to the control of South Carolina according to the lease agreement between the parties. So not only didn’t the Confederacy begin the war, in a way, it didn’t even make the first aggressive move! Anderson did with the blessing of Lincoln and Scott!

            You’re reading the wrong books, young man.

          • No. Lincoln’s “call” was for volunteers. Or for the states to volunteer their militia. Not the same things nor obligatory. It is also not comparable to a U.S. draft. This is easily seen because Lincoln established a draft in 1863, as did David in 1862. This shows a distinction. Thanks for the rant.

            There were not two legitimate nations. Great Britain signed a treaty with the government operating under the Articles of Confederate. The AOC, was merely a confederation of sovereign states. This government was proven to be too weak among other reasons. So the “Perpetual Union,” was replaced by a stronger Constitution in “order to form a more perfect union” thus enhancing the Federal Government’s power and reducing the states’. To say that the Southern states could secede because of the AOC is a moot point since the Constitution fully replaced that form of government.

            Texas v. White pretty much explains why a nation cannot secede regardless of it being in their state constitution. Today, the state of Georgia claims the right to secede if the 2nd amendment is infringed upon. This is in spite of the fact that a war and the supreme court said they could not. The South, was only a legitimate nation in their own eyes.

            Actually, Article III, Section III says this:

            Section. 3.

            Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

            The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

            The “United States”…… That sort of makes your point moot.

            It’s commonly accepted that Lincoln maneuvered the South into a choice. Allow “food for hungry men” or start a war. The South chose the latter. Also, if moving between your own properties is considered starting a war, then every country everywhere is guilty of that action alone. I hope you drive to the store today…..never know when someone may shoot at you for it.

            War had not already begun. Buchanon never told him to stay at Ft. Moultrie for any period of time. Anderson was given charge of the defenses of the Harbor….all of them. Buchanon’s agreement was a loose one that is vague. Both sides saw that they wanted from such an agreement. Besides, the agreement was in the terms of “immediate” action, not long term. Also, they didn’t steal anything. That was federal property that he “spiked.” Wrong again I’m afraid. And yes, Fort Sumter was still manned and cared for by the Federal government. It was not left dormant. That is an extremely loose argument to make.

            I’m reading the right books (not prom Pelican or Raven Press). I’m also not rewording what the constitution says. Perhaps you should do the same.

          • Rob,

            This is the last time I will visit this issue—–

            “Their is a difference between the capabilities of fighting a war and the thoughts of how that war should be carried out”

            Take that statement and appy it to the
            1. Twin Towers
            2. Our soldiers in VietNam being captured and skinned alive.
            3. The actions of Hitler and Stalin, the dictators of Cambodia Bosnia and other countries
            4 Benghazi
            5. Somoila

            By dattaching the statement to tthese events it takes on a whole different meaning to a bunch of other people doesn’t it???

          • George maybe you are getting confused on what I meant or I did not translate it adequately.

            “There is a difference between the capabilities of fighting a war and the thoughts of how that war should be carried out.”

            2 scenarios. 2 countries.
            The common denominator is that both countries think war should be carried out in a specific manner. The variable are the abilities/capabilities of a country to wage ideal war. In may argument I said that certain southern general and leaders advocated the type of war that the Union executed. The reason being, that the South did not have the ability/capabilities to wage that type of war.

            You actually provide excellent examples.

            1. Al Queda were “freedom fighters” when fighting for the U.S. Hence we condoned a lot of their actions (much like Iran-Contra) However, after the Cold War we did not leave the Middle East, we stayed there. When the twin towers were attacked, it was the ideal form of warfare for the Taliban. They also acted within their limited means. If they had the resources, attacks would have been worse. Now lets think about the opposite spectrum, the U.S. actions in Afghanistan and Iraq are not “clean and virtuous.” Blackwater ring a bell?

            2. Same principle. My Lai and other atrocities committed by our soldiers, napalming villages, and B-52 bombs on cities/villages are the opposite end of the spectrum.

            3. Same Principle. Idea v. ability/capability. The had the mean, the populace did nothing to soften the blow. Keep in mind though that the Holocaust/Purge incidents are not “war” as they are not between two countries, nor actually a war.

            4. Same.
            6. Same.

            I hope that clarifies.

          • I am fully aware There was not an organized CSA when Jefferson Davis left the congress…never the less, he said, just leave it alone! You are trying to split hairs because you got caught on this point.

            Also, are you denying the USA did indeed attack the CSA??? If not, what was all those blue coated thugs doing in the Southern States. I would like to know what history book you are reading. I hope you are not teaching such nonsense to young people. You certainly have joined the ranks of the other lying historians.
            I have no desire to communicate any furthur with a lying so-called writer. KP

          • I haven’t been caught. I’m still waiting on you to present something relevant. I’m merely pointing out that you are trying to refute any/everything I’ve said using wrong information. “Lying historian.” lol.

            Ken you do what you have to. But remember, you came to this blog looking for a proverbial confrontation. Then you rambled, wrongly, about things that didn’t matter. I’m sorry that every one of your statements did not hold water.

    • Baker, where`s your proof that most agree with you about Lincoln ? Post that, 80 million Southerners would like to see your documentation.

          • That’s funny, I thought you weren’t going to communicate with me anymore. I’d imagine you are also a Scalawag since a “Scalawag” is defined as a Southern white that supported Republicans and Reconstruction after the war. My guess is you are a Rep. or some form. And no, I’m not a liberal.

            Carpet Bagger is not the same as a Scalawag. A Carperbagger is what Southerners referred to most Northerners that moved South during reconstruction. it was automatically assumed they were there for economic exploitation. Of course, there are plenty of Southerners that took advantage of that.

  2. Rob I told you factswould be coming. Oh by the way did you figure out how to use Yankee Atrocities or should I post nore here for you??? “Their is a difference between the capabilities of fighting a war and the thoughts of how that war should be carried out. Bad things happen in war”

    The ownership of Sumter is not aan issue, by an agreement with the Buchannon administration Anderson would not occupy Sumter. Starving men is a joke, Anderson andcrew were being supplied by CHARLESTON!!!!!!!

    Anderson and his men told the first POWs from:

    Reminiscences of forts Sumter and Moultrie in 1860-’61, By Abner Doubleday, pages 55-67.

    As we ascended the steps of the wharf, crowds of workmen rushed out to meet us, most of them wearing secession emblems. One or two Union men among them cheered lustily, but the majority called out angrily, “What are these soldiers doing here?” I at once formed my men, charged bayonets, drove the tumultuous mass inside the fort, and seized the guard-room, which commanded the main entrance.

    Who fired the fisrt shot? This is an eyewittness account:

    “A sailor of fortune”: Personal Memoirs of Captain B. S. Osbon By Albert Bigelow Paine, 1906
    But the Harriet Lane proved to be an excellent sea boat, and on the 11th of April we were off Charleston Bar, with all hands eager to learn what our real duties were to be. If I remember rightly, the Pawnee was already there, and perhaps the Baltic and Pocahontas. At all events, we arrived about the same time—all but the three tugs, of which we had been deprived in the heavy storm off Hatteras. We anchored a little closer to the Bar than the others, and Captain Faunce went aboard the Pawnee, the senior ship, to report our arrival, and to arrange for a code of signals which would be unintelligible to the enemy. The sea was still heavy, the sky dark and stormy, and all buoys had been removed from the channels. It was impossible for vessels of any size to go inside the Bar, and as our tugs still failed to appear we were at a loss what to do. As we lay there waiting and undetermined, an incident occurred which I have never seen recorded, but which seems to me worthy of note. A vessel suddenly appeared through the mist from behind the Bar, a passenger steamer, which was made out to be the Nashville. She had no colours set, and as she approached the fleet she refused to show them. Captain Faunce ordered one of the guns manned, and as she came still nearer turned to the gunner.
    ” Stop her!” he said, and a shot went skipping across her bows.
    Immediately the United States ensign went to her gaff end, and she was allowed to proceed. The Harriet Lane had fired the first shotted gun of the war from the Union side. I may here note that the Nashville was subsequently converted into a Confederate privateer, to which we shall have cause to refer again in these papers, and it seems a strange coincidence that I should thus have seen the first shot fired upon her, and was
    to see the last, which ten months later would send her to the bottom of the sea.
    Still at dusk on the evening of the 11th our ill fated tugs had not arrived, and without them our launches were of no avail. Captain Faunce looked out over the gloomy, unmarked channel.
    ” For God’s sake,” he said, ” I hope they don’t expect us to take these big vessels over the Bar.”
    We knew that we had been located by the enemy, for small craft had been scouting around during the evening, returning to the Confederate forts. As for Anderson, it was unlikely that he knew anything of our arrival, or that the enemy would give him either time or opportunity to acquire this knowledge. Night came down, dark, stormy, and ominous.

    There was no very sound sleep on any of the vessels. I turned in about midnight, but I was restless and wakeful. At length I was suddenly startled from a doze by a sound that not only wakened me, but brought me to my feet. It was the boom of a gun. From Fort Johnson a fiery shell had described an arc in the night and dropped close to the ill-fated Sumter. A moment later when I reached the deck, Morris Island had opened with a perfect roar of artillery. It was now half-past four in the morning, April 12th, 1861, and the Civil War, which was to continue through four years of the bitterest, bloodiest strife this nation has ever seen, had begun in earnest, at last.”


    George Purvis
    Webmaster –Southern Heritage Advancemant Preservation and Education
    Can’t read, can’t write, can’t type, ignorant, emotionally compromised and lost composure but holding my own

    • I started answering this post but it’s rather lengthy; too lengthy for a comments section. I think I will write-up a post about Sumter and the who/what started the war so you can look to comment on that instead. 🙂

  3. The decision of Texas vs. White came after the war and was handed down by S. P Chase, one of Lincoln’s cronies. That is like getting a speeding ticket today for speeding 10 years ago. In 1861 there was nothing that said the states could not leave the Union. Even Lincoln said —- Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.” But then that is just one more lie by your great man isn’t it?

    Treason??? There was any treason. Not one Confederate up to and including Jeff Davis was tried for treason. In fact Lincoln’s old buddy S. P. Chase had this to say “If you bring these [Confederate] leaders to trial it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion. Lincoln wanted Davis to escape, and he was right. His capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one.”
    Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, July 1867

    Your astarving man argument is a crock. The men were not starving, in fact they were getting supplied by Charles. Buchannan nor anyone else gave Anderson orders or authorization to move to Sumter. He violated a peace agreemnet.setting off the war. Thank you very much for admitting the war was about slavery but about Anderson being in Sumter.

    The Work on Sumter had not been completeed in the time specified time, therefore it was not federal property. ThSouth Carolina nor Buchannon thought the peace aggreement was a loose one. In fact both parties honored the aggreement after Lincoln had taken office.

    You may be reading the right books but you are twisting the facts to fit yiour agenda.

    George Purvis
    Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and education

    • I hardly think that a speeding ticket parallels the same implications of secession. There were plenty to say that states could not leave the nation.

      Lincoln cited the rights of the Declaration for those in the form of a rebellion. He also stated stated that those in the majority in a rebellion, could crush the minority to their will. This works both ways. Plus, Davis never recognized secession as rebellion. He even said as much. To justify rebellion, would also justify slave rebellion.

      They were not tried for treason due to the periods of reconciliation and numerous other factors.

      The “starving men” argument is not mine it is Lincoln’s. Technically they weren’t starving, but their supplies were running out. Anderson’s men maintained Sumter for several months leading to the first shots. Anderson received orders that he could move if his position was indefensible. He did not “violate” any agreement.

      I guess, thank you for saying the war was about slavery. The shots were fired because Anderson refused to leave Sumter, and the Confederates were politically forced to fire.

      There was never a window of construction. The parameters were merely that the U.S. upkeep the fort. Which they had, and had continued to work on the fort up to that point. It is obvious that the peace agreement was a loose one. it was all verbal as neither could come to terms on paper. Both sides had not “honored” the agreement. They maneuvered around it in numerous ways. The confederates also moved in on federal forts before being told to. You are making a really loose argument here.

  4. WAR DEPARTMENT, Adjutant- Generals Office, December 27, 1860. Major ANDERSON, Fort Moultrie:

    Intelligence has reached here this morning that you have abandoned Fort Moultrie, spiked your guns, burned the carriages, and gone to Fort Sumter. It is not believed, because there is no order for any such movement. Explain the meaning of this report.

    J. B. FLOYD, Secretary of War.

    [Telegram.] CHARLESTON, December 27, 1860. Hon. J. B. FLOYD, Secretary of War:

    • This portion was cut off when I pasted to this blog —–

      [Telegram.] CHARLESTON, December 27, 1860. Hon. J. B. FLOYD, Secretary of War:

      The telegram is correct. I abandoned Fort Moultrie because I was certain that if attacked my men must have been sacrificed, and the command of the harbor lost. I spiked the guns and destroyed the carriages to keep the guns from being used against us. If attacked, the garrison would never have surrendered without a fight.

      ROBERT ANDERSON, Major, First Artillery.

  5. FORT SUMTER, South Carolina, December 29, 1860.

    “My dear Sir: No one will regret more deeply than I shall, should it prove true that the movement I have made has complicated rather than disembarrassed affairs. There is an unaccountable mystery in reference to this affair. I was asked by a gentleman within a day or two, if I had been notified by your Government that I would not be molested at Fort Moultrie, and when I replied that I had not been so notified, he remarked that he was glad to hear it, as it convinced him that I had acted in good faith, having just told him that I had not received such an intimation from my own Government. Now if there was such an understanding, I certainly ought to have been informed of it .

    But why, if your Government thought that I knew of this agreement, was everything done which indicated an intention to attack? Why were armed steamers kept constantly on the watch for my movements? The papers say that I was under a panic. That is a mistake ; the moment I inspected my position I saw that the work was not defensible with my small command, and recommended, weeks ago, that we ought to be withdrawn. I remained, then, as long as I could under the fearful responsibility I felt for the safety of my command, and finally decided on Christmas morning that I would remove the command that day; and it would have been attempted that day if the weather had not proved inauspicious. Not a person of my command knew of my determination until that morning, and only on that day. The captains of the lighters are, I am sorry to see, threatened by the Charlestonians for what they did. I do hope that they will not disgrace themselves by wreaking their wrath upon these men. They were employed to take the women and children, and food for them, to Fort Johnson, and were as innocent in the matter as any one. Another lighter was filled with commissary stores for the workingmen here, and her captain certainly is not blamable for bringing them. Not a soldier came in either of these vessels except the married men with their wives for Fort Johnson, and there was not an arm of any kind permitted to be taken on board those boats. Only one person on board those boats knew that Fort Johnson was not their final destination, until the signal was given that the command was in Fort Sumter. My men were transferred in our own boats, and were all, with the exception of those attached to the hospital, in the fort before 8 o’clock. So much in exoneration of the captains.

    I regret that the Governor has deemed proper to treat us as enemies, by cutting off our communication with the city, permitting me only to send for the mails. Now this is annoying, and I regret it. We can do without going to the city, as I have supplies of provisions, of all kinds, to last my command about five months, but it would add to our comfort to be enabled to make purchases of fresh meats and so on, and to shop in the city. The Governor does not know how entirely the commerce and intercourse of Charleston by sea are in my power. I could, if so disposed, annoy and embarrass the Charlestonians much more than they can me. With my guns I can close the harbor completely to the access of all large vessels, and I might even cut off the lights, so as to seal the approach entirely by night. I do hope that nothing will occur to add to the excitement and bad feeling which exists in the city. No one has a right to be angry with me for my action. No one can tell what they would have done unless they were placed in the same tight place. . . . I write this note hurriedly, as I wish to acknowledge the receipt of your kind note, and to assure you that I am firmly convinced that, had you been in my place, and known no more of the political bearing of things than I did, you would have acted as I did.

    I know that if my action was properly explained to the people of Charleston, they would not feel any excitement against me or my command.
    Praying that the time may soon come, etc.,


  6. I have shut down the comments section of this post. Not to worry, I will answer the final comments of those that posted. Although I do cherish the comments of my visitors (yes all of them) I recognize that some posts can stir up quite the proverbial hornets nest. Although I would like to continue the conversation, like all things, it must come to an end. Constantly answering comments, and having to comment against 5 or so people at one time, is a drain on my resources and time. It makes it harder to adequately work on future posts and/or my school work. I look forward to our conversations in the future, just not on this post.


Comments are closed.