Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[civilwarwest] Opening gambit

Expand Messages
  • bootneck@u.genie.co.uk
    Hi all Looking through the first page on the Western Theatre in Shotgun s pages Leonadis Polk is cited with breaking the neutrality of Kentucky. Was it not
    Message 1 of 10 , Aug 8, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi all
      Looking through the first page on the Western Theatre in Shotgun's
      pages Leonadis Polk is cited with breaking the neutrality of Kentucky.
      Was it not true that the North had been supplying arms to Northern
      sympathisers prior to this. What does the group think.
      Bootneck
    • bootneck@u.genie.co.uk
      Hi all Looking through the first page on the Western Theatre in Shotgun s pages Leonadis Polk is cited with breaking the neutrality of Kentucky. Was it not
      Message 2 of 10 , Aug 8, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi all
        Looking through the first page on the Western Theatre in Shotgun's
        pages Leonadis Polk is cited with breaking the neutrality of Kentucky.
        Was it not true that the North had been supplying arms to Northern
        sympathisers prior to this. What does the group think.
        Bootneck
      • Dick Weeks
        ... While I can only give my personal opinion on this (being just barely conversant in this area), I think neutrality was a word only. At the beginnings the
        Message 3 of 10 , Aug 8, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          bootneck@... wrote:
          >
          > Hi all
          > Looking through the first page on the Western Theatre in Shotgun's
          > pages Leonadis Polk is cited with breaking the neutrality of Kentucky.
          > Was it not true that the North had been supplying arms to Northern
          > sympathisers prior to this. What does the group think.
          > Bootneck
          >

          While I can only give my personal opinion on this (being just barely
          conversant in this area), I think neutrality was a word only. At the
          beginnings the hostilities, a state, through it's secession, or through
          it's non-secession declared it's position. In reality there were no
          netural states. Since the border states, such as Kentucky and Missouri,
          were fairly evenly split and said to be neutural, the side with the most
          fire power in place at the time prevailed. I believe you are correct in
          stating that the North was in fact supplying arms to the pro Union
          forces in Kentucky. However, at the time, they considered Kentucky still
          part of the Union and saw nothing wrong in this. Just my opinion of
          course. Remember, they wrote the history books. I expect KyReb will
          sound off in the area. Since he subscribed to the digest version of the
          Discussion Group, don't expect to hear from him for a few days.

          I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
          Dick (a.k.a. Shotgun)
          http://www.civilwarhome.com
        • Dick Weeks
          ... While I can only give my personal opinion on this (being just barely conversant in this area), I think neutrality was a word only. At the beginnings the
          Message 4 of 10 , Aug 8, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            bootneck@... wrote:
            >
            > Hi all
            > Looking through the first page on the Western Theatre in Shotgun's
            > pages Leonadis Polk is cited with breaking the neutrality of Kentucky.
            > Was it not true that the North had been supplying arms to Northern
            > sympathisers prior to this. What does the group think.
            > Bootneck
            >

            While I can only give my personal opinion on this (being just barely
            conversant in this area), I think neutrality was a word only. At the
            beginnings the hostilities, a state, through it's secession, or through
            it's non-secession declared it's position. In reality there were no
            netural states. Since the border states, such as Kentucky and Missouri,
            were fairly evenly split and said to be neutural, the side with the most
            fire power in place at the time prevailed. I believe you are correct in
            stating that the North was in fact supplying arms to the pro Union
            forces in Kentucky. However, at the time, they considered Kentucky still
            part of the Union and saw nothing wrong in this. Just my opinion of
            course. Remember, they wrote the history books. I expect KyReb will
            sound off in the area. Since he subscribed to the digest version of the
            Discussion Group, don't expect to hear from him for a few days.

            I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
            Dick (a.k.a. Shotgun)
            http://www.civilwarhome.com
          • The Coys
            I think it can be fairly said that both sides were doing all that they can to support their respective sympathizers. William Bull Nelson a native
            Message 5 of 10 , Aug 8, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              I think it can be fairly said that both sides were doing all that they can
              to support 'their' respective sympathizers. William 'Bull' Nelson a native
              Kentuckian and a future northern general was doing all that he could to
              raise armies for the north in Kentucky. Simon Bolivar Buckner also a native
              Kentuckian was doing the same for the southern armies. What I believe is
              meant is that Polk's movement into Kentucky was the first time that one of
              the 'national' armies (Blue or Gray) moved as a whole into the state. The
              CSA government was not to happy at this turn of events. All IMHO. :)

              Kevin S. 'Coy'

              bootneck@... wrote:

              > Hi all
              > Looking through the first page on the Western Theatre in Shotgun's
              > pages Leonadis Polk is cited with breaking the neutrality of Kentucky.
              > Was it not true that the North had been supplying arms to Northern
              > sympathisers prior to this. What does the group think.
              > Bootneck
              >
              > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              > GET WHAT YOU DESERVE! A NextCard Platinum VISA: DOUBLE Rewards points,
              > NO annual fee & rates as low as 9.9% FIXED APR. Apply online today!
              > http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/606
              >
              > eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
              > http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
            • The Coys
              I think it can be fairly said that both sides were doing all that they can to support their respective sympathizers. William Bull Nelson a native
              Message 6 of 10 , Aug 8, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                I think it can be fairly said that both sides were doing all that they can
                to support 'their' respective sympathizers. William 'Bull' Nelson a native
                Kentuckian and a future northern general was doing all that he could to
                raise armies for the north in Kentucky. Simon Bolivar Buckner also a native
                Kentuckian was doing the same for the southern armies. What I believe is
                meant is that Polk's movement into Kentucky was the first time that one of
                the 'national' armies (Blue or Gray) moved as a whole into the state. The
                CSA government was not to happy at this turn of events. All IMHO. :)

                Kevin S. 'Coy'

                bootneck@... wrote:

                > Hi all
                > Looking through the first page on the Western Theatre in Shotgun's
                > pages Leonadis Polk is cited with breaking the neutrality of Kentucky.
                > Was it not true that the North had been supplying arms to Northern
                > sympathisers prior to this. What does the group think.
                > Bootneck
                >
                > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                > GET WHAT YOU DESERVE! A NextCard Platinum VISA: DOUBLE Rewards points,
                > NO annual fee & rates as low as 9.9% FIXED APR. Apply online today!
                > http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/606
                >
                > eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
                > http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
              • rhines@joln.net
                wrote: original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/?start=2 ... Kentucky. ... Hope I get this right. Hello Bootneck.
                Message 7 of 10 , Aug 8, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  <7ok6n7$fvl-@egroups.com> wrote:
                  original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/?start=2
                  > Hi all
                  > Looking through the first page on the Western Theatre in Shotgun's
                  > pages Leonadis Polk is cited with breaking the neutrality of
                  Kentucky.
                  > Was it not true that the North had been supplying arms to Northern
                  > sympathisers prior to this. What does the group think.
                  > Bootneck
                  >
                  Hope I get this right. Hello Bootneck. Other than the existing Union
                  military in the State of Kentucky I know of no "invading" force of
                  Yankees until those led by Robert Anderson of Fort Sumter fame arrived.
                  Of course that would be after the fall of Sumter...RWH
                • rhines@joln.net
                  wrote: original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/?start=2 ... Kentucky. ... Hope I get this right. Hello Bootneck.
                  Message 8 of 10 , Aug 8, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    <7ok6n7$fvl-@egroups.com> wrote:
                    original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/?start=2
                    > Hi all
                    > Looking through the first page on the Western Theatre in Shotgun's
                    > pages Leonadis Polk is cited with breaking the neutrality of
                    Kentucky.
                    > Was it not true that the North had been supplying arms to Northern
                    > sympathisers prior to this. What does the group think.
                    > Bootneck
                    >
                    Hope I get this right. Hello Bootneck. Other than the existing Union
                    military in the State of Kentucky I know of no "invading" force of
                    Yankees until those led by Robert Anderson of Fort Sumter fame arrived.
                    Of course that would be after the fall of Sumter...RWH
                  • L.A. Chambliss
                    Came through just fine, RWH! Welcome aboard. As to the Kentucky neutrality issue is concerned, I am sure KyReb and others will weigh in with the Southern
                    Message 9 of 10 , Aug 8, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Came through just fine, RWH! Welcome aboard.

                      As to the "Kentucky neutrality" issue is concerned, I am sure KyReb and
                      others will weigh in with the Southern viewpoint as soon as they get here.

                      My take on the matter is that there is no such thing as "neutrality" in a
                      situation like this. To paraphrase our friend TJ's book title, one is
                      either on the one side or one is on the other. Both Kentucky and Missouri
                      (or their governors at any rate) seemed to think they could some how "sit
                      out" the fighting and then calmly join up with the winner after all the
                      shooting was concluded.

                      Fat chance! Kentucky in particular, being the birthplace of both A. Lincoln
                      and J. Davis, was not about to be allowed this luxury.

                      The Confederate leadership was indeed furious at Polk for crossing the line
                      first however. That gave Grant all the excuse he needed, and indeed the
                      obligation, to move into the state in force and large numbers.

                      Laurie (Xan) Chambliss

                      rhines@... wrote:

                      > <7ok6n7$fvl-@egroups.com> wrote:
                      > original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/?start=2
                      > > Hi all
                      > > Looking through the first page on the Western Theatre in Shotgun's
                      > > pages Leonadis Polk is cited with breaking the neutrality of
                      > Kentucky.
                      > > Was it not true that the North had been supplying arms to Northern
                      > > sympathisers prior to this. What does the group think.
                      > > Bootneck
                      > >
                      > Hope I get this right. Hello Bootneck. Other than the existing Union
                      > military in the State of Kentucky I know of no "invading" force of
                      > Yankees until those led by Robert Anderson of Fort Sumter fame arrived.
                      > Of course that would be after the fall of Sumter...RWH
                      >
                      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      > Click here for 4 FREE TRIAL ISSUES of Sports Illustrated! If you're
                      > satisfied, your subscription will continue at the guaranteed lowest rate
                      > of $.75 an issue for 52 issues! http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/678
                      >
                      > eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
                      > http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                    • L.A. Chambliss
                      Came through just fine, RWH! Welcome aboard. As to the Kentucky neutrality issue is concerned, I am sure KyReb and others will weigh in with the Southern
                      Message 10 of 10 , Aug 8, 1999
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Came through just fine, RWH! Welcome aboard.

                        As to the "Kentucky neutrality" issue is concerned, I am sure KyReb and
                        others will weigh in with the Southern viewpoint as soon as they get here.

                        My take on the matter is that there is no such thing as "neutrality" in a
                        situation like this. To paraphrase our friend TJ's book title, one is
                        either on the one side or one is on the other. Both Kentucky and Missouri
                        (or their governors at any rate) seemed to think they could some how "sit
                        out" the fighting and then calmly join up with the winner after all the
                        shooting was concluded.

                        Fat chance! Kentucky in particular, being the birthplace of both A. Lincoln
                        and J. Davis, was not about to be allowed this luxury.

                        The Confederate leadership was indeed furious at Polk for crossing the line
                        first however. That gave Grant all the excuse he needed, and indeed the
                        obligation, to move into the state in force and large numbers.

                        Laurie (Xan) Chambliss

                        rhines@... wrote:

                        > <7ok6n7$fvl-@egroups.com> wrote:
                        > original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/?start=2
                        > > Hi all
                        > > Looking through the first page on the Western Theatre in Shotgun's
                        > > pages Leonadis Polk is cited with breaking the neutrality of
                        > Kentucky.
                        > > Was it not true that the North had been supplying arms to Northern
                        > > sympathisers prior to this. What does the group think.
                        > > Bootneck
                        > >
                        > Hope I get this right. Hello Bootneck. Other than the existing Union
                        > military in the State of Kentucky I know of no "invading" force of
                        > Yankees until those led by Robert Anderson of Fort Sumter fame arrived.
                        > Of course that would be after the fall of Sumter...RWH
                        >
                        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        > Click here for 4 FREE TRIAL ISSUES of Sports Illustrated! If you're
                        > satisfied, your subscription will continue at the guaranteed lowest rate
                        > of $.75 an issue for 52 issues! http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/678
                        >
                        > eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
                        > http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.