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 8:11 AM
      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 2 of 10 , Aug 8 8:42 AM
        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 3 of 10 , Aug 8 8:42 AM
          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 4 of 10 , Aug 8 8:42 AM
            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 5 of 10 , Aug 8 6:11 PM
              <7ok6n7$fvl-@egroups.com> wrote:
              original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/?start=2
              > Hi all
              > Looking through the first page on the Western Theatre in Shotgun's
              > pages Leonadis Polk is cited with breaking the neutrality of
              Kentucky.
              > Was it not true that the North had been supplying arms to Northern
              > sympathisers prior to this. What does the group think.
              > Bootneck
              >
              Hope I get this right. Hello Bootneck. Other than the existing Union
              military in the State of Kentucky I know of no "invading" force of
              Yankees until those led by Robert Anderson of Fort Sumter fame arrived.
              Of course that would be after the fall of Sumter...RWH
            • rhines@joln.net
              wrote: original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/?start=2 ... Kentucky. ... Hope I get this right. Hello Bootneck.
              Message 6 of 10 , Aug 8 6:11 PM
                <7ok6n7$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 7 of 10 , Aug 8 6:35 PM
                  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 8 of 10 , Aug 8 6:35 PM
                    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.