Elmira, Lincoln's Orders

[cash]

Hello, Tommy,

I fail to see how one can believe Butler's account, written in 1892, when the actual record reveals that it was Stanton, not Grant, who ended the exchanges, and Stanton himself gave the reasons for doing so in November of 1863, well before the conversation Butler alleged took place between himself and Grant. We have to remember that Butler had a very huge axe to grind, having been sent home by Lincoln after the election on Grant's recommendation. Additionally, <u>Butler's Book</u> was written 28 years after the alleged conversation, whereas the despatch from Stanton I posted is the actual despatch that ended the exchanges.

I've previously shown why the confederate congress document you refer to in the OR is unreliable. It can't be considered to be primary material, since it was written after the events took place and is more in the manner of partisan propaganda. Stanton's despatch, being the actual despatch that ended the exchanges, is the primary source and has to be considered authoritative. It's not a question of being pro-Union. It's a question of historical accuracy.

I posted only primary source material. These were the actual despatches sent at the time of the events. While primary source material has to be evaluated just like any other source, it has to be given greater weight than secondary or tertiary sources. If you have a primary source, something written at the time of the events by participants in the events, that disputes the despatches from the OR that I posted, I would be interested to see it.

Regarding the SHSP, Thomas Connelly tells us, "The Southern Historical Sociiety had been conceived as a Southwide organization, to defend secession and Confederate conduct in teh war. ... But the original dream of a network of local organizations cemented by a core at New Orleans, soon collapsed. In a region struggling to recover from the war, historical societies were a luxury. ... At the White Sulphur Springs meeting in August [1873], Early and other followers of Lee took control. Instead of picking a maximum of five delegates as suggested, Early brought twenty-one. Thus half of the fifty-four delegates were from Vriginia. ... Lee's adherents corresponded with each other exhaustively, suggested rebuttal arguments against criticisms of their hero, and praised each other's literary achievements. They were determined to elevate Lee and to stifle criticism of him. [Thomas L. Connelly, <u>The Marble Man: Robert E. Lee and His Image in American Society,</u> pp. 72-75]

William Garrett Piston has documented how Jubal Early and William Jones used the SHSP to push their own version of the war and attack James Longstreet with false information and with biased viewpoints disguised as objective evaluation. See William Garrett Piston, <u>Lee's Tarnished Lieutenant: James Longstreet and His Place in Southern History.</u>

The point is that the SHSP can't be considered an objective source for the most part. While there are some parts that indeed give as truthful an account as possible, like Prof. Robertson reports, it has to be remembered that the SHSP is a partisan organ of an organization dedicated not to objective history but to promulgating a specific viewpoint.

On a note of concern, I find your comment that "After all, the self righteous are always right" to be an unfortunate choice of words, and I hope you weren't directing that comment toward anyone here.

Regards,
Cash

[thea_447]

Something else for perusal about Andersonville:

http://www.crownrights.com/books/tru...ersonville.htm

Cash,

The events (i.e. not returning any but disabled prisoners) in the OR were written years before Butler confirmed it. I was pointing out that your effort to portray it as inaccurate was just not true on that point. Butler confirmed in 92 what the Confederate report stated while war was in progress. March 3 1865, evidence given before the Congress in Richmond to be exact...To say he did not say it....makes no sense...the Confederate reports state he was told not to return abled bodied prisoners and he passed that info along to the Confederates...almost 3 decades later he confirmed it himself that this was indeed the case. Why would he confirm a Confederate lie?


YMOS
tommy

PS
I always try to choose my words carefully. Spelling is another thing altogether though.



(Message edited by aphillbilly on May 17, 2004)

As I go through this thread, it seems that both sides claim that the others history is wrong. I've wondered for sometime, just how much of our history on the war is really accurate. In Robert E. Lee's sons book, he states that one of the things that concerned his father, were all the false things that were being written about the war. This took place just after the war ended. He claimed that his dad wanted to write a book, and state things the way they actually happened, but due to failing health this event never occurred. Also Sherman started writing his book after the war, and then suddenly stopped. Then around 10 years later, he wrote the book. I've wondered if he was told to stop writing the book, until everyone could get together and get their "stories" straight.
Certainly from the very start, the events of this war have been written, and rewritten with so many slants, that you can draw about any conclusion that you want to.

[thea_447]

In reply to your post of May 17, 5:38 a.m., Cash, I offer this:

Paragraph I: This is playing the race card which I have already mentioned and, I believe, was indeed, an excuse not to exchange the prisoners. Yankees would use any excuse not to let able-bodied Confederates back on the field. The Confederates would come back and fight again. The Union knew they had so many men they could put on the field, that they considered the captured Yankee prisoners expendable. There was always a fresh crop ready to be put on the field of slaughter. The Confederates, on the other hand, knew every single man had to count. It is commendable that these Confederates would, if given the opportunity, sign any purported "Yankee oath" knowing full well that they would come back and fight again. Heck, I had relatives in my own family who did it. And no, they weren't slave owners, just ordinary farmers, who felt this invasion by the Yankees merited putting their lives on the line time and time again. (These same relatives had lived all their lives by the motto "My word is my bond." Obviously in dealing with the invading Yankees, they felt there was no honor involved; subsequently, it didn't bother their conscience one whit. Indeed they probably took their cue from Lincoln himself who said there would be no invasion of the South. Of course he also backed that statement with the threat that he would collect his taxes!)

Paragraph 2: Numerous references have been made on many threads on these boards alluding to the Confederates offering to give back Yankee prisoners since they could neither feed them or give them proper medical aid, in some instances. It's apparent that your required belief in this area would only come if it had been set down either on tablets of stone somewhere in the Holy Land or if found in ol' Abe's personal diaries or those of Stanton or Grant and held in the confines of a bank vault belonging to the Black Republicans throughout the duration of the War. LOL

Paragraph 3: I cannot personally guarantee that food and medicines would not be siphoned off for use by Confederate troops in lieu of Yankee prisoners. I wasn't there. I have seen letters from Yankee prisoners who have stated that their Confederate captors did everything in their power to help keep the prisoners alive. Can you tell me why a pond in the middle of Elmira was to be used both as a source of water and a urinal by Confederate prisoners? Can you show me at least 3 witnesses that saw Lincoln writing the Gettysburg Address? Of course not! That would border on the ludicrous.

Referring to the same paragraph 3: Your remark that it is the responsibility of the detainers to provide food and medicine for prisoners is a two-edged sword. Yankees deliberately withheld such items routinely from their Confederate prisoners.

Paragraph 4: I believe you do indeed give the Union as close to a pass on their treatment of Confederate prisoners as possible. Withholding medicines and food because of purported stories of Andersonville is sickening and there was no justification for such abhorrent conduct.

Your servant, sir.

[johan_steele]

Thea, I don't even know where to begin, your Paragraph 1 alone reminds any who had any doubt about your love of the Union.

Butler hated Grant's guts and would have done anything to tarnish his reputation. He wasn't above creative memory nor fictional conversations, this is neither an earth shattering revalation or unknown to those who hav looked into his life.

Fact: CSA desertion rates were well known to the US cabinet... They were considerably higher than those of the Union Army. There is no doubt in my mind that the word of a CSA soldier being paroled would generally have been kept. Unfortunately, their word meant nothing to those appointed as their officers...

Fact: I have also seen info stating that some CSA guards were quite decent toward their POWs. This was especially true when they were guarded by men who had actually been on the sharp end. The same is also true of CSA POW's. All of the Official correspondance for Rock Island is available in fact a nice Short History is available from the Arsenal Museum... It's quite educational. Rock Island or Andersonville... I think there is no doubt which was the worse of the two. Though neither was a particularly nice garden spot.

Fact: Black soldiers &amp; their officers were NOT treated as POW's. In fact quite a few were murdered, not killed in combat but murdered in cold blood after they had surrendered. Even the modern SCV doesn't deny this fact, in fact some applaud it(which shames the SCV beyond belief). They were soldiers of the US Army, I applaud the Lincoln cabinet for not abandoning them to the tender mercies of the CSA.

Fact: Large numbers, actually ALL, of the CSA soldiers who surrendered at Vicksburg were put back into the field as quickly as they could be rearmed... Prior to being exchanged.

Fact: The prisons on both sides of the line were not exactly pleasant places; to put it mildly. Elmira ugly beyond belief, Andersonville... ok I'll call it the Elmira of the South for your benefit.

Fact: As to the word of Union officers &amp; soldiers, before you go slandering the dead again keep in mind that no other august CSA personage than NB Forrest trusted it. He had no problem paroling the entire 3rd MN VI after they were surrendered to him. They kept their word and did not bear arms against the CSA for nearly a year... AFTER they had been properly exchanged.

Can you please give some of your primary source material for the claim that Union POW's were offered to a Union officer in lieu of an exchange. Specifics preferably as to the officers and men involved, where it happened etc. I don't for a second believe it happened, but I've also learned to keep an open mind. Newspaper accounts are often questionable sources for history as are "eyes on accounts" written thirty years after. As the wonderful period Newspaper thread has shown many from both sides have little bearing on facts and were and still are often used merely for propoganda purposes.

Apparently "Word is Bond" meant nothing to some... The CSA conduct of the Parole system was less than honorable, and actually from everything I've read the Union actually was quite honorable on the parole issue.

As it is I bid you a good day.

Thea,
I can give at least one minor occasion of the Union refusing prisoners. Sherman sent some back, to Andersonville no less. And he knew exactly where they were from and how horrible it was there. In the middle of Sept in 64, Hood, after several tries, finally, after much deliberate delay, managed to get Sherman to accept some prisoner exchange, but Sherman only agreed to accept prisoners that were from his army. No others. He sent a hundred or so back to Andersonville because they came from Sturgis troops I believe it was. But to be fair, he told them to be of good cheer. The day for "revenge" was coming. It is all in the OR in Sherman's own words. Yet I am not going to post it since it doesn’t correspond to the apparent views of the current Yankeedom, nor are there 13 notarized Yankee pre-approved witnesses or the testimony of at least 9 of the 12 disciples of Christ, Because even when proof is admitted here as evidence, since it contradicts the Almighty Northern Point of View, it will be ignored as of no consequence. Yet the issue is actually a moot one. No matter what you say Thea, no one here really cares. Not really. Just long as you give them something to attack. Not discuss mind you, attack.
For example, I recall long ago Neil defending his use of the alleged historian Jaffe’s viewpoints. When I pointed out Jaffe was less than seriously credible as a source, I was told that you may not like a source etc but that doesn’t make it untrue. That only works for the Yankee viewpoint I believe. Case in point was the inquiry that was demanded by the Confederate congress and carried out by men who had no reason to actually lie. They were preaching to the choir. But Obviously it Must be untrue since it was from a Southern point of view eh?
I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the Union, especially under Grant, had no desire whatsoever for prisoner exchange. The claims that it was Stanton not Grant was true to a point, but there is ample evidence for those with eyes that Grant was very up front with Stanton about how he felt about the issue, and to pretend he had no influence is laughable. Beside, WHO it was refusing the prisoners is moot as well. They did it. Deliberately and knowing the consequences to their own troops. There is ample evidence of every claim I have made here. In fact, I read it all last night in the OR. But I'm done presenting sources and facts since they are nothing but partisan opinions.
As Always Thea, I hope that you are well and in good spirits.
YMOS
tommy

[unionblue]

Tommy,

If you can find my statement concerning Jaffe's viewpoints on this board under whatever thread they might be, I would appreciate it. I cannot. But from what I remember of our debate you stated to me that Jaffe's opinions were suspect and gave me reasons for it. I seem to remember replying to you that because of your concerns I would not use Jaffe again as a source. I have not used him since that time.

As for your comment about 'I was told you may not like a source etc. but that doesn't make it untrue' I do recall a post I made to Thea where I told her my opinion on Mr. DiLorenzo and Mr. Ostroski as sources for historical research. My quote was, "I just have a hard time taking these men seriously when their main agenda is bashing the present-day government of the United States. But your source is where you find it, I guess." This can be found under the thread, 'What in your PERSONAL opinion, was the cause of the War, and how did you come to your conclusion?: Archive through June 04, 2003, posted Friday, March 28, 2003 - 02:59 am.

As for requiring 'Yankee' viewpoints and 13 notarized 'Yankee' pre-approved witnesses or the testimony of at least 9 of the 12 disciples of Christ, and the Almighty Northern Point of View, etc., I reject the notion that a different point of view has any sectional bias and is worth any less because it does not always come from South of the Mason-Dixon Line.

And since you have named Robertson as a source that says the Southern Historical Society is a 'remarkably good source' I'll just assume you now agree with his conclusions that war was over slavery, not tariffs or State's Rights? Or do you feel that not all his conclusions are correct?

And I hope you are doing well also, Tommy.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on May 18, 2004)

Neil,
I began to think I was losing my mind. But of all things, my memory is the most sufficient part I have left. Medications notwithstanding.
All i could find was back in 03 but I thought it was when Ron was still around.
I finally found it by searching jaffa. I am quite up front that spelling is not my strong suit.
It was Posted on Thursday, July 11, 2002 - 12:46 am: on Ron’s thread “As I have said before, Lincoln radically OPPOSED slavery “
This is, if you will allow, the part I refer to.

“So what's my point? I will not shoot Ron when he brings me information in the form of an article, book or other type of research. I will not dismiss it out of hand just because it comes from OldReb. I will almost know that I won't like what he has to present, but I won't just say it can be blown off because it is Ron presenting it. Or someone like Harry Jaffa. Or Karl Marx.

And Tommy, sometimes the facts are delivered in a not too pretty package. Does that mean the facts are no good? If Jaffa or others that we do not like make a statement that there is no such thing as gravity does that make the fact any less true? I will tell you that I am no big fan of Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Jaffa's big opponent on all things Civil War, but I cannot dismiss him when he presents information. I will check his information out and see if it is correct, JUST LIKE I DO JAFFA'S. You don't have to be a fan of Hitler's when you do research on him. “

See? It seems the position has now become, the South said it so........it must not be trusted. Tsk Tsk

And I hope you know how hard it was finding and posting this!!!


YMOS
tommy

Ah you added during edit....As to Robertson..nope...I do not believe anyone's conclusions are always correct. Hence why I check other sources, cross references, opposing veiws etc etc etc

(Message edited by aphillbilly on May 18, 2004)

[thea_447]

Thanks Tommy, for your input, and I'm praying that your computer holds together so that you will be able to post more. We've missed you.

And yes, I am in much better spirits seeing that you are on the boards, if only for a few brief shining moments. To be engulfed by all the bluecoats daily is a tad overwhelming, I admit, but we cannot stop posting or this board would become just another Yankee "Let's All Clap Hands and be happy we can write history to suit our purpose" board.

It would be nice to hear from some impartial voices again, too. EWC, are you still out there? We certainly miss your comments as you have always brought something new and unusual to our usually dry and oft repeated comments.

As usual I've been accused of hating my country which is laughable. I've lost count of how many times I have told this board that my folks have fought in EVERY war this country has ever been involved with.

My feelings about the WBTS and America today are two entirely different things. Obviously the people in 1860 felt VERY differently about this country or there would never have been a war. This is the theme that I continue to drum. Why people can't see the difference between America in 1860 and today is beyond my comprehension.

Although I, like many Americans, find much fault with America today, I still believe it is the finest country on earth, but I am utterly bored with having to defend myself against those who would deliberately misinterpret my posts. I am here to discuss the WBTS, NOT America today. I have no interest in discussing what's going on in foreign affairs, etc. I believe that this board was created to discuss the WBTS and that is exactly what I intend to do.

I hope this finds you in good spirits and good health, Tommy.

Till we meet again, I remain, YMOS,