Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
I was on a civil war trivia site and among many trivial facts I came across this.
What Union commander and his Union army lost every battle,every campaign,and every engagement that they fought?
A:Benjamin F Butler
I did not know that just was a bit surprised.
Also it said Robert E Lee's last words were"I can give that sum"rather than "Strike the tent"as invented by Lee admirer Douglas Freeman.No one in the Lee family knew what Lee meant by "I will give that sum".Also,I have read that Lee called out to A.P Hill in his last hours.
Does anyone know if these bits of information are indeed correct?
Oops,I probably should have put this thread over on Campfire chat.My apologies for that.Anyhow maybe it can get some discussion going about Butler and his losing campaigns.
I had never heard that Lee's last words were, "I can (or will) give that sum."
The last word of that sentence (or sentence fragment) is, of course, a homonym for "some." I wonder what the circumstances were in which he said it.
I suppose it's possible that, in his capacity as college president, he could have been working on the budget, and was saying that he could add up a column of figures.
On the other hand, if the last word were intended to be "some," he may have been trying to say something like, "I will give that some consideration," but never finished the sentence.
That Butler was colorful and crafty!Thanks for the link CY.Anyhow here is the site with the trivia that mentioned Butler.It is about 30 answers down from the top.
I have also heard that his last words were "I will give that sum." It is a reference to a faculty meeting in which an argument ensued regarding an item in the school budget. Lee was not feeling well and to stop the bickering, he stated "I will pay that sum." The sum by the way was 58 dollars.
Supposedly, he came home from the meeting feeling very bad lay on a couch and died a few days later without saying another word.
I can't remember the author but I believe the book was entitled Lee's Last Years or something to that effect. Its buried in my debris at home. I will try to find it. I thought it was an intriguing look at the general.
Concerning A.P. Hill....On the morning before he (Lee) expired, the delirious commander's mind wandered back to the battlefields of the great civil war. He mumbled intermittently; a loud cry occasionally passed his lips. Then, in words plainly heard by everyone in the room, Lee stated emphatically, "Tell Hill he must come up" it was the last intelligible thing Lee said until his remark at the moment of death: "Strike the tent"
This was Freeman's account. As I got it from James I. Robertson's Book
"A.P. Hill, The Story of a Confederate Warrior"
As to the validity to his last words...I have not found difinitive proof...but the last thing said among witness in any number was about Hill..
I am surprised that Butler is the answer to this question. There might be some validity to the strictest application of 'losing every battle, campaign, and engagement...', but with that even I will dispute. No, I regard the question as incorrectly answered. My reasons are thus:
Butler subdued Annapolis, then Baltimore militarily in the spring of '61, and secured the rail connections between Washington and the North- absolutely necessary at that time to the preservation of the Union . He thus gave the Unionist element in Maryland, particularly Gov. Hicks, a safe breathing space to get their affairs in order and keep the secessionist elements from organizing (in Maryland,) and becoming a deep menace to the nation. So this campaign is won. He commanded the army expedition which accompanied Farragut to the mouth of the Mississippi in the spring of '62. This expedition reduced the lower river forts and took the city of New Orleans, with Ben Butler in charge of the occupying force which entered and garrisoned New Orleans. Is that not another successful campaign? He then restored order to this city, suppressed rebel activity, and kept New Orleans in Union hands. If along the way he rubbed a few rebel noses in it, hanged a reb recalcitrant or two, and dispossessed a secessionist of an heirloom or two, well, 'twere it not for secession, 'twould never Butler abeen there 'tall. Maybe because he not only ended a functioning slavery in his department but elevated the former slave to positions of responsibility, (organized troops,) did he incur the hatred of the offended Southron. It looks to me like another successful mission by our hero!
Butler could have done alot more with the Army of the James operating against Richmond in Lee's rear in the spring of '64. Admittedly, he was not the most capable commander of forces in the field. One of his corps commanders at the time, Baldy Smith, remarked that Butler was 'as helpless as a child on the battlefield,' and though chronically caustic, Smith may be close to right on this score. That Butler failed Grant's expectations at Fort Fisher later in the war may or may not reflect his military ability, it certainly displeased his superior and his naval compatriot, Admiral Porter. Ft. Fisher may have been unable to be broken with the force Butler had on hand. News was Hoke and his division were moving towards Butler's rear, and seas were becoming too high to allow a withdrawal if necessary. For Butler to leave without attempting to attack the fort may indeed have been the right move, and it certainly was one which required marked moral courage, ( the campaign was a flat failure and he would have to return to face Grant, Stanton, and Lincoln about it.)
When we move the discussion to political or word battles and campaigns, here Butler rises to the level of the grandmaster. His reasoning and unstinting decision and activity in Maryland were crucial to the nation early. His arguments upsetting Major Cary attempting to recover slaves in Butler's ranks at Ft. Monroe is marvelous. I personally get a chuckle reading of his activities in New Orleans and subsequent Southern moaning, groaning, wailing and teeth-gnashing. Of course, things get less funny with Butler in command of troops and armies later in the war.
Regards all, ewc
__________________ 'It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag'
"Spoons" deserved the moniker "BEAST". Tis a pity that us poor whining soutrons couldn't have been allowed a chance to try in court the thieving SO% at wars end.
Course, this is just another pooor "subsequent Southern(er) moaning, groaning, wailing and teeth-gnashing.
I do enjoy reading the histories of good ole' N'orlens ladies accidentally dumping their chamber pots on yankee heads following the beast's proclamation of what constitutes a "professional lady" in occupied N'orlens.
Butler was certainly no angel, and he seemingly cared not a whit what anyone particularly thought of him. Absolutely vilified throughout the South, and he just kept on keeping on. But he is certainly unique in this war, and I argue necessary to the Union side. His early defining of how to apply the issue of slaves in the Union lines is so perfectly done it solves the *****ly and divisive dilemma of slavery til Lincoln is ready with emancipation. That there was but one Butler is, I'm sure, the maximum tolerable on that particular count. Many no doubt think one is still too many.
I don't wish to castigate Southerners entirely in their reaction to the taking of New Orleans or Butler's administration ( or mismanagement if one views it so.) I think Butler may have gone out of his way a bit to stick it to the secessionist citizenry. Had the shoe been on the other foot, (Confederate occupation of a Northern city,) no doubt much wailing and gnashing of teeth would have been heard throughout the land. The citizens would have risked their lives to hang out Old Glory, and no doubt, the ladies plying would have been on the alert for flinging the well flung chamberpot with contents. The only occupation I can think of of a Northern city of any substance is Hagerstown briefly in the Antietam campaign and York in Lee's second invasion. York was held for what- 2- 3 days. The rebs were on their best behavior and the troops well in hand as per RE Lee's instructions. My brother's wife is from York, and that brief occupation in which no harm was done is remembered by the people. The South had noone I can think of their version of a Butler, very likely a good thing I'm thinking. But they sure had their wonderful characters. I think Ol Jubilee Early could have slugged it out verbally toe to toe with Butler. Such an event would have been worth the price of admission. One of history's great "If only"s.
Peace and love, friends
ewc
__________________ 'It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag'
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
