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.
Sam:
That's Sherman. Stand apart and witch (you know what I mean). Have you read the book on his correspondence? Third pile on the right, about six books down. He was a caution. Strange man. But forthright.
The post in question was postwar memoirs. At the time of his employment by Louisiana, he was still trying to figure out who he was. After the war, he had a better handle on it.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Sam:
That's Sherman. Stand apart and witch (you know what I mean). Have you read the book on his correspondence? Third pile on the right, about six books down. He was a caution. Strange man. But forthright.
The post in question was postwar memoirs. At the time of his employment by Louisiana, he was still trying to figure out who he was. After the war, he had a better handle on it.
Ole
Close, 2nd pile 11th down. Gotta love the guy for his candor and own perceived righteousness.
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
If he truely thought war was imminent, what was he doing by getting a job at a Louisiana Military school in 1859? He waited till Jan. 18, 1861 to make his position known.
Well, in 1859 he was coming back from California broke. People often are willing to swallow their opinion when they need a job badly enough. Throw in the fact that Sherman was writing his Memoirs many years later and ...
On Jan. 18, 1861 Bragg was showing up at the door in Baton Rouge with 700 Militia to seize the US Arsenal and evict the US troops. That is a pretty clear break-point.
Could have. And what would have provided a better call to war? That would have been a clear show of intentions and may well have lost the border states without the provocation of Sumter.
Always possible. But how come no one ever criticizes the Confederacy for plunging into a military buildup, etc.? Isn't it logical that the US should be able to respond in kind to signs of warlike intention? Shouldn't BOTH sides be judged by the same set of rules?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
I've read pretty much the same -- I think it was in Kevin Levin's blog. The upshot of that was that John Buchanan Floyd was not so much venal as he was incredibly incompetent. The transfer of muskets south might be explained in that newer muskets were being made and room had to be made for them.
I think the timing of the musket transfer can also be laid at the door of trying to keep the South quiet after the Harpers Ferry raid of John Brown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
THE scandal was incredibly stupid. In doing a favor for a friend, he cost the government money allotted for Indians and didn't make a dime off it. It remains that his attempted transfer of guns to nascent forts cannot so easily be explained away.
First scandal might be said to be a grossly incompetent man trying to get a job done (trying to get US troops in Indian territory supplied). How anyone in his position could be that stupid/naive is hard to say.
Second scandal appears to have been to hush up the first one (done with or without Floyd's knowledge).
But these two scandals appear to have each amounted for about 1.5-2% of the entire Federal budget for a year. In today's terms, that would be 10s of billions of dollars. If simply incompetent and naive, Floyd was something spectacular -- but there appears to be a belief that might be so.
Trice:
I'm willing to write off Floyd as a poor choice and and a noodnik. He stumbled his way through almost an entire administration, and generally fouled up whatever he laid his hand to. He wasn't, and wouldn't be, the last schmuck standing. He had serious competition for the title.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Floyd's incompetence is not what picks him out of the crowds of other incompetents (spectacular, though he was), but the strong suspicion that he may have been a traitor, in the last days (at least) of his administration of his office.
Floyd's incompetence is not what picks him out of the crowds of other incompetents (spectacular, though he was), but the strong suspicion that he may have been a traitor, in the last days (at least) of his administration of his office.
That there was a crowd of incompetents around is pretty certain (unless we wish to see them as scoundrels). I find it hard to believe the stories of the 2nd scandal, where Floyd's assistant and a relative in another Department conspired to defraud the US (and steal from the Indian tribes the missing bonds belonged to, which were held in trust by the US) in order, apparently, to protect Floyd's reputation.
In early December of 1861, I tend to think Floyd may have still been trying to do his best (a scary thought). By Christmas, the scandals were breaking, he'd been asked to resign, and he was dragging his feet. Suddenly, 125 heavy guns are ordered to 2 forts under construction, years ahead of their projected need at the posts. Suddenly, Floyd seizes on the move of Anderson to Ft. Sumter to cast his resignation, already asked for before that, as a reaction to this action. On his way home, Floyd is suddenly giving a speech in Richmond that can only be considered as pro-secessionist, something he had never done before.
I think that by late December Floyd realized he was in a peck of trouble. His career in US government was gone. He needed to quickly build a place for himself in the only possible alternative: the seceding states. I think the speech and the order to move the guns were part of that: a self-serving effort to curry favor with what he hoped would be his new country. I believe that rises to the extent of treason against the United States and deliberate misfeasance or malfeasance in office, betraying his oath. It was never proven, nor even tried. Treason under the US Constitution is extremely difficult to prove.
The earlier charges on moving the muskets I cannot make a case to myself for; they seem just the sort of thing that might have been done routinely or with supposedly good intentions, and looked absolutely terrible in hindsight.
Always possible. But how come no one ever criticizes the Confederacy for plunging into a military buildup, etc.? Isn't it logical that the US should be able to respond in kind to signs of warlike intention? Shouldn't BOTH sides be judged by the same set of rules?
You ask too much, Trice. First, it was Buchanan who wanted nothing more than to get out with no more scathing than he had earned. He certainly wouldn't risk a corresponding build-up. Then, it was Lincoln fumbling with the likely idea that a build-up would accelerate southern resolve without creating the same resolve in the north.
Criticizing the Confederacy has become politically incorrect. They were, after all, responding to a certain knowledge that the Black Republican meant to subjugate them and take all their money and free their slaves.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
You ask too much, Trice. First, it was Buchanan who wanted nothing more than to get out with no more scathing than he had earned. He certainly wouldn't risk a corresponding build-up. Then, it was Lincoln fumbling with the likely idea that a build-up would accelerate southern resolve without creating the same resolve in the north.
Criticizing the Confederacy has become politically incorrect. They were, after all, responding to a certain knowledge that the Black Republican meant to subjugate them and take all their money and free their slaves.
Ole
Well, some people seem to think so. The logic seems to be that:
a) Southerners had the right to do anything because they were afraid the North might do something to them.
b) Northerners, who were actually being abused by Southern actions from December 1860 to April 1861, had no right to do anything on their own behalf because in doing so they might agitate the Southerners.
c) therefore all aggressive Southern acts are legitimate and no act other than capitulation to Southern desires by the North can be legitimate.
I have never been able to agree with the reasoning behind this. Many arguments about the period seem based on it, however.
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
