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.
Ok, your the one makeing claims about negros regiments, DS rullings and points of law etc, that bear no reltionship to reality, while posting in support of Cash argument and now want to distance yourshelf from his nonsense.
i suggest you refrain from supporting others posts unless you want to be associated with their content.
Hanny,
You need to step back and rebiew the utter nonsense you are posting on this board.
*YOU* posted an enormous number of things on the Dred Scott cases that were completely untrue. You had the dates wrong. You had the order of items wrong. You had facts wrong. When people posted to you pointing this out, you reacted belligerently and offensively, posting still more nonsense. Finally, you admitted you had a lot of it wrong, saying that you'd been relying on your memory and it was inadequate. Now you've swung back to accusing others of the nonsense you have been posting.
You have also made a great many posts that attribute things said by others to me. I have pointed it out to you many times and asked you to stop this confusing habit. From your most recent posts, it appears you are doing it deliberately. You should stop this discreditable policy -- if for no other reason, because it will brand you as a deliberate deceiver and make others see you as you are.
Many of your posts wander in circles and seem to talk to yourself more than anyone else. I have no reason why you imagine the things you do, or cannot seem to keep things straight. But do not be surprised or annoyed when others point out the many errors you are making. That is what normally happens in free, fair, and open debate.
not really, Govn of Ga removed them from CSA mil authority to take out of state, thast a long way different from haveing them in GA to supress slaves insurection, which is what that point was enetered on and for i gather.
So? That has nothing to do with anything I said. I said there were troops available to take action against the slaves if they rebelled, and the slaves (not being stupid) would have understood that all those armed troops in the next town or county would have come to suppress them if they were silly enough to start trouble. Is it your argument that the Confederate troops -- or the Georgia "Brown's Pets", or any other organized force, would have somehow sat by and done nothing in the case of a slave insurrection?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
Sigh, over 90% of the Texas rangers went out of state in 61 to serve, the rest were oficiualy disbanded during the conflict but carried on in an unoficial role during the war.During the Civil War, men who for whatever reason choose not to fight Yankees stayed in Texas and scouted the frontier for Indians, deserters and Union sympathizers. They were not called Rangers, but that's what they were in function. http://www.texasalmanac.com/history/highlights/rangers/
mentioned what i did because you were unaware of this.
No, Hanny, you had no idea whether I knew about it or not. In any case, the existing Texas Rangers were a small group, nowhere near the size of the forces raised by Texas in the war -- so why make a reference to a single regiment of Rangers to try to prove whatever it was you were trying to prove?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
get it right and put it into context, just over 100k men of mil age in Texas, and close to 70k saw servioce oustide the state. http://www.electricscotland.com/hist...th/south61.htm
The Southern States of America
Chapter IV - Texas in the Confederacy, 1861 - 1865
Actually, your source estimates total troops raised for the Confederacy as: "It seems probable that the total was nearer 50,000, of whom some 12,000 were permanently east of the Mississippi." It also says: "In the trans-Mississippi department, scattered about over Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas, were nearly 40,000 more troops." Further, that: "Aside from these were several regiments and battalions of state troops aggregating 8,000 or 10,000, acting as frontier guards and interior patrols."
Now your source is probably low, IMHO, on the total number of troops raised, and it doesn't count local men not in standing service who might be raised for an emergency like a slave rebellion. But the numbers your own source presents don't seem to match very well with your own claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hanny
your in a world of your own, but you ar most certanly makeing and supporting Cashs argument on the level of CSA soldiers present to hold down negros insurection, while caliming that i am not citeing you correctly, i suggest you dont support others arguments unl;ess you want to be citied for doing so.
Balderdash. You just seem to like mixing things up to confuse the threads and hide the gobble-de-gook you are trying to pass off. I assume that is one of the reasons you attribute things to me that were said by other people, which you have ben asked repeatedly not to do. Very disreputable action, repeated, by you -- so I guess we'll have to say you do it deliberately, just as you imply.
Note from the other reference you posted: "Lubbock estimated that by February, 1863, the total enlisted in the regular army was . 62,000, with 6,500 more in the state service, while in addition to these were nearly 27,000 others between the ages of sixteen and sixty years not then enrolled at all." Same source also says the 62,000 was probably too high, estimates 50,000, and puts the state troops at probably 8-10,000.
This is in February of 1863, as both sources note, since they are both referring to the same original estimate. Surely you noticed this. I was referring to the total number of men and units raised by Texas during the war from 1861 to 1865.
Now as the 2nd source you are pointing out describes (did you somehow miss this -- it is in the very next paragraph) the necessities of the war called for the Confederacy to make more calls on Texas for more men, and by November of 1863 Governor Lubbock was calling on the legislature to be strict and use every method to raise still more. With Governor Lubbock's February 1863 estimate we are already at 68,500 state and Confederate troops from Texas; I said 90,000 max but probably a bit less for the units I cited. That leaves a difference of -- AT MOST -- 21,500 between the two figures. How many additional men do you think Texas raised from February 1863 to the end of the war in 1865? And if it closes up most of the gap you are pointing at -- as I am sure you already know -- just what are you getting up on your high horse about here? Let us know your answer and -- if you understand just how wrong you once again are -- please post an acknowledgement and retraction so everyone understands where you are coming from.
BTW, Governor Lubbock also seems low in his estimate of the white male population of the state. According to the US Census of 1860, the white male population from age 15 to 59 was 122,441. If you add up Governor Lubbock's February 1862 estimates (62,000 + 6,500 + 27,000), you get 95,500 for what looks like the same group. The Governor was more than 20% low on this.
Confederates "guarding" the border were scarce. The Union was escorted out of Texas Forts and the Comanche were ecstatic.
The only real action in Texas was at Galveston and on the Rio Grande (Brownsville/Matamoros).
Ranger Rip Ford gathered up a volunteer (auxillary) force of men, you know - oldies but goodies and wet behind the ears varieties. The Calvary of the West, they called themselves. This was the Rio Grande unit.
There were only 250 of them.
Depending on who you want to listen to, there were 6,500 (Gov. Lubbock, Feb. 1863) or 8-10,000 (about the same time) or some other number of state troops in Texas, not part of the forces Texas transferred to the Confederacy. Many Unionists (or at least anti-secessionists) preferred to be in these units so they could protect their families and communities while not actually serving against the Union. Then there was what they call the "unorganized militia" today (military age people not actually serving -- like you right now if you happen to be age 18-45 and not in the US military, the National Guard, or some state guard unit or equivalent).
In November 1862 General Hebert called on Governor Lubbock for 5,000 militia in a threatened emergency, plus some more militia for Baylor, commanding on the northern Texas frontier. Magruder took over from Hebert and increased the call to 10,000. At least 8,000 of these 10,000 were turned over to Confederate service by February of 1863, and Magruder was looking for the other 2,000 with the next Governor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
Texas gave 63,727 Confederate soldiers, 6500 of those were in reserve.
This sounds like Governor Lubbock's February 1863 estimate. I think you grabbed the wrong number for soldiers here: "... making 62,000 men, which with the state troops in actual service, viz., 6,500 men, form an aggregate of 68,500 Texans in military service, constituting an excess of 4,773 more than her highest popular vote, which was 63,727."
But that is in February of 1863 (February 5th, I think). The war went on more than 2 years after that. Other requisitions were made on Texas for men, and she strove to fill them as best she could. Since the Governor is giving us an estimate of 68,500 here, and my estimate for the war was 90,000 max but probably somewhat less, I bet the actual number is really pretty close to what I said. What do you think? Where in that space from 68,500 to 90,000 do you think the actual number ended up by Spring of 1865?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
There were not more than 27,000 men in Texas between the ages of 16 and sixty year as of 1863.
Again from Governor Lubbock's February 1863 estimate: "From the best information within reach of this department, upon which to base an estimate of the men now remaining in the state between the ages of sixteen and sixty years, it is thought that the number will not exceed 27,000."
The problem is that the Governor obviously does not have a copy of the US Census of 1860 handy when he said this. According to the US Census, the 1860 white male population of Texas, ages 15-59, was 122,441. If you add up the numbers the Governor is giving us (62,000 + 6,500 + 27,000), you'll come to 95,500. This leaves a missing and unaccounted for 26,941 men. Either those men had died/left the state in less than 2 years, or the Governor was about 20% low in his estimate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
There were 182,000 slaves in Texas, about 1/3 of the entire population.
Yep, according to the US Census of 1860, there were a total of 182,566 slaves in Texas. I doubt the number went down during the war, since Union armies made so little progress there and the slaves had no realistic way to escape in large numbers -- plus many Southerners to the North and East were sending slaves to Texas for safe-keeping after the Emancipation Proclamation.
Sounds like a lot, but that includes the women, the children, and the aged.
If you want to talk about male slaves, age 15-59, the same age group as those who might make up the Confederate/state forces against them, you come to a total of only 46,704 potential "military age" slave males against 122,441 whites in the same group. Doesn't look quite so impressive that way.
Those slaves were, by and large, unarmed and unorganized. There were large numbers of armed white troops within the state, already organized, trained, and equipped, with logistical support and transportation. While any slave revolt in the Denmark Vessey/ Nat Turner mold would have been horrifying to behold, the reality is that the slaveholders revenge would have followed as swiftly as could be, and would have been just as horrifying to the slaves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
2/3rds of Texas companies fought west of the Mississippi Army, in bitter bloody battles that are rarely mentioned.
There were not all that many who fought East of the Mississippi, probably less than you estimate. The Texas Brigade in Lee's ANV, a tough and gallant fighting unit -- but that's only 3 regiments. Some infantry and cavalry in Tennessee and Georgia, like Granbury's people. Maybe as much as 12,000 men during the war on the East side of the Mississippi.
But that leaves, what, another 70-75,000 men who served for Texas during the war? If they'd all been up In Louisiana and Arkansas, the Confederacy would have been much more of a threat there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
The graves of Texans are spread across 6 states.
Sure, at least that. Lee's ANV Texas Brigade saw action in VA-MD-PA, and TN as well. Granbury's Brigade surely saw action in TN-GA-MS. That's six by itself, plus LA-AR, and you might find some took part in Bragg's Invasion of Kentucky in late 1862. Undoubtedly some more in what is now AZ-NM-OK, and maybe into MO if they went with Marmaduke or Price or someone.
But saying that some of them fought in all those places is not the same as saying that most of them did. There are always little units patrolling little places and byways, garrisoning posts, collecting supplies, handling paperwork, taking care of lots of routine tasks -- and when you add them all up, they usually come to stunning numbers, spread over large stretches of territory that seems to be inactive.
Trice,
It was Lubbocks numbers and as for the grabbing the wrong number, I always do it (some kind of math disability) so I hope everyone will question if it sounds wrong.
But those unorganized militias 8-10,000 were just that - to my knowledge. In Texas they did not roam about to keep slaves or anyone else in line.
I'm not sure about the 90,000 est. Texas was sparse and anyone who lived North, South or West could not afford to leave their homesteads without a man. It was too shaky with Mexican bandits and Indians everywhere. Remember that many of our Indian "depredations" occured from 1850's-80's and our Rangers were engaged in Border wars during the early 1900's. No one can say Texas was "settled".
Also when in '63 the Calvary of the West was formed there were not many men from ages 18 - 45 that could volunteer. As popular As Rest-in-Peace John Ford was - every eligible man would have come out of the woodwork to go with him.
Trice,
It was Lubbocks numbers and as for the grabbing the wrong number, I always do it (some kind of math disability) so I hope everyone will question if it sounds wrong.
But those unorganized militias 8-10,000 were just that - to my knowledge. In Texas they did not roam about to keep slaves or anyone else in line.
I'm not sure about the 90,000 est. Texas was sparse and anyone who lived North, South or West could not afford to leave their homesteads without a man. It was too shaky with Mexican bandits and Indians everywhere. Remember that many of our Indian "depredations" occured from 1850's-80's and our Rangers were engaged in Border wars during the early 1900's. No one can say Texas was "settled".
Also when in '63 the Calvary of the West was formed there were not many men from ages 18 - 45 that could volunteer. As popular As Rest-in-Peace John Ford was - every eligible man would have come out of the woodwork to go with him.
Texas2nd
In the Winter of 1862-63, when the Governor was raising 10,000 militia to turn over to Confederate service, I found a letter complaining about the response. It seems at one rendevous 70 men showed up -- and 50 of them had letters exempting them from the call. Might not be average, of course, but there were men out there who had ways to avoid the service.
...those that volunteered for the military after the attack on Pearl Harbor (both whites and blacks) were fighting for Jim Crow and segregation.
One would think that if one were ignorant of history and only thought superficially about issues. You see, nowhere does anyone define the United States' cornerstone as Jim Crow and segregation. On the other hand, the vice president of the confederacy specifically identified the cornerstone of the confederacy as slavery and white supremacy.
The North stood for slavery if you remained loyal to the US gov't...and for white supremacy throughout the war and after (the largest organizations of KKK in the 1920s were in Indiana and Ohio).
Completely false claim. Nowhere did anyone define the cornerstone of the United States as slavery and white confederacy. Those who know anything at all about the history of the Civil War know that the vice president of the confederacy identified its cornerstone as slavery and white supremacy.
Ok, your the one makeing claims about negros regiments, DS rullings and points of law etc, that bear no reltionship to reality, while posting in support of Cash argument and now want to distance yourshelf from his nonsense.
i suggest you refrain from supporting others posts unless you want to be associated with their content.
The only nonsense here is coming from your posts. Let us know when you finally have something worthwhile to post.
You have done it frequently, it has been pointed out to you frequently, and you even acknowledged it yourself in at least one of your posts:
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
With all due respect, you have the facts of the Dred Scott cases all bollixed up. You are wrong on the dates and the order of events, wrong on what courts decided. Please stop making claims that absolutely cannot be backed up.
Here is a section of the chronology you can find at the Washington University in St. Louis website (http://library.wustl.edu/vlib/dredscott/chronology.html). I used the italics to highlight certain parts for you. Please use it to correct the many mistakes in what you have said so far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hanny
Yes it does appear going from memory will not sufice when posting, while looking at the parts that actualy intrest me in detail.
That is from your post #225 in this thread, made 05-15-2007, 09:04 AM.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
