Slavery; THE Cause?

The War on New York is really an under studied thing of the CW. Seeing it only as side show riots. But it was actually a battlefield.

http://www.southernevents.org/lincolnWar.htm


Joseph Howard was the editor’s name that was arrested by the military.

"Remarkably enough, Howard ended up serving less than three months of his sentence before Lincoln ordered his release on August 22, 1864. The President was apparently moved by the appeal of Henry Ward Beecher, a friend of Howard's wealthy father, who pleaded that the young man was only guilty of "the hope of making some money."


the Rape Order
The general commanding the troops of the United States now holding possession of New Orleans issued the following order on the 15th instant:
"As the officers and soldiers of the United States have been subject to repeated insults from the women (calling themselves ladies) of New Orleans, in return for the most scrupulous non-interference and courtesy on our part, it is ordered that hereafter, when any female shall, by word, gesture, or movement, insult or show contempt for any officer or soldier of the United States, she shall be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her avocation.
By command of Major-General Butler."

“What else than contempt and abhorrence can the women of New Orleans feel or exhibit for these officers and soldiers of the United States? The spontaneous impulse of their hearts must appear involuntary upon their countenances and thus constitute the crime for which the general of those soldiers adjudges the punishment of rape and brutalized passion.”
Governor Moore, OR SI VolXv

“They care not for the blood of babes nor carnage of innocent women which servile insurrection thus stirred up may bring upon their heads. Worse than this, the North has sent forth another infamous chief, encouraging the <font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font> of his hirelings to the dishonor and violation of those Southern women wheath would be better than the fate that defeat would entail upon us all. “
JAMES LONGSTREET, Major-General, Commanding. (OR S1 volXIV)

“I will venture to say that no exanple can be found in the history of civilized nations till the publication of this order of a general guilty in cold blood of so infamous an act as deliberately to hand over the female inhabitants of a conquered city to the unbridled license of an unrestrained soldiety”
Charles Francis Adams
U.S. Minister to England


As to draft numbers, my point is although the guy lied about having the item signed by the President, he was not over estimating the draft numbers.

I hope that answers at least some of your questions. Also hopefully you will see I have not been just talking out my a.er...hat. Granted I posted from memory but questioning me has forced me to at least rally a little. A rear guard foray. By the way, American Memory has changed their site and it stinks. I contacted them and complained. They responded. If anyone else thinks it was better before, please let them know.


YMOS
tommy



I tried to get that word past the censor several ways. It is 'last' but with a U instead of an A.



(Message edited by aphillbilly on January 28, 2005)

[unionblue]

Tommy,

I regret to say it, but any web site sponsored by the League of the South, is not one that I consider objective in its presentations and I am sure you will see how they are almost obligated to present such information in the light as they perceive it. Ergo, the war on New York does not impress me much, nor do the references at the bottom of the article as they are mainly Democratic in nature and anti-Lincoln also. Not the non-biased type for my money.

As for your references to the order given by Butler, again, all pretty much one sided in my opinion, even to include the English one, hardly what I consider a balanced view and again, how many Union men were encouraged to rape the women of New Orleans as a result of the order?

This is what I consider a 'dramatic' phrase or word inserted into an otherwise historical event or document to give it that right amount of spin. Mind sharing where you first saw or got the idea to use it?

And your number concerning the amount of men to be drafted is in doubt as I still say the man lied about the numbers and he was overestimating at that point in time numbers.

I do not think you pull stuff out of you A-hat, numbers or sources, but at times memory has failed me and it could fail you, so I ask sources, dates and numbers. I still have not found the actual call-up numbers for the Union draft to match the dates indicated on your one site. I feel like I will be going to the Civil War Day By Day book, but that will take time. In the meantime, here are two sites on the draft.

Conscription.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/conscription.htm

New York Draft Riots.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/draftriots.htm

Until that time,
Unionblue

Neil,
Are you actually defending Butler's order? Saying it did not condone attacks on women sexually should they verbally abuse an invading soldier? As to un-bias POV. Have heard of such an animal but never seen one. I was doing like ya'll do. Give CW era reactions. Of the men that were there. Am I supposed to fight your side for you? Right out of the OR. Personally I'm not sure how you could find an unbiased POV from that era regarding Butler's order.
I seem to recall someone saying something like any source could present facts....no matter how distateful...

(Message edited by aphillbilly on January 28, 2005)

[unionblue]

Tommy,

Calm down. I am not defending Butler's order nor am I attacking it. And I am saying it did not 'condone' sexual attacks on women, unless you are reading the order high on drugs and use the Hubble telescope to see it that way.

What I have been asking repeatedly is how many rapes happened because of it or is this just a bunch of non-substansiated, 21st century rhetoric? Numbers on the draft I am checking, so how about numbers of rapes because of the Butler order?

You are correct in that an un-biased POV is a rare animal, but I firmly believe it is out there, it just needs to be looked for a lot harder. And I know of at least one POV that supports Butler's order. I'll see if I can find it for you, just so you can glimpse the 'other' side. I know you won't agree with it, but it is out there.

Yes, any source can present fact no matter how distasteful but I am long past being surprised at one some folks consider a source.

Now, can we put the blades away, respect each other's POV (not having to agree to them) and be willing to listen, reject them without being offended, surprised or resentful? It's not like we haven't both been here before.

I'll get back to you ASAP on those CW draft numbers and dates.

Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on January 28, 2005)

Neil,
Have you checked out the American Memory site lately? Opinions?
As to draft numbers. Good luck. t appears there was no single date as each state petitioned to get it postponed til after election, harvest etc etc. So it was not a flat rate right now thing. Modified constantly. But end result was in 64 the call up exceeded what the man reported.

[unionblue]

Tommy,

No, I have not checked out the American Memory site because of what you have stated in your above posts. I will be really ticked off if this site has been made hard to navigate or use as it is one of the best for research you tipped off to me.

I am finding out through my numerous attempts at surffing the net just how hard it is to get those draft numbers and dates and my book Civil War Years, A Day-by-Day Chronicle, is slow going at best. At this time of night my eyes keep crossing or my forehead bangs my desk when I pass out for want of sleep!

And I will not 'go quitely into that night' and give 'that man' any credit for not lying because 'eventually' the numbers of the '64 call up exceeded the number he lied about at the time he falsely reported them in the two papers mentioned. That argument sort of reminds me of Dan Curtis's argument about Sherman being 'evil' even before he was a member of the Union Army. If the reporter could accurately predict the future and reported what those numbers were going to be, no problem. But at the time of the report, he lied out of his A-hat to kick up the price of gold, faked a proclamation from Lincoln, which is why, in my own opinion, he was arrested.

This is not to say that old Abe wasn't put out by the fact it made his call for men tougher, but it does not in any way relieve the reporter from the fact he was lying about the figures at the time. But I will concede that the numbers were more than likely higher after the incident due to subsequent call ups. I just want to check and be sure on that point too.

Besides, I got the time and the computer here at work to do the checking so why not? Gotta sign off for now and get ready for shift change. See you later.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on January 28, 2005)

[unionblue]

Dawna,

I have not forgotten my promise to read your thread while searching for an answer concerning your questions on sources concerning Lincoln's 'violations' of civil liberties during the Civil War.

Concerning the Corning letter, Lincoln's response to the resolutions condemning the arrest and trial of Vallandigham, I do not consider it a letter of paranoia. It is an atempt to explain to the nation why the arrest happened and why the President had needed to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. I invite you to read the book Lincoln by David H. Donald, Chapter 16, A New Birth of Freedom, pages 440 - 444. It will explain much about why Lincoln took the stand he did and why.

As for my continuing tirade against the book The Real Lincoln and Thomas DiLorenzo, I hope you have read the information at the web sites provided so you can check your copy of the book against the errors, outtakes and spins found there. You also mentioned James G. Randall's book Constitutional Problems under Lincoln as a source, but did you know his research was flawed by a lack of research material? Please read the book The Fate of Liberty by Mark E. Neely, Jr., the EPILOGUE portion, starting at page 224 under the heading Historiography, where the other explains that Randall was basing much of his information provided by Democratic writers who had not researched the archives to any degree of accuracy.

I also await your response on your sources concerning the number of actual newspaper closings by Lincoln, viz other than DiLorenzo and any information on where to get the excellent book Suppression of Newspapers by Edward McPherson.

I know this is quick and dirty for you, but instead of transcribing hundreds of words and dozens of pages I hope you can avail yourself of the two books I mention above and see for yourself why I hold my opinions such as they are.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

Bill,

I have also not forgotten our series of verbal jabs concerning, how did you say it, how was the South going to 'force a slave on the Northern farmer and take away his white employee?' Or something to that effect. Could you please refresh my memory so that I may finally respond?

Unionblue

[unionblue]

Tommy,

Concerning Gen. Butler's woman order, I have found two web sites that state no woman in New Orleans was ever threatened by rape from Union troops as a result of his 'woman order.'

However, I have found several, what I consider, partisan web sites who makes such claims as 'because of the Butler rape proclamation, women ceased their untoward behavior for fear of being raped by Union soldiers, etc.' but I find nothing in period documentation that relays such an attitude or fear from the women of New Orleans of rape. The main fear communicated was fear of reputations being damaged, not physical harm or sexual assault.

Here are the two sites I found:

http://www.civilwarhome.com/butlerwomanorder.htm

http://www.multied.com/Bio/UGENS/USAButler.html

The order is most called Butler's 'woman order' not his rape proclamation. Again, I find the later a 20-21st century label applied up 'here' with an entirely different spin than what the women of New Orleans felt at the time.

I'm still researching the numbers of men and when Lincoln called them up, but it is slow going. You were right that a lot of times the call-ups were delayed or resisted. I'll keep trying.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[dawna]

Neil:

I always appreciate and welcome your opinions but I find this week I'm dancing as fast as I can! Having to take last week off because of my accident, I have much to catch up on now, but I will get back to you as soon as I can. As always, thank you for the reading suggestions.

Dawna