Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
That was a situation where Lee had already accepted an assignment in good faith and therefore had a duty to perform. In the hypothetical, Lee had not yet accepted such an assignment. I frankly can't see him accepting it, and therefore in my opinion he resigns. He would remain loyal to the Union as long as Virginia remained loyal to the Union, but he wouldn't lead an invasion of the south.
Oh, no, Lee had the same choice in both cases. If offered an assignment that he believed was wrong, he could resign. He believed both were wrong. In the case of Mexico, he chose to go and fight anyway. In the case of the Confederacy, he chose to leave US service by resigning and accept the commission with the Confederacy. His stated reason was that he felt he must follow Virginia, so we must assume he would have followed Virginia no matter which way that state went.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Looked up ToTC it says 129 on the plantaion 200 in all, and is from 1840 LA census data, your punishment work out is also wrong, 365 days a year, 160 incidents over 2 years is 4.5 days rate of incidence, not what you posted, a small difference but not dependednt on the number of hands subject to punishment, 65% of which never recieved any punishment in the 2 years.
Do you have a link to the source you used?.
Hanny, please stop picking nits and being wrong while you are at it. For example, you have just embarrassed yourself several times in this calculation you say you have done.
To start out with, 1840 was a leap year, so 1840-1841 is actually 366 + 365 = 731 days. Even giving you the advantage of this extra day, your calculation is wrong: 731 / 160 = 4.56875 days. Yet you complain that I was too high when your calculation was clearly wrong and too low. Did you actually bother to do the math before posting?
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Not in Texas. He already had the assignment, and to agree to support secession at that time would be to neglect his duty. In the hypothetical, he would be faced with accepting an assignment or resigning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
If offered an assignment that he believed was wrong, he could resign. He believed both were wrong. In the case of Mexico, he chose to go and fight anyway. In the case of the Confederacy, he chose to leave US service by resigning and accept the commission with the Confederacy. His stated reason was that he felt he must follow Virginia, so we must assume he would have followed Virginia no matter which way that state went.
Tim
Look at Lee's racial outlook on Mexicans vs. White Southerners.
Not in Texas. He already had the assignment, and to agree to support secession at that time would be to neglect his duty. In the hypothetical, he would be faced with accepting an assignment or resigning.
In Texas, he was no longer in acting command, having been superceded back in December, IIRR, first by a senior colonel arriving and then by Twiggs finally arriving in January. Both were senior to Lee, and Lee was travelling home on leave when he arrived in San Antonio to find McCullogh's Texans had used force to detain Twiggs and the garrison, occupy Federal posts, etc.
Military officers do not shrug responsibility on and off that easily, however. Lee had sworn a personal oath to the United States. As an honorable man, his duty was clear, and I am sure he would have taken action if he had thought he should. If Twiggs had issued orders to take action, I am sure Lee would have obeyed them, for example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
Look at Lee's racial outlook on Mexicans vs. White Southerners.
I don't think that is a justified shot at Lee. If he had truly felt the war with Mexico was wrong, I don't believe he would have let any racial feelings towards Mexicans (who he hardly ever would have met anyway in 1846) get in the way of his decision to take the assignment with Scott in Mexico.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
In Texas, he was no longer in acting command, having been superceded back in December, IIRR, first by a senior colonel arriving and then by Twiggs finally arriving in January. Both were senior to Lee, and Lee was travelling home on leave when he arrived in San Antonio to find McCullogh's Texans had used force to detain Twiggs and the garrison, occupy Federal posts, etc.
As the Lieutenant Colonel of the 2nd US Cavalry, whose assignment was Texas, Lee's duty was to uphold the Constitution. Wouldn't be the case with him in Virginia with no specific assignment and then being offered command of troops to invade southern states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Military officers do not shrug responsibility on and off that easily, however. Lee had sworn a personal oath to the United States. As an honorable man, his duty was clear, and I am sure he would have taken action if he had thought he should. If Twiggs had issued orders to take action, I am sure Lee would have obeyed them, for example.
Going far afield here. Lee's responsibility would be either lead the invasion or resign. My view is that he would resign. Lee's personal oath to the United States didn't prevent him from going with Virginia when Virginia seceded. It wouldn't prevent him from resigning rather than lead an invasino of the south.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
I don't think that is a justified shot at Lee. If he had truly felt the war with Mexico was wrong, I don't believe he would have let any racial feelings towards Mexicans (who he hardly ever would have met anyway in 1846) get in the way of his decision to take the assignment with Scott in Mexico.
Tim
See Elizabeth Brown Pryor's _Reading the Man._ Lee had a poor opinion of Mexicans as a race of people.
Hanny, please stop picking nits and being wrong while you are at it. For example, you have just embarrassed yourself several times in this calculation you say you have done.
I am not embarese to pont out that you maths is different from the source you say you used.
Quote:
To start out with, 1840 was a leap year, so 1840-1841 is actually 366 + 365 = 731 days. [q/quote]
Barrows diary for 160 whippings is not over 731 days, so please get it right before posting further.
Even giving you the advantage of this extra day, your calculation is wrong: 731 / 160 = 4.56875 days. Yet you complain that I was too high when your calculation was clearly wrong and too low. Did you actually bother to do the math before posting?[/quote]
Yes, which was i know your misusing the sourc material.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
I am not embarese to pont out that you maths is different from the source you say you used.
Even giving you the advantage of this extra day, your calculation is wrong: 731 / 160 = 4.56875 days. Yet you complain that I was too high when your calculation was clearly wrong and too low. Did you actually bother to do the math before posting?
Yes, which was i know your misusing the sourc material.[/quote]
No, Hanny. You simply appear to be confused.
*You* have admitted there were 160 whippings in 1840-41. You say this was one every 4.5 days average, criticizing me for getting the math wrong when I stated it was one every 4.56 days. This is just silly nit-picking by you; even worse, you are wrong in stating it.
There are 731 days in those two years, with a leap year. That means 731 / 160 = 4.56875. Even if we forget the leap year, we have 730 / 160 = 4.5625. Yet you went out of your way to claim you had done the calculation and I was wrong about it, and when your error is pointed out to you, you make a false and misleading statement. This is the normal type of silliness we see from you -- along with your total failure ever to acknowledge your many mistakes.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Nope since i tracked down the paper you referd to, i know your misusing it.
Quote:
*You* have admitted there were 160 whippings in 1840-41.
nope thats from your post, (In the 1840 Census, Mr. Barrow had 129 slaves. A very detailed list of discipline on the planation has been found. Mr. Barrow had slaves whipped 160 times during the two-year period 1840-41. That implies he had a slave whipped every 4.56 days, on average, although often the whippings came in groups on the same day. One day he had his driver whipped because he had no idea who had committed a particular offense.)
I have it from barrows diary over what time period that is, and ist not what you calculate.
[[quote] You say this was one every 4.5 days average, criticizing me for getting the math wrong when I stated it was one every 4.56 days. This is just silly nit-picking by you; even worse, you are wrong in stating it.[quote]
no, i pointed out you have used different days from that of barrows diary to get a different number value, i tried to work out how you achived this but cant get the maths to work out as you did, using the number of whipping s over the time period covered in barrows diary.
Quote:
There are 731 days in those two years, with a leap year. That means 731 / 160 = 4.56875. Even if we forget the leap year, we have 730 / 160 = 4.5625. Yet you went out of your way to claim you had done the calculation and I was wrong about it, and when your error is pointed out to you, you make a false and misleading statement. This is the normal type of silliness we see from you -- along with your total failure ever to acknowledge your many mistakes.
you forget that the whippings dont cover a 2 year time period, they exceded that by 2 months or so, so its your inability to use the source material im pointing out, not my sillyness in pointing your ineptitude to use the data mathamaticly correctly.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
As the Lieutenant Colonel of the 2nd US Cavalry, whose assignment was Texas, Lee's duty was to uphold the Constitution. Wouldn't be the case with him in Virginia with no specific assignment and then being offered command of troops to invade southern states.
Lee's oath is the same in all situations, whether he is home on leave or in active duty in the field. The only thing that changes is the level of his responsibility, not his duty. Once Twiggs was in charge, Lee was subordinate. Lee arrived in San Antonio after Twiggs capitulated; he was bound to follow Twiggs unless he found Twiggs incompetent or a traitor and decided to forcibly relieve him (a very rare thing for a subordinate to do).
To give you a further example, there are those who say that Lee was in the wrong when he accepted a Virginia commission because his resignation from the United States Army had not yet been accepted. There was an overlap there (something on the order of a day or two, IIRR) where Lee had sent his resignation in and no action had been taken upon it. In a technical sense, Lee was honor-bound to the US until that resignation was accepted -- and since officers serve at the pleasure of the government, there really was no obligation on the part of the US to accept his resignation. This is obviously pretty picky stuff, but it is the way it is, and there have been those who argued Lee could be charged with treason as a result.
Compare this with, say, Congressman Pryor of Virginia in 1861. Pryor is a serving US Congressman, bound by his oath of office and taking pay from the Federal government in April of 1861. He is still a citizen of the United States; Virginia has not yet voted for secession. Yet Pryor is down in Charleston, harranguing the crowd to "Strike a blow!" so that Virginia will secede, and serving as an aide to Beauregard during the assault on Ft. Sumter; heck, he's in the party that rows out to see if the fort has surrendered yet. I see this as an undoubted case of Treason, provable under the Constitution. Yet Pryor, who never bothered to resign from Congress or declare himself no longer a citizen of the United States, is said to have been an honorable man. (Possibly no one accused him of this treason to his face because he was a well-known duelist.)
I find it ludicrous that there are those who want to claim Lee was a traitor over a minor technicality, yet none who want to say Pryor was a traitor when the case is so clear. But then life is rarely fair, and people's judgement is seldom objective. Even mine!
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
nope thats from your post, (In the 1840 Census, Mr. Barrow had 129 slaves. A very detailed list of discipline on the planation has been found. Mr. Barrow had slaves whipped 160 times during the two-year period 1840-41. That implies he had a slave whipped every 4.56 days, on average, although often the whippings came in groups on the same day. One day he had his driver whipped because he had no idea who had committed a particular offense.)
I have it from barrows diary over what time period that is, and ist not what you calculate
no, i pointed out you have used different days from that of barrows diary to get a different number value, i tried to work out how you achived this but cant get the maths to work out as you did, using the number of whipping s over the time period covered in barrows diary.
you forget that the whippings dont cover a 2 year time period, they exceded that by 2 months or so, so its your inability to use the source material im pointing out, not my sillyness in pointing your ineptitude to use the data mathamaticly correctly.
The Barrow diary time period given is actually 23 months, according to people who have made a careful study of the matter, which would only make the whippings/day go up -- not down as you claim.
Most references to Barrow trace to the Time on the Cross book by Fogel and Engerman. Much of this was debunked back in the 1970s when the Davis edition of Barrow's diary was comprehensively reviewed. Among other things, it has been shown that the number of whippings Barrow recorded is actually 175 (not 160) assuming Barrow recorded them all. Further, it appears most of these whippings were concentrated on the 66 people identified as "cotton pickers". A group of 50 of these men and women were whipped 130 times during the 23 month period in the diary. This does not include the various other punishments Barrow visited upon his slaves at the same time -- just the whippings. As the study by Gutman and Sutch says, "Barrow jailed, chained, beat with a stick, threatened with death, shot with a gun, raked the heads of, and humiliated his slaves" over and above the whippings mentioned. It doesn't include Barrow having his dogs drag a runaway out of a tree and savage him -- then bringing the slave back to the plantation and having the dogs do it again in front of the rest of the slaves so they'd get the message -- which is also recorded in the Barrow diary.
This, of course, is someone described as a "good" master (at least by his fellow slaveowners). Davis, the editor of the diary, considered that Barrow's whipping was “of the mild variety.” Imagine what a bad one was like.
Time on the Cross is not a terrible book. It is just limited in what was known at the time, and falls short of the real horror of the conditions, much of which have been uncovered since.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
