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.
What can I say, Ed? I wanted a thread that would get some pro and con thoughts going on what happened to people when placed in untenable positions.
Naturally I expect to hear different sides of the coin from Yank and Reb alike on some of these but it should prove to be immensely enjoyable.
And I truly didn't try to draw blood....
__________________ Thea
No one has permission to use any material from any of my posts on any CWT forum, the archives, or any other forum without my express written permission.
Before the War, on the subject of Kansas and the Black Republicans, the Lecompton Union (Kansas) had these remarks:
"The Black Republicans have all along shown their determination to keep up the excitement in Kansas in order to have some hobby out of which to manufacture political capital to carry them through the approaching Presidential election..." Tales of butchery, massacre, and murder, "furnished by lying correspondents and telegraphic reporters, were going the rounds of the Northern abolition press." These were "falsehoods too palpable to be believed even by the vilest abolition fanatics," yet their flow went unchecked as a means of creating political capital. "Kansas was made to bleed for the benefit of Northern politicians in their pursuit of popular favor," said the Union after the election was over.--Lecompton Union, Aug. 30, Oct. 2, 1856, April 27, 1857.
Charles Sumner and the "Crime against Kansas" speech delivered in the Senate on the 19th and 20th of May 1860 was a masterly tirade such as only Sumner could have given. http://www.iath.virginia.edu/seminar/unit4/sumner.html Even today it has not lost its fire. Its very brilliance emphasized its disregard of truth and sportsmanship. It assumed the unquestioned soundness of every charge made against the slave power in Kansas, and poured appropriate disdain and abuse upon the unoffending head of the aged Senator Butler of South Carolina. "The most un-American and unpatriotic speech that ever grated on the ears" of Congress, said Senator Cass. "...Is it his object to provoke some one of us to kick him as one would a dog in the street, that he may get sympathy upon the just chastisement?" Sumner is "essentially a man of emotions and sentiments," said one of his Boston friends, "it is easy for him to believe anything to be true that he wishes to..I do not think he has a truthful mind."--Cong. Globe, 34 Cong., I Sess., Appx 529-544; for Cass's statement, ibid., 544; for Douglas's reply, ibid., 544-546; G.S. Hilliard to F. Lieber, Dec. 8, 1854 (Lieber MS.).
Preston S. Brooks, representative from South Carolina and relative to Senator Butler, quickly put Douglas's suggestion to practice. Two days after the offensive speech, while Sumner sat at his desk after the adjournment of the Senate, Brooks expressed his contempt for both the man and his words by beating him over the head with a gutta-percha walking stick. His object was insult as much as injury. Gentlemen would understand the significance of a caning.
__________________ Thea
No one has permission to use any material from any of my posts on any CWT forum, the archives, or any other forum without my express written permission.
The way it seems to me, if Man #1 is sitting at his desk and Man #2, without giving any warning or offering Man #1 any opportunity to defend himself, walks up and starts whacking him over the head with a cane, Man #2 has performed a vicious and cowardly act.
If that's not what a gentleman would have understood to be the significance of a caning, then I guess I wouldn't have been considered a gentleman by the standards of the day.
Believe Thea was intimating that caning was not so much an assault as it was, to gentlemen, humiliating. So rather than beating the stuffing out of the assaultee, Brooks was merely humilating him.
I wouldn't have been a gentleman either. Brooks body would have assumed room temperature long before I got out of the hospital.
Ole
Our southern gentleman would condone avenging an insulted kin with a death. With that in mind, he certainly understands the mindset of Yankee troops when they crossed into South Carolina after nearly 4 years of hard-living.
If "words" are that hurtful, then "sticks and stones" cannot be far behind.
Ole
Ole,
Are you contending that it was ok for the north to be inflammatory, incite violence and conduct a campaign practically Designed to alienate the South? That personal attacks upon a person behind their backs was the right thing to do? There was a line McClellen used in a letter once. 'I'd have made the issue my own and sought satisfaction.' Or similar. Code Duello. Not attacking and destroying the lives and livelihoods of women and helpless children. Yeah, sticks and stones.
Ole,
Are you contending that it was ok for the north to be inflammatory, incite violence and conduct a campaign practically Designed to alienate the South? That personal attacks upon a person behind their backs was the right thing to do? There was a line MacClellen used in a letter once. I'd have made the issue my own and sought satisfaction. Code Duello. Not attacking and destroying the lives and livelihoods of women and helpless children. Yeah, sticks and stones.
And the south was not inflammatory, did not incite violence and did not wage a campaign designed to alienate itself from the north. Personal attacks were not uncommon and it would seem that a derogatory address is not exacty behind one's back.
I'd draw a line between insult and injury. There was a lot of insult going back and forth. Most of the insult directed at the south was from a small minority of northerners. Abolitionists. (May they rot in the same cell as the aristocratic rulers of the south.) While you rail against provocation, try to understand that provocation did exist on both sides, exists on both sides, and will likely exist for a long time -- at least until we learn better.
"Destroying the lives and livelihoods of women and helpless children?" May I repeat, get real.
"Destroying the lives and livelihoods of women and helpless children?" May I repeat, get real.
You also said : "Our southern gentleman would condone avenging an insulted kin with a death. With that in mind, he certainly understands the mindset of Yankee troops when they crossed into South Carolina after nearly 4 years of hard-living."
That 'mindset' was one of deprivation to women and children. To think otherwise is unreal. You seem hooked upon the phrase "get Real" So why don't you? To make the assumption I would understand warring upon women and children..well, Pull the other one. It hath got bells on.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
