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.
Hal, do some looking into those mobs in Baltimore... I do heartily wish the order "Street Fight, March!" had been given, or perhaps the USS Constitution had been used as Burnside promised. But then I have never been sympathetic of rioting mobs in the street.
Most of the Union casualties were unarmed soldiers... the way mobs like them. When they're armed they have a tendency to shoot back.
You're right it is a pity your GG grandfather wasn't w/ Lee any further into Maryland... a Yank or two might have had a shot at him. was he paroled later r did he de in a Northern POW camp?
Lee was hoping to get massive numbers of recruits from Maryland... I just can't see him being that naive. I believe that proclomation was written by someone else and issued in Lee's name. Frankly, it just doesn't sound like Lee to me.
Lincoln was killed by a raving coward, Booth lacked the courage to serve in the line. That isn't my opinion but one of a ANV man. Significant that he was killed by a Marylander? No, significant that it was a tragedy for both sides of the fight.
__________________ Shane Christen
American Legion Post 352
SUVCW Camp Abernethy# 48
Lifetime NRA member
3rd MN VI
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Eccl 1:18
Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky. Mixed states skillfully (and, for the most part, legally, but not always) not allowed to align themselves with the rebellious confederacy.
So many sides, subdivisions of sides, actions, reactions, maneuvering and political games. Real life. Not theoretical. Theoretical tends to slide, somehow, into the ash heap of hindsight when practical, authoritative necessity appears.
Gentlemen, I submit that we are, on this subject, generating sound and fury, signifying nothing. Maryland was, technically, a southern state. In actuality, it was not. It fielded units that fought on both sides. It was internally divided. It held a position simiar to Kentucky's. It was retained in the union by practices that are, today, questioned. So what else is new?
Lee apparently thought he might recruit some additional soldiers as an adjunct to his other purposes for moving north. (Thank you, Hal, for putting a blot on Lee's intelligence that I did not want to concede.) That part of the reason for invasion didn't pan out. But some of his intentions did reach fruition: the Northern hell-raisers got a setback, the smugness got questioned, and the Northern conviction that the South was effete was challenged.
On Lee's adverse side was that he was effectively moved forcefully out of Maryland which boosted Northern resolve.
Lee's high hopes had some logic behind it. Didn't happen. It was an idea we can look at today as a bit flawed. At the time, it had merit. The results he couldn't have anticipated: the effect on northern morale, the Emancipation Proclamation and its subsequent effects internationally and nationally. Lee's high hopes for Maryland dissolved in mid-September, 1862.
As an aside, I'll submit that Lee was not defeated in that setback. He believed, and persisted in proving CSA might. In that we may logically consider that his thought processes were logical, reasoned and sane. He came so close to being right.
Please, Lincoln could not arrest everyone in Maryland. Do you have any sources or figures (thousands of them?) or sites I could go to and check up on your theory?
Unionblue
I am not sure which theory you are refering to, as your above statement doesn't seem to match up well with any thing I've said.
But if you are refering to my quip about most of Davis' support being in prisons by the time Lee crossed the Potomac, I don't think my exaggerated point is really too far off.
Hal, do some looking into those mobs in Baltimore... I do heartily wish the order "Street Fight, March!" had been given, or perhaps the USS Constitution had been used as Burnside promised. But then I have never been sympathetic of rioting mobs in the street.
Most of the Union casualties were unarmed soldiers... the way mobs like them. When they're armed they have a tendency to shoot back.
I guess the Baltimoreans that died at the hands of these unarmed soldiers were killed by imaginary bullets? I guess I'll need to look into that.
Well, I guess I never have been sympathetic to unwelcome armies.
Quote:
Lee was hoping to get massive numbers of recruits from Maryland... I just can't see him being that naive. I believe that proclomation was written by someone else and issued in Lee's name. Frankly, it just doesn't sound like Lee to me.
I suggest you do some looking into Lee. It sounds just like him to me (except for that part where you curiously state that he was hoping to get massive numbers of recruits from Maryland).
Quote:
You're right it is a pity your GG grandfather wasn't w/ Lee any further into Maryland... a Yank or two might have had a shot at him. was he paroled later r did he de in a Northern POW camp?
I'm sure plenty of Yanks took shots at him. He enjoyed Billy Yank hospitality at Ft. Delaware following his capture on the way to liberate Maryland, and was captured once again at Kelly's Ford, and enjoyed some more R&R at Pt. Lookout. He finished out the war in hospital recovering from a wound he received at Petersburg.
Yes, you have exaggerated and your point is way off.
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
You imply 'thousands', you give impressions but no facts, you imply, but give no historical proof, in other words, you exaggerate.
Saying a thing does not make it fact or true. I know you can do better than just a line or two that implies what you think. Your proof on the statement you give in post concerning the 'thousands' under arrest in Maryland, please.
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
As for the mobs in Baltimore who attacked Union soldiers marching from one train to another, for every action there is a reaction, is there not?
Is this your way of saying that the mobs had a reason to attack soldiers? As a reaction to being occupied and the abuses they'd suffered at the hands of those from the north? If you are not, you should be. The action/reaction sword cuts both ways.
When was Maryland officially occupied? Why did the mobs attack the soldiers marching through the streets? What was the make-up of the crowds? Who began the actual violence that led to the loss of life? What had those who began the violence in Baltimore suffered at the 'hands of those from the North?'
As with action/reaction, questions should cut both ways too, don't you think?
The main thrust of my statement you refer to I thought was quite obvious, but I will explain further. When you, as part of a mob, whether you feel 'occupied' or that in some way you have suffered at the 'hands of those from the North,' you throw a brick or stone with the intention of bashing out the brains of a Union soldier, you should not act surprised if that soldier responds in such a way to do you harm. One action results in a reaction.
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Lots of sources for documents and such on this site.
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
