Lee's High Hopes for Maryland

[johan_steele]

When is an exagerration a lie? 38,000 or 1? 38,000 or 100? etc...

[unionblue]

Hal,

In reference to your post #49, 'a tad enabling'? That understatement would be funny if it was not so tragic!

Again, I see you have not seen fit to comment on the numbers and figures I have provided as to those civilians actually arrested in the State of Maryland. So be it.

Now you seem to be making more unsupported claims, such as, "arrested newspaper editors and shut down their papers on the grounds of voicing opinions contrary to the chief executive's." Your proof, please.

And no, Hal, in spite of your own opinion on the subject, the definitions you give do NOT suit Lincoln 'snuggly' nor his actions during the Civil War, in my opinion.

As for your quote of Seward's shocking boast, here is a bit more on Seward's efforts during the time frame you allude to, from the book, Lincoln's Constitution, by Daniel Far ber:

"William H. Seward, the secretary of state, was in charge of military arrests until February 1862, when control was transferred to the War Department. He reputedly told the British ambassador that he had more power than the British monarch and could order the arrest of a citizen anywhere in the country by ringing a little bell on his desk. But under Sweard's supervision, the government arrested fewer than nine hundred civilians, a small percentage of the wartime total. Seward was busy with other pressing matters like keeping England out of the war. He also lacked any administrative apparatus for making these arrest. Besides, most disloyal Americans were out of the government's reach at that time. Of those who were arrested, many were in effect enemy aliens--residents of the Confederacy. Only about a hundred of the prisoners lived above the border states in uncontested Union territory."

"...After September 24, 1862, suspects were not merely detained without legal process, they were also tried by military tribunals. The jurisdiction of these tribunals extended to "all Rebels and Insurgents, their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, affording aid and comfort to Rebels against the authority of the United States." What authoritarian government could have asked for a broader charter?

Thus, it is understandable that Lincoln should have been accused of dictatorship. Nevertheless, these charges were exaggerated. According to the most careful study of the arrests, very few were politically motivated. Far from being an authoritarian ruler, Lincoln was sorely beset by the leaders of his own party in Congress, by the opposition party, and by public opinion. Most importantly, he always faced the possible wrath of the electorate. Although Lincoln's reelection was in grave doubt, no thought was given to suspending the democratic process. If it had not been for some crucial military victories by the North, Lincoln would have lost to George McClellan in 1864."

One author has said concerning holding the presidential election of 1864, he was surprised they were held at all.

I await your proof, documentation, etc.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[ole]

Hal:
Thanks for trying. I was simply trying to avoid reading all of my McPherson books to find what you were objecting to. Thus far, what I've read has not given me the same impression that you got, but then, I just read, usually uncritically. I was hoping to find the same bias you did which would give me additional critical perception.''

It's been years since I've read any McPherson, with the exception of "For cause and comrades." While I'm finishing that one, I'll look for bias, but I'm not given to reopen all the others for that single purpose.

Again. Thanks for the nod to my request. At the very least, you were good enough to give it a reply.

Ole

[unionblue]

Hal,

I seem to have found an item that may support your contentions above.

A correspondent for a local newspaper was arrested by the military at three o'clock in the afternoon of the day Ft. Sumter surrendered. It seems this correspondent had written a story in that local newspaper of rumored positions of batteries in the area. After the story was published, the man was summoned to military headquarters, accused of being a traitor, and then placed under arrest by the commanding general. Although the man proclaimed himself a loyal citizen and his innocence, he was placed under arrest. No charges were filed, even when the man demanded a trial to clear his name and the courts in the area were open and functioning.

Whoops! Sorry, seems like this above incident took place in Pensacola, Florida, with one General Bragg arresting a Lawrence H. Mathews, thus making this the first arrest of a citizen\civilian on April 14, 1861, even before President Lincoln called out troops to suppress the rebellion.

From the book, Southern Rights, Political Prisoners and the Myth of Confederate Constitutionalism, by Mark E. Neely Jr:

"The Confederate government restricted civil liberties as modern democratic nations did in war. We did not know this until now, partly because the evidence, lying in inprobable archives, was easily overlooked. We also did not know because the very creators of the Confederate state later retouched its image, painting over the scenes of arrest and imrisonment to present what seemed to them a prettier picture of a people united in a long history of constitutionalsim and uncompromising dedication to southern rights. That image was false as any forgery and misled later historians, but the true canvas presenting a rougher image is now emerging into view. The next step should be its full integration into an accurate narrative of Confederate history."

More to follow...
Unionblue

Southern Rights, Political Prisoners and the Myth of Confederate Constitutionalism....That is a very objective title. Almost as objective as some of his books, like 'The Last Best Hope of Earth.' You know the one. It had Lincoln on the cover. Very objective author. More to follow? Hope not from likes of him. Sheeeesh..And ya'll give the Kennedy's a hard time.

[sgtcsa]

Ummm,
And the North never did anything THAT terrible.................did they!

SgtCSA

[hawglips]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Again, I see you have not seen fit to comment on the numbers and figures I have provided as to those civilians actually arrested in the State of Maryland. So be it.

Neil, I don't believe there is any way of knowing for sure. If the Columbia Law Review suggests a much, much higher number than Neely, and when other historians such as James Randall in his book "Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln" tell us that there are no solid records on the exact number of such arbitray arrests, and when you're above quote says that the 900 or so under Seward's watch were only a "small percentage" of the total -- then that only reinforces the uncertainty.

To push the total up closer to the high end of the spectrum, the following can be found in the Photographic History of the Civil War, Volume IV, Article by Holland Thompson:

Meanwhile, Colonel Milligan had appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which took up the case and finally decided April 3, 1866, that " a military commission in a State not invaded . . . in which the Federal courts were open . . . . had no jurisdiction to try, convict, or sentence for any criminal offense a citizen who was neither a resident of a rebellious State, nor a prisoner of war, nor a person not in the military or naval service." Among the other points decided was that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus did not suspend the writ itself. This case was important, as according to it hundreds of trials by military commission in the loyal States were invalid.

How many persons were thus arrested and imprisoned without warrant during the course of the war cannot now be settled with any degree of accuracy, according to the statement of General F. C. Ainsworth, when chief of the Record and Pension Office. The records of the Federal commissary-general of prisoners from February, 1862, until the close of the war show that 13,535 citizens were arrested and confined under various charges. General Ainsworth is certain, however, that many arrests, possibly several thousand, were made by military commanders or provost-marshals, and were not reported to the commissary-general of prisoners.

Contrary to the usual opinion, arrests without warrant were less frequent in the Confederate than in the United States. President Davis did not assume the right to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and this privilege was grudgingly granted him by the Confederate Congress for limited periods only and with important limitations.

As is easily imagined, the nature of arresting civilians with no requirement to charge them and with no right to a trial by a wide range of zealous military officers is a recipe for disaster. If you want to believe that since there were only a thousand or so arrested with usurped powers, and not 38,000 as some suggest, then that makes it OK, then so be it. My view is that the higher estimates notwithstanding, what we do know for certain is already absolutely ****ing.

This just highlights how far we are apart in our views regarding the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Much like our views of self-determination.

Now you seem to be making more unsupported claims, such as, "arrested newspaper editors and shut down their papers on the grounds of voicing opinions contrary to the chief executive's." Your proof, please.

"More unsupported claims"? I previously furnished what you asked, a source for the 38,000 number. Is it "unsupported" because you can find figures to disagree with it? Or because I gave it? I would respectfully request that you reconsider your statement.

But anyway, is the above a trick question? Since I'm certain you're aware of instances of Lincoln's despotic suppression of the press, I'll list one less publicized instance that you may not be aware of (from the Official Records).

HEADQUARTERS TROOPS OF KEY WEST,
May 8, 1861.
Captain GEORGE L. HARTSUFF,
Assistant Adjutant-General, Hdqrs. Department Florida:

CAPTAIN: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 2nd instant this 10 a. m. There have been no secession flags flying since my peremptory order on the subject. The military organization called the "Island Guards" has disbanded, in consequence of my directing the mayor to furnish me with the muster roll, which he did. The newspaper called the "Key of the Gulf" I suppressed, be cause it was uttering treasonable and threatening language against the judiciary and other United States officers. I directed the mayor to inform the editor (a Mr. Ward) that he was under military surveillance, and that the fact of his not being in the cells of this fort for treason was simply a matter as to expediency and proper point of time. To enable me to meet such cases with promptitude, I published on the 6th instant Colonel Brown's proclamation suspending the writ of habeas corpus. At this date I have not deemed it advisable to follow it with any restrictions upon the municipal authorities or the citizens of the town. As cases have arisen they were at once met, and I will continue this gradual enforcement of the power of the U. S. Government, thus allowing loyal citizens aid and support in their duties and pursuits.

I have the gratification to know that my course has the approval of the judicial officers here, and has given universal satisfaction to the Union-loving citizens, besides others whose interests are compromised by the acts of secessionists....

I am, sir, very respectfully, your most obedient servant,

WM. H. FRENCH,
Brevet Major, Commanding.

"William H. Seward, the secretary of state, was in charge of military arrests until February 1862, when control was transferred to the War Department. He reputedly told the British ambassador that he had more power than the British monarch and could order the arrest of a citizen anywhere in the country by ringing a little bell on his desk. But under Sweard's supervision, the government arrested fewer than nine hundred civilians, a small percentage of the wartime total. Seward was busy with other pressing matters like keeping England out of the war. He also lacked any administrative apparatus for making these arrest. Besides, most disloyal Americans were out of the government's reach at that time. Of those who were arrested, many were in effect enemy aliens--residents of the Confederacy. Only about a hundred of the prisoners lived above the border states in uncontested Union territory."

And this changes something? You seem to be contradicting your earlier quote that only slighty over 1000 civilians were arrested. But here, you're saying that 900 was a "small percentage of the wartime total." Which do you believe?

Once again, you seem to be saying that it was "not as bad as some believe" so then it was not shocking?

I honestly cannot comprehend such a perspective in this country.

One author has said concerning holding the presidential election of 1864, he was surprised they were held at all.

Again, suppressing an election wasn't as bad as not having it at all? So that makes it acceptable to you?

No offense intended Neil, but I fear the gulf between our respective attitudes on liberty and Constitution is unfathomable.

Hal

[whitworth]

Lee made a mistake when he believed that Maryland would support the Confederacy.
Until the Confederate army entered Maryland, Lee did not realize the meagre support his army would receive in that state.
Lee was surprised that a small supply of beef was available and as he wrote to Jefferson Davis in 1862, that "the inhabitants are said to have driven many off to Pennsylvania.
Lee at the start of the war did not grasp logistics and the huge amount of logistics the U.S. government would put into the war. Or that Confederate supply, early in the war, was a disaster waiting to happen.
At best, the Confederate army could raid Maryland and the western part of Virginia, but would never have the logistical system to defend and hold that territory over a long period.
Logistics made Maryland, the impossible Confederate dream.

[unionblue]

Hal,

Sorry for taking so long to reply to your post number 57.

While I tend to agree with your comment that you believe there is no certain way of knowing for sure on the exact numbers of civilian arrests made during the war. Neely does tend to agree with you and others that the number was more than likely closer to the 38,000 figure than the 13,535 given by General F.C. Ainsworth.

The numbers I gave you, though, specifically concerned the State of Maryland, and were provided from historical sources that are on record and can be verified.

I also wish to comment on the source you reference, The Photographic History of the Civil War, Volume IV, Article by Holland Thompson. I also have this set of unique books and know that some of that information is far out of date, if it is the same collection. Could you please tell me the date the book was first published so I can be sure?

I am also sure Smith is pretty well out-dated as well, as Neely points out in his own book when it came to previous books written on the subject. Thanks for the references anyway. My 'unsupported' statement came from the idea that you had not previously given any source documentation until then and I apologize if I have given offense.

Neely goes on to say there are records available but they are badly scattered and not yet put on microfilm and must all be reviewed by hand. In his book he lists numbers from records he had access to and expresses his hope that these other records will become available soon for future research.

I also tend to agree with you that zealous military officers arresting civilians with no requirement to charge them is a potential recipe for disaster. There were mistakes made, no doubt about it. But I do believe you may have misread some of my posts or taken them out-of-context as you make the comment that I want to believe that since ther were only a thousand or so arrested with usurped powers then that makes it OK. This is where we disagree. Usurped powers? Kinda hard for me to go for that when Congress endorsed his actions and even provided for the President to make further suspensions of the writ in the future if required.

I am also puzzeled how you can make claims that you know my views regarding the Constitution and how far apart we are from a few posts, especially how you can claim the document in question is the Supreme Law of the Land and then turn around and support secession. As for my views on self-determination, I fear you are reading your own views over mine, but I expect that, but I caution you that you do not have all the information you need to make that judgment call.

As for the newspapers shut down for voicing opinions contrary to the President's, far too often I have seen the 300 newspapers shut down but no proof or list of said papers. My own research in this area has led me to about 30 newspapers shut down (in the North) during the war, many for reasons other than voicing opinions, and no one has been able to point me to a list of said papers to prove this statement.

As for the example you give, a Southern newspaper in a Southern State? You don't think that exhorting the men to support the rebellion and not give up the fight would NOT come under treason, rebellion, etc? I would very much like examples of Northern papers shut down for just voicing their opinions, as this always seems to be the implication when the 300 figure is brought up.

As for my last quote, where I give the figure arrested by Seward as about 900, again, you might be confusing my earlier quote concerning the number of civilians arrested in Maryland with the total number of civilians arrested by Seward when he and his department was in charge of military arrests. The main mistake I think you and others make when considering these numbers are why the arrests took place at all.

You seem to imply all were done to supress political views or movements, free speech, freedom of the press, etc. The research and material I have read over the years states that most of the civilians arrested during the war were done in connection with draft evasion, trading with the enemy, desertion, civilians supporting the Confederacy, etc., in other words, crimes.

Were some arrested for political opposition and voicing views contrary to the Administration? It is possible, even likely, but not in the numbers suggested by yourself or others who trot out the 38,000 number. The figure is used mainly in an emotional context rather than a factual one and fails to take into account arrests of a non-political nature.

And again, the Confederacy seems to get a pass if it commits the same sort of actions and I am surprised that the passport system put in place that restricted freedom of movement draws no comment at all. Even though no vote was taken, no debate in the Confederate Congress, it is put in place and stays throughout the entire war. As for freedom of the press in the South, that was long gone before the war. In fact, the Southern press was already 'tamed' in that it could not voice any views against slavery or alternatives to that problem for years prior to the war.

Your last statement in your post is truly confusing to me. What suppressed election are you referring to? Again, I think my true meaning has escaped you. If Lincoln was such a dictator, a man who gave no concern to rights and free speech, why have an election at all in 1864? I know that Lincoln was told by some of his advisors NOT to hold an election in the middle of a war, but he insisted it take place. Even when he thought he was going to lose it. Does this in any way makes sense if you are a despot bent on keeping power?

No offense taken, Hal, as I feel you do not really know me or have a good fix on what my own attitude is on liberty and the Constitution. It is our view of historical events and how we view them so differently is what I consider a real challenge.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

Tommy,

In reference to your post number 55, I just want to assure you that I have never had any problem with the title of a book, lets say like, The South Was Right, or The Real Lincoln. Looking at a title of a book gives very little indication at times if it is going to be objective or not. What's the old saying, 'You can't judge a book by it's cover?"

It was the content of those two books that I found objectionable, not the titles. I read them in spite of their titles, just like I have read other books. Judging a book by its cover would be a true 'lost cause' in my opinion.

Unionblue