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.
You will note that I very carefully avoided denigrating Lee, and I explicitly acknowledged that Grant had many advantages. But in the final analysis, written in the books, plain for generations to come in perpetuity, it was Lee's signature on the surrender document.
That's all I meant. Whether Lee was the better general is an entirely different subject. Supplies, shortages, disadvantages -- all are indictments of the Confederate politicos and, again, a different subject.
Your bar room analogy in Post 98 presupposes that the largest guy reacts to a mild provocation with thuggery.
An astute point. You've hit the nail right on the head.
Bill
Wow, Bill.
I don't know what street smarts are on your side of the pond, but I don't think I mentioned anywhere near a "mild provocation."
A mild provocation would be flying Sherman's flag from my antenna during our visit to Charleston and Savannah next spring. I'm not going to do that either.
Neil,
Just wanted you to know, that my idea's about Col. Mosby have not, nor will they, in any way, be distracted from the man's honor, as he showed toward the South, during the unpleasentness dealing with the relations between the North and South. Tis true, he spoke his mind dealing with those relations, after the war, and in some cases, he made some 'enemies' of his former comrades. I suppose he realized that the war was over, and so he decided to move on. In no way did he fight that conflict to perpetuate slavery. He fought for the honor of the South. I found something that seems to sum up his attitudes toward that struggle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ <H2>Mosby after the War
In the wake of the Civil War, Southern soldiers faced the task of guarding their honor in the midst of defeat. Mosby's belligerence in the months following Appomatox instigated a few fights, and even landed him in jail. Within time, however, his Union tendency -- manifested even before the war broke out -- returned. Mosby began to support the Republican party as the best hope for reconciliation, and formed an unlikely friendship with Gen. U.S. Grant that lasted the rest of their lives. Although villified by certain segments in Virginia, Mosby refused to bend his will. "Some said they couldn't sacrifice their principles for Grant's friendship. I didn't sacrifice mine" (Mosby in Jones, p.287). In 1972, Mosby backed Grant for re-election to the presidency and brought Virginia along with him, despite a vocal protest of old Confederate die-hards. Mosby had crossed the political Rubicon, and now emerged as a symbol for reconciliation at a divisive time in the nation's history.
The path was not an easy one. One Southern paper condemned Mosby's concilatory actions, declaring "he needs convincing -- in fact needs to be suppressed or abated. It is allowable to wish, but impossible to hope, that a firebrand of his sort can be quenched in any ordinary way. Some men are like fleas; no half-way measures will suffice for them. It is either torture you or death to them" (Jones, p.297). One night in 1877, an unknown sniper took a pot shot at Mosby as he stepped off a train in Warrenton, Va.
Reaction in the North, on the other hand, turned decidely pro-Mosby. After Mosby wrote a letter that indicated his aversion to sectional politics, the New York Herald responded, indicating their surprise that the former bushwacker was a "writer of peculiar piquancy and power" (Jones, p.298). Other papers followed with detailed stories about the periodic reunions Mosby's men held after the war.
As the 20th century arrived, the bitterness of Reconstruction had dissipated, and both North and South could take delight in Mosby's bygone days. One newspaper declared that Northern Virginians "hold his name as a household word, associated with all the highest qualities of the ideal Confederate soldier and leader." In 1915 the University of Virginia, which expelled Mosby for shooting a fellow student in 1853, bestowed on the Confederate colonel a bronze medal. An embossed address read: "Endowed with the gift of friendship, which won for you the confidence of both Lee and Grant, you have proven yourself a man of war, a man of letters, and a man of affairs worthy of the best traditions of your University and your State, to both of which you have been a loyal son" (Jones, p.307). Upon Mosby's death, one anonymous obituary clipping stated that "he was as much beloved in the North as he was in the South."
Mosby's partisanship for the Confederacy during the Civil War won him fame and honor throughout the South. After the war a similar partisanship manifested itself for the Republicans, and eventually earned him recognition as a symbol for the reunified Union. Throughout his life, Mosby's stubborn ways inspired either wild praise or caustic reproach; there was little middle ground when it came to one's impressions of the man. Americans, however, like their heros to be true to their ideals. The picture of Mosby that emerges in today's cultural landscape -- the wiry, innovative, rebel individualist -- conforms to this expectation. In this capacity his status as an icon both for the Confederacy as well as America as a whole seems assured.
Neil,
Here, also, is something that I thought you might find a little interesting, since you seem to find a lot of statements made by individuals, in this vast expanse of internet volumes. Perhaps you have noticed this before, if not, please note what he says about Grant! I still belive Lee a better General than Grant, and so it seems, does one Col. Mosby.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (17) In 1867 John Singleton Mosby, was interviewed in the Philadelphia Post about the merits of the different generals in the Union Army during the American Civil War.
Whom do you consider the ablest General on the Federal side?" "McClellan, by all odds. I think he is the only man on the Federal side who could have organized the army as it was. Grant had, of course, more successes in the field in the latter part of the war, but Grant only came in to reap the benefits of McClellan's previous efforts. At the same time, I do not wish to disparage General Grant, for he has many abilities, but if Grant had commanded during the first years of the war, we would have gained our independence. Grant's policy of attacking would have been a blessing to us, for we lost more by inaction than we would have lost in battle. After the first Manassas the army took a sort of 'dry rot', and we lost more men by camp diseases than we would have by fighting."
I provide the quote to show the man thought he knew what the war was about, not his reasons why he fought.
As to your second post, I have no argument with the man's statements over who he believed to be the better general on the Union side. I even recall Lee was called 'Granny Lee' and the 'King of Spades' when he first took over the ANV.
But I am also curious as to why Grant is called a butcher when Lee lost more men to frontal assaults while he commanded the ANV than Grant ever did, even with Cold Harbor, when he commanded the AOP.
And again, agreeing with Ole, in the end, it doesn't matter how many battles you win, its whose name is on the surrender document at the end of the war.
Sincerely,
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
I appreciate your curiousty concerning how others felt about civilian deaths throughout South Carolina and Georgia, as it is an area worthy of serious study and research. I can also appreciate your view that even one death of an innocent civilian to be a senseless tradgedy and worth mentioning and I fully agree with your view.
What I have trouble with is unsupported claims of 'thousands' or 'I have read of 50,000' of innocent civilian deaths brought up in previous posts on this thread. In my own view, this makes for good copy, but are poor proof. I liken such claims as smoke that obscures the very tradgedy you are trying to uncover and present in a serious light.
While Thea is very good at presenting letters and diaries that declare the looting, burning and destruction of homes and towns, I notice that all who write these letters and diaries are alive to write them.
I agree fully with your observation that the taking of one innocent life is a horrible act, but I also feel to accuse others of taking innocent lives when perhaps they did not, is also a grave injustice. Hence, my eternal stubborness and my desire to see sources or proof. Perhaps the Offical Records? Statements by Confederate officers in the field? Census records? The title of the book you read which informed you of that 50,000 figure?
It is just my opinion, Dawna, that if the number of civilian deaths is as high as some claim, there should be documented proof somewhere, as the Civil War has generated so much historical documentation as to be downright staggering at times. And surely, large numbers of civilian deaths would have been recorded somewhere outside individual diaries and letters which dealt with the writers own personal emotions of a particular incident. 'I have read of 50,000' is simply a figure that begs the question of historical accuracy. Emotional responses and pulling at the heart strings is not proof, in my own humble opinon.
How I envy you in England. The history, the places, the buildings! How I long to visit the Imperial War Museum, London, Scotland, all of it! To see the battlefields, to see the HMS Victory, how I wish I could make one more trip overseas.
Your UK bus trip sounds absolutely thrilling to me and then on to Europe! I would love to visit the battlefield at Waterloo, to see where the Wall once stood and perhaps visit Rome and imagine the Empire as it was. That is my idea of a perfect vacation, trudging from one historical site to another, footsore and happy.
I know you will always be the curious Canadian we have come to admire (and shudder at the prospect of your vexing questions) here on the board. But do go on about the attractions of England every chance you get. I would deeply appreciate it.
Take care of yourself, as I hear the avian flu might be headed your way, and the weather can still sneak up on you.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
I
__________________ "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
How I envy you in England. The history, the places, the buildings! How I long to visit the Imperial War Museum, London, Scotland, all of it! To see the battlefields, to see the HMS Victory, how I wish I could make one more trip overseas.
Neil:
I go by a piece of the Roman Wall almost every day and the thrill never leaves me; and I've been through English villages that I swear are so beautiful I feel as though I'm a mere after thought of a John Constable painting.
I plan to spend a few days in London at Christmas time and at long last I will make it to the Imperial War Museum...an absolute must, along with the battlefields! But if you and Sue ever do make it across The Pond again, I hope that you will come here for a visit and stay as long as you like. There's always the option of descending upon our Fabulous Brit Bill, and you never know; we might even be able to chip away at your stubborn Yankee soul...over a decanter of brandy and fine cigars, of course. :-)
Neil,
I have to say, that in some respects, you may be right, however, if that's the road we travel, then perhaps we should leave it at that, and that being, well, the war was fought, the north won, the South lost. Nothing more be said. When all is said and done, I suppose that doesn't leave much room for argument, does it? It may seem as if all the 'debating' isn't really worth the time and energy put into it. After all, if your view, your 'opinion', your sources, are what really matters most to you, and if all you wish to do is find fault with our reasons, then, as far as I can deduct out of all this, I guess there is really no reason to 'debate' the issues. I thought that we would learn about the why's and whyfores of this great conflict, but all I see coming out of it, is...................................mostly, nothing. Our opinions, for the most part, are pretty well entrenched in our minds, and it will take, probably more than our feeble efforts can muster up, to change.
I mean, just how much have you really found, during all of these 'discussions' with the Southerners, that has dramaticly changed your opinions on any important part of the war, or even it's beginnings? If, to you, and Ole, all the war can be boiled down to is this, your statement below, then why is there any room for debate or a debate at all?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And again, agreeing with Ole, in the end, it doesn't matter how many battles you win, its whose name is on the surrender document at the end of the war".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not just leave well enough alone? Let sleeping dogs lie, so to speak?
Not a whole lot gained if all you think is, that your opinion is better than anyone elses.
I realize that, that is not exactly what you said, but the implication is there. Perhaps I feel as if I'm just banging my head against the wall in participating in a lot of these, so called, discussions, but if minds, or even some thoughts, are not going to be changed, or even turned a little bit, then it all seems meaningless to me.........after all, Lee surrendered, Grant won, ..............times up, so goes the news.
Now, with this said, I would like to hear your take on this. I honestly would like to know. Do we disagree with this as well? Also, as for why 'historians' call Grant a butcher, and not Lee, well, I'll be doggone if I have a real definitive answer on that, so it looks as if you'll have to dig into why those reputable historians, and their sources, refer to Grant as such.
I have read your post#128 and I want to be sure what you are talking about.
I have stated in a previous post on this thread that I have my standards on sources and that I have my opinions on why I think what caused the war, why it was fought and why the men fought.
I insist that when people make a claim here on this board, they must 'put up or shut up.' That to make claims based on belief alone is no better than arguing religion. Anyone can do it and they need no proof to claim their 'way' is the right way and everyone else is going to hell.
It is my view that history is made up by historical facts. Such as;
Ft. Sumter was fired on by Southern forces.
Lincoln was assasinated.
Lee signed the surrender document at Appomatox.
Battles were fought and lost and the dates can be accounted for.
But it is the WHY of history that stirs my blood and causes me the most concern, that and emotional evidence that is sometimes provided without a shred of documented proof to support claims often made here at this board.
Let us take the statement that one poster has stated on this thread, 'I have read that 50,000 civilians were killed.' This statement was made with the reference that General Sherman's army of Union soldiers when they marched through Georgia and South Carolina. I am not willing to accept this figure as historically accurate based on that statement alone. Why? Where is the proof that supports this statement?
Now, I am willing to more than accept the fact that many civilians were uprooted, their property destroyed, that they were forced to flee their homes, that their lives were tramuatized and changed for the worst. The letters and diaries of the period presented by Thea and Dawna are very clear on that. But where is the proof that shows 50,000 civilian dead from Sherman's march to the sea and his later march through South Carolina?
Let's look on my insistance for sources and documents from another famous incident of the time. Ft. Pillow and the massacre there. Was there a massacre and was Gen. Forrest responsible for it? In my opinion, from what I have read and found, I can't form an infomed opinion one way or the other. But based on what I have read so far, from Congressional documents, statements given, I don't think Forrest ordered a massacre of black soldiers nor should he be held responsible for such an act, if it took place. Why? Because the evidence of the time leans more in his favor than any other conclusion I have read or seen.
The reason we have debates here is because it is supposed to help us learn and to present facts or sources we did not know about before. And mainly because it is fun. No, I don't expect to change my opinions on the causes of the war and why it was fought. But that does not mean it might not happen. And I have been surprised here by new information or how a new view on an old subject has been presented. Bill Torrens is an excellent example of that technique and Dawna has surprised me more than once in her take on the war. Thea will even tell you that I have had to admit that I was wrong on a particular fact concerning Ft. Sumter. I like to come here to learn, to confirm and to be surprised, but that don't come cheap or easy in my book.
Feelings are powerful things, but facts are what count in my own book. The recent discussion on Grant and Lee is an excellent example. History is constantly updated due to new facts and records being uncovered, new studies bing made, and because the further away from the events that took place at the time lets historians and people become more objective in their views. They are not emotionally invested in a particular view or side, so they can become more objective.
History should be served cold, logical and in a percise way, if at all possible. If you mix in blatant emotionalism and firey feelings you'll burn it beyond all recognition and learn nothing from it.
But, there is the other side of debating history, by subjecting it to the heat and fire of discussion, debate and demanding proof for ones views. As I have said before, pure gold can only be made by applying heat, and lots of it, before it can be purified and cast into heavy bars that are extremely valuable. Perhaps history and the debate of it should be viewed in the same light.
I really don't know how to explain myself better than this. Other than that no matter what my views are or my opinion is, you don't have to agree with it, because that's all it it is, my view and my opinion. I just find it interesting to see what others have in the way of opinions and views and if they can take the heat of honest debate.
You sometimes end up with something more valuable than gold.
Sincerely,
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. 
In the wake of the Civil War, Southern soldiers faced the task of guarding their honor in the midst of defeat. Mosby's belligerence in the months following Appomatox instigated a few fights, and even landed him in jail. Within time, however, his Union tendency -- manifested even before the war broke out -- returned. Mosby began to support the Republican party as the best hope for reconciliation, and formed an unlikely friendship with Gen. U.S. Grant that lasted the rest of their lives. Although villified by certain segments in Virginia, Mosby refused to bend his will. "Some said they couldn't sacrifice their principles for Grant's friendship. I didn't sacrifice mine" (Mosby in Jones, p.287). In 1972, Mosby backed Grant for re-election to the presidency and brought Virginia along with him, despite a vocal protest of old Confederate die-hards. Mosby had crossed the political Rubicon, and now emerged as a symbol for reconciliation at a divisive time in the nation's history. 
The path was not an easy one. One Southern paper condemned Mosby's concilatory actions, declaring "he needs convincing -- in fact needs to be suppressed or abated. It is allowable to wish, but impossible to hope, that a firebrand of his sort can be quenched in any ordinary way. Some men are like fleas; no half-way measures will suffice for them. It is either torture you or death to them" (Jones, p.297). One night in 1877, an unknown sniper took a pot shot at Mosby as he stepped off a train in Warrenton, Va. 
Linear Mode
