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.
Not wishing to pick a fight, Tim, just unwilling to let egregious errors of fact go unchallenged. You and I disagree on a lot in terms of interpretation of what facts mean, and which facts are more relevant than others, but when you present errors of fact like you did in that post, my respect for the truth requires a rebuttal....
John, this seems untenable.
From what you have just posted, you already know about the actions I am relating to. You knew all about Wise brandishing his pistol when you asked me to provide you with a source for it, so why bother to do so, and why spend so much effort casting aspersions about it?
You already know about the meeting on the night of the 16th-17th, naming participants, and say no action was taken -- which is untenable. Imboden's own account, as well as other participants, contradicts what you say, and I am sure you are aware that what you say is wrong. Or do you consider drawing arms out of the arsenal, ordering the militia to assemble, and heading to the assembly area with the other officers and the arms nothing? All the while spreading a cover plan that you are really assembling the militia of the Valley to seize the Norfolk Navy Yard, and intercepting messages to be sent to Washington from the telegraph office? Is this the "nothing" you are referring to here?
As to the "barracks", just how far do you want to take this quibbling? Only one message back you were claiming all the "barracks" in Virginia were Federal ones, and now you demand I tell you where they were. Obviously in Ft. Monroe (although those were mainly empty), which I had mentioned, for starters. The only other ones I specifically know of were seized by the Virginia militia when they captured Harpers Ferry, assuming they were not destroyed in the fire. But I totally fail to see the importance of the use of the word here. As already noted, you can substitute the word "camps" if you like.
And on and on. This looks like quibbling for the sake of quibbling to me.
From what you have just posted, you already know about the actions I am relating to. You knew all about Wise brandishing his pistol when you asked me to provide you with a source for it, so why bother to do so, and why spend so much effort casting aspersions about it?
Because I was hoping you might have a reputable source that I had not read. You still have failed to reveal your source so it can be evaluated in the light of day. If Waitman is the ultimate source, he hardly unbiased, by the way. Hall, the author of The Rending of Virginia was, I believe by a kinsman of one of the unconditional unionist delegates to the Virginia Convention, so he is at least a bit suspect. Your post was painting a dramatic picture, and using unionist sources to paint it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
You already know about the meeting on the night of the 16th-17th, naming participants, and say no action was taken -- which is untenable. Imboden's own account, as well as other participants, contradicts what you say, and I am sure you are aware that what you say is wrong.
No Federal facilities had been touched. Certain elements of the militia had been ordered to assemble, with the Governor’s approval. Gov. Letcher had declined to act without an ordinance of secession being passed, but he was briefed on the assembling of the militia and had given his approval to assemble certain militia elements. That is all.
But what you just wrote is simply incorrect.
Earlier in this thread, you wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
In Virginia, there was a vote in the convention against secession on April 8, IIRR. When the time came for the next vote, the ex-governor had already sent militia off to seize Harpers Ferry (illegally, since the current governor had said no and this man had no authority). He walked into the convention and slammed a pistol down on the table to start the meeting, demanding an immediate vote. Certainly dramatic, and yet another example of how secessionists arranged events to stampede the people into a vote the secessionists wanted. By the time the actual vote in Virginia came about, several thousand Confederate troops were already in the state, the Virginia militia had seized Harpers Ferry and Norfolk Navy Yard, crossed into Maryland, an attempted Confederate seizure of Washington had fallen flat, and a shooting war was in progress.
That is simply factually incorrect. On April 15th,the editor of the Richmond Enquirer asks Imboden to come to Richmond. Imboden, on arrival on the 16th, meets Wise on the street, who asks him to gather several militia officers then in the city (Funsten, the Ashby brothers, and John Harman) and meet him later at the Exchange Hotel. They discuss the necessity of seizing Harper’s Ferry, in the event of secession, which Wise believes will be approved the next day. “The movement, it was agreed, would commence the next day, the 17th, as soon as Virginia voted to secede.” (Imboden, B&L, vol. 1, pg. 112, emphasis added). Wise and Imboden talked to Gov. Letcher late on the evening of the 16th or early on the morning of the 17th. Gov. Letcher approved of assembling the militia in Staunton. On the morning of the 17th, Imboden telegraphed Staunton to assemble the Staunton Artillery and the West Augusta Guard. Imboden then signed for 100 muskets for the Martinsville Light Infantry, and set out for Staunton on the train. The secession vote occurred on the afternoon of April 17th. At that time, John Imboden was en route to Staunton on the Virginia Central RR. On his arrival (around 6:00 pm), he gets a telegram from Letcher stating that the Virginia Convention had in fact voted to secede, and directing him (and Gen. Harper) to proceed with their seizure of Harper’s Ferry.
The Virginia militia had not left Staunton, the home town of the Staunton Artillery and the WAG. They did not even leave until after being notified of the vote in the Convention. The trip to Harper’s Ferrytook over 24 hours. Alfred Barbour went to Harper’s Ferry to warn the civilian employees of the impending seizure on the evening of the 17th. The Union commander got wind of it (or was told by Barbour, accounts vary). The Virginia militia arrived at Bolivar Heights in the wee hours of the 18th, and the Union commander ordered the arsenal fired and retreated across the river.
By using the phrase, “By the time the actual vote in Virginia came about,” you are sloppily confusing the vote in the Virginia Convention (April 17th) with the referendum (May 23rd).
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Or do you consider drawing arms out of the arsenal, ordering the militia to assemble, and heading to the assembly area with the other officers and the arms nothing?
If that is treasonous, let me let you in on a horrible secret. Every weekend, the governors of every State assemble elements of their National Guard. Sometimes they even move around officers and (egag!) arms! I guess the Federal government had better get busy overthrowing all those State governments.
Sarcasm aside, this movement had the prior approval of the Governor (not just Ex-Gov. Wise), was contingent upon a vote of secession happening first, and did not begin until word of that vote was received and the orders came from the Governor. So your post contained several very important factual errors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
All the while spreading a cover plan that you are really assembling the militia of the Valley to seize the Norfolk Navy Yard, and intercepting messages to be sent to Washington from the telegraph office? Is this the "nothing" you are referring to here?
As to the "barracks", just how far do you want to take this quibbling? Only one message back you were claiming all the "barracks" in Virginia were Federal ones, and now you demand I tell you where they were. Obviously in Ft. Monroe (although those were mainly empty), which I had mentioned, for starters. The only other ones I specifically know of were seized by the Virginia militia when they captured Harpers Ferry, assuming they were not destroyed in the fire. But I totally fail to see the importance of the use of the word here. As already noted, you can substitute the word "camps" if you like.
Tim, the point is that you said
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
state troops were also stationed at polling places here; there were a number of incidents as a result, and the troops were sent back to barracks in some places to avoid the confrontations).
I am not quibbling about whether Confederate or Virginia troops were sent to camps or barracks. I am willing to stipulate that there is no important difference between Virginia forces being sent back to barracks or camps to avoid confrontations with voters in the May 23rd voting. The key issue is the alleged interference. I have repeatedly asked where this alleged interference occurred, and you remain hung up on the word barracks. So, where did this alleged interference with free voting happen?
On a separate, but related note, in a later post, you had said, “the prewar Federal barracks, with the exception of Ft. Monroe, had all been seized by Virginia or Confederate/Virginia forces by the time of the election.” I was just curious where these prewar Federal barracks were in Virginia. I was only aware of those inside or near Fortress Monroe.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
Because I was hoping you might have a reputable source that I had not read. You still have failed to reveal your source so it can be evaluated in the light of day.
Do you somehow doubt that Henry A. Wise brought a gun into the hall and brandished it about as he spoke? We already know you have a source for this, so why start out by demanding one from me as if you never heard of it before? If you know it happened, why bother with all this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
If Waitman is the ultimate source, he hardly unbiased, by the way. Hall, the author of The Rending of Virginia was, I believe by a kinsman of one of the unconditional unionist delegates to the Virginia Convention, so he is at least a bit suspect.
I have been reading and studying the Civil War since the 1960s. I have read a lot of sources, but I don't know that I have ever come across a source document written after the fact by one of the participants I would think unbiased. There might actually be a few, but I doubt we would find them in a highly-charged emotional session of a political meeting.
Do you really want to pursue this, John? You spend an awful lot of time posting interesting quotes from political speeches and debates to prove your points. Do you really want someone to start asking you to verify that each and every one of them is somehow an unbiased source? Or do you, like me, assume that when a man rises to make a speech in a political setting he is likely to be biased one way or another?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Your post was painting a dramatic picture, and using unionist sources to paint it.
You don't think the vote in the secret session of the Secession Convention was dramatic, with tempers and nerves at a very tense stretch? You think that ex-governor Wise tried to be as quiet and inconspicuous as possible while he tried once again to get the convention to vote for secession? It certainly doesn't match up with the posturing and dramatic acting I have seen at other political events then.
As to sources, I had actually mentioned none. You demanded some, and it is you who have made reference to what you yourself call a Unionist source.
If that is treasonous, let me let you in on a horrible secret. Every weekend, the governors of every State assemble elements of their National Guard. Sometimes they even move around officers and (egag!) arms! I guess the Federal government had better get busy overthrowing all those State governments.
John,
This is really untenable.
Only a message ot two back you said this was: A “Spontaneous Southern Rights Association” (consisting of Wise, and Imboden and others) did meet in Richmond on the night of the 16th to form a Southern Rights canvas for the upcoming Virginia local elections, but took no action."
I pointed out that you surely knew this wasn't so, mentioning some of the action that followed. From your reply, you knew it all along, knew who was involved, knew some, at least of those actions. You surely knew this was not a meeting to prepare a "Southern Rights canvas" since you referred to Imboden's article in B&L. Now you are trying to say this was routine weekend warrior training activity.
In the B&L article you cited, Imboden says this in the first two sentences of his article: "The movement to capture Harper's Ferry, Virginia, and the fire-arms manufactured and stored there was organized at the Exchange Hotel in Richmond on the night of April 16th, 1861. Ex-Governor Henry A. Wise was at the head of this purely impromptu affair." This is the meeting you are referring to above, and clearly your description bears no resemblance to the meeting that actually occurred.
In his second paragraph, Imboden says: "Late on April 15th I received a telegram from "Nat" Tyler, the editor of the "Richmond Enquirer," summoning me to Richmond, where I arrived the next day. Before reaching the Exchange Hotel I met ex-Governor Wise on the street. He asked me to find as many officers of the armed and equipped volunteers of the inland towns and counties as I could, and request them to be at the hotel by 7 in the evening to confer about a military movement which he deemed important. Not many such officers were in town, but I found Captains Turner Ashby and Richard Ashby of Fauquier county, Oliver R. Funsten of Clarke county, all commanders of volunteer companies of cavalry; also Captain John A. Harman of Staunton -- my home -- and Alfred M. Barbour, the latter ex-civil superintendent of the Government works at Harper's Ferry. These persons, with myself, promptly joined ex-Governor Wise, and a plan for the capture of Harper's Ferry was at once discussed and settled upon. The movement, it was agreed, should commence the next day, the 17th, as soon as the convention voted to secede, -- provided we could get railway transportation and the concurrence of Governor Letcher. Colonel Edmund Fontaine, president of the Orange and Alexandria and Manassas Gap railroads, were sent for, and joined us at the hotel near midnight. They agreed to put the necessary trains in readiness next day to obey any request of Governor Letcher for the movement of troops."
Hmm. The political meeting about the next election you describe is actually a tactical planning session on how best to seize the Federal Armory at Harpers Ferry within two days, conducted in the dead of night.
Instead of being a weekend warrior routine event, it is (to say the least) highly unusual and potentially treasonable activity. In the aftermath, these men gather troops, arm them, position them to attack the US Armory, spread a cover plan that they are actually going to attack the Naval Yard at Norfolk, and act to intercept a message being sent to warn the President via telegraph. All this in the first page or two of the Imboden article you are referring to as you claim this was all just routine.
Do you somehow doubt that Henry A. Wise brought a gun into the hall and brandished it about as he spoke? We already know you have a source for this, so why start out by demanding one from me as if you never heard of it before? If you know it happened, why bother with all this?
Because Imboden was not a member of the Convention, and thus was not a witness to the pistol slamming incident your wrote of. But even if he did, he may have been merely showing his own personal willingness to fight for what he felt were his rights, not threatening other delegates if they refused to vote for secession. Knowing your source for this allegation is key to evaluating the credibility of the story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
I have been reading and studying the Civil War since the 1960s. I have read a lot of sources, but I don't know that I have ever come across a source document written after the fact by one of the participants I would think unbiased. There might actually be a few, but I doubt we would find them in a highly-charged emotional session of a political meeting.
I do find your reluctance to state your source to be interesting. Why not just say where you read the story?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Do you really want to pursue this, John? You spend an awful lot of time posting interesting quotes from political speeches and debates to prove your points. Do you really want someone to start asking you to verify that each and every one of them is somehow an unbiased source? Or do you, like me, assume that when a man rises to make a speech in a political setting he is likely to be biased one way or another?
I have no problem with anyone asking for a source for anything I write. I frequently provide sources so that readers can evaluate for themselves whether they consider my sources to be credible or not. Historical inquiry must be based on the historical record to be of any real value. Your steadfast refusal to do so in this case is troubling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
You don't think the vote in the secret session of the Secession Convention was dramatic, with tempers and nerves at a very tense stretch? You think that ex-governor Wise tried to be as quiet and inconspicuous as possible while he tried once again to get the convention to vote for secession? It certainly doesn't match up with the posturing and dramatic acting I have seen at other political events then.
Wise had started the convention with a position of fighting for Southern rights within the Union. At some point, he came to realize that this was hopeless, and began agitating for secession. On February 15th, Wise has said: “If [a man] wants to preserve peace, so do I; if he wants to prevent war, he had better not delay; if he wants to preserve the Union in the integrity of the Constitution of the United States, so do I. I hate the hate that hates the Union.” (Proceedings, Vol. 1, pg. 27). On February 15th, he said: “The American Constitution upon which the Union was founded, has been trampled upon, and the question is put to you whether you will bow under this Northern master, who has violated the Constitution, or whether you will protect it?” (Proceedings, Vol. 1, pg. 46). On March 25th, Wise said “I have [been] hoping … to place this State upon a conservative, middle-ground of action – safe, honorable, just and hopeful; hopeful to save not destroy; standing upon the grounds of the old Union and trying to reconcile the two hostile Unions that have sprung out of the old; fighting in the old Union and for the old Union, and aiming, if possible to restore it.” (Proceedings Vol. 2, pg. 274-5.) On April 4th, Wise says that he is not in favor of secession per se; he wants to reconstruct the Union. (Proceedings Vol. 3, pg. 163) On April 5th, when Mr. Blow (of Norfolk City) proposes an amendment: Virginia “desires that the Federal Government, if so empowered, shall recognize the independence of the Confederate States.” Mr. Wise says that the effect of these two resolutions certainly imply that the Federal Government does not have the power, when Wise hints that some want to let the South go in peace, and abhors the idea. Reconstructing the Union is his goal, and the goal of all honorable men. Wise asserts that the Federal Government must have the power to work toward and maintain peace.” (Proceedings Vol. 3, pg. 213) On April 8th, when asked to be part of the delegation going to speak with the President of the US and ask him to avoid any action that might precipitate war, Mr. Wise says he would only go if he went alone and was free to do what he felt was right. He pities Mr. Lincoln, whom he calls “an ignoramus and coarse creature, … elevated by a surprise, to one of the most responsible positions on the face of the earth.” Wise says that Lincoln is ignorant of the sentiments of the people of Virginia. “Sir, no veiled prophet of Khorassan, no Mokanna, was ever more dangerous to a people than the veiled President who now sits in the Executive Chair of this republic. … I could not … come back here, knowing that the President intended to hold these forts – knowing that he thought it was right and peaceful to do so, and say to you that his words were peace, while I knew they were not peace, but war. … [The people] are slumbering over a volcano. They are pursuing their peaceful avocation while the match is almost touching the magazine of explosion. I cannot, and shall not, admit that he means peace, so long as he holds those forts. Gentlemen here think he has a right to hold them. I do not so think.” It would be a delusion to intend the keep the forts, and say that your policy would be peaceful. “It would be the most certain and fearful mode of bringing on war. Intelligence comes that ships have ‘sailed from New York … to Forts Sumter, Pickens, and the Tortugas, with supplies and munitions of war, knowing that they will be attacked if they attempt to reinforce or land supplies.’” (Proceedings Vol. 3, pg. 360-1) Then, on April 9th, Mr. Wise argued for an amendment declaring that “the people of Virginia declare their consent to the recognition of the separate independence of the seceded States.” Wise said “I say, sir, the holding of these forts … will inevitably lead to war, and they (the Administration) know it. Yet, knowing it, they are sending re-inforcements of men and supplies of provisions and strengthening and fortifying the forts with all the munitions and implements and muniments of war.” Repeating an earlier private conversation, Wise says that another delegate told Wise, if he were the President, he would “‘evacuate those forts at once, as a matter of peace, as a matter of policy, as a matter of patriotism, for the purpose of restoring the peace and harmony of the Union.’ … They ought to be evacuated and we ought to recognize the independence of those Southern States.” Mr. Wise’s amendment was then adopted 106 to 20. (Proceedings Vol. 3, pg. 400-3.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
As to sources, I had actually mentioned none. You demanded some, and it is you who have made reference to what you yourself call a Unionist source.
I gave what I suspected was your source. You have neither confirmed nor denied these sources. And as I said before, your consistent refusal to provide your sources makes evaluating your sources impossible and thus damages your credibility. Respectfully, John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
Here is a map of the results of the Virginia referendum of May 23rd 1861.
The colors identify voting in the counties. Dark red is 83% or more in favor of secession. Medium red is 67-83% for secession, pink 50-67%
Dark blue is 83% or more in favor of remaining in the Union. Medium blue 67-83% in favor, lt blue 50-67% in favor of remaining in the Union.
14 counties had no returns on record that I could find. They are depicted by the cross-hatched area.
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
Last edited by JohnTaylor; 07-15-2006 at 09:09 AM.
Because Imboden was not a member of the Convention, and thus was not a witness to the pistol slamming incident your wrote of. But even if he did, he may have been merely showing his own personal willingness to fight for what he felt were his rights, not threatening other delegates if they refused to vote for secession. Knowing your source for this allegation is key to evaluating the credibility of the story.I do find your reluctance to state your source to be interesting. Why not just say where you read the story? ...
John, I have seen these accounts in dozens of places over the last forty years. I don't happen to carry around extensive collections with me in the normal course of events, there are still a great many things that can not be easily found on-line for easy reference, and it was quite clear that you were already in posession of sources that would verify what I was saying. You referenced them yourself in claiming I was presenting a false picture of history, so the question becomes how you could possibly take the position you were posting in good faith.
On Imboden, you introduced his name and account in B&L in one of your posts. His account specifically and directly denies what you were claiming about the meeting in the hotel and the arrangements for an attack on Harpers Ferry. It seems obvious that you already knew you were wrong when you claimed I was presenting errors of fact.
On Wise, you've just presented a bunch of quotes from him as if you were answering my question without really saying anything yourself. The ones you post make it obvious enough that Wise liked to speak in a bold fashion and act dramatically as I indicated and you challenged, but I note one very disturbing omission: although I was making a specific reference to a specific meeting, the secret session of the convention where the crucial vote occurred, none of your excerpts are from that day.
In that session, ex-Governor wise acted as I have described. He took the floor and made a dramatic speech, brandishing a pistol, In that speech, he made reference to militia movements already in progress against the Federal government. This was before the convention voted on secession, IIRR. I am not near a major Civil War resource at the moment, but looking around on the internet I did find one reference for it. Haul out the collection of speeches you so obviously have access to and look for the part where in his impassioned speech he tells the other delegates that Virginia's "armed forces are now moving upon Harpers Ferry to capture the arms there in the Arsenal for the public defense, and there will be a fight or a foot-race between volunteers of Virginia and Federal troops before the sun sets". Certainly dramatic wording, and a false statement in addition if he really believed that nothing was being done as a result of that meeting you told us was about a "Southern Rights canvas".
You have adopted a policy here, John, of obfuscation. You already knew before you started that most of what I said was highly accurate, yet you charged me with presenting false facts. You have information in your possession which shows you, to say the least, that your position is a very dubious one. Yet you have acted as if none of it exists, and it is hard to believe you have not done it with intent, although I hope I am wrong in this. This is not a good policy on your part, and I urge you to stop using it.
As I said, I don't carry a large library of source material around with me. Often you will find that what I say is based on the memory of a few decades worth of research and reading rather than a hard-copy in hand. I am at the moment alternating between mini-vacations and work at clients' offices and will be for some time yet, probably in Vermont next week. But I did drop into a local library and take out a current book on the topic, David Detzer's "Dissonance", third of his trilogy on the opening days of the war. I'll post a few sections of it in separate threads for you. His footnoting is not in a style that I like, but I'll give you what I can of his references.
Just to bring this old thread back to the top of the board for those who haven't seen it.
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
