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.
I think everyone needs to calm down, and eat an apple.
Wowser, soldiers compared to slaves? Yipes! I can't believe anyone would seriously ascribe to that comparison. Not in my house anyway (military all over the family tree).
Miss Markie the tactic of comparing soldiers to slaves is an old & common tactic of the Lost Cause and judgeing from the numbers of times I've seen it used... it must be in a playbook somewhere. It's a pretty despicable one IMHO that fits the agenda set forth by Early. It cheapens the sacrifices of soldiers and lessens the horrors of slavery. My experiance has been that those who defend slavery as a moral right would not be one of those who would find themselves under the yoke of slavery. And in the same vein my experiance w/ those who espouse slavery as somehow the equivelant of the life of a soldier... haven't done that either.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
I know I shall regret everlastingly even attempting a post on this thread, being mindful o.f. my ignorant and uneducated status, but I will add for the sake o.f. all the religious arguments being attempted here that I have in my little prayer book, "Blessed Be God", (being a small Catholic book of teaching I received from my deceased mother), that one o.f. the four sins "Crying to Heaven for Vengeance" is 'defrauding laborers o.f. their wages'.
I am sure somewhere in the deepest recesses of my upbringing I could bring up where that was in the Bible, but as school is starting now, I do not have the time nor the inclination.
To save you some time on research:
Luke 10:7 "Remain in that same house, eating and drinking the things they give, for the laborer is worthy of his wages. ..."
1 Timothy 5:18: "For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle the ox when it treads out the grain." And, "The laborer is worthy of his wages."
Followed by 1 Timothy 5:21: "I command you in the sight of God, and Christ Jesus, and the chosen angels, that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing by partiality."
Also, just because I like wine and have a good feeling for St. Timothy, here is 1 Timothy 5:23: "Be no longer a drinker of water only, but use a little wine for your stomach's sake and your frequent infirmities." My kinda guy!
Yes i know, but aparantly Union Blues link thinks the book does not exist, and the quote in it appears first in the 1990s.
If you already knew that, then my point must be crystal clear to you: you are basing your statement on a pamphlet that no one can locate a copy of, originally written as a primer for 1868 Democratic Party campaign rhetoric, issued under a pseudonym. As such, you should be more suspicious of the quality of a reference to it, since it would have been slanted if not biased, because the whole purpose of the pamphlet was to attack Grant/the Republicans in the 1868 election.
We can locate many references to quotes from Grant that seem at odds with what you seem to want this to mean. I am sure you know and acknowledge that. This simply gives you more reason to wonder if the quote is quite correct or if it is taken out of context.
In the case cited, it seems unlikely that the meaning expressed by the Democrats would have come from Grant. The Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War was a highly partisan one, dominated by Radical Republicans. Washburne was Grant's sponsor, protector, and sole contact to Lincoln at this time. Washburne was also a strong anti-slavery man.
In 1862, the JCCotW was on a bit of a witch-hunt. Things were not going well for the Union. The Committee was out to purge generals who did not see things their way. This meant Democrats (like McClellan, Porter, Buell, Franklin, etc.) and generals who were soft on slavery or wanted to treat the South lightly. In that context, the statement attributed to Grant could only be seen as a challenge to the Committee and political suicide for his career -- if that is the entire meaning and content of his letter. It would also have caused a difficult moment in his relationship with Washburne -- unless Washburne had advised him on what to write for some reason (i.e., politics in Washington). The context of events and the timing of the letter (if indeed it says this) need to be examined before you come to a conclusion -- and the source given is one you should be skeptical of because of its' obvious political party affiliation.
Grant may have written it or something related to it. The general gist of the sentiment was a common one in 1862, that the soldiers of the North had not gone to war to free the slaves. You'll find a number of ascerbic quotes on that when the Emancipation Proclamation is issued from various Union soldiers, politicians, and citizens. But I think if we were able to see the entire letter we would get a very different impression than one based on a single sentence quoted, with no way to verify that the quote is even accurate.
...
I can't say as I know a single retiree or veteran in general who isn't proud of his service. I can't imagine anyone tasteless enough to walk into a VFW or American Legion post and call the men sitting there former slaves... many of whow were draftees.
As an aside here, I have 2 brothers-in-law who graduated West Point, one retired after 30 years service, and a nephew, USMA 2002, currently doing his 2nd tour in Iraq with the 101st, plus a number of other family members and friends who have served at one time or another, in WWII/Korea/Viet Nam/Gulf War/Iraq/etc. I don't think I would be foolhardy enough to say something like that to any of them.
In particular, I don't think I'd be dumb enough to say something like that to my father, who just returned from the reunion of the 96th Infantry Division. Dad tramped through Leyte and Okinawa with the 96th, "The Deadeyes" -- and the 96th was 1 of only 4 US divisions to be awarded a Presidential unit citation in WWII. Dad might hurt me for saying something like that!
Heck, my Aunt Rusty might take her cane to me. She was a nurse in France during WWII, and darn proud of her service to this day.
I also think anyone foolish enough to say such a thing to a Union or Confederate soldier during or after the war would have been ... well, met with a strong reaction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
Relaying a probably invented quote in no way proves its authenticity.
Ole
Quote:
But because it exists in more than one reference proves what?.
It exists in more than one reference because it was relayed from the original, probably invented source. Repeating (relaying) a quote or imagined incident is quite common in the study of history -- many authors, and historians can be shown to have done it.
I very much appreciate those who have or are willing to run down that original source -- such "evidence" clouds an objective study. In this case unfortunately, the source has not been located. If it is located, or even if it ever actually existed as a book, booklet, or pamphlet, I'm convinced that it would prove to be nothing more than what we now call a collection of talking points bulletins used to keep party mouthpieces on the same page.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Evil?, immoral?, those are theological questions, the answer to which is in Bible, there is no mention of slavery being immoral or evil.
Evil and immorality are not solely theological questions, nor is the Bible the sole arbiter of evil and morality.
Evil and morality are reflections of the rules a society or culture assumes for the obvious benefits of cooperation and amity. Slavery would have been condoned in such societies or cultures because it was not usually directed against their own. When it was, it was usually an act of charity -- taking in the pauper and getting some compensation for his shelter and food.
And attitudes on evil and morality change outside biblical influence. Many of the Founding Fathers were deists rather than Biblically influenced (most cultures accept a form of a creator), yet many -- even the slaveholders among them -- were uncomfortable with slavery in a society declaring that all men are created equal. Lincoln himself barely qualified as a deist, yet declared "as I would not be a slave myself, I would not own one." That is not biblical, it's moral.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Evil and morality are reflections of the rules a society or culture Lincoln himself barely qualified as a deist, yet declared "as I would not be a slave myself, I would not own one." That is not biblical, it's moral.
Ole
I believe that quote from Lincoln (and I believe Johan Steele made a similar quote in reference to something his wife said) says it all.
And trice, thanks for the research!!
__________________ "Live in the world you inhabit. Look upon things as they are. Take them as you find them. Make the best of them. Turn them to your advantage." - R. E. Lee
The soldier/slavery discussion you are having reminds me ** a joke by Bill Maher. (paraphrasing his words as best I can, not mine. He said that a police **ficer "complained" that people don't realize how tough his job really is. Bill said something to the effect ** duh, didn't you realize that when you signed up. It's like a proctologist coming home from work one day and saying, "I'm doing nothing but looking at a**h**es all day long." Uh huh, that's what you signed up for. Everyone realizes or should realize what they are getting themselves involved in when he or she chooses his or her career or path in life. Just a thought.
Bart
Since when has "of" become a resticted thing? Of what purpose does this serve?
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
It's an NSA wiretapping thing. If you use the words of or out, you're probably up to no good.
Seriously, the message board was spammed by someone selling phones recently and I think that Ami and Mike are trying different filters, censors and word combinations to hopefully make sure that it doesn't happen again.
Bart
__________________ "Thank You....Noooo."
Major Charles Emerson Winchester III M.A.S.H. 4077th
It's an NSA wiretapping thing. If you use the words of or out, you're probably up to no good.
Adding your name to the list of foil-hat orders, Bart -- thinking it's NSA when it's really Mossad agents assisted by Orkians who have lived among us for hundreds of years! My foil hats unobtrusively incorporate "out" and "of" in a stylish pattern worn by the very best pitty-pats.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
