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.
Anyone interested in the tangled, confusing, and suspicious tale of John B. Floyd's tenure might want to take a look at an article in American Heritage, "Was the Secretary of War a Traitor?" you can find at http://www.americanheritage.com/arti...963_2_34.shtml
Between the War Department contractor financial scandal and the Interior department bond scandal, Floyd had already been asked to resign before Anderson left Ft. Sumter and before he suddenly tried to move all that heavy artillery from Pittsburgh to not-yet-built forts in the South. Then there were the suspicions about his move of small arms and sales of old weapons to Southern states on the eve of secession ...
Tim:
Thanks for the link. Will read it later tonight. Meanwhile, I'm leaning to the idea that Floyd did not act with malicious intent against the Northern States -- at least not in the earlier years of his Secretaryship. Much of his earlier perfidy can be explained or justified, although there is quite a bit of smoke hinting at a smoldering fire.
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
... was like stealing from a poor house. They couldn't transfer all the weapons, and for what the eventual supporters of the Confederacy transferred, proved insignificant in the Civil War.
Any southerner who had been Secretary of War in the 1850's, had to have some strong elements of "bonehead." Floyd had no concept of the ability of the U.S. Congress to expand its war making powers after secession. Neither did Jefferson Davis.
Actually the removal of the rifle making equipment from Harpers Ferry to Richmond, early in the Civil War, was a greater loss for the U.S.
Until the Civil War, Southerners did not understand the power the U.S. Constitution vested in the "Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States" and the power of Congress to "suppress Insurrections."
I believe the U.S. Congress appropriated and the Lincoln administration spent in one month for the military, what was spent during Robert E. Lee's entire U.S. Army military career.
Stealing a few thousand smooth bore muskets available, proved a poor mix with the tens of thousands of rifled muskets and repeating lever action rifles, purchased by the U. S. during the Civil War.
It's not the stealing that ranks, but the total lack of understanding about the results of secession and the future military spending of the United States.
Tim:
Meanwhile, I'm leaning to the idea that Floyd did not act with malicious intent against the Northern States -- at least not in the earlier years of his Secretaryship. Much of his earlier perfidy can be explained or justified, although there is quite a bit of smoke hinting at a smoldering fire.
Ole
In December of 1860, Floyd verbally ordered the Chief of Ordnance to send several heavy artillery guns from Pittsburgh arsenal to forts in the south, even though those forts wouldn't be ready for the guns for years. The people of Pittsburgh sent a telegram to Buchanan to protest the transfer, and the officers at the Pittsburgh arsenal delayed executing the order. Floyd was replaced, and the transfer was canceled by his successor, Joseph Holt.
Most of the rest of his actions can probably be explained without a treason charge, but not this one.
Additionally, he was corrupt, even by 19th Century standards. He abused patronage for his own interests, and he granted contracts to incompetent cronies in return for kickbacks. Buchanan finally had enough of his incompetence and his corruption and forced him to resign.
It's pretty bad when the defense of someone has to be on the order of, "he was a corrupt, mediocre partisan, but he wasn't a traitor"--at least except for the Pittsburgh arsenal issue.
There's an article on Floyd available.
John M. Belohlavek, "The Politics of Scandal: A Reassessment of John B. Floyd as Secretary of War, 1857-1861," _West Virginia History,_ Vol. XXXI, No. 3, April, 1970, pp. 145-160.
In December of 1860, Floyd verbally ordered the Chief of Ordnance to send several heavy artillery guns from Pittsburgh arsenal to forts in the south, even though those forts wouldn't be ready for the guns for years. The people of Pittsburgh sent a telegram to Buchanan to protest the transfer, and the officers at the Pittsburgh arsenal delayed executing the order. Floyd was replaced, and the transfer was canceled by his successor, Joseph Holt.
Most of the rest of his actions can probably be explained without a treason charge, but not this one.
Additionally, he was corrupt, even by 19th Century standards. He abused patronage for his own interests, and he granted contracts to incompetent cronies in return for kickbacks. Buchanan finally had enough of his incompetence and his corruption and forced him to resign.
It's pretty bad when the defense of someone has to be on the order of, "he was a corrupt, mediocre partisan, but he wasn't a traitor"--at least except for the Pittsburgh arsenal issue.
There's an article on Floyd available.
John M. Belohlavek, "The Politics of Scandal: A Reassessment of John B. Floyd as Secretary of War, 1857-1861," _West Virginia History,_ Vol. XXXI, No. 3, April, 1970, pp. 145-160.
Cash,
Floyd issued the order on December 22, just as the financial scandal was breaking and as he was being asked to resign. Anderson was still in Ft. Moultrie. At about the same time, it seems that Floyd ordered the guns in Sumter that faced Ft. Moultrie mounted (none had been at that point, only those facing away).
Those who are critical suspect that Floyd, seeing that he was about to be out of office and in disgrace, decided to feather his nest in points South. He suddenly began making firey pro-secessionist statements, and seems to have timed his resignation for the biggest effect in the seceding states.
I will also say, that in Colonel Walter H. Taylor's book Four Years with General Lee, pg. 16 & 17; Taylor cites that there was a lot of problems between General Wise and General Floyd. Floyd caused the stalling of operations against Harpers Ferry and Manassas; and Lee had to come from Richmond as to attempt to settle the differences between Floyd and Wise; as to help General Loring organized Garnett's old shattered forces.
Floyd as much as Wise; were political Generals -- At least Wise grew with the job. Floyd was nobody's friend but his own.
I think Taylor's rare opportunity to view so many documents, in addition to his own quest for finding accurate records of Lee's army; may have caused this statement; Perhaps having the likes of Floyd in mind.
Chapter XIV
Four Years with General Lee
By Walter H. Taylor
Pg. 162
Success crowned my effort, and I take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the very kind and courteous treatment I received at the hands of the officials of the War Department, who extended to me every facility for the accomplishment of my purpose; and at the same time I take pleasure in assuring my former comrades-in-arms of the evident purpose of the Government authorities charged with the custody of these records to discard all sectional bias in the prosecution of their labors, and to preserve faithfully and impartially all documents which are now in their custody, or which may be hereafter committed to their care, in order that, so far as it is in their power, the truth, and nothing but the truth, shall be preserved. Let us indulge the hope that the day is not far distant when the American people, without distinction, will find pleasure in the contemplation of all that was manly, all that was virtuous, all that was noble, all that was praiseworthy, in the recent struggle between the sections, whether developed on the side of the North or that of the South; and that the next generation will cherish, with pardonable pride, the remembrance of the deeds of valor, sacrifice, and noble daring, which the history of that war so richly abounds, whether the heroes thereof war the blue or they grey.
Let censure fail only where fanatics feigned to be patriots, or men forget their manhood, and screened behind an alleged military necessity, gave evidence of an evil heart in deeds of malignant cruelty or wanton destruction; and let merit be acknowledged and praise be bestowed wherever firm devotion to principle and to duty found illustration in deeds of valor and of sacrifice. [End of excerpt of Taylor's book Four Years with General Lee circa 1877]
I would have to agree with Trice's response to Cash. In looking at the Official Records of the Rebellion, the 'spirit of intent' to me; is that of a traitor. Any who do actions that would deceive and or steal, thwart progress of their government--is a traitor. Unfortunately, there had been many traitors within President Buchanan's administration and corruption has 'seemingly' existed regardless of the President. Opportunity and power, often creates an individual into something he would dare be if an average citizen. It becomes a conspiracy if another knows of such and fails to stop it. So, there were many in the 1860 Buchanan administration to which conspired against the Union and took advantage of the 'lame duck' situation of Buchanan's and would place such into motion before any other President's administration took positions and have such 'hot potatoes' in their laps. The 'administration present, is always correcting the administration of before.'
Just some thoughts.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Sec. of War John B. Floyd 
Linear Mode
