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 enclose a dispatch from Mr. Dowling. the commercial agent at Queenstown, covering copies of two depositions affording legal evidence of Federal enlistments in that port under circumstances of gross disregard of the Queen’s proclamation. I have advised against any publicity being given to these documents for the moment, believing that the most effective use that can be made of them will be through the association now forming, and of which I spoke in my last. If not previously published, I think it likely that the association may make them the basis of a memorial to the foreign office."
Hotze to Benjamin, 28 November 1863
~
"Your Irish agents, whose reports I enclose, will inform you of the state of things there. A curious result of the premature publications of the depositions previously mentioned, which happened accidentally and contrary to my advice, has been that the Kearsarge returned to Queenstown and landed the men enlisted."
Hotze to Benjamin, 26 December 1863
~
"On the occasion of a visit of the U.S. steamer Kearsarge to Queenstown, Ireland, in November last, several Irishmen secreted themselves on board the vessel, were carried off in her, and when discovered were returned to that port and put ashore. This circumstance gave rise to a charge that the Kearsarge had violated the foreign enlistment act of Great Britain. Captain Winslow, commanding the Kearsarge, disavowed having violated this act or any intention of permitting others under his command to do so. Explanations have been made to the British Government, and it is presumed the matter has been satisfactorily settled."
Welles to Lincoln, 27 June 1864
~
In context with the letters by Hotze...Welles' account doesn't sound very convincing.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
Here's how it works. The rear sight has a v-shaped notch in it. The front part is a bead or blade. When the bead or blade in the front is centered in the notch, the object beyond that is where the bullet will strike. If that object appears to be a foot, do not--repeat, do not--pull the trigger.
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
The British could care less how many Irishmen left Ireland during the Civil War, in real terms.
The British were more concerned about Ireland as a colony, rather than whether the Irish were in America killing Confederates.
An Irishman in America getting killed or killing Confederates is one less Irishman causing problems in the British Queendom.
As if the British couldn't blockage Irish ports to keep the Irish home. It was the last thing they wanted; keep the Irish home.
The problem I see with a neo-confederate argument is the observer knows nothing about Ireland.
What you have here is a bunch of Confederates talking to one another about things that they either have no personal knowledge about or they have a vested interest in convincing their bosses they are on top of. No one doubts the Confederates thought the recruiting was being done in Europe, or at least convinced themselves that it was going on. Do you have any verifiable, independent data at all to establish that there was any such effort?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
...but that would be an assumption.
No, that's not an assumption: it is a description of the contents of your post. As usual, designed to push a particular agenda of yours, but not containing any data that can be verified about the actual facts of the situation.
As shown above, it was followed by a direct question: "Do you have any verifiable, independent data at all to establish that there was any such effort?" As usual, you have avoided answering a direct question, and anyone following your constant evasions realizes that what you are trying to do here is to cover up for that with this "assumption" digression.
Quote:
Originally Posted by battalion
We could also make the assumption that this was a white-wash:
...-Replies from the Navy and War Departments.
What I posted were direct and official denials of everything you are trying to insinuate from the responsible officials of the US government, in response to a direct order from the President, delivered to the US Congress in accord with a request to the President from the Congress. If these men were delivering a "white-wash" as you imply, they could potentially lose their positions and face criminal penalties, including prison terms, for lying to Congress. We can say nothing similar about the rumors contained in your posts of the Confederate side: they are all merely suppositions, with no criminal penalties applying. This is just your usual policy of making unrealistic statements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by battalion
What about the State Department?
Why bring them up? The US State Department has no involvement in recruiting for the US Army nor the US Navy. Isn't this just one more of the red herrings you like to drag about?
ONCE AGAIN: Do you have any verifiable, independent data at all to establish that there was any such effort by the US government to recruit Army or Navy personnel abroad? Any at all? Or is this just another of your frequent attempts to deceive by misdirection?
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.
...
In context with the letters by Hotze...Welles' account doesn't sound very convincing.
Any one interested in actually seeing the silliness of these charges -- and the obvious reason Confederate agents were trying to discredit the USS Kearsarge as it tried to track down and destroy Confederate raiders -- is advised to read the relevant chapter in:
THE LIFE OF JOHN ANCRUM WINSLOW
REAR-ADMIRAL, UNITED STATES NAVY
WHO COMMANDED THE
U.S. STEAMER "KEARSARGE"
IN HER ACTION WITH THE
CONFEDERATE CRUISER "ALABAMA"
BY
JOHN M: ELLICOTT
LIEUT., U. S. NAVY G. P.
PUTNAM'S SONS
NEW YORK AND LONDON
The Knickerbocker Press
1902
=====
CHAPTER XV.
THE QUEENSTOWN INCIDENT.
THE Kearsarge had now been six weeks at Brest. Agents and partisans of the Confederacy, on both sides of the Channel, found her a rankling thorn in their sides, and they were ready to resort to almost any strategem that would force her, even for a short time, to quit the neighborhood. This could not be done so long as she could coal, repair, and provision, even within the limitations of the proclamations of neutrality, in British or French ports. She was, therefore, closely watched for violations of neutrality and repeatedly charged with them. An incident that occurred during this visit to Queenstown was quickly seized upon by her enemies, and its misrepresentation strongly affected the treatment she afterward received in British ports. The whole correspondence is here given, for it tells the story without need of comment.
...
=====
See http://books.google.com/books?id=0ac...iqJA#PPA126,M1 for the rest.
If you would rather see the entire correspondence in a more official source, try:
CORRESPONDENCE
CONCERING
CLAIMS AGAINST GREAT BRITAIN,
TRANSMITTED TO THE
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
IN ANSWER TO
RESOLUTIONS OF DECEMBER 4 AND 10, 1867, AND OF MAY 27, 1866.
VOLUME II.
WASHINGTON:
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE.
1870.
__________________ "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.
In July 0f 1861 the US offered a comission to Giuseppe Garibaldi, but the Vatican protested. Legend has it that Garibaldi wanted command of all Union forces.
In July 0f 1861 the US offered a comission to Giuseppe Garibaldi, but the Vatican protested. Legend has it that Garibaldi wanted command of all Union forces.
That's a very tangled tale, and quite likely not everything about it is known. Lots of people had their oars in the water on this one, making the waters very muddy.
Some people say Garibaldi sought the post, then decided against it. It does appear that Lincoln was willing to offer Garibaldi a commission as a Major General (probably meaning a division or corps command), but was absolutely willing to give him overall command. In addition, Garibaldi appears to have insisted not only on the overall command but also a clear and absolute announcement that the goal of the war was to free the slaves. This may have been to protect his reputation as a great liberator or to ensure he would not actually get the command, among other potential reasons.
Garibaldi had conquered Naples and then turned it over to the Kingdom of Italy in 1860. In October he set up the International Legion, an organization dedicated to the liberation of Italy and other places. By November it was using the motto "Free from the Alps to the Adriatic", which is aimed directly at conquest of Venice and Rome to incorporate them into the new Kingdom of Italy. The Pope might very well have protested to the King of Italy -- but the Pope didn't really have a lot of influence there in 1861. The legislature of the Kingdom of Italy had voted to make Rome their new capital, and the only apparent reason the Italians had not occupied the place when Garibaldi took southern Italy for them was the French garrison and guarantee from Napoleon III to the Papal States. When the French garrison was withdrawn in the Franco-Prussian War, the Kingdom of Italy immediately invaded and conquered the Papal States (1870). (BTW, one of my wife's g-g-g-relatives was a senior diplomat for the Kingdom of Italy at the time.)
Offering a commission to a foreigner was fairly common in those days, as was service with a foreign army by Americans. For example, one of America's bravest soldiers, Philip Kearney, Jr. (nephew of Steven W. Kearney, another famous soldier) fought with the French in Algiers in 1840 and in Italy in 1859. Many foreigners (such as von Borcke with Stuart's cavalry and at least one survivor of The Charge of the Light Brigade in the NJ cavalry) came here to serve in the war and returned to serve in their own armies.
Garibaldi had actually lived in New York for a time (while he was in his 2nd exile, the one after the 1848-49 revolution). He was forced out by the Piedmontese, although the Austrians, French, Spanish, and Neapolitans were all at his heels. He lived in Staten Island from July 30, 1850 to November of 1853, although he made several voyages to the Pacific under the American flag during that time (he had started out as a sea captain before he became a revolutionary). Americans felt a strong connection to him because of that, as well as his campaigns in South America.
Regards,
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.
I'm actually surprised by that, you would think they wouldn't give it to a Catholic?
My mistake, a typo. It should have been "It does appear that Lincoln was willing to offer Garibaldi a commission as a Major General (probably meaning a division or corps command), but was absolutely NOT willing to give him overall command."
The Catholic part would have been unpopular, as well as the foreigner part, with most of the traditional American electorate/power base. However, Garibaldi was world famous as the great liberation leader of the day after 30 years of struggle in Europe and South America. He was intriguing as a figurehead for all those Germans/Irish/etc. who had come to America in the last 15-25 years before the Civil War. He also had a connection to the US through the 3 years he lived here or sailed as a merchant skipper under the US flag.
That's why Lincoln was willing to give him a commission, it seems, but doubtful he would have given him overall command. As a division or corps commander, he would have been a popular leader spurring recruiting and fervor among the troops. As an overall commander, he might have created discord and animosity, dividing the effort.
Regards,
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
