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 are correct Lilred and since many southrons of Beowulf's persuasion, do not, in fact, know the difference between being a prisoner and being a slave. It is unlikely they know very much about a esoteric (to them) subject, such as duty or honor.
Our persuasion, suh, comes from having been persuaded!
My curiosity is on this wise. Do 'your people' know the difference? Our Slaves were made into Yankee Soldiers against their will, by being taken prisoner......
Our soldiers were made into prisoners of war, and then treated worse than any slave plantation ever collectively treated its slaves.
Having given up on such subjects as Duty and Honor, long ago, most of your high command was free to ravage the
civilians in new and TOTAL ways.
I'll take what little we remember about Duty and Honor over what the North brought upon the citizens, civilians, and slaves during that Invasion.
I would commend Beowulf's sense of duty and honor. I do not know him personaly, but I sense a connection that extends beyond the confines of the Internet. Perhaps we are long lost brothers or some such. You do your country great credit sir. Thank you.
Read ANYTHING but what you have now, impress us with your own advice.
Unionblue
I feel obliged to respond to this post even though the moderators let it go. This post is obviously negative and I think it borders on hostile. Is this how someone accumulates more than 5000 plus posts on a forum dedicated to the American Civil War? Is that how it works here? Hostility can be directed at someone who posts something with which you disagree, or is it that hostility may be directed at anyone espousing Southern sentiments?
We know you don't like Beowulf and a simple search finds that you don't seem, to like anyone who espouses anything hinting at supporting the Lost Cause, States Rights or the legitimacy of the Southern Confederacy.
What sir, have YOU to say regarding the subject matter of this thread? What have YOU to say about duty and honor?
Or will YOU just attack me for doing my own?
Last edited by OldGreyWolf; 05-16-2008 at 04:49 PM.
Our Slaves were made into Yankee Soldiers against their will, by being taken prisoner......
Leaving aside the fact that the claim is patently unsupportable...
Just curious. How many slaves did you own?
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
How did duty and honor compel us into this awful war?
Even IF it were true that confedeate prisoners were generally trerated worse than slaves generally were in the south, such a claim has No bearing on the difference between being a slave and say a risoner of war.
Does Beowulf know what would happen to All pow's when the war was over no matter who won; as compared to the slave (including captured ex-slaves in the Union Armies) if the south won?
Not much to say about Pope, except he was an energetic and confident maybe even an excellent general, who got outgeneraled by Lee.
He would have had a good chance of winning if he had not entered the campaign believing that Lee was trying to retreat. Lincoln might have been able to get better use of him, if he (Pope) had not made McClellan his bitter enemy, leaving no place for the two of them in the Eastern Theatre.
I might suggest that you read The question of slavery is as relevant for the 94% who do not own slaves because of what is to be done with them after their release... and the crimes they shall be forced to commit against the countryside just to get enough to eat...
Being som'at new to this group I'm not sure that you mean by 94 percent who didn't own slaves but suggest that no matter its source the number is misleading.
Per the 1860 Census there were 350,000 U.S. slave owners. But that number in no way represents the number of people who had a vested interest in slavery. You have to add:
1) The slaveowners' nonslaveowning wives, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, maiden aunts and dotty uncles, nephews and nieces, and unemployed cousins all of whom might depend to some extent of ol' massa and his slaves for their sustenance. U.S. Sen. James Hammond of South Carolina (he of "Cotton is King" fame) pointed out that the 350,000 slaveholder number actually represented not individuals but families, and need be multiplied by five or six to give an accurate
picture of those directly benefiting from slavery. Five times 350,000 = 1,750,000; six times 350,000 = 2,100,00.
2) Add to that the overseers, slave patrol members, the doctors, lawyers, merchants, et al, and their families, who relied on the slaveowner much of their income.
3) Add the upwardly mobile nonslaveholding whites who hoped someday to become slaveowners someday.
4) Then we have the nonslaving whites who admired and honored the slaveowner aristocracy and looked to the planters for leadership.
And then we have, as you suggested, those who took as gospel the nonsense of Albert G. Brown of Mississippi and his ilk when he argued that without slavery, "The Negro will intrude into his [the nonslaveholding white] presence -- insist on being treated as an equal -- that he shall go to the white man's table, and the white man to his -- that he shall share the white man's bed, and the white man his -- that his son shall marry the white man's daughter, and the white man's daughter his son. In short, they shall live on terms of perfect social equality."
Put them all together and they spell a huge majority of southern whites who had or thought they had a vested interest in preserving and protecting slavery, up to and including fighting for it.
I want to believe that any prisoner of war would have been treated as best as possible under the circumstances. However, there can be no accounting of individuals and their personal behaviors towards prisoners. I am sure both sides had many incidents of horror stories and terrible treatment.
But, it must be said--regardless of intentions; the Confederacy could barely and often rarely supplied their own soldiers with the basic necessities. Certainly, prisoners of war would only get what was the crumbs left over. This is where the awful misery of being a prisoner in Southern prisons abound. South was starving and those who were not paroled, were sent to starve along with their Confederate guards.
The Union was more fortunate and better supplied, thus giving more food and comfort to their prisoners. Those not paroled were given better because better was easier to obtain. The sheer numbers of Union troops often caused over crowding for which, the Confederacy most likely failed to recognize as being a problem when the rebellion was first considered. Another failure of planning on the seeding leaders of the rebellion.
I am sure everybody wished to have been fed and sheltered better, especially in the Confederate Army towards the end. The land of plenty in the south, especially in Virginia, due to over 125 battles there--was stripped of any support for any prisoners, let alone soldiers and civilians.
Just some thoughts.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
I feel obliged to respond to this post even though the moderators let it go. This post is obviously negative and I think it borders on hostile. Is this how someone accumulates more than 5000 plus posts on a forum dedicated to the American Civil War? Is that how it works here? Hostility can be directed at someone who posts something with which you disagree, or is it that hostility may be directed at anyone espousing Southern sentiments?
We know you don't like Beowulf and a simple search finds that you don't seem, to like anyone who espouses anything hinting at supporting the Lost Cause, States Rights or the legitimacy of the Southern Confederacy.
What sir, have YOU to say regarding the subject matter of this thread? What have YOU to say about duty and honor?
Or will YOU just attack me for doing my own?
No sir, I will not attack you for "doing my (your) own."
And you are correct in your observation that anyone who espouses anything hinting at supporting the Lost Cause, States Rights or the legitimacy of the Southern Confederacy, I tend to disagree with those folks, as I consider none of the above areas reason enough to launch a failed revolution that took the lives of over 620,000 Americans. (And you mainly get up to 5,000+ posts on this forum because, a) You have a lot of free time on your hands or, b) there are a lot of smart and bright folks here that I enjoy learning from. The "hostile" thing is just a personal thing that I wrestle with.)
Sometimes I express my view in a calm, reasonable voice, sometimes in a very short-tempered loud voice. It really depends on who I am debating at the time. Mostly you will see me in a "hostile" manner when I personally feel the history of the time is being twisted or distorted to advance a present-day agenda or when I feel someone is just out of touch with reality or using a partisan source.
As for how I like or dislike Beowulf, you are free to draw your own conclusions, just be aware that's exactly what you are doing.
As for my feelings about this thread and its subject matter, I view it as an interesting thread showing many members opinion on the subject and how it is related to the Civil War.
As to how I personally feel about duty and honor, I consider them extremely important and vital to anyone at anytime, then or now. As a retired US Army veteran of 20 years service to my country, I felt it my duty to volunteer to serve my country, to repay the freedoms and safety it had afforded me all of my life. I considered it an honor to serve ALL of my fellow citizens and help secure them the same safety and freedoms I had enjoyed.
I sure as heck didn't keep reenlisting for the money.
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
General Pope met with some difficulties during the Battle of Second Manassas. I wonder if you learned gentlemen would be so kind as to talk about this esteemed character for just a little bit. Let's talk about his performance of duty and the honor he brought to the United States government.
I thought you gentlemen would find this topic particularly interesting given the fact that General Pope was so highly regarded in the Union Army. His message to the Army of Virginia is still talked about in military circles. It is dripping with calls to duty and honor.
Quote:
Let us understand each other. I have come to you from the West, where we have always seen the backs of our enemies; from an army whose business it has been to seek the adversary and to beat him when he was found; whose policy has been attack and not defense. In but one instance has the enemy been able to place our Western armies in defensive attitude. I presume that I have been called here to pursue the same system and to lead you against the enemy. It is my purpose to do so, and that speedily. I am sure you long for an opportunity to win the distinction you are capable of achieving. That opportunity I shall endeavor to give you. Meantime I desire you to dismiss from your minds certain phrases, which I am sorry to find so much in vogue amongst you. I hear constantly of "taking strong positions and holding them," of "lines of retreat," and of "bases of supplies." Let us discard such ideas. The strongest position a soldier should desire to occupy is one from which he can most easily advance against the enemy. Let us study the probable lines of retreat of our opponents, and leave our own to take care of themselves. Let us look before us, and not behind. Success and glory are in the advance, disaster and shame lurk in the rear. Let us act on this understanding, and it is safe to predict that your banners shall be inscribed with many a glorious deed and that your names will be dear to your countrymen forever
"How did duty and honor compel us into this awful war?"
In my own personal opinion, it didn't.
At least, it is my view that those who led the nation into this great tragedy we now call the Civil War did so without the least regard to duty and honor.
While such concepts might have meant more to those who were forced to chose sides or resign their government and military posts in order to justify their choices, they had little to do with the causes of the conflict.
However, if we look at some other human concepts, such as greed, stubborness, pride, arrogance, etc., now we might be onto something as to what exactly compelled those people of that time into a horrible and bloody war.
I might further suggest that if all men in positions of leadership and influence had truly appreciated the concepts of duty and honor, the awful war would have never taken place.
It has been suggested that duty has many levels, beginning with God, family, country, etc. I tend to personally hold that one's duty to God is a peculiar and indvidual thing as is one's own personal relationship with Him.
In other words, this is an individual concept and does not readily spill over to others as it can only be as the individual percieves it. Faith, is an individual and his personal relationship to his idea of God. Duty is the same. My vision of duty is as individual as my faith in God. I cannot force my idea of faith or duty onto others.
Honor is exactly the same concept, it is a personal, ongoing learning process of what I find right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable. This includes the concept of individual honor and honor to my country. I do not expect others to have my own, individual concept of honor for myself or for my country. I consider it as personal as my faith and my duty, to my country and to my family and those I come into contact with.
Faith, duty, and honor, are MINE, not a product that is mass produced and available on a store shelf for sale to everyone. Each person must determine those concepts for himself and apply them to himself, if they can. These concepts cannot be enacted by Congress nor granted by the Church. They are embraced or ignored by individuals by their own choice with their own consequences for embracing or denying them.
Anything else is a legislated or enforced facade, not worth the paper it is printed on or from the pulpit it is decreed from.
In the end, when the time calls for it, each person will be asked to make a choice. It could be when the boss makes a race-based joke or when your church gathering comments about Jews or when a law is passed that brings real harm to others than your own for an unjust cause.
Talking about duty and honor is not the same as suddenly being faced with a choice of implementing them.
Sorry for the rant,
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. 
Linear Mode
