Civil War History - "What if..." DiscussionsWhat if they had attacked instead of digging in...? What if he was in charge of the army instead...? Did you ever have a "What if..." question, and you weren't sure where to post it? Here's the place to ask these speculative questions!
We've seen some tall claims about the atrocities of Provost Marshalls and, agreeing with Timewalker, there must have been some buttheads in the bunch. But we've yet to see some source material convicting most to the point that, if they were all executed, Kentucky would have been better off.
Let's see it.
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
I do not know why Raider88 thinks that killing the Provost Marshals in cold blood would have been a good thing?
Is Murder ever a good thing??
The Provost Marshals would have been replaced and the new ones would have a chip on the shoulder for what Morgan had done to the previous Marshals...Raider88 thinks the Provost Marshal were evil just think of how the new Marshals would treat Southern sympathizers in KY.
Raider88, I am at a lost on your logic in your thread. If Morgan had murder the Provost Marshals he would have only made the war nastier and soil he legacy...
He would have just been another Highway man like Forrest...
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
War sir, is never a "good thing". Civil War, brother fighting brother, neighbor fighting neighbor, is even worse.
The quicker the better. As they say in the USMC, "be prepared to be violent enough fast enough".
IF Gen. Morgan had followed through with his threats .....
IF Gen. Morgan had killed those Provost Marshalls .....
Total War! No Quarter. The Peace Democrats and the less than Radical Republicans would've known early on just how bitter it was.
I suggest to you that Kentucky at the very least would've remained neutral, but more than likely would've sided with the South and the whole western theater would've been thrown into disarray. The Ohio would've become a natural defensive border between North and South, Slave and Free and Lincoln would've sued for peace before his second term in office.
IF Gen. Morgan had executed US Provost Marshals during his First Kentucky Raid ...
We'd all be speakin' a might slower, today.
and as for your attempted slight at Gen. Forrest .....
We've seen some tall claims about the atrocities of Provost Marshalls and, agreeing with Timewalker, there must have been some buttheads in the bunch. But we've yet to see some source material convicting most to the point that, if they were all executed, Kentucky would have been better off.
"I want to be a cavalryman And with John Hunt Morgan ride, A colt revolver in my belt A saber by my side. I want a pair of epaulets to match my suit of gray, The uniform my mother made And lettered 'CSA'. "
The linked article doesn't say anything about atrocities committed by Provost Marshals in Kentucky. Have another?
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
Total War! No Quarter. The Peace Democrats and the less than Radical Republicans would've known early on just how bitter it was. I suggest to you that Kentucky at the very least would've remained neutral, but more than likely would've sided with the South and the whole western theater would've been thrown into disarray. The Ohio would've become a natural defensive border between North and South, Slave and Free and Lincoln would've sued for peace before his second term in office.
I find your extrapolation to lean toward the fanciful. 5fish is more realistic:
Quote:
The Provost Marshals would have been replaced and the new ones would have a chip on the shoulder for what Morgan had done to the previous Marshals...Raider88 thinks the Provost Marshal were evil just think of how the new Marshals would treat Southern sympathizers in KY.
Pull off a massacre like that and you create enemies out of your friends and vengeful beasts out of your enemies. Yet Raider thinks that Peace Democrats would have been strengthened and the pro-war factions would be taken so aback that they'd sue for peace. It is more likely that 10,000 Federal Cavalrymen would be assembled to hunt Morgan down and hang him. (Pun on "hunt" intended.)
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
Agreed, ole. The execution would not have strengthened the peace democrats, but rather the radical Republicans (See the people we're fighting against?") I can see such attorcities being a rallying cry for Northern enlistments and a turn to "hard war" much earlier on.
As for the result being Kentucky joining the Confederacy - wishful thinking. The Confederacy had neither the resources nor the leadership in the West to stop the Union. No way the Rebels maintain the Ohio as a boundry - Union naval strenth and ability to construct gunboats, etc. much too strong.
__________________ "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)
War sir, is never a "good thing". Civil War, brother fighting brother, neighbor fighting neighbor, is even worse.
The quicker the better. As they say in the USMC, "be prepared to be violent enough fast enough".
IF Gen. Morgan had followed through with his threats .....
IF Gen. Morgan had killed those Provost Marshalls .....
Total War! No Quarter. The Peace Democrats and the less than Radical Republicans would've known early on just how bitter it was.
I suggest to you that Kentucky at the very least would've remained neutral, but more than likely would've sided with the South and the whole western theater would've been thrown into disarray. The Ohio would've become a natural defensive border between North and South, Slave and Free and Lincoln would've sued for peace before his second term in office.
IF Gen. Morgan had executed US Provost Marshals during his First Kentucky Raid ...
We'd all be speakin' a might slower, today.
and as for your attempted slight at Gen. Forrest .....
We'll leave that for another day.
Seems like you wish to adhere to the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" type of solution. So elegant, so black and white, so simple, and so entirely wrong.
And why not compare the actions of these Union Provost Marshals with that of Confederate ones who struck fear into the hearts of loyal Unionists under their control?
Because it would tarnish the image you seem to want to portray, (North, bad, South good) and historical fact just might get in the way of that image.
Be fair, Blue.Raider88, look up a few of those details, and then remind yourself, war is an ugly business, no matter which side you are on.
If you can't find any such details of Confederate soldiers doing evil things to civil rights, property, and even committing murder, I'll be happy to provide them for you.
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
In looking into the 1862 Army Officer's Pocket Companion; A Manual for Staff Officers in the Field, page 29-31; in summary they are charged with 14 areas of responsibilities and duties.
I agree with previous postings that a few 'bad characters' can blemish the entire reputation of an 'arm' of the military. Dealing with humans, perhaps the mounted frustrations and--we're not privy to know what their private lives were like or the situations that may have triggered 'ugly behavior.'
The "Provost Martial" was wearing many hats, such as 'court's martial,' documenting fines and passing all this information through channels, prisoner control, housing, transportation, feeding and 'welfare;' to 'police' the behavior of the Corps they were assigned to, to function as law enforcement over military forces, e.g. officers and soldiers alike; to seek and secure deserters, to inspect and regulate the 'vending' to the soldiers, as well as handle complaints by either party; to investigate spying, correspondences that may be suspected of containing sensitive/spy material; investigate wrong doing, complaints by the military and or the civilian population, as well as to be responsible for all 'guards' for their assigned Corps, etc.
War as long as civilization has existed, is not pleasant and brings out many deeply entrenched personalities, to which at times--even the military discipline falters -- unleashes the 'primal beast' within. Personally,
I think both sides may have had their fair share of bad apples and good apples. My thoughts; are when the initial 'passion' had passed it was just a desperate struggle of those veterans on both sides--who were just, so very, very tired and just wanted to go home. It was just a matter of who would 'quit' first. And, I will add -- that to quit is not a bad trait at all; especially when you have Generals who see no purpose in the slaughter of good men---loyal men, weary and gentle men. It must be remembered; it was a different social class and code of behavior of civility then. Nothing holds a ruler to those times.
It takes real 'guts' to surrender with dignity--It takes a real 'guts' to accept surrender with compassion and allow the 'enemy' to keep their dignity and allow them to hold their head up. The lack of humiliation and total extension of 'grace.'
Perhaps one reason why I envelope myself in the times of the Civil War--when the courtesy and civil behavior was the majority of 'conduct.' Where people were saluted with acknowledgment; of sir or ma'am; where everybody mattered and everybody was appreciated as 'themselves.' War was unkind--most men/women were not.
Just some thoughts.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
Boys, I'm not the constitutional scholar some of you all profess to be. I ain't an arm chair general neither. But I reckon I know what's right and what's wrong and I ain't afraid to call a spade a spade.
The Provost Marshal was not a good thing for US. No way. No How. It wasn't American. On the contrary, it was un-American and had ought to have been rebelled against and fought against tooth and nail.
My old Pap use to quote Ben Franklin, "them that would sacrifice personal liberty for national security deserve neither!" or somthing like that.
If your's truly had been at the head of that column in Kentucky .....
We'd have a lot more to write about.
THE PROVOST-MARSHAL AND THE CITIZEN (In The American Civil War)
" No graver question was ever considered by this court; nor one which more nearly concerns the rights of the whole people; for it is a birthright of every American citizen charged with crime to be tried and punished according to law. . . . If there was a law to justify the military trial it is not our province to interfere; if there was not, it is our duty to declare the nullity of the whole proceedings."-Decision UnitedStates Supreme Court, ex parte Milligan.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
