A Really Stupid Ebay ad

[Copperhead-mi]

A tricky question indeed, especially since two "three star generals," I learned here, were only Major Generals.

Yes it was You can see that the some of the players were not too certain when the Civil War ended but I used Johnson's Proclamation as the date because the Alabama Claims Commission and the SCOTUS used that as the official date the War ended. Another thing I recently learned here was that the official date for the beginning of the Civil War was not the firing on of Ft. Sumter but rather Lincoln's Proclamation of the Blockade. Again, that date was used by both the ACC and SCOTUS for the official start of the war.

 

[CW Watch & Sword Guy]

Yes it was You can see that the some of the players were not too certain when the Civil War ended but I used Johnson's Proclamation as the date because the Alabama Claims Commission and the SCOTUS used that as the official date the War ended. Another thing I recently learned here was that the official date for the beginning of the Civil War was not the firing on of Ft. Sumter but rather Lincoln's Proclamation of the Blockade. Again, that date was used by both the ACC and SCOTUS for the official start of the war.

I'd need to look at the specific reasons that those organizations gave for choosing those start and end dates, if they gave any reasons, but I would guess they were reasons that only a lawyer or a bureaucrat could love.

I suppose the federal blockade may have been the first "offensive" military action taken by the Union, though it probably did not result in immediate bloodshed. SC shore batteries around Charleston Harbor fired on the federal supply ship Star of the West on January 9, 1861, more than three months before CSA batteries fired on Ft. Sumter, but southern state militias had been busily seizing federal property all over the South even before that. So the first secessionist offensive military actions long preceded the initiation of the federal blockade.

To illustrate my point about the distinction between formal declarations and actual events: Spain formally ended the Spanish Inquisition, begun on November 1, 1478, on December 16, 1968! But what sensible person would cite that date as the end of the actual historical event known as the Inquisition?

 

[Copperhead-mi]

I'd need to look at the specific reasons that those organizations gave for choosing those start and end dates, if they gave any reasons, but I would guess they were reasons that only a lawyer or a bureaucrat could love.

I suppose the federal blockade may have been the first "offensive" military action taken by the Union, though it probably did not result in immediate bloodshed. SC shore batteries around Charleston Harbor fired on the federal supply ship Star of the West on January 9, 1861, more than three months before CSA batteries fired on Ft. Sumter, but southern state militias had been busily seizing federal property all over the South even before that. So the first secessionist offensive military actions long preceded the initiation of the federal blockade.

To illustrate my point about the distinction between formal declarations and actual events: Spain formally ended the Spanish Inquisition, begun on November 1, 1478, on December 16, 1968! But what sensible person would cite that date as the end of the actual historical event known as the Inquisition?

Well I was partially incorrect in my previous comment about the official start of the Civil War. The Treaty of Washington, ratified between Great Britain and the United States settled the war damage claims of Americans incurred at the hand of British built warships and British civilian damages incurred during the Civil War. Since the treaty was for war damage claims during the American Civil War. Article XII established April 13, 1861 (Ft. Sumter) as the start of the American Civil War and April 9, 1865 as the war's end for the purposes of accepting previous and future damage claims during that period.

The Prize Cases, (2 Black, p. 636.) The court held that war commenced with the President's proclamation of blockade, April 27, 1861. The dissenting judges held that it commenced with the act of Congress of July 13, 1861. The post-war Supreme Court cases such as Texas v White and a handful of other cases involving debts and Confederate currency in the former Confederate states use President Johnson's 1866 Proclamations as the official end of the war.

 

[mofederal]

Ebay and stupid people go together. What I used to buy on there I was ok doing, but many people get take. You have to know the stuff you are buying, then never pay more than it is worth. I never pay the retail price for anything sold on ebay ever. just no way to do business, there or anywhere.

 

[Ralph Heinz]

All this incredibly informed information is why we love this forum -- we all learn a great deal from it and are appreciative of those who know a great deal more about even very esoteric items and spend their time to fill in the details for the rest of us. Well done!

 

[Mike Serpa]

What am I missing? The link in the OP takes me to RARE CIVIL WAR CONFEDERATE SOLDIER'S 19" D GUARD BOWIE KNIFE / GREAT OLD PATINA. I don't understand the talk about Grant, Scott, Halleck, etc.

 

[GELongstreet]

What am I missing? The link in the OP takes me to RARE CIVIL WAR CONFEDERATE SOLDIER'S 19" D GUARD BOWIE KNIFE / GREAT OLD PATINA. I don't understand the talk about Grant, Scott, Halleck, etc.

It was a single shoulder board for a Lieutenant General (Union Army, three stars); said to be civil war but showing only one picture and virtually no other details. Began at 10 bucks and sold for 373.

And for me that link still works ...

 

[Mike Serpa]

It was a single shoulder board for a Lieutenant General (Union Army, three stars); said to be civil war but showing only one picture and virtually no other details. Began at 10 bucks and sold for 373.

And for me that link still works ...

Thanks, that makes sense. I still get the D-guard Bowie Knife when I click on the link. Hmm.

 

[James N.]

What am I missing? The link in the OP takes me to RARE CIVIL WAR CONFEDERATE SOLDIER'S 19" D GUARD BOWIE KNIFE / GREAT OLD PATINA. I don't understand the talk about Grant, Scott, Halleck, etc.

When you click on the link and it opens saying the item has sold, over to the side is another link to the original listing; clicking on it will bring it back up. (This is true for any previous listing on Ebay.)

 

[Mike Serpa]

When you click on the link and it opens saying the item has sold, over to the side is another link to the original listing; clicking on it will bring it back up. (This is true for any previous listing on Ebay.)

Thank you, Sir!

 

[Billw12280]

This very same shoulder strap found it's way to Midwest Civil War Relics website and sold for a whopping $10,000 according to the listing. That's a heck of a return considering it sold on Ebay for $373.88. I feel that Allen is one of the more trustworthy dealers, albeit a little overpriced on some stuff.

He had it listed as:
CIVIL WAR LIEUTENANT GENERAL INSIGNIA
ONLY ONE THAT I HAVE EVER OWNED
{ VERY VERY RARE }
{ This was Lt. General Ulysses S. Grant`s }
5th item down the page.

http://midwestcivilwarrelics.com/new-items.html

The problem I have with this is that all the stars are the same size. On the photos I have seen the center star was larger. The closed wool backing also doesn't look right for Civil War but maybe this is just a dealer variation?

So my questions are, is this really Civil War era? Is there any way to say for sure it actually belong to U.S. Grant without some kind of provenance?

 

[James N.]

This very same shoulder strap found it's way to Midwest Civil War Relics website and sold for a whopping $10,000 according to the listing. That's a heck of a return considering it sold on Ebay for $373.88. I feel that Allen is one of the more trustworthy dealers, albeit a little overpriced on some stuff.

He had it listed as:
CIVIL WAR LIEUTENANT GENERAL INSIGNIA
ONLY ONE THAT I HAVE EVER OWNED
{ VERY VERY RARE }
{ This was Lt. General Ulysses S. Grant`s }
5th item down the page.

http://midwestcivilwarrelics.com/new-items.html

The problem I have with this is that all the stars are the same size. On the photos I have seen the center star was larger. The closed wool backing also doesn't look right for Civil War but maybe this is just a dealer variation?

So my questions are, is this really Civil War era? Is there any way to say for sure it actually belong to U.S. Grant without some kind of provenance?

I would say no - I'd definitely want some kind of assurance as to ownership; otherwise, style, workmanship, and age all look commensurate with the attribution. Without looking, I believe in most of Grant's photos his stars are all the same size. If I remember right from things I've read here on the forums, the larger central star was to indicate a major-general who was acting as general-in-chief (Scott, McClellan, & Halleck). Since Grant was the only actual Union lieutenant general there was no reason for it as far as I can see. There's also a postwar period where I believe Grant was photographed wearing FOUR stars as general-in-chief! (And if I'm right about that, all four stars were the same size.)

I will also add that I thought some of the other attributions on the website were borderline questionable and one item that I think actually looks fake. And AMEN to the overpriced comment!

 

[Mike Serpa]

Here are some LOC photos of Grant's shoulder board(s.) Looks like he wore both sizes of stars.

Here is the four-star shoulder strap photo as mentioned by James N.

 

[Billw12280]

I would say no - I'd definitely want some kind of assurance as to ownership; otherwise, style, workmanship, and age all look commensurate with the attribution. Without looking, I believe in most of Grant's photos his stars are all the same size. If I remember right from things I've read here on the forums, the larger central star was to indicate a major-general who was acting as general-in-chief (Scott, McClellan, & Halleck). Since Grant was the only actual Union lieutenant general there was no reason for it as far as I can see. There's also a postwar period where I believe Grant was photographed wearing FOUR stars as general-in-chief! (And if I'm right about that, all four stars were the same size.)

I will also add that I thought some of the other attributions on the website were borderline questionable and one item that I think actually looks fake. And AMEN to the overpriced comment!

Thanks for the reply. You had me questioning my recollection, which I admit is not the greatest sometimes, about Grant's shoulder straps so I did a quick search. The images I found did show the central star being larger than the border stars, I also saw the 4 star straps which had all the stars the same size. Is this irrefutable proof that the strap in the OP was not Grant's? No, but it certainly makes me question. I agree with you, I would need very solid proof before I shelled out $10,000 on a single shoulder strap. The center star in the first and third image are without a doubt larger than the border star. The second and fourth image are a little harder to tell but, to my eye, the center star appears to be larger. The last image shows the 4 star straps, all the stars appear to be equal sized.

 

[Billw12280]

Here are some LOC photos of Grant's shoulder board(s.) Looks like he wore both sizes of stars.
View attachment 295265

View attachment 295266

View attachment 295267

Here is the four-star shoulder strap photo as mentioned by James N.
View attachment 295269

Thanks @Mike Serpa. You beat me to it.

 

[Mike Serpa]

Thanks @Mike Serpa. You beat me to it.

Only by a few minutes. You posted more photos!

 

[Billw12280]

Only by a few minutes. You posted more photos!

Here are some LOC photos of Grant's shoulder board(s.) Looks like he wore both sizes of stars.
View attachment 295265

View attachment 295266

View attachment 295267

Here is the four-star shoulder strap photo as mentioned by James N.
View attachment 295269

That third image looks very close to the strap in question. Too bad the image is not more clear, from what I can see it appears to be the wider strap with a thicker border and the stars look to be the same size.

 

[Mike Serpa]

That third image looks very close to the strap in question. Too bad the image is not more clear, from what I can see it appears to be the wider strap with a thicker border and the stars look to be the same size.

Too bad we can't see the marks in the photo that we see on the strap.

 

[Billw12280]

Too bad we can't see the marks in the photo that we see on the strap.
View attachment 295309

 

[Salterr]

I just saw this one:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Rare-Civil...=item442d716dd9:g:xEEAAOSwckVb7xBD:rk:17:pf:0

So I don't know whether the seller doesn't understand that Grant was the only Union three star general during the Civil War, or whether he is just hoping someone else might not know.

I remember seeing these and thought my god who would believe these were Grant's. @CW Watch Collector These sold on eBay and then a well known dealer lied and said they were Grant's and they came from the same state as proof when he bought them and sold it for $10,000!!!!! They were bought from PA not IL. Lies! Lies! And more Lies!