Can Benjamin Butler be redeemed?

[wausaubob]

It said they were liable to be treated as women of the town plying their "avocation." Which Butler suggested was a fine and a night in jail-- the common practice in NO at the time. But, none ever was so treated. The provocations ceased almost overnight.

That was an entirely different matter ... nothing whatsoever to do with the Woman Order. IIRC, it involved communicating, or sending money to the rebels across the lines (I may be wrong about that, but it was not due to Order 28). One or two other women spent short stays on Ship Island also -- again for specific offenses nor related to the Order.

Butler only had to create a few examples to demonstrate that women acting as Confederate agents were not immune for the laws of war and swift punishment.

 

[wausaubob]

It said they were liable to be treated as women of the town plying their "avocation." Which Butler suggested was a fine and a night in jail-- the common practice in NO at the time. But, none ever was so treated. The provocations ceased almost overnight.

That was an entirely different matter ... nothing whatsoever to do with the Woman Order. IIRC, it involved communicating, or sending money to the rebels across the lines (I may be wrong about that, but it was not due to Order 28). One or two other women spent short stays on Ship Island also -- again for specific offenses nor related to the Order.

People wanted to imply that Butler had authorized his soldiers to assault the Confederate women of New Orleans. That was more a reflection of their own sexual preoccupation than anything Butler suggested or ever happened. It seems there were several leaps involved in getting to those unwarranted conclusions.

 

[John Hartwell]

People wanted to imply that Butler had authorized his soldiers to assault the Confederate women of New Orleans. That was more a reflection of their own sexual preoccupation than anything Butler suggested or ever happened. It seems there were several leaps involved in getting to those unwarranted conclusions.

Very small 'leaps' if you're composing propaganda in Richmond. And for this Beauregard invented "Beast Butler," and Davis issued his "hang without trial" proclamation.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Not seeing anyone really suggest he was a brilliant general that held his position only by military merit and he avoided bringing controversy to his position

Butler's mediocrity on the battlefield is rarely a point of debate.

I disagree with the idea that being controversial is always a bad thing. "Contrand" and USCT were controversial, for example.

Don't see viewing something as heavy handed as all that subjective, as someone instituting similar policies for dissent today would still be viewed as heavy handed in my opinion.

Some people deserve heavy-handed treatment. This wasn't simply dissent. This was the occupation of the largest city (by population) to have participated in a still-actove armed rebellion and unilateral secession. Such people do not warrant the same treatment as peacetime political protests.

 

[JerryD]

I disagree as to overblown or partisan, if such policies were carried out today, they would certainly still be viewed controversial and negative.

You keep stating this, with no real facts to back you up. Personally, I think his actions in Maryland and New Orleans are laudable, and while firm, would not be as nearly negative as you seem to believe.

 

[John Hartwell]

For New Orleans, just ask yourself: If I were given that duty: to hold, pacify, and make productive such a city, under such circumstances, what would I do? How, honestly and realistically, could I have done better? You can take the partisan position, that he should not be there in the first place, and should leave. But he was there and had to obey orders and secure that city.
Put yourself in his shoes.

 

[wausaubob]

And as

Butler's mediocrity on the battlefield is rarely a point of debate.

I disagree with the idea that being controversial is always a bad thing. "Contrand" and USCT were controversial, for example.



Some people deserve heavy-handed treatment. This wasn't simply dissent. This was the occupation of the largest city (by population) to have participated in a still-actove armed rebellion and unilateral secession. Such people do not warrant the same treatment as peacetime political protests.

Butler should have sent someone else to "cooperate" with David Porter during the Fort Fisher operation. Porter was a hard person to work with and knew many ways to mess things up for the army. Butler should have sent a subordinant officer and maybe the success would have still been in his department and he might have gathered some reflective glory.

 

[John Hartwell]

Butler should have sent someone else to "cooperate" with David Porter during the Fort Fisher operation. Porter was a hard person to work with and knew many ways to mess things up for the army. Butler should have sent a subordinant officer and maybe the success would have still been in his department and he might have gathered some reflective glory.

It was a doomed relationship. Butler had already publicly accused Porter of cowardice during the attacks on the forts below New Orleans. He pursued his vendetta against Porter off-and-on for many years, culminating in 1889 with:

"Statement of facts in relation to Admiral D.D. Porter's claim not to have run away from forts St. Philip and Jackson, in April 1862, by which his cowardice and falsehood are fully shown from official documents and Porter's own self contradictions."

 

[wausaubob]

It was a doomed relationship. Butler had already publicly accused Porter of cowardice during the attacks on the forts below New Orleans. He pursued his vendetta against Porter for many years, culminating in 1889 with:

"Statement of facts in relation to Admiral D.D. Porter's claim not to have run away from forts St. Philip and Jackson, in April 1862, by which his cowardice and falsehood are fully shown from official documents and Porter's own self contradictions."

That explains why Porter messed the gunpowder ship and started the bombardment of the fort prematurely. Why wasn't Grant aware of the bad blood between them? Grant probably was aware of it and was interested in giving Butler a chance to mess things up.

 

[wausaubob]

For New Orleans, just ask yourself: If I were given that duty: to hold, pacify, and make productive such a city, under such circumstances, what would I do? How, honestly and realistically, could I have done better? You can take the partisan position, that he should not be there in the first place, and should leave. But he was there and had too obey orders and secure that city.
Put yourself in his shoes.

The general peace that prevailed during the war contrasts sharply with the outbreaks of partisan violence in New Orleans and Louisiana during the Reconstruction era. The administration was grateful for Butler's efforts in New Orleans.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Butler's head was on the chopping block no matter what happened at Fort Fisher. His seniority to Meade was a command problem. Lincoln had been reelected and that made political generals like Butler expendable.

Better men than Butler couldn't get along with David Dixon Porter. He was one of the most shameless gloryhounds of the war, albeit one of the more competent ones. He was a Custer to Farragut's Buford.

 

[archieclement]

You keep stating this, with no real facts to back you up. Personally, I think his actions in Maryland and New Orleans are laudable, and while firm, would not be as nearly negative as you seem to believe.

I disagree, if similar action had been taken during various unrest in my lifetime such as various riots or burning a flag in protest, think it indeed would be viewed as controversial and meet opposition, even if some would tacitly approve.

Regardless of era, treating someone as guilty of a crime they didn't commit, would seem against our ideals to me. Nor a policy I think should be or been adopted.

 

[archieclement]

I disagree with the idea that being controversial is always a bad thing. "Contrand" and USCT were controversial, for example.

I don't necessarily disagree, but within a context.

His being or supporting controversial positions as a politician for example would fit that criteria to me. Though in impeachment and ex parte milligan courts and history ultimately ruled his views the wrong ones. As both legal precidents would be accepted today.

However as a US military officer I believe an officers duty is to carry out the national policies determined by his superiors, and not bring controversy to his position or the nation he is representing. Nor would I see how even an appearance of impropriety is good.

Added- In that regard I personally do tend to hold anyone wearing the US uniform to the highest standard, as they are the only ones representing US policy, law, standards, and ideals. Regardless of war, other countries and their officers don't represent the US and its government.

 

[JerryD]

I disagree, if similar action had been taken during various unrest in my lifetime such as various riots or burning a flag in protest, think it indeed would be viewed as controversial and meet opposition, even if some would tacitly approve.

Regardless of era, treating someone as guilty of a crime they didn't commit, would seem against our ideals to me. Nor a policy I think should be or been adopted.

In your last sentence I assume you mean the much hyped and much understood statement about the ladies of New Orleans. If that is the sum total of your argument, then its weak indeed. HIs hanging of the man who took down the US flag is a much more serious breach, to make your argument for you. That is the one instance where I think he strayed too far, but even then, he was dealing with a volatile situation and had to make a statement to establish authority in a time of war against traitors.

 

[archieclement]

In your last sentence I assume you mean the much hyped and much understood statement about the ladies of New Orleans. If that is the sum total of your argument, then its weak indeed. HIs hanging of the man who took down the US flag is a much more serious breach, to make your argument for you. That is the one instance where I think he strayed too far, but even then, he was dealing with a volatile situation and had to make a statement to establish authority in a time of war against traitors.

Again, disagree, I honestly can't imagine a similar worded policy today, meant specifically to be insulting, wouldn't be met with similar criticism today. Nor is his reputation hardly based on just that policy....or hanging Mumford.....or even his lackluster military performance, or corruption within his command, or supporting positions postwar that were ruled unconstitutional and rejected by Supreme Courts.......but as suggested by others, if one objectively steps back and views everything as a sum, he had alot of negative positions or baggage. So I find use of "redeemed" rather curious.

Even if one wishes to ignore any of the above, or even if one could conclusively be proven false......it's not as if the rest wouldn't remain.

 

[John Hartwell]

I disagree, if similar action had been taken during various unrest in my lifetime such as various riots or burning a flag in protest, think it indeed would be viewed as controversial and meet opposition, even if some would tacitly approve.

Regardless of era, treating someone as guilty of a crime they didn't commit, would seem against our ideals to me. Nor a policy I think should be or been adopted.

But, this wasn't "various unrest." This was an occupied, hostile city during full-scale, bloody war. It was a large, economically and strategically important city, vital to the prosecution of that war, and that, during those first nine months of occupation, seemed imminently in danger of rebel attack.

And, as I said, Butler's actions were targeted on those who openly supported the rebellion .... and who were thereby very much guilty of an offense they did commit -- at least in the eyes of the Union, which being in charge, was the sole arbiter.

Yes, the pro-Confederate people of NO were trapped. And they were humiliated, feeling that they had been betrayed by their own defenders, who had surrendered the forts down river after meagre resistance, and then silently slipped out of the city as the Federals marched in, unopposed. And they were humiliated that the CSA had decided they weren't worth the effort to come to their relief. They had not been conquered ... they had been abandoned, and that made the occupation doubly hard for them to bear.

 

[Louisiana Jayhawker]

From my brief study of the Butler attack on Fort Fisher it would appear to be a setup to dispose of Butler. Grant had send Col. Cyrus B. Comstock to be his personal representative figure to be placed on Butler's Staff on this operation. Upon Butler's forces arrival at the Fort, Butler initially reached the decision to abandon the operation and not attack the Fort; as it was found to be formidable and he lacked adequate resources. He also found Porter's activities suspect. At this prefect timing, Col. Comstock strongly proposes that a probing light attack force be landed to check for any weak points; and if none found a withdraw would be in order. It was a fatal mistake; that Butler reversed his initial judgement and maybe intimidated by Grant's powerful representative. The landing took placed and the Fort had no weakness. The action was ineffective but now Butler's enemies immediately branded the operation as a bitter defeat and again the old claim of Butler's incompetent behavior. Note Porter is strongly encouraging the landing attack as he lied the Fort was wrecked by Naval shelling and defenseless.

 

[archieclement]

But, this wasn't "various unrest." This was an occupied, hostile city during full-scale, bloody war. It was a large, economically and strategically important city, vital to the prosecution of that war, and that, during those first nine months of occupation, seemed imminently in danger of rebel attack.

And, as I said, Butler's actions were targeted on those who openly supported the rebellion .... and who were thereby very much guilty of an offense they did commit -- at least in the eyes of the Union, which being in charge, was the sole arbiter.

Yes, the pro-Confederate people of NO were trapped. And they were humiliated, feeling that they had been betrayed by their own defenders, who had surrendered the forts down river after meagre resistance, and then silently slipped out of the city as the Federals marched in, unopposed. And they were humiliated that the CSA had decided they weren't worth the effort to come to their relief. They had not been conquered ... they had been abandoned, and that made the occupation doubly hard for them to bear.

It was indeed various unrest. The Union position was the South hadn't seceded, and women hadn't taken up arms.

So that position leaves Southern women political dissenters, as in any unrest. Certainly war protest wasn't confined to ACW, back when I was in HS for example we were taught Viet Nam soldiers were spit on and similarly treated with contempt, not aware of the protestors being legally treated as prostitutes. Nor can I envision the ACLU not having fits if they had been.

 

[Dead Parrott]

It was indeed various unrest. The Union position was the South hadn't seceded, and women hadn't taken up arms.

Setting Butler aside for a moment, I'm not sure this is a correct characterization. The Union position was that the Southern states did not have a right to secede, but that s state of rebellion existed. I think that overwhelms any definition of 'unrest'.

That said, I make no defense of Butler's chosen approach to maintaining order - I recognize a balance was required, and I recognize Butler was successful in maintaining order at minimum loss of life. As for judgement about his methods in light of the time period and circumstances, and their appropriateness, I leave open to others.

 

[archieclement]

Setting Butler aside for a moment, I'm not sure this is a correct characterization. The Union position was that the Southern states did not have a right to secede, but that s state of rebellion existed. I think that overwhelms any definition of 'unrest'.

That said, I make no defense of Butler's chosen approach to maintaining order - I recognize a balance was required, and I recognize Butler was successful in maintaining order at minimum loss of life. As for judgement about his methods in light of the time period and circumstances, and their appropriateness, I leave open to others.

Indeed it remains it was controversial at the time, and if one is being honest, think same type of action would also be controversial today.

So don't really see the issue in viewing it both as controversial and questionable judgement in bringing on the controversy.