Divided Loyalty

[Legion Para]

In 2016 do we really understand the term 'Divided Loyalty'? Few Americans have Loyalty to the State where he or she was born.

On 3 July 1863, William Thomas Magruder said the following to his men:

"Men, remember your mothers, wives, and sisters at home, and do not halt here."

Many have heard/read the above words, but few know about William Thomas Magruder. Before joining the Confederate Army in 1862, he served with the 1st US Cavalry at 1st Manassas in 1861 and on the Peninsula in 1862. Resigning his US Army commission in October 1862 must not have been an easy decision to make. Magruder was a Marylander.

 

[huskerblitz]

In 2016 do we really understand the term 'Divided Loyalty'. Few Americans have Loyalty to the State where he or she was born.

I think so, maybe not in terms of country vs. state (except during college football season ) but if one were to look at it from a position of political parties, I think most can get the gist of the division.

 

[LoriAnn]

...but if one were to look at it from a position of political parties, I think most can get the gist of the division.

Yes. This is my life. (And those smilies pretty much sum that up.)

It's obviously the understatement of the year though to say I'm relieved that my divided loyalties are so simple in 2016. Especially since my personality is one of a compromiser. If I were the same person back in 1861, I think I would have been quite miserable on a few levels ~ one because I'd never be able to see Southerners as the enemy.

I wonder what was Magruder's tipping point.

 

[leftyhunter]

In 2016 do we really understand the term 'Divided Loyalty'? Few Americans have Loyalty to the State where he or she was born.

On 3 July 1863, William Thomas Magruder said the following to his men:

"Men, remember your mothers, wives, and sisters at home, and do not halt here."

Many have heard/read the above words, but few know about William Thomas Magruder. Before joing the Confederate Army in 1862, he served with the 1st US Cavalry at 1st Manassas in 1861 and on the Peninsula in 1862. Resigning his US Army commission in October 1862 must not have been an easy decision to make. Magruder was a Marylander.

I would argue loyalty to the state is a false premise. A state has in and of itself no political bias one way or the other.
Was George Thomas less of a Virginian then Robert E Lee? Where Unionist troops less native to their state then Confederate soldiers?
The real choice was not loyalty to staye vs federal but pro Union vs Pro Confederacy.
Leftyhunter

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

Few Americans have Loyalty to the State where he or she was born.

Oh, I don't know if that's a good premise to begin with Legion Para? Honestly not being argumentative- have you spoken with a Texan today?

 

[Two Eyed Jack]

I would argue loyalty to the state is a false premise. A state has in and of itself no political bias one way or the other.
Was George Thomas less of a Virginian then Robert E Lee? Where Unionist troops less native to their state then Confederate soldiers?
The real choice was not loyalty to staye vs federal but pro Union vs Pro Confederacy.
Leftyhunter

I somewhat disagree. State loyalty was prominent on both sides as seen by regiment names. For example, 6th North Carolina Infantry, 1st New York Volunteer Infantry, etc.

Also, perhaps Thomas was less of a Virginian than Lee. None of his blood kin attended his funeral as they considered him a traitor.

 

[alexjack]

In 2016 do we really understand the term 'Divided Loyalty'? Few Americans have Loyalty to the State where he or she was born.

That statement really surprised me.

 

[NedBaldwin]

I wonder what was Magruder's tipping point.

According to a "Tribute" in the Confederate Veteran magazine, the tipping point was the Emancipation Proclamation

 

[leftyhunter]

I somewhat disagree. State loyalty was prominent on both sides as seen by regiment names. For example, 6th North Carolina Infantry, 1st New York Volunteer Infantry, etc.

Also, perhaps Thomas was less of a Virginian than Lee. None of his blood kin attended his funeral as they considered him a traitor.

Their were plenty of Unionist regiments per Dyers Compendium named after their states. What Thomas's family felt about him makes him no lees grom Virginia then any other Virginian.
How does fighting for the cause of slavery make some one more loyal to their state?
Leftyhunter

 

[DanF]

Pretty sure those that signed up to fight for the Union after the attack on Sumter were signing up to fight for their Country.

Don't think that they believed that in attacking Sumter that South Carolina rebels were attacking South Carolina, but attacking the United States.

And don't forget on the secessionists side after the initial secessions other States claimed they seceded in support of the initial seceding States that were being "invaded".

So obviously loyalty went beyond "my State, my country", thinking.

 

[Two Eyed Jack]

Their were plenty of Unionist regiments per Dyers Compendium named after their states. What Thomas's family felt about him makes him no lees grom Virginia then any other Virginian.
How does fighting for the cause of slavery make some one more loyal to their state?
Leftyhunter

Your question makes no sense.

 

[Bee]

Your question makes no sense.

I think this gets back to the Thomas/Lee conundrum:

Quote @leftyhunter : How does fighting for the cause of slavery make some one more loyal to their state?

Lee & Thomas both are Virginians, but Lee chooses the side of the CSA, whilst Thomas chooses the USA.

1. Did Lee choose Virginia over the USA, or did he choose to defend slavery?

2. Did Thomas choose the USA over Virginia, or did he choose to fight against the cause of slavery?

3. Was each man more or less loyal to their state, or were they taking a stand on slavery?
​

If I understand where Lefty is coming from, I believe that he poses the question of loyalty in a way that I have not considered in the past.

 

[alexjack]

I believe Lee chose Virginia not slavery or even the Confederacy.

 

[Tom Elmore]

In the border states, loyalties were often deeply split within individual towns and villages. Take for example the town of Martinsburg in Berkeley County, Virginia. When that county was incorporated into the new state of West Virginia in mid-1863, Martinsburg, which had a recorded population of 3,364 in 1860, was split roughly 60 percent Union and 40 percent Confederate. Citizens were often careful to conceal their true feelings when an army (of either side) marched through.

Long before the war, split loyalties ranged even farther afield. I am currently reading a history of Mahoning County in the northeastern part of Ohio, in which loyalties seemed to be split right down the middle in the town of Canfield. In 1837, a visiting young Methodist preacher who delivered an announced anti-slavery speech in the Congregational Church was pelted with rotten eggs amid hooting and jeering - inside the church! His son was called upon to use an umbrella to ward off the missiles until the preacher could finish his sermon. The preacher then ran out to a waiting carriage and drove off quickly, narrowly avoiding a tar and feather treatment, while his son escaped by running into the woods. One of the angry citizens held on to the back of the carriage as it drove off, but let go when the preacher's wife began to liberally apply a whip to his face. [History of Trumbull and Mahoning Counties, Ohio, p. 31]

 

[Two Eyed Jack]

I think this gets back to the Thomas/Lee conundrum:

Quote: How does fighting for the cause of slavery make some one more loyal to their state?

Lee & Thomas both are Virginians, but Lee chooses the side of the CSA, whilst Thomas chooses the USA.

1. Did Lee choose Virginia over the USA, or did he choose to defend slavery?

2. Did Thomas choose the USA over Virginia, or did he choose to fight against the cause of slavery?

3. Was each man more or less loyal to their state, or were they taking a stand on slavery?
​

If I understand where Lefty is coming from, I believe that he poses the question of loyalty in a way that I have not considered in the past.

It's a red herring and one that is well over used in these debates. Furthermore, in my opinion, if General Lee were confronted with such an accusation, I don't believe that he would even dignify the accusation with a response.

Also, if one is going to suggest that Lee's loyalty was to slavery then one can equally suggest that Thomas' loyalty was to tyranny.

 

[Bee]

It's a red herring and one that is well over used in these debates. Furthermore, in my opinion, if General Lee were confronted with such an accusation, I don't believe that he would even dignify the accusation with a response.

Also, if one is going to suggest that Lee's loyalty was to slavery then one can equally suggest that Thomas' loyalty was to tyranny.

We will have to wait and see what @leftyhunter says, because I am not sure at this point if I interpreted his question correctly in what I thought he meant by " How does fighting for the cause of slavery make some one more loyal to their state?"

 

[DanF]

Also, if one is going to suggest that Lee's loyalty was to slavery then one can equally suggest that Thomas' loyalty was to tyranny.

No, because the tryanny was in slavery, you don't get more tyrannical than depriving other human beings of even the most basic human rights and treating them as being no different than cattle that can be owned.

 

[huskerblitz]

No, because the tryanny was in slavery, you don't get more tyrannical than depriving other human beings of even the most basic human rights and treating them as being no different than cattle that can be owned.

Yes because we all know Northern factory owners treated their workers sooo much better.
It's the old Glass House thing....

 

[DanF]

Yes because we all know Northern factory owners treated their workers sooo much better.
It's the old Glass House thing....

I somehow missed the part where northern factory workers were the legally owned property of the factory owners.

Please post a copy of the "Fugitive Factory worker act". And other related stories of how Factory owners split up factory worker families by selling family members away from their family.

Factory owners did not have absolute control over the lives of Factory workers or their families, the Slaveholders did have absolute control over their slaves lives. . To try and compare them as being even remotely similar is absurd.

But the "Northern wage slaves" spiel was part of the pro slavery defense arguing that the Slave was much better off. Though they never seemed able to reconcile that claim with the reality of runaway slaves

 

[Two Eyed Jack]

No, because the tryanny was in slavery, you don't get more tyrannical than depriving other human beings of even the most basic human rights and treating them as being no different than cattle that can be owned.

Slavery is just one form of tyranny. Are you suggesting that it's the only form?