feeling sorry for traitors and those that Hated freedom for all

Status
Not open for further replies.

YankeeDoodle

Corporal
Civil War Photo Contest
Annual Winner
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
303
#1
Remembrances of General John Gordon CSA



Gen. Longstreet’s forces and mine at Appomattox, together, numbered less than 8000 men but every man able to bear arms was still resolute and ready for battle. There were present three times that many enrolled Confederates, but two thirds of them were so enfeebled by hunger, so wasted by sickness, so footsore from constant marching, it was difficult for them to keep up with the Army. They were wholly unfit for duty. At the final meeting between Gen. Lee and Gen. Grant rations were ordered by General Grant for 25,000 Confederates.

Some of the scenes on the field, immediately after the cessation of hostilities from prior to the formal surrender, illustrate a magnanimous spirit. As my command, with worn out shoes and ragged uniforms moved to the designated point to stack their arms and surrender their cherished battle flags, they challenged the admiration of the brave victors. One of the knightliest soldiers of the Federal Army, Gen. Joshua L Chamberlain of Maine called his troops into line as my men marched in front of them, the veterans of the blue gave a soldierly salute to those vanquished heroes, a token of respect from Americans to Americans.

Gen. Chamberlain (a Union General that he is quoting) describes this incident in the following words..



“At the sound of that machine like snap of arms, Gen. Gordon started, caught in the moment its significance, and he instantly assumed the finest attitude of a soldier. He wheeled his horse, facing me, touching him gently with a spur, so that the animal slightly reared and, as he wheeled, horse and rider made one motion, the horse’s head swung down with a graceful bow, and General Gordon dropped his sword point to his toe the salutation. By word-of-mouth the general sent back orders to the rear of his own troops take the same position on the manual in the March past as did our line. That was done, and to truly imposing sight was a mutual salutation and farewell.

Bayonets were fixed to muskets, arms stacked, and cartridge boxes on this long and hung upon the stacks. Then slowly and with a reluctance that was appealingly pathetic, the torn and tattered battle flags were either leaned upon the stacks were laid upon the ground. The emotion of the Concord soldiers was really sad to witness. Some of the men who had carried and followed those ragged standards for long years of strife rushed, regardless of all discipline from the ranks and to ponder all flags and press them to their lips.


And it can well be imagined to that there was no lack of emotion on our side but the union men were held steady in their lines, without the least show of demonstration by word or by motion. There was, though, a twitching of the muscles of their faces and, be it said, their battle bronzed cheeks were not altogether dry. Our men felt the import of the occasion, and realized healthfully they would’ve been affected it to feet and surrendered had been the lot after such a fearful struggle.”


When the proud insensitive sons of Dixie came to a full realization of the truth that the Confederacy was overthrown and their leaders have been compelled to surrender his once invincible army, they could no longer control their emotions and tears ran like water down the shrunken faces. The flags would say still carried objects of undisguised affection. These southern banners had gone down before overwhelming numbers, and torn by shells, riddled by bullets, and maddened with the powder and smoke of battle, the aroused intense emotion and the men who had so often followed them to victory.

Yielding to overpowering sentiment, these high metals men began to tear the flags from the staffs and hide them in the bosoms, as they went them with burning tears.

The Confederate officers faithfully endeavored to check this exhibition of loyalty and love for the all flags. Great many of them were duly surrendered; but many were secretly carried by devoted veterans to their homes, and will be cherished forever as honored heirlooms.”



End of their recollections.

Okay. I think you have to be very heartless not to feel for these men. That being said, it is a fact they were fighting, in a very dedicated way, for the right to enslave people . They were fighting for the right to beat, whip and otherwise enforce their hateful slave codes. And they made it clear, from the very beginning, that if they could not do this they would destroy the Union. Anyone who reads the true story of their ( not these Generals specifically but the slave power they fought for) murderous acts in Kansas in the late 1850s simply does not know, or refuses to understand, exactly how malicious and hateful these secessionists were.

Sad though it is to see these sorrowful man crying and lamenting, how many tears to the victims of slavery shed for their sons and daughters who were ripped from their families and sold into slavery?,



The Bible says, “As you sew, so shall you reap.” And that is what the supporters of the Slave Power had to deal with.
 
Last edited:

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

YankeeDoodle

Corporal
Civil War Photo Contest
Annual Winner
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
303
#3
I don't recall either Gordon nor Longstreet being in Kansas. Can you show me a source?
let me clairify when i said "they" I meant the supporters of the slave power not these individuals in particular I will correct my post accordingly, thanks for your very helpful clarifications
 
Last edited:

CMWinkler

Colonel
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
14,202
Location
Middle Tennessee
#4
try reading what I said and not what you imagined I said..
Hmmm. I could have sworn you said:

Okay. I think you have to be very heartless not to feel for these men. That being said, it is a fact they were fighting, in a very dedicated way, for the right to enslave people . They were fighting for the right to beat, whip and otherwise enforce their hateful slave codes. And they made it clear, from the very beginning, that if they could not do this they would destroy the Union. Anyone who reads the true story of their murderous acts in Kansas in the late 1850s simply does not know, or refuses to understand, exactly how malicious and hateful these secessionists were.
The article itself mentioned Generals Gordon, Longstreet, Lee, Grant and Chamberlain. I don't believe that either Grant or Chamberlain were the people to whom your above referenced quotation referred. That would leave Lee, whom I know was not in Kansas and Gordon and Longstreet. If it refers to none of these men, the only one referenced, to whom did it refer? My ancestor was with Longstreet at Appomattox, being the Commander of the 4th Texas and I know he wasn't in Kansas, either, during the 1850's. If not Longstreet nor Gordon, to whom are these murderous acts to which you refer, apply? You keep saying "They" which seems to refer to Longstreet and Gordon.

I'm sorry if my reading ability, you know, linking plural pronouns back to the folks to whom they refer, isn't up to snuff. If "they" doesn't refer Longstreet and Gordon, to whom does it refer?
 

CMWinkler

Colonel
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
14,202
Location
Middle Tennessee
#5
Well, I'm always willing to help. I wasn't clear what you were railing against and wanted to make sure I understood. Your rant would, therefore, refer to my ancestor personally. Because he fought for the Confederacy, he was, by your definition, a supporter of "slave power." I always enjoy your moral clarity when it comes to issues you have never had to confront. It amazes me how many folks, North and South, lacked your moral clarity even during the war.
 

YankeeDoodle

Corporal
Civil War Photo Contest
Annual Winner
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
303
#6
Hmmm. I could have sworn you said:



The article itself mentioned Generals Gordon, Longstreet, Lee, Grant and Chamberlain. I don't believe that either Grant or Chamberlain were the people to whom your above referenced quotation referred. That would leave Lee, whom I know was not in Kansas and Gordon and Longstreet. If it refers to none of these men, the only one referenced, to whom did it refer? My ancestor was with Longstreet at Appomattox, being the Commander of the 4th Texas and I know he wasn't in Kansas, either, during the 1850's. If not Longstreet nor Gordon, to whom are these murderous acts to which you refer, apply? You keep saying "They" which seems to refer to Longstreet and Gordon.

I'm sorry if my reading ability, you know, linking plural pronouns back to the folks to whom they refer, isn't up to snuff. If "they" doesn't refer Longstreet and Gordon, to whom does it refer?
Ok let me make it clear,,the "they"means the soldiers of the confederacy ,,and they were fighting for the slave power..okay? and that slave power murdered and killed freemen in Kansas,,,and so I am not saying they, personally, were in Kansas but they were fighting in support of those that were .. Do you understand? Maybe its me.
Well, I'm always willing to help. I wasn't clear what you were railing against and wanted to make sure I understood. Your rant would, therefore, refer to my ancestor personally. Because he fought for the Confederacy, he was, by your definition, a supporter of "slave power." I always enjoy your moral clarity when it comes to issues you have never had to confront. It amazes me how many folks, North and South, lacked your moral clarity even during the war.
Thanks for your complement on my moral clarity.. Yes I do see things like slavery as a great moral evil and I do see anyone that fought for slavery and against the Union as just what they said they were,,supporters of slave power,,,they certainly made that clear in word and deed.. I understand how difficult it is to admit your ancestors were fighting for slavery and against this country,,my ancestors were from Denmark and its hard for me to admit the Norsemen who raided and pillaged Europe 793–1066 were evil people but you and I cannot be blamed for our ancestors evil deeds..agreed?
 

Delhi Rangers

First Sergeant
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Messages
1,263
Location
Alabama
#7
Well this one ought to be a humdinger. Our ancestors have been called traitors and now "supporters of the slave power". Fellow "Lost Causers" did I forget any? :wink:

Edit:
I almost forgot "haters of freedom".

Some people never cease to amaze. Threads started such as this one are really sad. :frown:
 
Last edited:

CMWinkler

Colonel
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
14,202
Location
Middle Tennessee
#8
Ok let me make it clear,,the "they"means the soldiers of the confederacy ,,and they were fighting for the slave power..okay? and that slave power murdered and killed freemen in Kansas,,,and so I am not saying they, personally, were in Kansas but they were fighting in support of those that were .. Do you understand? Maybe its me.
Yes, you are perfectly clear now. Does it trouble you that proslavery supporters were also murdered in Kansas and Missouri?


Thanks for your complement on my moral clarity.. Yes I do see things like slavery as a great moral evil and I do see anyone that fought for slavery and against the Union as just what they said they were,,supporters of slave power,,,they certainly made that clear in word and deed..
Yes, moral clarity and militant self righteousness 150 years after the fact is a wonderful thing indeed. It's moral clarity in the midst of the moment that is more problematic.

I understand how difficult it is to admit your ancestors were fighting for slavery and against this country,,my ancestors were from Denmark and its hard for me to admit the Norsemen who raided and pillaged Europe 793–1066 were evil people but you and I cannot be blamed for our ancestors evil deeds..agreed?
I have no trouble admitting the Confederacy fought to preserve slavery, as well as other things. They fought against what they perceived to be a direct threat by one region to their rights, as Americans, to chose their own way of life through self governance. While no one can doubt that race based chattel slavery is evil, they were not responsible for its existence. I do not view them, however, as evil. That is a judgment that their sins are somehow worse than my own. No, I am not responsible for their sins, as you are not for the sins of Norsemen. On that, we can agree.
 

John Hartwell

Major
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
7,650
Location
Central Massachusetts
#9
Yes, slavery is a great evil … an evil recognized and protected by the U. S. Constitution for nearly 75 years, and willingly tolerated by almost everybody in the U.S.A. for all that time -- so, they too were "supporters of slave power." The whole country shared in the responsibility for that evil -- and the whole country paid dearly for it (the South more than the rest). There was quite enough blame to go around.

There were no Confederates among my direct ancestors. Lots of rebels, though: in Ireland and Scotland and America -- Traitors all to somebody (both Patriots and Loyalists during the Revolution -- so, Traitors on both sides!) Should that bother me? Or you?

Words come to mind like “love your enemy,” “turn the other cheek,” "do unto others," and something about "casting the first stone." But such words are quickly forgotten when it comes to war, or politics, or profit, even among those who claim to revere their speaker. Besides, all that was so long ago.

I do think a few words are well to remember, though:
“What is true of individuals is true of nations.
One cannot forgive too much.
The weak can never forgive.
Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.
” Gandhi​
 
Last edited:

pfcjking

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jan 15, 2014
Messages
2,109
Location
Memphis
#10
Ok let me make it clear,,the "they"means the soldiers of the confederacy ,,and they were fighting for the slave power..okay? and that slave power murdered and killed freemen in Kansas,,,and so I am not saying they, personally, were in Kansas but they were fighting in support of those that were .. Do you understand? Maybe its me.


Thanks for your complement on my moral clarity.. Yes I do see things like slavery as a great moral evil and I do see anyone that fought for slavery and against the Union as just what they said they were,,supporters of slave power,,,they certainly made that clear in word and deed.. I understand how difficult it is to admit your ancestors were fighting for slavery and against this country,,my ancestors were from Denmark and its hard for me to admit the Norsemen who raided and pillaged Europe 793–1066 were evil people but you and I cannot be blamed for our ancestors evil deeds..agreed?
Your "moral clarity" is not at all unique, sir. I would wager that 100% of the people who are members here in agreement with you when you say that slavery is evil, and that it is, and was, wrong. Even in 1855, your opinion would not be as profound or unique as you might like to think that it is. There was an entire party of Republicans who would have agreed... even Whigs and some Democrats agreed.
Where you are most unique in you thought process, and perhaps the most wrong, is your belief that all Southern soldiers were fighting to preserve slavery, and that alone, and all Northerners were fighting to end slavery, and only for that.
As far as Kansas goes, there were no winners in the morality contest there. The John Brown types put just as much of a stain on on the banner of freedom as any slave holder.
I will do you a favor by not relaying the myth that the ACW was 100% not about slavery. In turn, you can stop trying to promote the myth that it was 100% about slavery.
It was and it wasn't. The complexities of issues that caused that war, and the sacrifices of the men and women of both sides and both races, deserve much more than to be lumped into one category.
 

pfcjking

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jan 15, 2014
Messages
2,109
Location
Memphis
#11
On a more obvious point, who are you to label these men? What makes you better than MG Joshua L. Chamberlain or LTG U. S. Grant? They did not cast out indictments and labels. They did not erect gallows in Appomattox Courthouse. They revered and respected them. Not only that, but they saw enough blood spilled that they would most likely have told you to put a cork in it.
"The rebels are our countrymen again" said Grant. Who are you?
 

Nathanb1

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
32,930
Location
Smack dab in the heart of Texas
#13
Your "moral clarity" is not at all unique, sir. I would wager that 100% of the people who are members here in agreement with you when you say that slavery is evil, and that it is, and was, wrong. Even in 1855, your opinion would not be as profound or unique as you might like to think that it is. There was an entire party of Republicans who would have agreed... even Whigs and some Democrats agreed.
Where you are most unique in you thought process, and perhaps the most wrong, is your belief that all Southern soldiers were fighting to preserve slavery, and that alone, and all Northerners were fighting to end slavery, and only for that.
As far as Kansas goes, there were no winners in the morality contest there. The John Brown types put just as much of a stain on on the banner of freedom as any slave holder.
I will do you a favor by not relaying the myth that the ACW was 100% not about slavery. In turn, you can stop trying to promote the myth that it was 100% about slavery.
It was and it wasn't. The complexities of issues that caused that war, and the sacrifices of the men and women of both sides and both races, deserve much more than to be lumped into one category.
On a more obvious point, who are you to label these men? What makes you better than MG Joshua L. Chamberlain or LTG U. S. Grant? They did not cast out indictments and labels. They did not erect gallows in Appomattox Courthouse. They revered and respected them. Not only that, but they saw enough blood spilled that they would most likely have told you to put a cork in it.
"The rebels are our countrymen again" said Grant. Who are you?
It makes absolutely no sense to judge people in the 19th Century by the standards of the 21st Century.

One wonders what things we do regularly without even thinking about it that will be seen by future generations as unforgivable evils
.
Bravo, gentlemen! Jeff, may I quote you?
 
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
7,754
#20
I think you mean "Madame."

it is a fact they were fighting, in a very dedicated way, for the right to enslave people . They were fighting for the right to beat, whip and otherwise enforce their hateful slave codes. And they made it clear, from the very beginning, that if they could not do this they would destroy the Union.
I'm not sure if this stuff is boring or entertaining. Really, it could go either way. I suppose we should be grateful to our forward looking forbears for their great wisdom. Except, they really didn't offer much in this regard. Oh, well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads




(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top