Enoch L. Cade
Corporal
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2022
- Location
- Mississippi
Good morning all. I'm working on an essay about the Red River Campaign. I know a good deal about it from the Confederate side (ancestor in the Crescent City Infantry and people from around Shreveport); General Taylor's memoirs are in my humble opinion one of the best memoirs from the Southern side.
Taylor's opponent was, of course, General Nathaniel Banks of Massachusetts. aka, "Commissary" Banks, who did not do all that well against Stonewall in the Valley or Cedar Mountain. I am not sure his siege of Port Hudson (where, as it happens, the one Union ancestor I have identified was killed) will be studied by future military men. The Red River Campaign itself was a bit of a shambles.
Banks was a political general, we all know. But he was an interesting man -- and dare I say even a decent and honorable one? He was the son of millworkers and began working in a mill at the age of fourteen. He replaced bobbins and was known as Bobbin Boy Banks. Yet he sought self-improvement and by study -- he would walk to Boston on days off and read at the Athenaeum Library, formed a debate club among the millworkers and got involved in the temperance movement. He became a U.S. representative for Massachusetts, speaker of the House and governor.
What struck me, though, is that he seemed to honest and largely incorruptible. He made efforts to clean up the corrupt practices instituted by fellow Bay Stater Benjamin Banks after taking over the Department of the Gulf in New Orleans (Butler didn't like him). He was moderate, which angered the Radical Republicans (as did McPherson in Vicksburg).
But what I found more interesting was the Red River expedition -- which sought to both open a route into Texas AND obtain cotton. Admiral Porter was certainly not averse to sending his sailors into Rapides Parish (where some of my folks had been raising cattle on a Spanish land grant since before the American Revolution) to obtain bales. He had his eyes on the prize money. Banks, though, seemed genuinely interested in obtaining cotton to feed the mills back in Massachusetts and raise money for the U.S. Treasury. Ludwell Johnson, who cannot be described as an admirer of the Union war effort, admits throughout his book about the campaign that there's no evidence of corruption or self-dealing on the part of Banks. Instead, he seemed focused on doing "the right thing" for his constituents and helping replenish the Treasury.
Banks was an "early adopter" of abolition and later various progressive causes (the vote for women) -- hard to say if he was leading the voters, or picking up on trends in the zeitgeist. Still, while not a military genius, he seems quite an able politician, always seeking compromise and a "middle course" -- and, as noted above, focused on serving his constituents rather than enriching himself. And I don't think anyone ever accused him of lacking courage on the battlefield. He may not have been the brightest light in the Union chandelier, but he strikes me as a decent, and even likable man.
I'd be very interested in hearing the thoughts of others. Seems there's more to the man than just "bumbling political general."
Taylor's opponent was, of course, General Nathaniel Banks of Massachusetts. aka, "Commissary" Banks, who did not do all that well against Stonewall in the Valley or Cedar Mountain. I am not sure his siege of Port Hudson (where, as it happens, the one Union ancestor I have identified was killed) will be studied by future military men. The Red River Campaign itself was a bit of a shambles.
Banks was a political general, we all know. But he was an interesting man -- and dare I say even a decent and honorable one? He was the son of millworkers and began working in a mill at the age of fourteen. He replaced bobbins and was known as Bobbin Boy Banks. Yet he sought self-improvement and by study -- he would walk to Boston on days off and read at the Athenaeum Library, formed a debate club among the millworkers and got involved in the temperance movement. He became a U.S. representative for Massachusetts, speaker of the House and governor.
What struck me, though, is that he seemed to honest and largely incorruptible. He made efforts to clean up the corrupt practices instituted by fellow Bay Stater Benjamin Banks after taking over the Department of the Gulf in New Orleans (Butler didn't like him). He was moderate, which angered the Radical Republicans (as did McPherson in Vicksburg).
But what I found more interesting was the Red River expedition -- which sought to both open a route into Texas AND obtain cotton. Admiral Porter was certainly not averse to sending his sailors into Rapides Parish (where some of my folks had been raising cattle on a Spanish land grant since before the American Revolution) to obtain bales. He had his eyes on the prize money. Banks, though, seemed genuinely interested in obtaining cotton to feed the mills back in Massachusetts and raise money for the U.S. Treasury. Ludwell Johnson, who cannot be described as an admirer of the Union war effort, admits throughout his book about the campaign that there's no evidence of corruption or self-dealing on the part of Banks. Instead, he seemed focused on doing "the right thing" for his constituents and helping replenish the Treasury.
Banks was an "early adopter" of abolition and later various progressive causes (the vote for women) -- hard to say if he was leading the voters, or picking up on trends in the zeitgeist. Still, while not a military genius, he seems quite an able politician, always seeking compromise and a "middle course" -- and, as noted above, focused on serving his constituents rather than enriching himself. And I don't think anyone ever accused him of lacking courage on the battlefield. He may not have been the brightest light in the Union chandelier, but he strikes me as a decent, and even likable man.
I'd be very interested in hearing the thoughts of others. Seems there's more to the man than just "bumbling political general."
Forum Host
Bringing the