Historical Ignorance and Confederate Generals

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Trevanion Teel
He wasn't even a major. He was only a captain during the campaign. He was promoted to major about December 1862 to date from February 21, 1862. I suppose for meritorious conduct at the Battle of Valverde.

I think it's presumptive to think a captain knows the objectives of a campaign and Teel's description is a good bit grandiose- "Conquest of California"..."On to San Francisco!"... "negotiations to secure Chihuahua, Sonora, and Lower California, either by purchase or by conquest, would be opened; the state of affairs in Mexico made it an easy thing to take those States, and the Mexican President would be glad to get rid of them and at the same time improve his exchequer" etc.

When people read something like that it satisfies their own bias and they tend to accept it without question.
I've found out that Teel was a member of the KGC. I believe that explains why his ideas on Sibley's campaign do not line up with those of the Confederate government.

Jeff Davis already had a war with the US. He didn't need more wars with the Colonial powers.

https://www.google.com/search?ei=-C...hUKEwiynPjrioXrAhUKA6wKHeVzCZIQ4dUDCAw&uact=5
 

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Location
Austin Texas
Trevanion Teel

I've found out that Teel was a member of the KGC. I believe that explains why his ideas on Sibley's campaign do not line up with those of the Confederate government.

Jeff Davis already had a war with the US. He didn't need more wars with the Colonial powers.

https://www.google.com/search?ei=-C...hUKEwiynPjrioXrAhUKA6wKHeVzCZIQ4dUDCAw&uact=5


It certainly wasn‘t Jeff Davis reining in Sibley, who was 350 miles beyond El Paso and the Texas Border on the road to Colorado when he lost his wagons at Glorietta.
 

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
And willingly restrict themselves makes them fully sovereign states in what way?

Restrictions agreed upon by all are still restrictions equating to the inability to act as fully sovereign states, which none of them were because of such self-imposed restrictions.

When the United States signed a treaty with another country, they were imposing limitations and restrictions on themselves. Does that mean the US was not sovereign? Of course not. The States under the Articles were essentially all tiny independent countries, and if you can see them that way, the Articles will make a lot more sense.
 

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Location
Georgia
My point was if slave owners were free to expand slavery and felt that the Lincoln Administration was hindering their efforts to do so they could have sought the protection of the federal courts vs using violence which was found based on antebellum law per Texas v. White and the resulting destruction that occurred during the war which was completely legal for either side to commit per Dow v. Johnson.
If the slave owners had a problem with Republican Party that doesn't legally justify violence towards the federal government.
Leftyhunter
I understand your point. However, one of the reasons for secession was the opposition by the Republicans to the extension of slavery into the territories. Furthermore, the south realized that the territories were an inhospitable environment for plantation style agriculture and would not support slavery. Therefore, the territories would eventually become free states and outnumber the slave states in Congress. The southern states realized they would lose their political power on the national level as a result and decided to secede.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
I understand your point. However, one of the reasons for secession was the opposition by the Republicans to the extension of slavery into the territories. Furthermore, the south realized that the territories were an inhospitable environment for plantation style agriculture and would not support slavery. Therefore, the territories would eventually become free states and outnumber the slave states in Congress. The southern states realized they would lose their political power on the national level as a result and decided to secede.
If all that is true then the ACW was all about slavery. On the other hand slaves can be used for mining and the Catholic Church in Southern California under the Spanish had a form of slavery called the Mission System.
Slaves can and were used in industry such has the Tredger Iron Works in Richmond , Virginia so why not use slaves in industrial applications any way.
The slave owners had just fought and lost a war in " Bleeding Kansas" so they definitely thought slavery was viable outside the South. Slaves were briefly used during the California gold Rush before the free miners objected.
As already mentioned General Silbey tried to siezed the Southwest for the Confederacy so secessionists certainly thought slavery was viable far from the South.
Leftyhunter
 
Last edited:

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
...like John Chivington.
Yes and I have a whole thread " the Confederate's were not nicer to the Indians" because in no way shape or form were Southern whites kinder to the Indians then Northeners. Southern whites used plenty of violence against the Indians before during and after the ACW.
Leftyhunter
 

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Location
Austin Texas
If all that is true then the ACW was all about slavery. On the other hand slaves can be used for mining and the Catholic Church in Southern California under the Spanish had a form of slavery called the Mission System.
Slaves can and were used in industry such has the Tredger Iron Works in Richmond , Virginia so why not use slaves in industrial applications any way.
The slave owners had just fought and lost a war in " Bleeding Kansas" so they definitely thought slavery was viable outside the South. Slaves were briefly used during the California gold fish before the free miners objected.
As already mentioned General Silbey tried to siezed the Southwest for the Confederacy so secessionists certainly thought slavery was viable far from the South.
Leftyhunter


Sibley also advocated enslaving the native American population in New Mexico:


3AD62EF2-CA27-46E0-B58A-0621C8444653.png
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Yes and I have a whole thread " the Confederate's were not nicer to the Indians" because in no way shape or form were Southern whites kinder to the Indians then Northeners. Southern whites used plenty of violence against the Indians before during and after the ACW.
Leftyhunter
The near genocide of the American Indians was carried out by the US government. Did Northerners, Southerners, Easterners, and Westerners participate in it? Yes, but most of it wouldn't have happened without US troops and the blessing of that government and whoever that was running it at the time.
 

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Location
Georgia
If all that is true then the ACW was all about slavery. On the other hand slaves can be used for mining and the Catholic Church in Southern California under the Spanish had a form of slavery called the Mission System.
Slaves can and were used in industry such has the Tredger Iron Works in Richmond , Virginia so why not use slaves in industrial applications any way.
The slave owners had just fought and lost a war in " Bleeding Kansas" so they definitely thought slavery was viable outside the South. Slaves were briefly used during the California gold fish before the free miners objected.
As already mentioned General Silbey tried to siezed the Southwest for the Confederacy so secessionists certainly thought slavery was viable far from the South.
Leftyhunter
You posted "Slaves were briefly used during the California gold fish before the free miners objected." What exactly is the California Gold Fish? Anyway, there is no evidence that the planters from the south wanted to move out west and become miners. The New Mexico Territory was opened in 1850 to settlers but according to the 1860 census there were no slaves in the territory at all. Therefore, this region was not a bastion for slavery. As for the adjoining Utah territory, it was controlled by Mormons who had no use for slavery.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
The near genocide of the American Indians was carried out by the US government. Did Northerners, Southerners, Easterners, and Westerners participate in it? Yes, but most of it wouldn't have happened without US troops and the blessing of that government and whoever that was running it at the time.
I also detailed in my aforementioned thread that Confedrate troops massacred Indian Civilians. US troops and also Southern milita fought Indians in the Antebellum era. Southern whites had no problems with US Indian policy before during or after the ACW. Yes the Confedracy had Indian allied troops although deserted and or defected to the Union.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
You posted "Slaves were briefly used during the California gold fish before the free miners objected." What exactly is the California Gold Fish? Anyway, there is no evidence that the planters from the south wanted to move out west and become miners. The New Mexico Territory was opened in 1850 to settlers but according to the 1860 census there were no slaves in the territory at all. Therefore, this region was not a bastion for slavery. As for the adjoining Utah territory, it was controlled by Mormons who had no use for slavery.
Yes I made a typo I corrected by it big deal.
Read @Eric Calistri excellent find just how kindly the Confederacy would treat Indian's. What happened in 1850 is irrelevant as Silbey was trying to annex the New Mexico Territory and Southern California at least present day San Bernardino and Los Angeles County.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
The near genocide of the American Indians was carried out by the US government. Did Northerners, Southerners, Easterners, and Westerners participate in it? Yes, but most of it wouldn't have happened without US troops and the blessing of that government and whoever that was running it at the time.
Also there was no such thing as the near genocide of the American Indians. Genocide doesn't equal reservations. Yes there was ethnic cleansing but that is as old had human civilization.
Leftyhunter
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
When the United States signed a treaty with another country, they were imposing limitations and restrictions on themselves. Does that mean the US was not sovereign? Of course not. The States under the Articles were essentially all tiny independent countries, and if you can see them that way, the Articles will make a lot more sense.

@Andersonh1 ,

You're stepping WAY outside the dance hall to prove the unprovable.

The States were never, fully independent, tiny, countries.

They did not have the power to raise armies or navies, to execute treaties with other sovereign countries (even tiny ones), or to do those things fully independent and sovereign powers are wont to do.

I've read the AOC and plainly see these limitations on sovereignty plainly and fully.

And that is what makes sense to me.

Unionblue
 
Top