Oops, big lump of your posts....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,733
Location
District of Columbia
Threatening to exterminate an entire population is righteous anger?
It was righteous anger to him. But most important, this was a threat that was not carried out. You are citing an expression of anger that was never implemented in policy. In fact, it mis-represents the actual policy. But it is a great quote if one wants to draw ire.

Hundreds of thousands were disfranchised. Lands were confiscated.
Confederates were considered traitors who engaged in insurrection. After any war, the victor must decide what to do with the vanquished. On a global/historical basis, the fate suffered by post-Confederates was mild.

White southern men were re-enfranchised certainly by the end of the 1800s. It was southern African Americans who were disfranchised by the end of the 19th century.

The biggest property loss was in chattel property, $3-4 billion worth. Sorry, but it's hard to feel sorry for the loss {from a present perspective}.

It would have been fantastic if the war had been resolved with the traitors being treated as if nothing happened. But in fact, the US was relatively benign in its treatment of the former CS.

- Alan
 
Last edited:

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

ErnieMac

Brigadier General
Moderator
Forum Host
Silver Patron
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
8,469
Location
Pennsylvania
Interesting quote. Do you have a more detailed source for it..? As in, the date, & possibly a photo of the article in print..? I've briefly looked, & haven't been able to find it.
An actual quote from Governor Hicks appears in the 30 April 1861 edition of the Baltimore Sun and reads:
"To all my requests I could but get but the reply: that Washington was threatened with attack - that the government had resolved to defend it - that there was no other way of obtaining troops than by passing over the soil of Maryland - and that the military necessity of the case rendered it impossible for the government to abandon its plans, much as it desired to avoid the dangers of collision."​
A clipping of part of the article containing the quote is attached.

clipping_30690957.jpg
 

19thGeorgia

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
2,739
It was righteous anger to him.
Nope, you called it that.

But most important, this was a threat that was not carried out. You are citing an expression of anger that was never implemented in policy.
Correct, but it was a threat made over several years and extending into the post-war period.
What were the "traitors" suppose to think of it?

"It was never implemented." We know that now, but they didn't know that when the threat was made.

But it is a great quote if one wants to draw ire.
I sure don't want to do that because no one else has ever done that here.

Confederates were considered traitors who engaged in insurrection. After any war, the victor must decide what to do with the vanquished. On a global/historical basis, the fate suffered by post-Confederates was mild.
Yeah, "mild" compared to those who were exterminated.
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
1,978
I read Horseman's stand alone book on the MO Compromise. I think an analysis of the MO Comp is important. Most Historians gloss over it, of course the Slavery angle. However it was more Political and about Slavery.

Most that event, the action heats up in the 30s. Nullification Crisis. Then Nat Turner and soon after the rise of the Garrisons, which was the first Threat to Slavery, and the Southern Response. Then all of the other events that follow, I won't list them all. However, I don't think you can understand Secession, if you don't study this period.

As far as the 60 to 61 period. The way I look at it. If I was going to eat the buffet and run out, without paying. I probably wouldn't tell in advance my intentions. Also, if I would run out, without paying, I would not intended to go back there. Also, most countries don't announce what there Foreign Policy intentions, and especially what Battle Plans they might have. So, if you were doing so, Would you broadcast to the other side, your specific plans. I don't think a Smart Country would do so.

Also the Railroads began development, in the 30s. Railroads, faster Ships and finally the Steam Ships will have a larger impact, leading up to the Civil War.

Thanks for starting this thread,
 
Last edited:

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,261
Thanks for your seconding of the motion.
I am still searching for a 2-3 syllable neologism to offset once and for all the childish response of "Lost Causer" that is repeatedly offered by those who are still under the stale and sterile Merlinish spell of SC's Seceshers and still can't fight their way out of that easily rippable wet paper bag. Help me!



Well, If, the TRR theory is correct, then the evidence of the words and actions of outhern leaders for secession, seem to indicate that the SC conspirators for the Prize of California and the China Trade, knew that their sister slave states would not secede and seek southern independence, unless it was tied inextricably to the preservation and expansion of Slavery. If that is true, then Ibelieve the case for the primacy of Slavery to secession, is, at least indicated, if not proved.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,108
Disfranchisement, confiscation of lands, extermination. All of these things were either done or threatened.

Imagine someone today in the US Congress threatening to exterminate an entire population.

"The adoption of the measures I advocated at the outset of the war, the arming of the negroes, the slaves of the rebels, is the only way left on earth in which these rebels can be exterminated. They will find that they must treat those States now outside of the Union as conquered provinces and settle them with new men, and drive the present rebels as exiles from this country....They have such determination, energy, and endurance, that nothing but actual extermination or exile or starvation will ever induce them to surrender to this Government."
—Thaddeus Stevens, U.S. House of Representatives, January 8, 1863
Thanks for your response.
This quote is from January 8, 1863, the Charleston Mercury article was published June 27, 1862. Neither are evidence of causes of secession and war.
Can you show where threats or actual acts of "Disfranchisement, confiscation of lands, extermination" were sanctioned by Congress or the President and occurred prior to secession?
 

Potomac Pride

First Sergeant
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,604
Location
Georgia
And yet to some, it's never really over.

And as long as we keep denying the cause of the war, as long as we keep hiding it behind excuses and misdirection, embracing the myth of the Lost Cause vice the actual fact that brought it on, the war is not truly over.
Bunk.

As is the Lost Cause Myth, this passage quoted by CSA Today is also taken out of context. constantly in use as an excuse, a reason to distract and misdirect.

And whose sins need to be redeemed? Any 19th century Yankees still in existence? Any 19th Rebel slaveholders still around?

No, the sin here is the almost fanatical attempt to redeem ancestors, or to defend a region that needs no defense, vice actual history that all could learn from.

For if we keep bending the fact of slavery as the cause of the American Civil War, it will be distorted completely out of focus, with no lessons learned from that 150 year old event.

Keeping us forever in that past of denial and misdirection learning not from out nation's mistakes, but burying them with the hundreds of thousand who died for nothing.

It would freeze us in the past.

Unionblue
Thanks for your comments. Okay everyone, start packing your bags because we are going on a guilt trip.
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,389
Location
los angeles ca
@James Lut
Character assassination. You haven’t read the OPs book. Nor, I would guess any of the other Sources he has hand fed you. Your proud of your thread about the Yangtze River Patrol. You would of never hear about it, if not for the Thread about China and the discussion about Yankee Merchants and the Opium Trade. Maybe you should sent the 21st C poster, a Thank You Note!
Character assassination. You haven’t read the OPs book. Nor, I would guess any of the other Sources he has hand fed you. Your proud of your thread about the Yangtze River Patrol. You would of never hear about it, if not for the Thread about China and the discussion about Yankee Merchants and the Opium Trade. Maybe you should sent the 21st C poster, a Thank You Note!
Actually @James Lutzweiler assertion is undercut by the Yangtze River Patrol thread in st least two ways. @James Lutzweiler never even mentioned the Yangtze River Patrol. The Yangtze River Patrol from 1854 through at least 1865 appears to have consisted of only four small ships of less then 500 sailors in all. The exact sources are listed on my thread. If you or @James Lutzweiler can find evidence that the Yangtze River Patrol was larger then please post the sources.
@James Lutzweiler had not provided any evidence that China which per previously posted sources only accounted for two percent of American foreign trade is somehow the major theme if American history.
@James Lutzweiler had not answered my question how if seizing California and establishing a Southern TRR was the main reason for the ACW then how was all that supposed to be accomplished by sending just one thousand one hundred men to seize at a minimum the present day states of New Mexico,Arizona and at least San Bernardino and Los Angeles Angeles County California.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,389
Location
los angeles ca
The noted historian, Bruce Catton, argued that the Lost Cause myth actually helped achieve national reconciliation between the North and South. In his book, Reflections on the Civil War (1981), he wrote:
"The things that were done during the Civil War have not been forgotten, of course, but we now see them through a veil. We have elevated the entire conflict to the realm where it is no longer explosive. It is a part of American legend, a part of American history, a part, if you will, of American romance. It moves men mightily, to this day, but it does not move them in the direction of picking up their guns and going at it again. We have had national peace since the war ended, and we will always have it, and I think the way Lee and his soldiers conducted themselves in the hours of surrender has a great deal to do with it."
What Carton said was true but the cost of national reconciliation was de jure Apartheid in the American South.
Leftyhunter
 

byron ed

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,341
Location
Midwest
I recommend reading Avery O. Craven's The Growth of Southern Nationalism 1848-1861 for a study of Southern grievances leading to secession.
Apparently this 1953 book is still a good reference, thanks. (i.e according to one reviewer “…Although this book is now over 50 years old, it remains a classic and well suited for any university survey course or graduate work.” - Glen Ely), so I'm gonna find a copy and read it.

But still, according to reviews, some listed here below, Craven’s description of southern nationalism -- the grievances the South had -- were primarily tied to slavery after all.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Reviews of The Growth of Southern Nationalism, 1848-1861. By Avery O. Craven. Louisiana State University Press: United States of America, 1953:

“…this is a book written in a certain time period. In spite of it's incisive academic points, there are segments of the text that appear downright insensitive, or overly emotional or sympathetic to the plight of one group or another …For a casual reader of today, however, one might be taken back at some of the dated sentiments, especially in regards to slavery.” (John McCarron)

“…The problem with Craven’s analysis is obvious: slavery was not just a symbolic political issue but a very real institution that held millions of men, women, and children in bondage in the South. And those Southern states who voluntarily left the Union and formed the Confederacy did not do so to defend an abstraction but, rather, to preserve the “peculiar institution” where it stood.” (Joseph Rzeppa)

“…Southerners knew that without additional territory and economic growth the South would fall behind the North both politically and economically. Additional slave states meant not only increased cotton production, but also more Southern representation in Congress…" (Glen Ely)

“… Cravens studied the drift to civil war, focusing on how the sectional divisions became irresolvable in the democratic process… an urge to fight inequality of opportunity and distribution of wealth that eventually became an attack on the greatest violation of democratic ideals, slavery.” (Harold Rich)
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,211
Location
Laurinburg NC
Apparently this 1953 book is still a good reference, thanks. (i.e according to one reviewer “…Although this book is now over 50 years old, it remains a classic and well suited for any university survey course or graduate work.” - Glen Ely), so I'm gonna find a copy and read it.

But still, according to reviews, some listed here below, Craven’s description of southern nationalism -- the grievances the South had -- were primarily tied to slavery after all.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Reviews of The Growth of Southern Nationalism, 1848-1861. By Avery O. Craven. Louisiana State University Press: United States of America, 1953:

“…this is a book written in a certain time period. In spite of it's incisive academic points, there are segments of the text that appear downright insensitive, or overly emotional or sympathetic to the plight of one group or another …For a casual reader of today, however, one might be taken back at some of the dated sentiments, especially in regards to slavery.” (John McCarron)

“…The problem with Craven’s analysis is obvious: slavery was not just a symbolic political issue but a very real institution that held millions of men, women, and children in bondage in the South. And those Southern states who voluntarily left the Union and formed the Confederacy did not do so to defend an abstraction but, rather, to preserve the “peculiar institution” where it stood.” (Joseph Rzeppa)

“…Southerners knew that without additional territory and economic growth the South would fall behind the North both politically and economically. Additional slave states meant not only increased cotton production, but also more Southern representation in Congress…" (Glen Ely)

“… Cravens studied the drift to civil war, focusing on how the sectional divisions became irresolvable in the democratic process… an urge to fight inequality of opportunity and distribution of wealth that eventually became an attack on the greatest violation of democratic ideals, slavery.” (Harold Rich)
Not all of them. I suggest you not rely only on reviews and read the book.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,108
The noted historian, Bruce Catton, argued that the Lost Cause myth actually helped achieve national reconciliation between the North and South.
A note of caution: I am an admirer of Mr. Catton's work, having read his books and his many articles published in American Heritage magazine. However, he wrote from a perspective formed just before the American Civil Rights movement shed light on the downside of the 'Lost Cause'.
I agree that the 'Lost Cause' helped reconciliation of White America; however, it was devastating to Blacks.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,108
But wouldn't that have left the perception that Lincoln lied when he exclaimed his intention to not interfere with slavery where it then existed if only the Southern States stayed in his union and that the war had nothing to do his supposedly constitutional duty to force them back into that union if they declined to do so voluntarily?
That viewpoint ignores a basic fact: Lincoln's views, like those of most others, changed once the shooting started. It ought not be surprising that Reconstruction in 1865 was begun from a different place than that which would have allowed an 1861 reconciliation.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,108
The North, found a population of White, Starving, Cheaper Replacements. Is that fact, not important? The North participated in every aspect of Southern Slavery. NYC became the Center of the Illegal Mid-Atlantic Slave Trade. Approximately 1.6 Million Negroes were trafficked, during this period. Northern Merchants participated in the Chinese Opium Trade. Part of that Trade was Trafficking poor, starving Chinese to Cuba and Peru. They were chained down in ships. At least as brutal as the Mid Atlantic Slave Trade or Worse. Is none of this, Important? Is the Exclusion of Events, Truth. I hear the term Truth a lot, just don’t see the Evidence of it. The North got rid of their Negroes and Slave owning Business. Which yes, they wanted no more Negroes. However the North never, Stop their involvement in Slavery. Does it make someone a Lost Causer, if they want to know these things? Should we not expect to learn, the whole story, instead of someone’s white washed version? Slavery is United States History, not just Southern History.
Thanks for your response and endorsement of my view.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads




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