Southern unionism

[atlantis]

Would southern unionism have faded away if there had been no conscription? Is it not fair to view southern unionism as merely a reaction to conscription after the enactment of the first conscript law in contrast to the southern unionism that existed during the debates over secession.
Southern unionists also felt the harsh hand of union troops as they the ravaged the land, plundering/burning.

 

[leftyhunter]

And when it comes to morality, it is often just an excuse for violence.

Why God and Country rather common theme in history........just your God and Country tho, not the other guys

Yes and morality is in the eye of the beholder. John Brown,William Clarke Quantril ,Bloody Bill Anderson and others thought they were the epitome of moral excellence but that that's what make morality fun.
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

Yes and morality is in the eye of the beholder. John Brown,William Clarke Quantril ,Bloody Bill Anderson and others thought they were the epitome of moral excellence but that that's what make morality fun.
Leftyhunter

Indeed why subject of vigilantism is always interesting, legal law vrs popular law, or even as previously alluded to with personal or societal morality injected.

 

[leftyhunter]

Indeed why subject of vigilantism is always interesting, legal law vrs popular law, or even as previously alluded to with personal or societal morality injected.

Vigilantisim occurs when the judiciary system is ineffective and in American history the most prominent example is San Francisco, California during the Gold Rush .
Reconstruction is less Vigilantisim and more basic terrorism with occasional backlash from ex Unionists and or people of color.

San Francisco Vigilantes – Legends of America

There were two major vigilante groups that operated in San Francisco, one in 1851 and the other in 1856, both of which arose during the California Gold Rush

www.legendsofamerica.com

Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

Would southern unionism have faded away if there had been no conscription? Is it not fair to view southern unionism as merely a reaction to conscription after the enactment of the first conscript law in contrast to the southern unionism that existed during the debates over secession.
Southern unionists also felt the harsh hand of union troops as they the ravaged the land, plundering/burning.

Would not those turning "Unionist" not been often a feeble attempt to avoid the harsh hand?

Certainly there seems a discrepancy between number of Unionists in Confederate states before and after occupation. Why tend to think alot was rather conditional.....

In Missouri it often seems a families loyality swayed in the wind to whoever was visiting their house, that's rather survival.

 

[G Low]

Vigilantisim occurs when the judiciary system is ineffective and in American history the most prominent example is San Francisco, California during the Gold Rush .
Reconstruction is less Vigilantisim and more basic terrorism with occasional backlash from ex Unionists and or people of color.

San Francisco Vigilantes – Legends of America

There were two major vigilante groups that operated in San Francisco, one in 1851 and the other in 1856, both of which arose during the California Gold Rush

www.legendsofamerica.com

Leftyhunter

I had 2 great grandfathers from Georgia that went to California for the gold rush . Glad they weren't hanged.

 

[leftyhunter]

I had 2 great grandfathers from Georgia that went to California for the gold rush . Glad they weren't hanged.

To be fair California had very few people when the Gold Rush started and law enforcement agencies didn't really exist in California at that time other then maybe a few towns. The Los Angeles County Sherrifs Department didn't exist until 1858 when the Gold Rush was already over.
Justice was pretty much enforced by the eye of the beholder plural there of.
Leftyhunter

 

[JerryD]

Indeed your the one constantly resorting to smoke and mirrors and false deflection.

Indeed we are talking about the American Civil War.......news flash there was one.

So trying to pretend everyone was on same page to slavery or secession is patently false.
Recognizing the simple reality they weren't isn't defending anything, it's accepting reality.

I agree i doubt few are fooled by your suggesting everyone agreed to morality or politics......after all why there actually was a war. As well despite your constant south suggestion, there certainly were actually northern democrats in Congress.

There you go making up stuff again. Standard ploy of yours. I never said everyone was on the same page and its idiotic to suggest they were. So big red herring there. And we all see you dodging what I actually did say, which was "Most of the civilized world had outlawed it and it had not yet been outlawed in the US due to the problem with amending the US Constitution, and the vehement opposition of those in the south who adored slavery and thought it was the best thing since sliced bread. Many in the North and the rest of the civilized world disagreed."

Yes, MOST of the civilized world had outlawed slavery, but those in the south were clinging to it and fighting against the tide of history and morality in order to keep their slaves. And the side you claim was their moral equals transformed the war into a crusade to end slavery in one of the last modern nations to still cling to it. That is the reality.

So lets all watch as you dodge again and make up stuff that I never said, since you can never deal directly with what I do say. Defending the indefensible does that to you.

 

[leftyhunter]

History of the San Francisco Police Department - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The original San Francisco Poluce Department founded in 1849 was essentially a criminal gang so law and order was an elusive reality at best.
Leftyhunter

 

[limestone1863]

Would not those turning "Unionist" not been often a feeble attempt to avoid the harsh hand?

Certainly there seems a discrepancy between number of Unionists in Confederate states before and after occupation. Why tend to think alot was rather conditional.....

In Missouri it often seems a families loyality swayed in the wind to whoever was visiting their house, that's rather survival.

Avoid harsh hand? More like retaliation, trying to exsert control, & we haven't given up (lost cause). You're very intelligent & very deep. So deep some are trying to shine a light down to you.

 

[archieclement]

There you go making up stuff again. Standard ploy of yours. I never said everyone was on the same page and its idiotic to suggest they were. So big red herring there. And we all see you dodging what I actually did say, which was "Most of the civilized world had outlawed it and it had not yet been outlawed in the US due to the problem with amending the US Constitution, and the vehement opposition of those in the south who adored slavery and thought it was the best thing since sliced bread. Many in the North and the rest of the civilized world disagreed."

Yes, MOST of the civilized world had outlawed slavery, but those in the south were clinging to it and fighting against the tide of history and morality in order to keep their slaves. And the side you claim was their moral equals transformed the war into a crusade to end slavery in one of the last modern nations to still cling to it. That is the reality.

So lets all watch as you dodge again and make up stuff that I never said, since you can never deal directly with what I do say. Defending the indefensible does that to you.

Again it's only you making up stuff and spouting empty rhetoric.

There were certainly differing views during and leading up to ACW, noting them isn't defending them. And the only one suggesting they were moral equals is you.

I noted each side would certainly seen themselves as right as their cause moral as they would. Never said I agree with them at all. I don't, but whether I do or you do is certainly rather irrelevant to they would actually acted accordingly to what they believed, not you or I.........

This notion of yours that people would risked revolution on a whim, and not believed in their cause is rather absurd. Recognizing they did believe themselves right in taking the risk, isn't defending them, its simply acknowledging reality of what they thought. It's rather relevant to why things unfolded as they did.

 

[archieclement]

Avoid harsh hand? More like retaliation, trying to exsert control, & we haven't given up (lost cause). You're very intelligent & very deep. So deep some are trying to shine a light down to you.

Indeed better then having ones head lost up in clouds

Indeed in every war there's those that try to curry favor with occupiers to try to improve ones favor or treatment. Just as they were good confederates while Confederacy held sway.

Why I can understand occupiers or raiders becoming rather jaded to such pronouncements that they were good loyal unionists or southerners all along.

There was a movie that showed a similar scene......civilians were proclaiming they always had been loyal........and response was why aren't you in the army then

 

[DanSBHawk]

Would not those turning "Unionist" not been often a feeble attempt to avoid the harsh hand?

Certainly there seems a discrepancy between number of Unionists in Confederate states before and after occupation. Why tend to think alot was rather conditional.....

In Missouri it often seems a families loyality swayed in the wind to whoever was visiting their house, that's rather survival.

As hard it may be for you to believe, many southern unionists had strong principles and strong convictions to back up their beliefs. They weren't swaying.

"Conditional Unionists" in Missouri were generally pro-slavery types who didn't have a strong sense of loyalty to the nation. I'm sure they could be swayed back and forth easily. But there were many southern unionists who were nothing like them.

 

[archieclement]

As hard it may be for you to believe, many southern unionists had strong principles and strong convictions to back up their beliefs. They weren't swaying.

"Conditional Unionists" in Missouri were generally pro-slavery types who didn't have a strong sense of loyalty to the nation. I'm sure they could be swayed back and forth easily. But there were many southern unionists who were nothing like them.

And theres no doubt many who were. Certainly as mentioned there were pro union or pro south who crossed lines to enlist with other at start of war. However some did nothing until occupied to proclaim their loyality, and think its reasonable to question those.

Its certainly a rather viable way to try to survive during a war, not sure I'd call it actual loyality or devotion.

As far as Missouri many the prominent Unionists were slave owners, hardly conditional at all. The wartime Governor Gamble, the Blairs pulling Lyons strings to keep Missouri in the union. John B Henderson Missouri unionist senator who helped author the 13th Amendment owned slaves as well.

 

[DanSBHawk]

However some did nothing until occupied to proclaim their loyality, and think its reasonable to question those.
Its certainly a rather viable way to try to survive during a war, not sure I'd call it actual loyality or devotion.

Yes you've made it very clear that you question the motivations of southern unionists. You can't imagine how any southerner could have felt loyalty to their country rather than to a slaveholders rebellion. Your feelings are noted.

 

[archieclement]

Yes you've made it very clear that you question the motivations of southern unionists. You can't imagine how any southerner could have felt loyalty to their country rather than to a slaveholders rebellion. Your feelings are noted.

Again obvious nonsense on your part, as I have repeatedly noted there was crossover both ways. What I have questioned is the numbers or extent, as crossover enlistments show it was rather similar both ways. Obviously people traveling north or south to join respective sides indicates both motivation and sincerity to join respective sides.

And I have certainly questioned both equally if their loyalty is only indicated by the opposing side showing up at their doorstep. Certainly seems rather conditional and convenient.

Certainly being slaveholder wasn't somehow the determining factor, as one certainly find slaveholder unionists rather prominent in Union states and nationally. Even up to the US vice President owning slaves and Catron on US Supreme court.

 

[JerryD]

Again it's only you making up stuff and spouting empty rhetoric.

There were certainly differing views during and leading up to ACW, noting them isn't defending them. And the only one suggesting they were moral equals is you.

LOl, its really comical how you try to turn back what you are doing and try to accuse others of doing it. Clearly in my prior post I showed I did not say what you said I said. And when confronted with that fact you go "nuuh. you did!" So predictable.

"And the only one suggesting they were moral equals is you."

From this I take it you admit that the south were not the moral equals of the north, so I will count that as at least something. Although I do find it very comical that you want to make the ludicrous claim that I think the USA and the CSA are moral equals. Further proof of your go to move of accusing people of doing exactly what you do and putting words in people's mouths they never said.

 

[atlantis]

This was a time of emerging ethnic based nationalism but in the US, this had to be modified to a union-based nationalism to avoid total disintegration of the union.
Was southern unionism a reaction to a form of union nationalism that was confederation in nature not federal. A big difference between southern nationalism and northern nationalism is expressed in the preambles of the US and CS constitutions in the role of the national gov't in internal improvements and the welfare of the public.
Was there possibility for southern unionists and secessionists to find a way to coexist within the confederacy as we see the secessionists did not think it was within the US. Or would a confederate victory lead to a unionist exodus or a civil war within the confederacy.

 

[G Low]

To be fair California had very few people when the Gold Rush started and law enforcement agencies didn't really exist in California at that time other then maybe a few towns. The Los Angeles County Sherrifs Department didn't exist until 1858 when the Gold Rush was already over.
Justice was pretty much enforced by the eye of the beholder plural there of.
Leftyhunter

my kinfolk who went to California were Jesse, John Low(uncles) Alfred Low (my avatar and gg grandfather) and Absolom Avery(ggg grandfather) they didn't strike it rich but made it back. Thank God

 

[limestone1863]

Indeed better then having ones head lost up in clouds

Indeed in every war there's those that try to curry favor with occupiers to try to improve ones favor or treatment. Just as they were good confederates while Confederacy held sway.

Why I can understand occupiers or raiders becoming rather jaded to such pronouncements that they were good loyal unionists or southerners all along.

There was a movie that showed a similar scene......civilians were proclaiming they always had been loyal........and response was why aren't you in the army then

Nothing intelligent to add, but easier to come down from a cloud, then climb out of a deep hole. Otherwise, you have some truths in your statements.

 

[archieclement]

Nothing intelligent to add, but easier to come down from a cloud, then climb out of a deep hole. Otherwise, you have some truths in your statements.

Plenty of truths in mine without partisan games others play.

Why I acknowledge most issues actually affecting both sides, as they did.