The Neato Senator Sumner

[wilber6150]

I didn't mean to make that assertion if I did

If you did?

This could be easily the first of a series of many examples of how altruistic senators from the North were humbly seeking to free the slaves. (That's sarcasm) Falsely imprisoning their own soldiers.

Sounds like "power play" and "do what I want or else" type of thing.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

I generally agree with that. But this poster had been kind enough to do research instead of just "shoving me off the sidewalk". Instead of Sumner pressuring for the arrest it is placed at Lincolns feet but was indeed Stanton.
I can believe that. Even if they covered for a guy. Which is impossible in this discussion to prove.

The author, Blaine, places the blame solely on Stanton and Committee chairman Wade who basically ignored testimony given by higher command officers under Stone who testified that their commander was honorable and "a very efficient, orderly, and excellent officer." Lincoln was the "buck stops here" type of president so he assumes responsibility for his cabinet officer's action.

 

[peteanddelmar]

If you did?

Oh, I see what you mean. Apparently yes I did.

 

[peteanddelmar]

The author, Blaine, places the blame solely on Stanton and Committee chairman Wade who basically ignored testimony given by higher command officers under Stone who testified that their commander was honorable and "a very efficient, orderly, and excellent officer." Lincoln was the "buck stops here" type of president so he assumes responsibility for his cabinet officer's action.

Stanton and Wade. Those guys fit into some of my opinions very neatly.

 

[brass napoleon]

Stanton and Wade. Those guys fit into some of my opinions very neatly.

They wielded a lot of power during the war and didn't always use it judiciously or constructively. But if you're looking for someone who was a key influence leading up to the war, neither of them fits the bill.

 

[unionblue]

See I don't know what authors are unreliable to EVERYONE'S agreement.
I have never read about the authors. Just the books.

Just keep swinging, peteanddelmar.

I like that you are asking questions and trying to answer them.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[peteanddelmar]

They wielded a lot of power during the war and didn't always use it judiciously or constructively. But if you're looking for someone who was a key influence leading up to the war, neither of them fits the bill.

@brass napoleon , I just re-read this thread. Who IS someone with key influence leading up to the war? (Please don't let it be all full of politics, Please don't let it be all full of politics, Please...............)

 

[brass napoleon]

@brass napoleon , I just re-read this thread. Who IS someone with key influence leading up to the war? (Please don't let it be all full of politics, Please don't let it be all full of politics, Please...............)

Not sure what you're looking for here, Pete. Key influence over what?

 

[wilber6150]

@brass napoleon , I just re-read this thread. Who IS someone with key influence leading up to the war? (Please don't let it be all full of politics, Please don't let it be all full of politics, Please...............)

It was all about political power leading up to the war..

 

[peteanddelmar]

Not sure what you're looking for here, Pete. Key influence over what?

I am quoting you originally from post #25 above.
I just wanted to know who was powerful leading up to the war.
I was hoping to read about an individual who affected things that maybe we don't always hear about. And read a wide-ranging biography about them, not just what if they passed bill #223 or whatever.
Or a power broker. Someone in one of those roles who might also be interesting. You had said the senator from above did NOT weild power before the war. So I was wondering who did?

 

[NedBaldwin]

@brass napoleon , I just re-read this thread. Who IS someone with key influence leading up to the war? (Please don't let it be all full of politics, Please don't let it be all full of politics, Please...............)

An interesting set of characters were newspaper editors in New York who were heavily involved in politics: Horace Greeley, Thurlow Weed and Henry Raymond. They had a lot of influence.

 

[brass napoleon]

I am quoting you originally from post #25 above.
I just wanted to know who was powerful leading up to the war.
I was hoping to read about an individual who affected things that maybe we don't always hear about. And read a wide-ranging biography about them, not just what if they passed bill #223 or whatever.
Or a power broker. Someone in one of those roles who might also be interesting. You had said the senator from above did NOT weild power before the war. So I was wondering who did?

I think Ned's list is as good as any. The truth is that the political and social landscape was so fractured at that point in time that there was nobody who wielded a whole lot of power. Recall that the Democratic Party ruptured in their summer convention, several churches had ruptured, the infant Republican Party bypassed all their big names at their convention, and Lincoln won the election with less than 40% of the popular vote.

 

[brass napoleon]

I am quoting you originally from post #25 above.
I just wanted to know who was powerful leading up to the war.
I was hoping to read about an individual who affected things that maybe we don't always hear about. And read a wide-ranging biography about them, not just what if they passed bill #223 or whatever.
Or a power broker. Someone in one of those roles who might also be interesting. You had said the senator from above did NOT weild power before the war. So I was wondering who did?

In fact, now that I think about it, perhaps the person you're looking for is someone who played a big part in the rupture of the political and social landscape. That honor would probably best be bestowed upon the "Father of Secession" himself, William Lowndes Yancey. But then he's not a ******* from the North, so I don't know if he's what you're looking for either.

 

[peteanddelmar]

In fact, now that I think about it, perhaps the person you're looking for is someone who played a big part in the rupture of the political and social landscape. That honor would probably best be bestowed upon the "Father of Secession" himself, William Lowndes Yancey. But then he's not a ******* from the North, so I don't know if he's what you're looking for either.

Ahhhh. Brass and his excellent memory! LOL. Yes I DO want to hear about the *******s from the north...as Sherman called them. But mostly that is because many of the *******s from the south were so outspoken and well known! I will eventually read up on Ned's suggestion of Henry Raymond because of him I know nothing. Horace Greeley I know some. Thurlow Weed....wasn't he a political machinery boss? And if I can stand it I will read a biography of Yancey.

Wouldn't you agree that the fault and guilt have been properly placed on the Confederates?
And we should also know all we can about the *******s from the north, correct? The whole world knows the bad guys from the south!

I can't subscribe to the modern and current and growing Total Confederate Hate. Even though that is not part of my more recent southern heritage....I still think hating every Confederate is misguided. I think teaching school kids to equate the worst of a bad cause with ALL people involved on that side is wrong. There were a small number of Confederate military leaders, church leaders and common soldiers(amongst others) that were either admirable in their valor and loyalty to friends, church leaders with reserves of goodness and perception that should not be thrown in the trash can. Some were not even as racist as Sherman or early Grant or earlier Lincoln.
And there is no telling how many common soldiers who although racist should be admired for their battle moxy and personal bravery and loyalty.
I am even going to say there were Confederates who were very conflicted about slavery AND treason IMHO. Lee seemed a little that way at the first of the war....on the treason part especially. We have no idea how many church leaders in the south were terribly torn between condoning slavery and staying in the south to serve their congregation. Many are torn this very day about today's SCOTUS decision.

So , yeah, thanks for some names from both sides. If this website quits discussing any ********s from the north....it will wither away and become the much smaller "History Lectures About A Totally Loathsome South."

If I was Mike and Ami I would be starting my next site right now about a more popular historical era so that the youngsters who like history can come to that site. In the last few days we have seen the degree that time and incomplete education, and from years of social slanting have already punched in the next generation's view of the ACW.

PS- I have never touched a CBF. And as you probably have read...my family were anti-slavery and as far as I can tell ....owned no slaves as far back as the 1790 census in Spartanburg, SC.

Your a fair and fun guy Brass. Oh, When is the debate? I nominate you and jgoodguy!
This might get some form of moderation. I have now got it form 4 different moderators....so at least they are consistent!

 

[brass napoleon]

I can't subscribe to the modern and current and growing Total Confederate Hate. Even though that is not part of my more recent southern heritage....I still think hating every Confederate is misguided. I think teaching school kids to equate the worst of a bad cause with ALL people involved on that side is wrong. There were a small number of Confederate military leaders, church leaders and common soldiers(amongst others) that were either admirable in their valor and loyalty to friends, church leaders with reserves of goodness and perception that should not be thrown in the trash can. Some were not even as racist as Sherman or early Grant or earlier Lincoln.
And there is no telling how many common soldiers who although racist should be admired for their battle moxy and personal bravery and loyalty.
I am even going to say there were Confederates who were very conflicted about slavery AND treason IMHO. Lee seemed a little that way at the first of the war....on the treason part especially. We have no idea how many church leaders in the south were terribly torn between condoning slavery and staying in the south to serve their congregation.

Pete, I've taken the liberty of chopping up your post and reordering it so that I can reply to it more easily. I hope you don't mind. As for the above section, I agree with you 100%. I believe the vast majority of people on this forum also agree with you. Yes, there are a few here who are prone to hate on everything Confederate, and they can be quite vocal about it sometimes, but we need to keep them within the context of the overall forum body.

I will also note that some people here seem to believe that stating that the war was caused by slavery is to hate Confederates. But that is not the case. The evidence is overwhelming that the war was caused by slavery, but both North and South were responsible for slavery. And that leads me to my second point...

Wouldn't you agree that the fault and guilt have been properly placed on the Confederates?
And we should also know all we can about the *******s from the north, correct? The whole world knows the bad guys from the south!

There were indeed "bad guys" from the North, but you're looking for them in the wrong places. There is a common bias (and I used to hold it myself) that the "bad guys" from the South in 1860 must have been equally balanced by "bad guys" from the North in 1860. There seems to be a poetic justice to it. But there's absolutely no universal law of human nature that says this has to be the case. And to come into the study of a historical event with the expectation of finding such a balance is a bias, plain and simple. And like all biases it can lead to skewed results.

If we don't allow our biases to prevent us from seeing that the overwhelming evidence shows that the war was caused by slavery, then the real question, for those who are intent on fixing blame, is who was responsible for slavery in the United States? And there the answer is unequivocally both Northerners and Southerners. This is nothing new. Harriet Beecher Stowe said it in Uncle Tom's Cabin way back in 1852:

Do you say that the people of the free states have nothing to do with it, and can do nothing? Would to God this were true! But it is not true. The people of the free states have defended, encouraged, and participated; and are more guilty for it, before God, than the South, in that they have not the apology of education or custom.

If the mothers of the free states had all felt as they should, in times past, the sons of the free states would not have been the holders, and, proverbially, the hardest masters of slaves; the sons of the free states would not have connived at the extension of slavery, in our national body; the sons of the free states would not, as they do, trade the souls and bodies of men as an equivalent to money, in their mercantile dealings. There are multitudes of slaves temporarily owned, and sold again, by merchants in northern cities; and shall the whole guilt or obloquy of slavery fall only on the South?

Northern men, northern mothers, northern Christians, have something more to do than denounce their brethren at the South; they have to look to the evil among themselves.

- Harriet Beecher Stowe, Uncle Tom's Cabin

Source: http://stowe.thefreelibrary.com/Uncle-Toms-Cabin/2-28
​

Abraham Lincoln said it in a speech in Peoria way back in 1854:

Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist amongst them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses north and south. Doubtless there are individuals, on both sides, who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some southern men do free their slaves, go north, and become tip-top abolitionists; while some northern ones go south, and become most cruel slave-masters.

When southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery, than we; I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists; and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself.

- Abraham Lincoln, October 16, 1854

Source: http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=11&subjectID=2
​

And even after 4 years of bloody war with the South, he continued to believe it:

If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?

- Abraham Lincoln, second inaugural address, March 4, 1865

Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln2.asp​

Yes, Northerners share in the blame for slavery. There were many who profited from it and encouraged it. There were others who disliked it but were too timid to do anything about it. There were others who were fully willing to turn a blind eye to it. And there were still others who were willing to swallow the hypocrisy of believing that slavery was necessary to preserve a Union dedicated to the principle that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The problem, for those who want to play the blame game or for those who insist that every Yancey must have a matching ??? on the other side, is that we don't know the names of the vast majority of these people, and that even when we do know them they may not seem to us, in the twenty-first century, to be "equally bad" as the Yanceys, Wigfalls, etc. But I'll give you a few high profile names who fit the bill:

James Buchanan
Franklin Pierce
Millard Fillmore
Daniel Webster
Stephen Douglas
Lewis Cass

And that's just scratching the surface. Nor does it take into account Northern *******s who bubbled up to the surface during and after the war, like Phil Sheridan.

And I'll also note that there were Southerners who made great sacrifices to fight slavery, and who spearheaded the national abolitionist movement, some of whom I've been highlighting in my Southern Abolitionists series (which I hope to continue soon).

Hope this helps!

 

[peteanddelmar]

Pete, I've taken the liberty of chopping up your post and reordering it so that I can reply to it more easily. I hope you don't mind. As for the above section, I agree with you 100%. I believe the vast majority of people on this forum also agree with you. Yes, there are a few here who are prone to hate on everything Confederate, and they can be quite vocal about it sometimes, but we need to keep them within the context of the overall forum body.

I will also note that some people here seem to believe that stating that the war was caused by slavery is to hate Confederates. But that is not the case. The evidence is overwhelming that the war was caused by slavery, but both North and South were responsible for slavery. And that leads me to my second point...



There were indeed "bad guys" from the North, but you're looking for them in the wrong places. There is a common bias (and I used to hold it myself) that the "bad guys" from the South in 1860 must have been equally balanced by "bad guys" from the North in 1860. There seems to be a poetic justice to it. But there's absolutely no universal law of human nature that says this has to be the case. And to come into the study of a historical event with the expectation of finding such a balance is a bias, plain and simple. And like all biases it can lead to skewed results.

If we don't allow our biases to prevent us from seeing that the overwhelming evidence shows that the war was caused by slavery, then the real question, for those who are intent on fixing blame, is who was responsible for slavery in the United States? And there the answer is unequivocally both Northerners and Southerners. This is nothing new. Harriet Beecher Stowe said it in Uncle Tom's Cabin way back in 1852:

Do you say that the people of the free states have nothing to do with it, and can do nothing? Would to God this were true! But it is not true. The people of the free states have defended, encouraged, and participated; and are more guilty for it, before God, than the South, in that they have not the apology of education or custom.

If the mothers of the free states had all felt as they should, in times past, the sons of the free states would not have been the holders, and, proverbially, the hardest masters of slaves; the sons of the free states would not have connived at the extension of slavery, in our national body; the sons of the free states would not, as they do, trade the souls and bodies of men as an equivalent to money, in their mercantile dealings. There are multitudes of slaves temporarily owned, and sold again, by merchants in northern cities; and shall the whole guilt or obloquy of slavery fall only on the South?

Northern men, northern mothers, northern Christians, have something more to do than denounce their brethren at the South; they have to look to the evil among themselves.

- Harriet Beecher Stowe, Uncle Tom's Cabin

Source: http://stowe.thefreelibrary.com/Uncle-Toms-Cabin/2-28
​

Abraham Lincoln said it in a speech in Peoria way back in 1854:

Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist amongst them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses north and south. Doubtless there are individuals, on both sides, who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some southern men do free their slaves, go north, and become tip-top abolitionists; while some northern ones go south, and become most cruel slave-masters.

When southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery, than we; I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists; and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself.

- Abraham Lincoln, October 16, 1854

Source: http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=11&subjectID=2
​

And even after 4 years of bloody war with the South, he continued to believe it:

If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?

- Abraham Lincoln, second inaugural address, March 4, 1865

Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln2.asp​

Yes, Northerners share in the blame for slavery. There were many who profited from it and encouraged it. There were others who disliked it but were too timid to do anything about it. There were others who were fully willing to turn a blind eye to it. And there were still others who were willing to swallow the hypocrisy of believing that slavery was necessary to preserve a Union dedicated to the principle that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The problem, for those who want to play the blame game or for those who insist that every Yancey must have a matching ??? on the other side, is that we don't know the names of the vast majority of these people, and that even when we do know them they may not seem to us, in the twenty-first century, to be "equally bad" as the Yanceys, Wigfalls, etc. But I'll give you a few high profile names who fit the bill:

James Buchanan
Franklin Pierce
Millard Fillmore
Daniel Webster
Stephen Douglas
Lewis Cass

And that's just scratching the surface. Nor does it take into account Northern *******s who bubbled up to the surface during and after the war, like Phil Sheridan.

And I'll also note that there were Southerners who made great sacrifices to fight slavery, and who spearheaded the national abolitionist movement, some of whom I've been highlighting in my Southern Abolitionists series (which I hope to continue soon).

Hope this helps!

That does help! This should be required reading by every new member! And every contentious member!
So. When are you and jgoodguy going to debate Vicksburg vs. Gettysburg?

 

[brass napoleon]

That does help! This should be required reading by every new member! And every contentious member!
So. When are you and jgoodguy going to debate Vicksburg vs. Gettysburg?

Glad to be of assistance. My understanding is that jgoodguy was planning to moderate the debate (and I think he would be an outstanding moderator). As of yet nobody has come forward to take the Gettysburg side of the argument. (And personally, I'd rather devote the time to putting together my Southern Abolitionists - Part 3 thread.)

 

[Allie]

I generally agree with that. But this poster had been kind enough to do research instead of just "shoving me off the sidewalk". Instead of Sumner pressuring for the arrest it is placed at Lincolns feet but was indeed Stanton.
I can believe that. Even if they covered for a guy. Which is impossible in this discussion to prove.

It would be in character for Stanton and not in character for Sumner. Also I don't see any reason to assume Lincoln was lying about his reasoning.

 

[peteanddelmar]

Glad to be of assistance. My understanding is that jgoodguy was planning to moderate the debate (and I think he would be an outstanding moderator). As of yet nobody has come forward to take the Gettysburg side of the argument. (And personally, I'd rather devote the time to putting together my Southern Abolitionists - Part 3 thread.)

True. But I RE-re-nominated jgoodguy so that over rides all that moderator stuff, right? Some one else hear knows debate amongst all these attorneys and could referee but only you and jgoodguy have said they wouldn't mind debating!

 

[peteanddelmar]

Pete, I've taken the liberty of chopping up your post and reordering it so that I can reply to it more easily.

If I could always write correctly...you wouldn't have to do that chopping.
There is actually a word for when people's thoughts jump from subject to subject outside of a linear fashion. No discernible reason how they got from A to Q instead of A to B.
I have that.