"We Don't Have Enough Contempt for NBF"

danny

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Hattiesburg
Oh my, so much wiggling and squirming and babble. Ole Forrest is still getting your goat.

Forrest was where he was in 64-65 because Sherman was determined to keep him off his supply lines and out of the Atlanta campaign. A glance at the resources he committed to this end will clearly demonstrate Sherman's concern.

So you guys have gone to great lengths to dismiss Forrest's military skill without recognizing the immense worth placed on him by one of your heroes.

It should also be mentioned that the men riding with Forrest were, to a large degree, natives of his area of operations. Many were deserters that had come home for the same reason that Forrest went to Pillow. Not to capture a militarily insignificant post, but to punish the **** heathens rampaging through their homeland. Their services were lost for the cause without Forrest rounding them up and making soldiers out of them--again.

Your arguments are like the old cowboy that George Bush referred to as "all hat and no cattle".
 

Drew

Major
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Just Union officers then?.

No excuses but the spoils of war has been around since the beginning of time soldiers see it as a right to help themselves I see it as no different than looting corpses which both sides did.

If the South had pushed further into the North I expect the same would have happened as it did in Pennsylvania.

Besides the South was selling Cotton to the North illegally and buying Northern goods , Both sides were corrupt not just the one.

I'm a little confused with your post: you are lobbying for a book but never proved that the content was authentic. You just spouted out a lot of rhetoric backed by your opinion without any evidence. If you are going to do that you have to prove that book to be accurate, it is called historiography. You no longer want to engage in a trivial CW forum history exchange, but you used a book to try to convince me that you have the right goods, but I am not remotely convinced.

It's on you to show Ludwell Johnson was wrong. "Historiography" is the practice of telling the story we want to tell, nothing more.

I'd be really curious to know if Lincoln approved of his Armies stealing and looting from Union slave states. Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri. Probably not.

Union officers took what they could from the South and lined their own pockets. There is nothing patriotic about this. That is the reality, like it or not.
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
It's on you to show Ludwell Johnson was wrong. "Historiography" is the practice of telling the story we want to tell, nothing more.

I'd be really curious to know if Lincoln approved of his Armies stealing and looting from Union slave states. Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri. Probably not.

Union officers took what they could from the South and lined their own pockets. There is nothing patriotic about this. That is the reality, like it or not.
I often wonder how much Lincoln made off those passes he handed out to his carpetbagging friends.
 
I often wonder how much Lincoln made off those passes he handed out to his carpetbagging friends.
If you have information that Lincoln personally pocketed money from cotton passes, please present it.

"As a young lawyer, Lincoln's fees were small, but even so, they prob|ably added up to an annual income of from $1,500 to $2,000 during the first dozen years of his practice. By 1849 he had saved enough money so that he was able to lend it at interest by way of investment. During the fifties his practice became large and relatively lucrative, and his income increased—to $3,000 a year on the average, and at least once to $5,000. By the time of his election to the Presidency, he had more than $9,000 invested in interest bearing notes and mortgages, while his real estate, principally his home, was worth $5,000 at a conservative valuation. Instead of borrowing money for his inaugural journey, as many fondly believe, he simply withdrew $400 from his bank account, leaving a balance of $600.

"By the time of his election to the Presidency, he had more than $9,000 invested in interest bearing notes and mortgages, while his real estate, principally his home, was worth $5,000 at a conservative valuation. Instead of borrowing money for his inaugural journey, as many fondly believe, he simply withdrew $400 from his bank account, leaving a balance of $600.

"As President, Lincoln's estate grew from $15,000 in 1861 to $90,000 at the time of his death, mainly from savings from his annual salary of $25,000. Through the expert handling of the administrator, David Davis, $21,000 was added to this amount before 1867, when it was distributed to the three heirs, Mrs. Lincoln, Robert Todd Lincoln, and Thomas Lincoln."

"A photostat of President Lincoln's account at Riggs & Co., Washing|ton bankers, was presented to the Abraham Lincoln Association by the late Mrs. Robert Todd Lincoln. Mr. George W. Bunn, Jr., President of the Springfield Marine Bank, made available Lincoln's account at the Springfield Marine and Fire Insurance Co. from 1853 to 1865."

Excerpts from Harry E Pratt's Personal Finances of Abraham Lincoln, pp. viii - x
 

JerryD

Private
Joined
Aug 23, 2021
Mkay, in other words, you believe what you want to believe. Asking anyone to "prove" Ludwell H. Johnson was a credible historian is the funniest thing I've heard all week.

It's probably best you produce credible evidence that he was wrong. Hint: There isn't any.
From what I have read, Ludwell Johnson is firmly in the Lost Cause tradition. He grew up in Richmond and is unapologetic about being an "unreconstructed rebel" (his words). So yes, anything he writes is subject to a certain amount of skepticism since he clearly had an agenda instead of just enlightenment.
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
If you have information that Lincoln personally pocketed money from cotton passes, please present it.

"As a young lawyer, Lincoln's fees were small, but even so, they prob|ably added up to an annual income of from $1,500 to $2,000 during the first dozen years of his practice. By 1849 he had saved enough money so that he was able to lend it at interest by way of investment. During the fifties his practice became large and relatively lucrative, and his income increased—to $3,000 a year on the average, and at least once to $5,000. By the time of his election to the Presidency, he had more than $9,000 invested in interest bearing notes and mortgages, while his real estate, principally his home, was worth $5,000 at a conservative valuation. Instead of borrowing money for his inaugural journey, as many fondly believe, he simply withdrew $400 from his bank account, leaving a balance of $600.

"By the time of his election to the Presidency, he had more than $9,000 invested in interest bearing notes and mortgages, while his real estate, principally his home, was worth $5,000 at a conservative valuation. Instead of borrowing money for his inaugural journey, as many fondly believe, he simply withdrew $400 from his bank account, leaving a balance of $600.

"As President, Lincoln's estate grew from $15,000 in 1861 to $90,000 at the time of his death, mainly from savings from his annual salary of $25,000. Through the expert handling of the administrator, David Davis, $21,000 was added to this amount before 1867, when it was distributed to the three heirs, Mrs. Lincoln, Robert Todd Lincoln, and Thomas Lincoln."

"A photostat of President Lincoln's account at Riggs & Co., Washing|ton bankers, was presented to the Abraham Lincoln Association by the late Mrs. Robert Todd Lincoln. Mr. George W. Bunn, Jr., President of the Springfield Marine Bank, made available Lincoln's account at the Springfield Marine and Fire Insurance Co. from 1853 to 1865."

Excerpts from Harry E Pratt's Personal Finances of Abraham Lincoln, pp. viii - x
Extremely neat book keeping, wouldn’t you say? 🙂
 

lurid

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
It's on you to show Ludwell Johnson was wrong. "Historiography" is the practice of telling the story we want to tell, nothing more.

I'd be really curious to know if Lincoln approved of his Armies stealing and looting from Union slave states. Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri. Probably not.

Union officers took what they could from the South and lined their own pockets. There is nothing patriotic about this. That is the reality, like it or not.

No, its on you to prove he is credible. You responded to my post out of the clear blue and predicated that this guy was challenged by scholars and was never proved wrong. I said post a Peer review on this subject. I know you can't so now your back to your opinion, which doesn't count. You are confusing "history" with "historiography," because history is theory and historiography the writing of history, especially the writing of history based on the critical examination of sources, the selection of particular details from the authentic materials in those sources, and the synthesis of those details into a narrative that stands the test of critical examination. That's the textbook definitions, so that confirms what I said about your opinion. I did a quick search on the author and the first thing that popped up was an article from the Abbeville Institute, which is a leading indicator he is not credible.
 

lurid

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
From what I have read, Ludwell Johnson is firmly in the Lost Cause tradition. He grew up in Richmond and is unapologetic about being an "unreconstructed rebel" (his words). So yes, anything he writes is subject to a certain amount of skepticism since he clearly had an agenda instead of just enlightenment.

A total Lost Causer. Not worth reading a sentence in one of his books.
 

Drew

Major
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
No, its on you to prove he is credible. You responded to my post out of the clear blue and predicated that this guy was challenged by scholars and was never proved wrong. I said post a Peer review on this subject. I know you can't so now your back to your opinion, which doesn't count. You are confusing "history" with "historiography," because history is theory and historiography the writing of history, especially the writing of history based on the critical examination of sources, the selection of particular details from the authentic materials in those sources, and the synthesis of those details into a narrative that stands the test of critical examination. That's the textbook definitions, so that confirms what I said about your opinion. I did a quick search on the author and the first thing that popped up was an article from the Abbeville Institute, which is a leading indicator he is not credible.

You, sir, have proved yourself to be a total waste of time. I shouldn't even be "bumping" this thread in reply to you.

Ludwell H. Johnson III was trained as an historian and earned a Ph.D. at Johns Hopkins University. He taught for many years before his death at the College of William and Mary.

Again, no one has ever punched a hole in any of his work, save anonymous internet posters.

You have a nice day.
 

danny

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Hattiesburg
From what I have read, Ludwell Johnson is firmly in the Lost Cause tradition. He grew up in Richmond and is unapologetic about being an "unreconstructed rebel" (his words). So yes, anything he writes is subject to a certain amount of skepticism since he clearly had an agenda instead of just enlightenment.
And what, pray tell, is wrong about either?
 

JerryD

Private
Joined
Aug 23, 2021
And what, pray tell, is wrong about either?
Evidence of his bias. Not conclusive, by any means, of course. But if you claim to be an un-reconstructed rebel it does raise the question if you are able to present an accurate account, or if it will be biased. A good historian should be more committed to truth than to making one side or the other look good. This is my biggest problem with Robert Krick. I watched a presentation of his where he stated up front that he was "in the employ of Lee and Jackson", meaning he made no apologies for presenting a slanted picture, and to my mind, not presenting an accurate picture.
 

Scott1967

First Sergeant
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Location
England
You should read Ludwell Johnson's work, Red River Campaign; Politics and Cotton in the Civil War.

The author spent years in the stacks at the Library of Congress and elsewhere, cultivating primary sources.

The book was published in the 1950s and is un-impeachable. No modern graduate student or internet sleuth has ever been able to punch a hole in his work.

Union officers were lining their pockets, stealing everything they could carry.

That is a fact, like it or not.
You are suggesting here that Johnson is stating that some Union officers were corrupt and yet you fail to mention 2/3 of Cotton exports in the war went North and as evidence has been produced that the South was importing around $500k per week in Northern goods not to mention the Trans Mississippi department trading over 30 million in less than 2 years all suggest that the CSA was in direct violation of its own government policy's and corruption was rife on both sides.
It's probably best you produce credible evidence that he was wrong. Hint: There isn't any.
People have produced evidence in this thread which you ignore or don't read.
Ludwell H. Johnson III was trained as an historian and earned a Ph.D. at Johns Hopkins University. He taught for many years before his death at the College of William and Mary.

Again, no one has ever punched a hole in any of his work, save anonymous internet posters.
Blah Blah , Being a historian does not mean you don't have an agenda the best historians are the impartial ones who weigh up both-sides and make assessments or writings based on real evidence.

What you suggesting is that Johnson only saw Union corruption which I don't believe for a second because nobody could be that stupid or naïve even with a lost cause narrative.

Both sides were corrupt common sense would dictate this unless of course your trying to push a false narrative to further your own agenda imho.
 
Last edited:

JerryD

Private
Joined
Aug 23, 2021
Yawn...

Clearly, none of you has read Johnson's book. Internet wisdom, at its best, or at its worst as the case may be.

You all have a nice day.
True, I have not read this book, but I have read enough of his stuff (several articles an papers that can be found on the internet) to know what he is about. He is 100% a southern apologist and seeks to portray the North as more corrupt than the South. While I am sure he does a decent job of portraying actual Northern corruption or greed, he then makes the implicit argument that therefore the South, with its slavery, wasnt nearly as bad as greedy bankers in the North. You can buy that argument if you want, but I respectfully disagree.
 

danny

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Hattiesburg
The point was to show the cause behind Fort Pillow, not to blame the South, nor to expunge the north by equating their criminality with previous world history.
 

Scott1967

First Sergeant
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Location
England
Yawn...

Clearly, none of you has read Johnson's book. Internet wisdom, at its best, or at its worst as the case may be.

You all have a nice day.
Clearly you are not impartial and therefore will project a one sided view.

And you still have not addressed what I wrote which is factual evidence instead you deflect it onto posters for being ignorant in not reading Johnsons book.

FYI their are quite a few books about the cotton trade during the war and how both sides took advantage of their own governments.

"The war corrupted men, but men corrupted the war." This quote by Ludwell Johnson means he was fully aware both sides were trading illegally throughout the war.

If it hadn't been for the illegal trade of cotton Lee's army would have starved , New Orleans would have starved and Lincoln might have lost the support of New York and New England not to mention many Southern families benefited by trading with the Yankee's.

Look at it this way Butler one of the most hated corrupt generals not only fed New Orleans by exporting 335k bales of cotton but also lined his own pockets , When he went to Norfolk he offered locals 3Lbs of Meat for 1Lb of raw cotton thus lining his pockets while help feed the locals keeping the peace all the time.

Sherman also allowed trading between the lines , Locals would bring cotton in exchange for rations although Sherman did suspect that the food was going to feed the CSA army.

Of course their were some General's who disapproved and Grant hated the practice believing it prolonged the war and he was right but without Cotton going North Lincoln might have had a closer run in the 1864 election.


Davis also hated the practice of trading between the lines but knew the South could not fight on without Northern goods and therefore turned a blind eye as did Lincoln who wanted the support of the textiles industries of NY and NE.

While I agree with some Authors that the South traded because they had to I don't discount the fact that confederate officers also lined their pockets with Yankee greenbacks as bribes and taken their cut so to speak.

It was not as one sided as you think https://civilwartalk.com/members/drew.7501/ it takes two to tango and considering 2/3 of the cotton in 1862-1864 went North you can see how complicit the CSA army was in illegal trading.
 

Drew

Major
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
True, I have not read this book, but I have read enough of his stuff (several articles an papers that can be found on the internet) to know what he is about. He is 100% a southern apologist and seeks to portray the North as more corrupt than the South. While I am sure he does a decent job of portraying actual Northern corruption or greed, he then makes the implicit argument that therefore the South, with its slavery, wasnt nearly as bad as greedy bankers in the North. You can buy that argument if you want, but I respectfully disagree.

It's a fine military history, replete with maps. But you wouldn't know that, because you haven't read it.
 

JKT

Private
Joined
Mar 31, 2017
Not to excuse the horrific acts Forrest either did or allowed to happen, but we tend to judge things ~ 160 years ago from our perch. In S. W. Mitcham’s Bust Hell Wide Open- the Life of Nathan Bedford Forrest, the introduction talks about “Presentism”. The concept that the past is always wrong because it is not the present. He feels we can learn a lot from the past and it’s people. Even people like Forrest, “even though we might not want them as neighbors “.
 

Scott1967

First Sergeant
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Location
England
Not to excuse the horrific acts Forrest either did or allowed to happen, but we tend to judge things ~ 160 years ago from our perch. In S. W. Mitcham’s Bust Hell Wide Open- the Life of Nathan Bedford Forrest, the introduction talks about “Presentism”. The concept that the past is always wrong because it is not the present. He feels we can learn a lot from the past and it’s people. Even people like Forrest, “even though we might not want them as neighbors “.
I think owning another human being and selling them for profit was wrong 160 years ago just saying these were men of their times is a feeble attempt to justify what they did and yes I do judge them then when their were Southerners who did not agree with slavery and did not agree to leave the Union these were also men of their times.

Presentism is viewed as it has always been through the eyes of the beholder those seeking to defend wrongful actions use this excuse to justify is some way the actions of an individual by making us believe we have no right to judge them based on our present day views this is of course wrong we have every right to judge people on their actions from the past imho.
 
Top