Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 122

Thread: When Was the American Civil War a Done Deal?

  1. #61
    Global Moderator Defense Professional JAD_333's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 07
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas
    Posts
    11,214
    Quote Originally Posted by 7thsfsniper View Post
    The way I see it. The voters get what they deserve. If they keep voting Socialist jerks in office, then that they shall have.
    No one plays the sad violin better than liberal democrats. I mean, hell, man, who votes for "deprivation" aside from those who can see that freebies aren't free at all, at least not for taxpayers. To the hills!
    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

  2. #62
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,587
    Quote Originally Posted by JAD_333 View Post
    No one plays the sad violin better than liberal democrats. I mean, hell, man, who votes for "deprivation" aside from those who can see that freebies aren't free at all, at least not for taxpayers. To the hills!

    There is a very good argument that a whole segment of the GOP base is wrapping itself in the cloak of victimhood every bit as completely as any part of the Democrat base ever did.


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  3. #63
    Banned Defense Professional Bluesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Misawa Airbase, Japan
    Posts
    8,578
    Quote Originally Posted by JAD_333 View Post
    Hi... Good of you to pop in for some brief remarks. I, for one, never had much faith that your self-imposed exile was permanent, but you don't have to make up for your long absence in one day. )
    I look in occasionally, but I have to limit myself to stuff like this topic. The rest is so rubbish-filled, I find my blood pressure spiking when I read it.

    Still in exile; but engaging in cross-border raiding.

    Back to the thread, the above you put well. That is indeed what I was trying to say.

    The Virginia Senator who questioned why fight if not to protect property, i.e. slaves, expresses one side of the equation. The other was the absolute conviction that blacks were inferior to whites. This allowed white southerners to rationalize slavery as best for blacks. If you have had that drummed into your head for years, what are you to think when your own government plans to arm slaves to fight for you?
    Even many Northerners felt that way. (From my certain first-hand knowledge, many still do.)

    But yeah, racism was not a dirty word back then. I think it is significant that the South had the only non-white general officer. They paid black soldiers the same worthless Confederate money as white soldiers, while it was Union Army policy to pay their colored troops LESS than whites. The Confederate veep was a Jew; that STILL has not been managed by the US, and except for the anomoly represented by the current prez, it has been an unbroken string of white Christian men at the top two spots.

    I could go on, but you get the point: racism was simply how it WAS, for BOTH sides.

  4. #64
    Banned Defense Professional Bluesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Misawa Airbase, Japan
    Posts
    8,578
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironduke View Post
    Well, they did want Kentucky and Missouri; New Mexico, Arizona and Indian Territories, as well as retaining West Virginia.
    West Virginia; what a great study in hypocrisy.

    Okay for part of a STATE to secede, but each state was somehow indivisible from each other, no matter how much the rights of any state or states was trampled by the others.

    Funny how THAT works.

    Kentuck, Maryland and Missouri would have seceded, IF it had been left up to each, but brute force kept 'em from joining, and the other Confederate states felt that they were doing no more than calling for the respect of those states' decisions to secede, so it wasn't like the South 'demanded' that they be 'given' to the Confederacy.

    ANYhoo, I was just answering the point that the South could not have conquered the North. It never intended to. All it wanted was OUT.

    Oh, and here's a little factoid that goes in my post above: the last slave-holding state? DELAWARE, faithful, loyal, Union-supporting Delaware.

    It wasn't JUST the South that was racist.

  5. #65
    Banned Defense Professional Bluesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Misawa Airbase, Japan
    Posts
    8,578
    Quote Originally Posted by Shek View Post
    I'd agree that given civilian control of the military, it is a duty. However, where were his protests given his thoughts about the seige? They may exist since I haven't read his papers or a specific biography on him, but in the general histories, I've yet to come upon protests, which is the duty of a commander - giving his unvarnished military advice. This is something which I know Lee never had a problem doing earlier in the war.
    He told 'em. I think when he lost at Gettysburg, and Vicksburg fell the day he began the retreat out of Pennsylvania, he wrote his letter of resignation.

    He was called to Richmond shortly after the army made it safely back to Virginia, and he told 'em all then that even if they did NOT accept his resignation, he felt that the war would be lost.

    Their response was to make him General-in-Chief on 31 January, 1865.

  6. #66
    Banned Defense Professional Bluesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Misawa Airbase, Japan
    Posts
    8,578
    Quote Originally Posted by 7thsfsniper View Post
    Hey again Blues! Glad to hear from you!


    Well I have a lot of family that are Dems. However, they vote Rep all the time. Does this make them bad? No, just confused about thier affiliation. Now the ones that vote Dem....well they are just dumb.

    Bad dems are the ones with what I would have to consider nefarious intentions, self-gain mainly, promoting socialist/communist ideals. Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, etc, fit the bill in that case.

    The way I see it. The voters get what they deserve. If they keep voting Socialist jerks in office, then that they shall have. I for one will never be less free than what I am now. Few here really understand what I mean when I say that, but I'm good with whatever happens. In my opinion, things can only get better, one way or the other.
    I hold 'em all as responsible for making that band of vipers, idiots and traitors The Power in the country. If not for the 'good' Democrats, Pelosi, Reid, adn the entire pantheon of evil, self-serving, America-hating, incompetent, foolish, back-stabbing villains that the Democrat Party consists of would be powerless over the rest of us, and we would not be in danger of losing the Republic that so many have sacrificed so much to rpeserve up to now.

    Included in that is a man that should know better: the guy Shek describes as upstanding and well-intentioned has empowered the nation's enemies. Can't get over that. Don't WANT to, either.

    This is the fact: the country's levers of power have been captured intact by the enemy. Anybody that aids and abets that is also the enemy. QED.

  7. #67
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    11,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluesman View Post
    West Virginia; what a great study in hypocrisy.

    Okay for part of a STATE to secede, but each state was somehow indivisible from each other, no matter how much the rights of any state or states was trampled by the others.

    Funny how THAT works.

    Kentuck, Maryland and Missouri would have seceded, IF it had been left up to each, but brute force kept 'em from joining, and the other Confederate states felt that they were doing no more than calling for the respect of those states' decisions to secede, so it wasn't like the South 'demanded' that they be 'given' to the Confederacy.
    I don't think there's any historical evidence to suggest that secession was supported in Maryland by a minority of the population, with a geographic split (like in Virginia). When push came to shove, the Kentucky legislature overwhelmingly picked what side it wanted to be on (not the Confederacy). Missouri, another Virginia with strong split loyalties.

    At any rate, I think it's pretty telling that far more volunteers from the Confederacy joined the Union Army than the other way around (even including the border states).
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluesman
    Oh, and here's a little factoid that goes in my post above: the last slave-holding state? DELAWARE, faithful, loyal, Union-supporting Delaware.

    It wasn't JUST the South that was racist.
    For the matter of perspective, Delaware had about 1800 slaves in 1861, a large majority of which ran off at some point in the war. Less than DC. The rest of the slaveholding states had about 4 million. That's about 4-5 1000ths of 1 percent of the total slave population. There were 5 states in the Confederacy alone that had slave populations either greater than or roughly equal to the white population.

    Besides, slavery wasn't really done away with in the former Confederacy with the Emancipation Proclamation. It persisted in forms into the 20th century, just called something else.

    Wasn't Delaware part of the South then? But no, you're right, it wasn't just the South that was racist. I'd bet money that the majority of the Northern population would have loved to see the entire black population shipped to Africa.
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

  8. #68
    Regular
    Join Date
    01 Mar 08
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironduke View Post
    Missouri, another Virginia with strong split loyalties.
    Missouri has always had two problems, St Louis and Kansas city. The state could have split in two about 20 south miles of each and been fine because even today, the North end of the state are always the ones that vote overwhelmingly liberal and hold up things like our conceal carry bill that would have passed much earlier if not for the liberal jackasses in the two metropoli.

    This end of the state was overwhelmingly confederate and I guess you could say it still is.

  9. #69
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional Shek's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Feb 05
    Location
    Krblachistan
    Posts
    11,636
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluesman View Post
    They paid black soldiers the same worthless Confederate money as white soldiers, while it was Union Army policy to pay their colored troops LESS than whites.
    Keith,

    Black troops were payed less for about a year until June 1864, at which point it was rectified and backpay was issued as well to equalize pay.
    "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

  10. #70
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional Shek's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Feb 05
    Location
    Krblachistan
    Posts
    11,636
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironduke View Post
    I don't think there's any historical evidence to suggest that secession was supported in Maryland by a minority of the population, with a geographic split (like in Virginia). When push came to shove, the Kentucky legislature overwhelmingly picked what side it wanted to be on (not the Confederacy). Missouri, another Virginia with strong split loyalties.
    Southern sympathies were quite high in MD. There's a reason that Lincoln snuck through Baltimore in the middle of the night while enroute for his own inauguration, which is the same reason that Lincoln removed the writ of habeas corpus and declared martial law in Baltimore towards the beginning of the war.
    "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

  11. #71
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional Shek's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Feb 05
    Location
    Krblachistan
    Posts
    11,636
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluesman View Post
    He told 'em. I think when he lost at Gettysburg, and Vicksburg fell the day he began the retreat out of Pennsylvania, he wrote his letter of resignation.

    He was called to Richmond shortly after the army made it safely back to Virginia, and he told 'em all then that even if they did NOT accept his resignation, he felt that the war would be lost.
    Maybe I missed it, but Sears doesn't mention this at all in his Gettysburg book in his discussion about Lee's resignation. Instead, his resignation was all about losing at Gettysburg and his responsibility as the commander of the ANV for the unsuccessful campaign. In fact, while he stated on a couple of occasions that a seige of Richmond would be the end, it wasn't until the non-success of Early's raid in drawing Grant from Richmond (just as Lee's movement north in 1862 after taking command had drawn away McClellan) that I think he would have seen the siege as being a done deal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluesman
    Their response was to make him General-in-Chief on 31 January, 1865.
    Gallagher's argument is that Lee was the soul of the South, and so while I don't know any specific interpretation of the promotion, drawing from Gallagher, this seems more like a move to stiffen resolve as well as to try and use his generalship to overcome the poor showing of other generals at the high command.
    "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

  12. #72
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,888
    Quote Originally Posted by Shek View Post
    Southern sympathies were quite high in MD. There's a reason that Lincoln snuck through Baltimore in the middle of the night while enroute for his own inauguration, which is the same reason that Lincoln removed the writ of habeas corpus and declared martial law in Baltimore towards the beginning of the war.
    In fact Confederate sympathies ran high in Eastern Maryland.

    Baltimore riot of 1861 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    And while Deleware did not provide any Confederate units some men crossed the border and served in maryland Confederate or Virginia units.


    As for West Virginia...the 1st and 2d Wheeling Conventions met to discuss a way for all of Virginia to stay loyal to the Federal Government. Every county in Virginia which voted against secession were represented and voted to stay with the Union. Most of the ballots regarding secession from the western counties mystreriously did no make it to be counted in Richmond.

    The original intention was to represent the entire state. But once it became apparent that there was no reconciliation with Richmond the state of West Virginia was formed. Was it legal? That is still open to debate and there was considerable debate at the time. But as Lincoln said, in essence, Secession in support of the Union is allowed; secession against the Union is not.

    The Restored Government of Virginia would go on to actually form the Loyal civil government of the Commonwealth after the formation of West Virginia all the way until the new Constitution was formed in 1869.

    First Wheeling Convention

    First Session of the Second Wheeling Convention

    Wheeling Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Restored government of Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
    Mark Twain

  13. #73
    Staff Emeritus Julie's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Aug 03
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    10,840
    Quote Originally Posted by Shek View Post
    Keith,

    Black troops were payed less for about a year until June 1864, at which point it was rectified and backpay was issued as well to equalize pay.
    There was just a little more to it than that, if I may.

    Far more troubling to black soldiers than the lack of officers’ commissions for African Americans was the matter of unequal pay. Black men recruited in 1862and early 1863 had often enlisted with the promise that they would receive the same pay and allowances as white Union soldiers ($13 per month, with an additional $3.50 allowance per month for clothing). In June 1863, however, the War Department decided that the pay of black soldiers was covered under the 1862 Militia Act, which fixed the pay of African Americans working for the government at $10 per month, regardless of their type of employment. Then, adding insult to injury, the War Department determined $3per month would be deducted for clothing, leaving black soldiers with only $7 per month, regardless of rank. (Normally, higher enlisted ranks above corporal received more pay.)

    African-American troops were outraged by this decision. Not only did it make it harder for black soldiers to support their families, it was also an insult to their manhood. In the 54th Massachusetts Infantry, black soldiers refused to accept their pay until they were paid the same as white soldiers. They even declined an offer from Governor Andrew to use state funds to make up the difference in pay. Clearly, the men of the 54th were concerned about the black soldiers outside of Massachusetts who would not have their pay differential covered by a sympathetic state government. In addition, accepting Andrew’s offer would compromise the principle of equal pay for all Union soldiers. Seeing the racist intent of the War Department in offering unequal pay, they made a resolute and principled stand, at considerable hardship to themselves and their families.

    Yet the reaction of the men of the 54th Massachusetts was restrained compared to black soldiers in South Carolina. In November 1863, a company of the 3rd South Carolina Volunteers (later the 21st U.S. Colored Infantry), led by Sergeant William Walker, stacked their arms and refused to continue serving until their pay was equalized with those of white men. This action constituted mutiny in the eyes of federal authorities, and Colonel Augustus G. Bennett, despite being sympathetic to his men’s plight, had Walker arrested when he refused to lead his men back to duty. Walker was convicted of mutiny, and he was executed by firing squad in front of the regiment on February 29, 1864. Upon hearing of Walker’s death, Governor Andrew declared that “the Government which found no law to pay him except as a non-descript or a contraband, nevertheless found law enough to shoot him as a soldier” (Trudeau 1998, p.254).

    The actions of the 54th Massachusetts and the 3rd South Carolina brought the unequal pay controversy to the attention of the Northern public. Nowhere else was racial discrimination so blatant, quantifiable, and demonstrably unfair. Finally, in June 1864, Congress passed legislation equalizing pay retroactively to Jan. 1, 1864. Later, Congress equalized pay for free blacks back to the time of their enlistment, and subsequent administrative action by Attorney General Edward Bates effectively did the same for African-American soldiers who had enlisted in the Union army straight out of slavery.

    Black Civil War Soldiers

  14. #74
    Staff Emeritus Julie's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Aug 03
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    10,840
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironduke View Post
    I'd bet money that the majority of the Northern population would have loved to see the entire black population shipped to Africa.
    That is so very true.

    March 3 1863, Congress passed the first national Conscription Act, requiring the enlistment of males between 20 and 45. Substitutes or a payment of $300 could be used for exemption. Although the new law did not exclude African Americans, resentment against the act erupted into violence against blacks who were accused of starting the Civil War. During the four days from 13 to 16 July 1863, primarily Irish-Americans and other poorer men hit hard by the new act, participated in draft riots in New York City, destroying property and lynching blacks. Federal troops were called in to restore order.

    The Civil War

  15. #75
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional Shek's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Feb 05
    Location
    Krblachistan
    Posts
    11,636
    Quote Originally Posted by Julie View Post
    There was just a little more to it than that, if I may.

    Far more troubling to black soldiers than the lack of officers’ commissions for African Americans was the matter of unequal pay. Black men recruited in 1862and early 1863 had often enlisted with the promise that they would receive the same pay and allowances as white Union soldiers ($13 per month, with an additional $3.50 allowance per month for clothing). In June 1863, however, the War Department decided that the pay of black soldiers was covered under the 1862 Militia Act, which fixed the pay of African Americans working for the government at $10 per month, regardless of their type of employment. Then, adding insult to injury, the War Department determined $3per month would be deducted for clothing, leaving black soldiers with only $7 per month, regardless of rank. (Normally, higher enlisted ranks above corporal received more pay.)

    African-American troops were outraged by this decision. Not only did it make it harder for black soldiers to support their families, it was also an insult to their manhood. In the 54th Massachusetts Infantry, black soldiers refused to accept their pay until they were paid the same as white soldiers. They even declined an offer from Governor Andrew to use state funds to make up the difference in pay. Clearly, the men of the 54th were concerned about the black soldiers outside of Massachusetts who would not have their pay differential covered by a sympathetic state government. In addition, accepting Andrew’s offer would compromise the principle of equal pay for all Union soldiers. Seeing the racist intent of the War Department in offering unequal pay, they made a resolute and principled stand, at considerable hardship to themselves and their families.

    Yet the reaction of the men of the 54th Massachusetts was restrained compared to black soldiers in South Carolina. In November 1863, a company of the 3rd South Carolina Volunteers (later the 21st U.S. Colored Infantry), led by Sergeant William Walker, stacked their arms and refused to continue serving until their pay was equalized with those of white men. This action constituted mutiny in the eyes of federal authorities, and Colonel Augustus G. Bennett, despite being sympathetic to his men’s plight, had Walker arrested when he refused to lead his men back to duty. Walker was convicted of mutiny, and he was executed by firing squad in front of the regiment on February 29, 1864. Upon hearing of Walker’s death, Governor Andrew declared that “the Government which found no law to pay him except as a non-descript or a contraband, nevertheless found law enough to shoot him as a soldier” (Trudeau 1998, p.254).

    The actions of the 54th Massachusetts and the 3rd South Carolina brought the unequal pay controversy to the attention of the Northern public. Nowhere else was racial discrimination so blatant, quantifiable, and demonstrably unfair. Finally, in June 1864, Congress passed legislation equalizing pay retroactively to Jan. 1, 1864. Later, Congress equalized pay for free blacks back to the time of their enlistment, and subsequent administrative action by Attorney General Edward Bates effectively did the same for African-American soldiers who had enlisted in the Union army straight out of slavery.

    Black Civil War Soldiers
    Not quite correct. The June 1864 act gave backpay to the time of enlistment for all soldiers that had been free prior to enlisting (it also awarded the bounties, what we call enlistment bonuses today, which were quite substantial). The only to January 1864 backpay was for those who had been freed by Union soldiers and then subsequently volunteered. This was later changed in March 1865 to be retroactive all the way back to enlistment.

    Black soldiers in blue: African ... - Google Books
    "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. A Concert-Balance Strategy for a Multipolar World
    By xinhui in forum The Staff College
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10 Dec 08,, 22:58
  2. Afghanistan and the Future of Warfare
    By troung in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 23 Feb 08,, 01:59
  3. A failure in generalship
    By Shek in forum The Staff College
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 01 Jun 07,, 01:04
  4. Articles and links for the Military Professional
    By Officer of Engineers in forum The Staff College
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 20 Nov 06,, 16:28

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •