Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


"Lost Cause" - General Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next Page Last Page  
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rating:  Rating
AuthorPost
 Posted: Thu Apr 7th, 2011 09:22 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
21st Post
barrydancer
Member


Joined: Wed Apr 23rd, 2008
Location: Norwalk, Connecticut USA
Posts: 135
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

We're getting far off the point of the original post, but both are relevant to my interests.  Many points to address, however.

"If, as you say, it "became a war to end slavery" the fact is that, it became a war to end slavery only in the South. Like I said, and you didn't elaborate on, the truth is that the North/Union states still had slavery after the war."

--Indeed, for a reason you stated elsewhere.  The federal government had no power to interfere with slavery in the states.  Those in rebellion were a different matter.  This issue, leaving slavery alone in states loyal to the Union, was brought up during the war.  Making a move to end slavery in the border states outright would have jeopardized the support needed for the war effort.  I'm paraphrasing Lincoln, but he stated something along the lines that the "push and pull" of war would put a de facto end to the institution in the border states.  The large number of escapees into free states from the border gives credence to this.

"As for Lincoln making it "clear that his administration would oppose admission of slave states"...

Lincoln made West Virginia a new state and it was OK for them to keep slavery."

--West Virginia was admitted under the condition that the eventual abolition of slavery was provided for in the new state constitution. 

"Well at least you admit that Lincoln started the war."

--I dunno.  I think those hotheads in Charleston Harbor had a little something to do with it, as well as their colleagues throughout the South who had seized Federal property in the preceding months.  

Back to the original intent of this thread, the Lost Cause.  Being a student of James Longstreet, it's something you become quickly acquainted with.  This Wikipedia article does a fairly concise job of summarizing the main points.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy

I like U.S. Grant's contention.  "This was the way public opinion was made during the war, and this is the way history is made now.  We never overwhelmed the South...What we won from the South we won by hard fighting."  Also, "the 4,000,000 of negroes [who] kept the farms, protected the families, supported the armies, and were really a reserve force [were] never counted in any summary of the forces of the South."  qtd. in David W. Blight's Race and Reunion:  The Civil War in American Memory, Harvard University Press, 2001, pg. 93



 Posted: Thu Apr 7th, 2011 09:41 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
22nd Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Natty wrote: So HankC, are you insinuating that the Union was fighting to stop slavery in the Confederate states but it was OK for them to keep slavery?

Define hypocrisy.


I'm not 'insinuating' anything.
 
Lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation as a war measure to deprive the confederacy of a vital resource.
 
Slavery continued in areas not in rebellion.
 
The 13th amendment freed all the slaves.
 
Maryland and Missouri freed their slaves before the ratification of the 13th amendment.
 
'hypocrisy' is your opinion which, like personal taste, cannot be argued. Solid opinions are strongly fact-based, not just repeated in loud voices...
 
 
Cheers,
HankC



You have chosen to ignore Natty. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Thu Apr 7th, 2011 10:09 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
24th Post
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1503
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Barry,

Can you recommend any good books about Longstreets post-Civil War life? Always wanted to study it more. With all the conspiracies and cabals, could probably make a good movie.



 Posted: Thu Apr 7th, 2011 11:55 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
25th Post
barrydancer
Member


Joined: Wed Apr 23rd, 2008
Location: Norwalk, Connecticut USA
Posts: 135
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Javal,

I sure can.  Donald Sanger and Thomas Hay's James Longstreet is good for the overall facts, though some of their material is now outdated/contradicted by more modern study.  William Garret Piston's Lee's Tarnished Lieutenant:  James Longstreet and His Place in Southern History does a good job of showing how Longstreet's post-war actions helped turn him into the South's most hated man.  Jeffry Wert's James Longstreet:  The Confederacy's Most Controversial Soldier is probably the best all-around bio to date, though I do take a issue with some of his points.



 Posted: Fri Apr 8th, 2011 12:10 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
26th Post
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1503
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I enjoy Piston anyway, so I guess I'll start with that one. Many thanks sir.



 Posted: Fri Apr 8th, 2011 01:34 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
27th Post
Albert Sailhorst
Member


Joined: Mon Sep 12th, 2005
Location: Aledo, Illinois USA
Posts: 548
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Barry-

The only book I have on Longstreet (though I haven't read it yet, as I have too many lined up before it!) is "From Manassas to Appomattox" by James Longstreet......Have you read it and what are your thoughts???

Thanks!!!



 Posted: Fri Apr 8th, 2011 01:56 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
28th Post
Mark
Member
 

Joined: Mon Mar 30th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 434
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I heard somewhere he actually led some black militia (or perhaps some USCT) to put down a race riot in New Orleans after the war. Can anyone confirm or deny?

Mark



 Posted: Fri Apr 8th, 2011 02:45 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
29th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Mark-

  In 1869, President Grant appointed General Longstreet surveyor of customs in New Orleans. The Louisiana governor soon appointed Longstreet adjutant general of the state militia. Eventually he commanded all militia and state police forces in New Orleans.

  On 14 September 1874, there was a riot begun  by white supremicists seeking to depose the republican governor. They were resisted by General Longstreet along with police forces and black militia troops. Longstreet's force was overrun and federal troops had to be called in to restore order.

Race Riots      "The Battle of Liberty Place."

  The following year, General Longstreet and his family moved to Georgia. Years later, he was appointed US Minister to Turkey, US Marshal in Gainesville, GA, and US Railroad Commissioner.

Last edited on Fri Apr 8th, 2011 03:28 am by Texas Defender



 Posted: Fri Apr 8th, 2011 03:08 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
30th Post
9Bama
Member
 

Joined: Mon May 10th, 2010
Location:  
Posts: 106
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Texas Defender wrote: Mark-

  In 1869, President Grant appointed General Longstreet surveyor of customs in New Orleans. The Louisiana governor soon appointed Longstreet adjutant general of the state militia. Eventually he commanded all militia and state police forces in New Orleans.

  On 14 September 1874, there was a riot begun  by white supremicists seeking to depose the republican governor. They were resisted by General Longstreet along with police forces and black militia troops. Longstreet's force was overrun and federal troops had to be called in to restore order.

Race Riots

  The following year, General Longstreet and his family moved to Georgia. Years later, he was appointed US Minister to Turkey, US Marshal in Gainesville, GA, and US Railroad Commissioner.


TD,

Going by memory here, but wasn't Longstreet captured and held ofr ransom or something of that nature...memory is dim, but something striking happened during this incident IIRC



 Posted: Fri Apr 8th, 2011 03:15 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
31st Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Bama-

  Yes, he was captured, but was released when federal troops showed up and the rioters retreated.



 Posted: Fri Apr 8th, 2011 11:18 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
32nd Post
Mark
Member
 

Joined: Mon Mar 30th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 434
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Thanks guys! Interesting stuff.

Mark



 Posted: Fri Apr 8th, 2011 03:00 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
33rd Post
barrydancer
Member


Joined: Wed Apr 23rd, 2008
Location: Norwalk, Connecticut USA
Posts: 135
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Albert Sailhorst wrote: Barry-

The only book I have on Longstreet (though I haven't read it yet, as I have too many lined up before it!) is "From Manassas to Appomattox" by James Longstreet......Have you read it and what are your thoughts???

Thanks!!!

It's a great work, and is chock full of detail about the ANV and the First Corps in particular.  It does, however, have its faults.  Longstreet's sword was certainly mightier than his pen.  The prose can be very hard to read sometimes, often due to all the detail Pete tries to cram in.  He could have definitely used a modern-day editor.

Also, the book is product of the man in the 1890's, meaning he's spent the last 25 years defending a war record that needed no defending.  The attacks of Jubal Early, et. al, took their toll and Longstreet often comes across in the work as the bitter old man he became.  He unfairly criticizes at points, and takes a larger share of the credit on some campaigns than he was necessarily due.

As a record of the ANV and First Corps, it's indispensable.



 Posted: Fri Apr 8th, 2011 03:02 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
34th Post
barrydancer
Member


Joined: Wed Apr 23rd, 2008
Location: Norwalk, Connecticut USA
Posts: 135
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Longstreet's leading of the militia in New Orleans was pretty much the final nail in his coffin of apostasy for Southerners. Not only had he turned Republican and Scalawag, but now he's leading black troops against former Confederate veterans.



 Posted: Fri Apr 8th, 2011 06:35 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
35th Post
9Bama
Member
 

Joined: Mon May 10th, 2010
Location:  
Posts: 106
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

as proof of that theory, consider that there is only one statue to Pete on a battlefield and that was placed in 1997! It only took 132 years to rehabilitate him to the level he is now... what a travesty for a great general.



 Posted: Sat Apr 9th, 2011 12:02 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
36th Post
Albert Sailhorst
Member


Joined: Mon Sep 12th, 2005
Location: Aledo, Illinois USA
Posts: 548
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Barry-Thanks for the info!!!.....I'll hafta get that book up a little higher on my summer reading schedule!!!



You have chosen to ignore BradAnderson. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Fri May 6th, 2011 07:18 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
38th Post
BHR62
Member


Joined: Sun Dec 12th, 2010
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 242
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

the who had the better soldiers and generals argument is hard to resolve. The Yanks had to fight on their opponents territory virtually the entire war. That makes a big difference. Even when Lee went north twice he got beat by McClellan and Meade. IMO, that was Lee's worst decisions. He wasted his manpower with little chance of victory. A reb was said to have said, "the Yanks shoot straighter up north." Yank generals: Grant, Sherman, Hancock, Sedgwick, Meade, Reynolds, Thomas were the equal or better than their counterparts on the Reb side. Resources favored the north but you still got to go out and use those resources wisely. Once Grant got into overall command the war was over. He like Lincoln was committed to winning the war at all costs. Grant put all armies on the offensive at the same time preventing the Rebs from transferring their troops between hotspots. I think strategically Grant was by far the best general of the war.



 Posted: Sat May 7th, 2011 12:24 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
39th Post
Mark
Member
 

Joined: Mon Mar 30th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 434
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

BHR, I think you are exactly right about Grant's strategic vision. I am convinced that the Confederacy collapsed from within because of the external pressure Grant was able to bring against it during the 1864 campaigns. He was the only General in Chief that was able to bring the full might of the United States armies against the Confederacy at the same time. That was what finally convinced the Confederate public that they could not win the war. Once the public lost faith, the Confederate Army could not continue to resist for long.

Regards,
Mark



 Posted: Sat May 7th, 2011 01:07 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
40th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

BHR62 and Mark-

  Since opinions are being expressed here about what caused the demise of the Confederacy, I'll put forth a different one.

  First of all, the Confederacy did not have to achieve a victory over the north in order to achieve its objectives. It only had to survive. A draw was as good as a win.

  In my view, the arrival of General Grant in the east by itself did not mean that the Confederacy was doomed. In fact, I believe that there was hope for the Confederacy to survive until November of 1864, when Mr. Lincoln was re-elected.

  Mr. Lincoln did not think he would be re-elected in the summer before the election. I believe that he won because the northern public was energized by General Sherman's capture of Atlanta. The re-election of Mr. Lincoln showed that the northern people were determined to finish the thing, whatever the cost. At that point, the Confederacy was doomed.

  One may quibble and say that Sherman was able to make the March because he convinced Grant that he could do it, and Lincoln went along with what was then thought to be a risky scheme. So in that way, Grant could be given some credit for backing Sherman. But it was the March that ensured Mr. Lincoln's re-election, and that signalled the end. I believe that without the March, Lincoln could well have lost the election, and the war might very well have ended differently. But we are dealing with: "What ifs" here, and not facts, so opinions are all that we have.



 Current time is 07:22 amPage:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next Page Last Page  
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.2214 seconds (12% database + 88% PHP). 33 queries executed.