PDA

View Full Version : War Between the States



texag57
03-03-2010, 12:51 PM
Moderator's note: This thread consists, to post #15, of posts taken from Victor's Injustice http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9620&page=3. Further discussion within the broad scope of the thread title is up to members, but this is not the place for detailed discussion of specific battles, specific weapons etc but rather the broader issues involved in the War Between the States. Rising Sun*

Unfortunately, the winners always apply the international laws after the shooting is over. There were someof the punishments meted out at Nuremburg that I do not feel were right. There were some of those that I felt were deserved. Punishments deserved by leaders of the winning sides have to be dealt out by their own courts of military justice. If they let them slide, then there is little that can be done. Otherwise, Northern commanders such as W.T. Sherman go scott free for their behavior and the behavior of some of his men during the War of Southern Independence.

Wizard
03-03-2010, 06:26 PM
Unfortunately, the winners always apply the international laws after the shooting is over. There were someof the punishments meted out at Nuremburg that I do not feel were right. There were some of those that I felt were deserved. Punishments deserved by leaders of the winning sides have to be dealt out by their own courts of military justice. If they let them slide, then there is little that can be done. Otherwise, Northern commanders such as W.T. Sherman go scott free for their behavior and the behavior of some of his men during the War of Southern Independence.

It's a sad fact that the Northern military commanders broke no laws in the War of Northern Aggression because there were no laws, international or otherwise, which were in effect in the jurisdictions in which they were operating. Lincoln may have (probably did) violated the Federal Constitution in that he pursued an aggressive war in the absence of any Constitutional justification, but that is more a political matter to be adjudicated in the US Supreme Court. No Federal laws governed actions in the States until the advent of the 14th Amendment after the Civil war, and no international Conventions on War existed until 1864 (and at any rate, weren't ratified by the US until 1882).

That is not to say there was no precedent (The first war crimes trial was held in 1474, the defendant was Peter von Hagenbach, and he was convicted and executed after claiming to just following orders) for a trial of some Union commanders, but nothing was binding on them. There was something called the Lieber Code which imposed criminal liability on troop commanders for ordering or encouraging their men to wound or kill troops who had ceased resisting. This apparently was a protocol attached to Lincoln's declaration of martial law, which was of questionable legality in itself.

texag57
03-04-2010, 10:10 AM
Thanks for your response, Wizard. The Union did find a way to prosecute and hang at least one Confederate Officer, the unfortunate Wirtz, commander of the infamous Andersonville Prison. Perhaps he deserved it, but I'm not sure of that. I have also read of very similar conditions in at least one of the Northern POW camps. Sounds like another example of "Victor's Injustice" right in our own nation. There are other examples that occurred during the Indian Wars as well. Victor's Injustice has been around a long time, and not just in WWII.

Nickdfresh
03-04-2010, 12:49 PM
Um, didn't the Confederate States of America open fire on Fort Sumter? And as for legality, it was the South that seized federal assets with no negotiations...

texag57
03-04-2010, 04:10 PM
]Yes they did. Only after requests for removal of Federals in the confines of a soverign state. Lincoln was set on re-supplying them, rather than removing them. South Carolina had adopted the Ordinances of Secession. This was a right that had not been forbidden to States by the U.S. Constitution. At the Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made to allow the Federal Government to suppress a seceding state, but that proposal was rejected after James Madison said,

"A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound".1

Instead of honoring the spirit of the Constitutional Convention, Lincoln seemed determined to provoke a war, instead of recognizing the rights of the States.

Respectfully,


1.Max Farrand,ed, The Records of the Federal Convention, vol.1(New Haven, Conn.(Yale University Press,1911),p.47


[/SIZE]

texag57
03-04-2010, 04:26 PM
By the way, Nickdfresh, I notice you are from New York. I have seen in my reading about the War for Southern Independence, that New Yorkers, in general, were friendly to Southrons, and I appreciate that. Perhaps we too, can be friends and just agree to disagree on some things. Long Live the South!

Nickdfresh
03-04-2010, 05:27 PM
By the way, Nickdfresh, I notice you are from New York. I have seen in my reading about the War for Southern Independence, that New Yorkers, in general, were friendly to Southrons, and I appreciate that. Perhaps we too, can be friends and just agree to disagree on some things. Long Live the South!

Texag,

I admit that I am not all that well-read on the American Civil War. I do recall something in history class of certain mixed sympathies that resided in both the Northern and Southern regions. There were of course those northerners who had a pipe-dream of one day owning a Southern plantation, some that favored the notion of "states rights," and many were immigrants from places like Ireland that objected to being conscripted to fight in a war after fleeing the travails of their homelands, which resulted in a surge of draft riots in the City. All understandable, but I doubt there was a significant groundswell of sympathy for secession here, and many New Yorkers bled into the hallowed battlefields...

Long live everyone!

Regards

texag57
03-04-2010, 05:44 PM
Agreed, "long live everyone" and the USA.

Rising Sun*
03-04-2010, 06:19 PM
And peace breaks out just when I thought we were going to see the start of American Civil War II. :D

More seriously, what I know about the Civil War would fit on the head of a pin. Is there a readily obtainable and fairly concise book any of you Civil War buffs would recommend as giving a fair view?

Nickdfresh
03-04-2010, 06:46 PM
I dunno, I'm still stuck in the under-read portion of the War of 1812 and The American Revolution... :D

Unfortunately, I've been stuck on some other interests and have gotten away from wars a bit...

Nickdfresh
03-04-2010, 06:47 PM
This might make a nice thread in the Civil War forum though, no?

texag57
03-04-2010, 10:23 PM
Rising Sun, I can't think of a single edition, except perhaps the American Heritage single edition if it is still available. Look for anything by Bruce Catton, or Douglas Southall Freeman. Freeman has written several volumes of "Lee's Lieutenants". Any one of them would be a good read.
If I think of more, I'll let you know.

texag57
03-04-2010, 10:31 PM
Rising Sun,

The books I mentioned previously were published years ago, But I read one recently that I thought was really interesting. The name is The Jewish Confederates.It came out just a couple of years ago, and gives some insight into the War for Southern Independence (Civil War to the Unionists). It also gives interesting information of the contributions made by Jewish Statesmen, military officers, and just plain fighting men. I really enjoyed it

Rising Sun*
03-05-2010, 12:04 AM
texag57

Thanks. I'll see if I can find any locally.

texag57
03-05-2010, 08:26 AM
My pleasure. The war was such a hugh part of our history, that it is difficult to find one book that would do it justice. I'll keep looking through what I have and let you know when I come up with something recent.

Rising Sun*
03-07-2010, 05:45 AM
Bumped to let people know this thread exists.

32Bravo
03-07-2010, 06:04 AM
And peace breaks out just when I thought we were going to see the start of American Civil War II. :D

More seriously, what I know about the Civil War would fit on the head of a pin. Is there a readily obtainable and fairly concise book any of you Civil War buffs would recommend as giving a fair view?

I have a copy of Campfire & Battlefields An Illustrated History of the Great Civil War (1894), you may borrow it if you wish, but you might have to send a private jet to collect - it's massive!

32Bravo
03-07-2010, 06:06 AM
Yes they did. Only after requests for removal of Federals in the confines of a soverign state. Lincoln was set on re-supplying them, rather than removing them. South Carolina had adopted the Ordinances of Secession. This was a right that had not been forbidden to States by the U.S. Constitution. At the Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made to allow the Federal Government to suppress a seceding state, but that proposal was rejected after James Madison said,

"A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound".1

Instead of honoring the spirit of the Constitutional Convention, Lincoln seemed determined to provoke a war, instead of recognizing the rights of the States.

Respectfully,


1.Max Farrand,ed, The Records of the Federal Convention, vol.1(New Haven, Conn.(Yale University Press,1911),p.47




Is it Nick or your keyboard you're beating with that club? :lol:

Rising Sun*
03-07-2010, 06:35 AM
I have a copy of Campfire & Battlefields An Illustrated History of the Great Civil War (1894), you may borrow it if you wish, but you might have to send a private jet to collect - it's massive!

A bit out of my budget.

But your contribution from the UK reminds me that the American Civil War had all kinds of effects elsewhere, such as the cotton industry in Lancashire in your country which led to support for the South there by some mill owners against support by others for Lincoln as an anti-slaver which resulted in a statue of Lincoln being erected in Manchester, albeit with American funds.

There was even a degree of support for the South here when the successful Confederate commerce raider CSS Shenandoah visited, provoking a range of diplomatic and legal moves which illustrated the variety of local views.


By the 25th, of January, Waddell stood off the entrance to Port Phillip, and asked for a Pilot, who responded that his orders prevented him from bringing a belligerent ship into harbour without a good reason, Waddell pleaded problems with his propellor shafting, which seemed good enough for Pilot Edward Johnson. Waiting off the heads, a health official came on board and indicated that the Confederate would find many friends in Melbourne, but warned of some enemies awaiting.

The ship received government approval to stay in port, provision, and make repairs to the propellor shaft, meantime, the locals turned out en masse to view the Rebel Pirate, her officers regaled with dinners ashore, and balls turned on in their honour.

US Consul William Blanchard protested to Governor Darling, that as Sea King had not visited another British port since she left England, she did not qualify as a warship, and should be designated a Pirate, but the Governor indicated that his law officers of the Crown had: "Come to the decision that, whatever may be the previous history of Shenandoah, the Government of the Colony is bound to treat her as a ship of war belonging to a belligerent nation."

Now, Blanchard tried another ploy, he indicated that he would protect any crew member from the Confederate ship who had joined from a captured American vessel, 8 deserted, followed by another 6 later.

The repairs were taking their time to be executed, and the US consul believed that Waddell was merely stalling whilst trying to build up his crew numbers from the locals, and asked the police authorities to intervene. Superintendent Lyttleton, and Inspector Beam, of the Victoria went on board on the 13th. of February whilst Waddell was away from his ship, they carried a magistrate's warrant to search for Charley the Cook, Lieutenant Grimbell, in his Captain's absence, refused to allow such a search.

Now, Waddell also refused to allow a search on the following day, indicating he had not enlisted anyone since his arrival in Melbourne, the police reported to the Governor who summoned his Executive Council. The result, a message was drafted indicating that all repairs would be suspended, and the ship detained until the warrant was satisfied. At 1600 ( 4 PM ) police took over the ship, cleared the yard and stopped any further Australians from visiting the ship, and the official letter delivered, the messenger waiting for Waddell's response. It was 2200 ( 10PM ) before the Captain replied, indicating to the Commissioner of Trade and Customs James C. Francis, he would be ready to sail on the 19th, of February, in a second letter to Francis he indicated that: "the execution of the warrant was not refused, as no such person therein specified was on board, but

Civil War P 76.

only those who had entered this port as part of the complement."

But Constable Alexander Minto from the Williamstown water police noticed a boat at Shenandoah's gangway, and four men hastening down to jump in this boat, he chased it to shore, nabbed two of the occupants near the railway station, and found the other two lurking in a nearby toilet.

All were goaled, and one suprisingly like the description of " Charley the cook."

The next day, the executive council was again called to review this latest evidence, and a further letter arrived from Waddell indicating he had been told his ship was seized, and he wanted to know on whose authority.

Governor Darling also wanted to know what was going on! Thomas H. Fellows of the Crown Court posted a public statement: "I am of the opinion that the Government have not the power which they claim. A ship of war commissioned by a foreign government is exempt from the jurisdiction of the courts of other countries."

The Governor wanted Waddell chided, and demanded that Shenandoah sail by the 19th. of February, two days in advance of this deadline, after loading 250 tons of coal, the ship was prepared for sea.

Forty men were gathered on the beach at Sandridge, the original name for the port at Melbourne, which these days carries the name of Port Melbourne, three boats were seen to load these men, and row out to the Raider.

The US Consul forever watchful, rushed off a letter of complaint about illegal recruiting to the Governor, but the Crown Law office was shut for the day, and he could not get any action. He tried the police, outside our jurisdiction, they said, not one to give in easily, Blanchard dashed off to see the attorney general, George Higinbotham at Parliament House, he too, refused to help, but advised seeing Mr. Sturt, a county magistrate, but no, he would not issue an affidavit, and told Blanchard to file a charge with the Williamstown water police, across the bay.

Blanchard now documented the story narrated by Forbes who had first made the report about the 40 men going off to Shenandoah, sent it off to the attorney general, grabbed Forbes to go with him to try and get the Williamstown water police to act, en route, Forbes had second thoughts, thinking about his personal safety, he pulled out. Blanchard without his witness went back to his office, fuming at all the inaction to his complaint.

Now, a George Robbins, a stevedore, turned up at Blanchard's office, and indicated he had seen boatloads of men plus their baggage crossing by boat to the Shenandoah, and that he could name some of these men. Blanchard was now too tired to act, but entreated Robbins to report his information to the Williamstown

Civil War P 77.

water police, he returned to his boat, and started to row the distance from Sandridge to Williamstown, close by Shenandoah, he came on a boat manned by two murky characters he knew, Jack Riley and Robert Muir, they overhauled him, and threatened him if he passed on his information to the police. Robbins hit one of the thugs on the head with an oar, and smashed the second one's fingers, then raced them to the water police. Too late, Shenandoah at 1600 ( 4 PM ) was off, steaming down the bay making for the open sea.

When well clear of land, a number of strange faces emerged from various hiding places, as 45 new crew members, all claiming to be natives of the Southern Confederacy came on deck.

The local papers in Melbourne had a field day, Robbins story made the headlines, announcing Waddell had shipped 40 to 80 British subjects, Muir and Riley were charged, confessed, and were given brief gaol terms.

Then "Charley the cook, and his three mates went on trial in mid March, but in fact it was Shenandoah on trial, early on, the defence counsel asked the prosecution to prove that the Confederate States and the United States were actually at war.

Blanchard was subpoenaed to testify that the Confederate States were in fact a government, the US Consul, livid at being summoned to the court, reminded the Governor that his Government had allowed Shenandoah to enter the port because she was a belligerent, and now they expected him to provide proof.

The Governor ducked for cover, all a mistake, he proclaimed.

The rowdy court room obviously favoured an acquittal, all four had already spent 30 days in custody, Davidson ( Charley ) and one of his mates were sentenced to 10 days in gaol, one was released as he was an American, and the fourth let off, he was but 17 years of age.

The farce was over, and the case considered closed, but Waddell and his Officers were considered as liars, this slur went no further, by the time this story reached Richmond, the Coinfederate Government was no longer in existence, the Civil War was over.

Now Shenandoah sailed freely into the Pacific, no sign of any Union warship to bar her progress. http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/MaraudersCivilWar/CSSShenandoah.html

muscogeemike
03-18-2011, 09:14 PM
This may not be the correct thread for this but here are some neglected trivia about our Civil War:
1. Often noted is Ely Parker, a member of the Seneca Nation, who achieved the rank of Brig. Gen in the Union Army and was Commissioner of Indian Affairs after the War. What is less often mentioned is that many Native Americans took active part in the war. In fact the last Conf. Gen. to surrender his forces was a full blood Cherokee, Stand Wati. He was not a figure head (as far as I know Gen. Parker never commanded troops in action), he successfully lead troops throughout the War.
2. Technically the worlds first aircraft carrier was a Union ship which carried, maintained and launched observations balloons.
3. Hundreds of thousands of Black slaves (and some Native Americans) were used by both sides (especially the South) for labor during the War, and great numbers of Blacks served in the Union Army. But there were also many thousands of Blacks (I’ve seen figures from 50.000 - 100, 000) who willingly took up arms for the South.

“The farther back you can look - the farther forward you cam see.” Win. Churchill

Rising Sun*
03-20-2011, 02:53 AM
More trivia, assuming it's fair to call this disaster trivia.

SS Sultana, a Mississippi River paddlewheeler , went down with more than 1,700 souls, most of them Union POWs returning home after the Civil War. The loss of life was greater than the Titanic. Details here http://www.historynet.com/sultana-a-tragic-postscript-to-the-civil-war.htm

texag57
04-12-2011, 11:36 AM
Today, April 12, is the 150th anniversary of Confederate Batteries firing on Ft. Sumter, in Charleston Harbor. Thus began the War of Northern Aggression. The Confederate Government had continued its request of the Union to abandon the fortress located in South Carolina. Lincoln ordered the fortress resupplied as a way of drawing Southern forces into firing the first shot in clearing their coast of possible aggressive forces.

Nickdfresh
04-12-2011, 10:19 PM
Today, April 12, is the 150th anniversary of Confederate Batteries firing on Ft. Sumter, in Charleston Harbor. Thus began the War of Northern Aggression. The Confederate Government had continued its request of the Union to abandon the fortress located in South Carolina. Lincoln ordered the fortress resupplied as a way of drawing Southern forces into firing the first shot in clearing their coast of possible aggressive forces.

Well, to say that it was "Northern Aggression" is a stretch. That's not to say that Pres. Lincoln didn't want a fight. But in fact the Federal gov't informed their CSA counterparts by telegraph that Fort Sumter would be resupplied, and that's when the Confederacy chose to fire on the fort--doing Lincoln and the Union cause its greatest favor!

navyson
04-13-2011, 08:01 AM
The War of Northern Aggression.

Ha-ha-ha! Whew, that was a good one!:lol::mrgreen:

texag57
04-13-2011, 11:25 AM
[COLOR="darkred"]Civil War-a war between two factions to control the same nation. This was not the case between the two sections. The War of Northern Aggression or the War for Southern Independence seems a more accurate description to me. If a person prefers "Civil War", it's his or her choice. If a person wishes to be more accurate, there is a better choice. Cheers :)COLOR]

Nickdfresh
04-13-2011, 12:48 PM
This conversation reminds me of an old Bullwinkle cartoon where they're reenacting the "The Civil War" in the form of some North vs. South themed contest with uniforms, and a gentleman in a Confederate uniform keeps correcting the narrator after he mentions "civil war" with, "you mean the War Between the States." In the contest, the South wins this time. After which the old Confederate says, "okay, you can call it the Civil War now." :)

texag57
04-13-2011, 01:22 PM
Good Show! I like that, Nickdfresh!

navyson
04-13-2011, 09:27 PM
[COLOR="darkred"]Civil War-a war between two factions to control the same nation. This was not the case between the two sections. The War of Northern Aggression or the War for Southern Independence seems a more accurate description to me. If a person prefers "Civil War", it's his or her choice. If a person wishes to be more accurate, there is a better choice. Cheers :)COLOR]

Somehow I don't think that two of my ancestors who joined the Union army and died in the Civil War, joined for "The War of Northern Aggression". I'm in no way trying to argue, just saying...

texag57
04-14-2011, 10:08 AM
I am sure you're right. Lincoln did a good job of selling the war to "Save the Union". Cheers,:)

navyson
04-14-2011, 10:37 AM
I am sure you're right. Lincoln did a good job of selling the war to "Save the Union". Cheers,:)
Yep, that he did. I'm sure that would have been the reason for joining up.

Nickdfresh
04-14-2011, 11:03 AM
I really don't want to turn this into the second fighting of the American Civil War thread. But we can go on and on with reframing and semantics regarding the War and who started it. The fact is that it was the C.S.A. that initiated the shooting war, whether the dastardly cunning Pres. Lincoln cleverly goaded the Confederates into it or not. And as much as one can point out Northern "aggression," we can also mention that there was much in the way of aggressive behaviors by the Confederates who actually tried to force loyalist, Unionist counties in the South to secede as well. And then there's the HUGE question of slavery, and the fact that the keystone of Southern "independence" was in essence articulated as a means to keep slavery indefinite and the manifestation of the notion of the fantasy shangri-la (enjoyed by a very small percentage of the white upper classes) of the Old South's outdated, agrarian system based on not only slavery, but was also effectively feudalism. A system that in the face of modern industrialization was regressive and didn't stand a chance, and carried on in the face of the realization that slavery was a national embarrassment...

texag57
04-14-2011, 11:18 AM
This discussion has been fun. I'll be back for First Manassas.:D(Rebel Yell)

texag57
04-14-2011, 11:37 AM
Okay, nickdfresh, I plan to keep it light, and discuss battles from here on, as I indicated above. I do think the different views can be shared, without insulting anyone. I have grown up in Texas, and my first inclination was that the Union was right, even though my great-grandfather fought in and survived the war under "Stonewall" Jackson. The more I have read, since school, and having taught U.S. history in public school, the more my view changed to the Southern view of the war. Briefly, that's who I am, and that's my view. I trust that meets with the goals of this site. Cheers,:)

Rising Sun*
04-14-2011, 09:43 PM
This thread touches lightly on it, but just how deep are current feelings between the North and the South about the Civil War?

Obviously there will be extremes at both ends on both sides from 'don't care' to 'still seriously hostile', but from a distance I get the impression that there are still (perhaps significant) elements in the South where there are strong feelings among what might be called average people, but that it's not much of an issue for corresponding groups in the North.

If so, would you attribute those strong Southern feelings more to the Northern conduct during the War; or to the experiences of the Southern peoples during the post-war period of Northern control; or both; or something else?

navyson
04-15-2011, 08:29 AM
This thread touches lightly on it, but just how deep are current feelings between the North and the South about the Civil War?

I haven't noticed too much. Every once in a while someone will call me a Yankee when telling them I was born up north. But no one has ever had any ill will towards me or my family.



Obviously there will be extremes at both ends on both sides from 'don't care' to 'still seriously hostile', but from a distance I get the impression that there are still (perhaps significant) elements in the South where there are strong feelings among what might be called average people, but that it's not much of an issue for corresponding groups in the North.


Based on my family, (being a Yankee), we don't pay much attention to the matter. No one really talks about it. And living in Texas since I was a child, the part of the family that's down here never really lorded over anyone the fact that the Union won the war.

If so, would you attribute those strong Southern feelings more to the Northern conduct during the War; or to the experiences of the Southern peoples during the post-war period of Northern control; or both; or something else?
When I do talk about the Civil War with others, it's a little bit of both. The Unions "total war" (Shermans march to the sea), and the treatment received after the Civil War. I read in years past that Lincoln wanted reconciliaton but after he was assassinated, it turned into occupation of the South.

Edit: with the current political situation in the USA, (check the "red" and "blue" states in the last few elections), I'm more of a southerner now than I would be a northerner.:mrgreen:

32Bravo
04-24-2011, 02:02 PM
In my experience of travelling in the southern states, the war is still being fought in many southern minds - the grudge of the defeated, perhaps? Texas was also somewhat different to the cotton-belt/slave states. Some of my North-American/yankee cousins tell me that the Conderate flag is a symbol of treason and should be banned as being un-American. Not being American, it matters not, to me.

tankgeezer
04-24-2011, 03:24 PM
It depends on who you talk to I guess, most folks here in East Tennessee are pretty much reconciled with things, though there are some who are still fighting it, but they are a small minority. The Stars, and Bars are still seen here, some folks like flying it, some dont. But generally, Though not considered by most to be a National symbol, it is still a legitimate part of American history. The (admittedly few) people I have asked about it, do not see it as being a symbol of slavery, and feel that to be more of a Northern impression. (East Tn. was for the most part anti slavery) When I have seen it flown with the Stars, and Stripes, it is always well below the U.S. flag, I have also seen it flown alone, at the top of the pole. Then there are the usual truck stake pocket flags, license plate versions, and window decals.

Nickdfresh
04-24-2011, 04:16 PM
I'm as Yankee as they come. But I have no interest in seeing the Stars and Bars banned nor censored as it is a legitimate cultural and historical artifact...

texag57
04-27-2011, 11:50 AM
In 1965, I had a teaching assignment at a relatively new high school in Houston, Texas, my home town. The school is Robert E. Lee, and they were called the "Generals". Confederate battleflags were waved at the football games, and it was normal and expected. The school integrated the next year, and the new black students bought and waved the small Confederate battleflags at the football games, without any problem. It was the way things were in Texas back then. I am sure there were some that chose to not participate, but I was surprised to see the large number of black students who did participate. At the time, Lee was all academic, college preparatory. Now it is mostly a technical high school, and I am not sure they even have a team of any kind. It is simply called Lee High School. The times, they are a'changing.

muscogeemike
04-27-2011, 12:03 PM
In 1965, I had a teaching assignment at a relatively new high school in Houston, Texas, my home town. The school is Robert E. Lee, and they were called the "Generals". Confederate battleflags were waved at the football games, and it was normal and expected. The school integrated the next year, and the new black students bought and waved the small Confederate battleflags at the football games, without any problem. It was the way things were in Texas back then. I am sure there were some that chose to not participate, but I was surprised to see the large number of black students who did participate. At the time, Lee was all academic, college preparatory. Now it is mostly a technical high school, and I am not sure they even have a team of any kind. It is simply called Lee High School. The times, they are a'changing.

I once read of an anniversary of the battle of Gettysburg when vets from both sides were invited to honor the fallen.

The Union vets were surprised at the number of black Confederate vets who came, apparently they were better received by the Southern vets than the Northern ex-soldiers.

I’ve seen estimates that from 50,000 to 100,000 blacks served under arms for the South.

I’ve have also heard from current blacks in the South that it was their war too and that the disputed flag does not offend them.

royal744
09-03-2013, 11:25 AM
Rising Sun,

The books I mentioned previously were published years ago, But I read one recently that I thought was really interesting. The name is The Jewish Confederates.It came out just a couple of years ago, and gives some insight into the War for Southern Independence (Civil War to the Unionists). It also gives interesting information of the contributions made by Jewish Statesmen, military officers, and just plain fighting men. I really enjoyed it

I like any of Shelby Foote's books on the topic. Carl Sandburg as well. And Rice University's own Dr Frank Vandiver ("Mighty Stonewall") to name a few. That said, there are probably thousands of books on the subject.

royal744
09-03-2013, 11:32 AM
A bit out of my budget.

But your contribution from the UK reminds me that the American Civil War had all kinds of effects elsewhere, such as the cotton industry in Lancashire in your country which led to support for the South there by some mill owners against support by others for Lincoln as an anti-slaver which resulted in a statue of Lincoln being erected in Manchester, albeit with American funds.

There was even a degree of support for the South here when the successful Confederate commerce raider CSS Shenandoah visited, provoking a range of diplomatic and legal moves which illustrated the variety of local views.

http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/MaraudersCivilWar/CSSShenandoah.html


I also read somewhere - can't recall the book or books - that the Civil War was directly responsible for the rise of Egyptian Cotton and Indian cotton due to the uncertainty and sudden unreliability of the American source. So, yes, the economic effects were worldwide.

royal744
09-03-2013, 11:34 AM
I once read of an anniversary of the battle of Gettysburg when vets from both sides were invited to honor the fallen.

The Union vets were surprised at the number of black Confederate vets who came, apparently they were better received by the Southern vets than the Northern ex-soldiers.

I’ve seen estimates that from 50,000 to 100,000 blacks served under arms for the South.

I’ve have also heard from current blacks in the South that it was their war too and that the disputed flag does not offend them.

It would be very interesting to see some documentation on this - black confederate unit designations, for example...

royal744
09-03-2013, 11:56 AM
In my experience of travelling in the southern states, the war is still being fought in many southern minds - the grudge of the defeated, perhaps? Texas was also somewhat different to the cotton-belt/slave states. Some of my North-American/yankee cousins tell me that the Conderate flag is a symbol of treason and should be banned as being un-American. Not being American, it matters not, to me.

Bravo, there is a tremendous amount of cotton grown in Texas. Only now we use large harvesting machines instead of slaves.

With regard to the "grudge of the defeated", it lives on in the minds of some - not exactly sure why this is so, but it exists. The Stars and Bars was not the only Confederate flag, however. I think it's as often displayed as a sign of "general and free floating rebellion" against any and all authority and as such will probably never go away. Bandana wearing, tattoo decorated Harley-Davidson riders seem to be drawn to it. They're also drawn to German army helmets and swastikas.

When I was working on a project in Richmond, VA, one of my local associates - older than me by a few years - couldn't stop talking about Robert E Lee at every opportunity. This was entirely un-prompted by me. His company was a rather old one and when I was visiting the Richmond City Museum I chanced upon an old photograph of men, among whom was the founder of the firm. The men were dressed in the ghostly costumes of the infamous KKK (Knights of the White Camellia - or something like that), So, the roots probably run deep.

I have in-laws who live in Kentucky who to this day proudly proclaim that they live in an "all-white" county. There are "No black persons here when the sun goes down." I found this shocking, but they find it normal.

My greatest regret (for America) is that Lincoln was assassinated because I believe he had a more enlightened policy in mind for the South than what transpired after the war. John Wilkes Booth did no one any favors, least of all the South.

royal744
09-03-2013, 03:13 PM
I once read of an anniversary of the battle of Gettysburg when vets from both sides were invited to honor the fallen.

The Union vets were surprised at the number of black Confederate vets who came, apparently they were better received by the Southern vets than the Northern ex-soldiers.

I’ve seen estimates that from 50,000 to 100,000 blacks served under arms for the South.

I’ve have also heard from current blacks in the South that it was their war too and that the disputed flag does not offend them.

Those estimates might be just a tad inflated. CSA statistics are notoriously unreliable because record keeping at that time did not have a high priority. But later statistics probably are quite a bit more reliable. Here's what Wkipedia has to say about Afro-Americans serving in the Confederate Army:

African Americans in the Confederate Army[edit source | editbeta]



"Marlboro" African-American bodyservant to white Confederate soldier
Main article: Military history of African Americans in the U.S. Civil War#Confederate States Army
With so many white males conscripted and roughly 40% of its population unfree, the work required to maintain a functioning society in the CSA ended up largely on the backs of slaves.[28] Even Georgia's Governor Joseph E. Brown noted that "the country and the army are mainly dependent upon slave labor for support."[29] Slave labor was used in a wide variety of support roles, from infrastructure and mining, to teamster and medical roles such as hospital attendants and nurses.[30]
The idea of arming slaves for use as soldiers was speculated on from the onset of the war, but not seriously considered by Davis or others in his administration.[31] Though an acrimonious and controversial debate was raised by a letter from Patrick Cleburne[32] urging the Confederacy to raise black soldiers by offering emancipation, it would not be until Robert E. Lee wrote the Confederate Congress urging them that the idea would take serious traction. On March 13, 1865, the Confederate Congress passed General Order 14,[33] and President Davis signed the order into law. The order was issued March 23, but only a few African American companies were raised.[34] A company or two of black hospital workers was attached to a unit in Richmond, Virginia, shortly before the besieged southern capital fell.[34] A Confederate major later affirmed that the small number of soldiers mustered in Richmond in 1865 were "the first and only black troops used on our side."[34] However, there were varying accounts of black rebel troops. For instance on July 11, 1863, the New York Herald reported: "...And after the battle of Gettysburg in July 1863, ...reported among the rebel prisoners were seven blacks in Confederate uniforms fully armed as soldiers..." While determining an accurate number of African Americans who served in the Confederate armed forces may never be known, the United States Census of 1890 lists 3,273 African Americans who claimed to be Confederate veterans[35]

So, that would be maybe 3,300 black soldiers out of a total of around 1,000,000 Confederate soldiers or about 00.33%, and apparently of that number, only a small number ever served near a front line. Although there have been persistent myths, legends and rumors about blacks rushing to 'protect their way of life' (ie., slavery), it stretches credulity to the breaking point, especially when seen in the light of the incentive for enlisting blacks was emancipation!

royal744
09-03-2013, 03:15 PM
I once read of an anniversary of the battle of Gettysburg when vets from both sides were invited to honor the fallen.

The Union vets were surprised at the number of black Confederate vets who came, apparently they were better received by the Southern vets than the Northern ex-soldiers.

I’ve seen estimates that from 50,000 to 100,000 blacks served under arms for the South.

I’ve have also heard from current blacks in the South that it was their war too and that the disputed flag does not offend them.

Those estimates might be just a tad inflated. CSA statistics are notoriously unreliable because record keeping at that time did not have a high priority. But later statistics probably are quite a bit more reliable. Here's what Wkipedia has to say about Afro-Americans serving in the Confederate Army:

African Americans in the Confederate Army[edit source | editbeta]

Main article: Military history of African Americans in the U.S. Civil War#Confederate States Army
With so many white males conscripted and roughly 40% of its population unfree, the work required to maintain a functioning society in the CSA ended up largely on the backs of slaves.[28] Even Georgia's Governor Joseph E. Brown noted that "the country and the army are mainly dependent upon slave labor for support."[29] Slave labor was used in a wide variety of support roles, from infrastructure and mining, to teamster and medical roles such as hospital attendants and nurses.[30]
The idea of arming slaves for use as soldiers was speculated on from the onset of the war, but not seriously considered by Davis or others in his administration.[31] Though an acrimonious and controversial debate was raised by a letter from Patrick Cleburne[32] urging the Confederacy to raise black soldiers by offering emancipation, it would not be until Robert E. Lee wrote the Confederate Congress urging them that the idea would take serious traction. On March 13, 1865, the Confederate Congress passed General Order 14,[33] and President Davis signed the order into law. The order was issued March 23, but only a few African American companies were raised.[34] A company or two of black hospital workers was attached to a unit in Richmond, Virginia, shortly before the besieged southern capital fell.[34] A Confederate major later affirmed that the small number of soldiers mustered in Richmond in 1865 were "the first and only black troops used on our side."[34] However, there were varying accounts of black rebel troops. For instance on July 11, 1863, the New York Herald reported: "...And after the battle of Gettysburg in July 1863, ...reported among the rebel prisoners were seven blacks in Confederate uniforms fully armed as soldiers..." While determining an accurate number of African Americans who served in the Confederate armed forces may never be known, the United States Census of 1890 lists 3,273 African Americans who claimed to be Confederate veterans[35]

From another source,this time commemorating the day that the South decided to recruit black slaves into the Confederate Army at the behest of General Patrick Cleburne and at the urging of General Lee. It was very late in the day for the south.

The situation was bleak for the Confederates in the spring of 1865. The Yankees had captured large swaths of Southern territory, General William T. Sherman's Union army was tearing through the Carolinas, and General Robert E. Lee was trying valiantly to hold the Confederate capital of Richmond, Virginia, against General Ulysses S. Grant's growing force. Lee and Confederate President Jefferson Davis had only two options. One was for Lee to unite with General Joseph Johnston's army in the Carolinas and use the combined force to take on Sherman and Grant one at a time. The other option was to arm slaves, the last source of fresh manpower in the Confederacy.

The idea of enlisting blacks had been debated for some time. [Arming slaves was essentially a way of setting them free, since they could not realistically be sent back to plantations after they had fought. General Patrick Cleburne had suggested enlisting slaves a year before, but few in the Confederate leadership considered the proposal, since slavery was the foundation of Southern society. One politician asked, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?" Another suggested, "If slaves will make good soldiers, our whole theory of slavery is wrong." Lee weighed in on the issue and asked the Confederate government for help. "We must decide whether slavery shall be extinguished by our enemies and the slaves be used against us, or use them ourselves." Lee asked that the slaves be freed as a condition of fighting, but the bill that passed the Confederate Congress on March 13, 1865, did not stipulate freedom for those who served.

The measure did nothing to stop the destruction of the Confederacy. Several thousand blacks were enlisted in the Rebel cause, but they could not begin to balance out the nearly 200,000 blacks who fought for the Union.

So, that would be maybe 3,300 black soldiers out of a total of around 1,000,000 Confederate soldiers - more or less - or about 00.33%, and apparently of that number, only a small number ever served near a front line. Even if we assume - and I doubt this assumption is correct - that the number cited is three times that number, it is still less than 10,000. "Soldier" may be a misnomer in that one website noting the occupations of these soldiers as "manservant", "mechanic", "laundress", "carpenter" and so on. Although there have been persistent myths, legends and rumors about blacks rushing to 'protect their way of life' (ie., slavery), it stretches credulity to the breaking point, especially when seen in the light of the incentive for enlisting blacks was emancipation! Lincoln, of course, had already emancipated the slaves in 1863. It is a sad reminder of just how desperate the South was for manpower.