Confederate States Of America (2005)

Yahoo Movies ^ | 12/31/04 | Me

[fortheDeclaration]

It's absolutely amazing that the only authors on the subject of the Civil War which are not "shoddy", in the muddled minds of the Neo-Confederates, are other Neo-Confederate historic spin peddlers, such as 'Tommy' & those champions of distortion, Walter & James Kennedy. It's really a riot, I always seem to discover their 'books' on the very bottom shelve in any major bookstore. I'm so Ferklempt not knowing how those 'books' are relatively hidden from browsing customers. :)

Maybe this is why.

After the war, Davis and other purveyors of the Lost Cause left out this unpleasant part of Confederate history, instead vilifying Lincoln as dictator and championing the Southern nation as the true defender of civil liberty.

[GOPcapitalist]

Gee, and maybe 18 misdemeanors are better then 13 felonies?

In other words, you cannot even answer a simple question of whether or not 18 is larger than 13 for fear of the fact that it makes your side look bad. Pitiful.

Sometimes you have to look at what is being discussed.

Name what you want to discuss then. I've already offered habeas corpus - by far the most famous and widespread civil liberties abuse policy of the war - and you've generally avoided it.

Like having a passport system between the states?

Lincoln had nothing less for entry into and out of the capital, travel to any of the southern states and anywhere even remotely close to a union military installation, and even in some northern regions.

Well, that may not be the crucial issues that determine how abusive the use of the writ was.

Care to specify what was then? Care to offer any specifics?

I know that you like to define the terms of the debate, but wheather Davis had permission and Lincoln did not is not the essential issue, the essential issue is how they each used or misused the power.

Write's Bensel:

"In the south, Jefferson Davis was comparatively less assertive than Lincoln in several respects [on habeas corpus]. For one thing, the Confederate president never suspended the writ without first requesting and receiving congressional approval for this authority. For another, even when granted this power, Davis never used suspension as sweepingly or with much overt political purpose...The writ of habeas corpus was formally suspended by congressional action for only eighteen months and President Davis was unwilling to suspend the writ by executive proclamation. In other periods Confederate military officers often acted as if the writ were formally suspended by resorting to martial law. The military thus partially filled the breach in periods when the Confederate Congress failed to pass enabling legislation. Even allowing for thes supporting, extrastatutory efforts, however, the Confederate experience with the suspension of the writ and martial law was considerably less statist than the administrative structure and implementation in the North." (p. 142-44)

[fortheDeclaration]

Thanks for the very informative essay.

[fortheDeclaration]

Gee, and maybe 18 misdemeanors are better then 13 felonies? In other words, you cannot even answer a simple question of whether or not 18 is larger than 13 for fear of the fact that it makes your side look bad. Pitiful. Sometimes you have to look at what is being discussed. Name what you want to discuss then. I've already offered habeas corpus - by far the most famous and widespread civil liberties abuse policy of the war - and you've generally avoided it. Like having a passport system between the states?

I have not avoided it, only want to put into context with other freedom issues.

Lincoln had nothing less for entry into and out of the capital, travel to any of the southern states and anywhere even remotely close to a union military installation, and even in some northern regions.

That sounds a bit different then having to have passports to go from state to state in the Union.

That sounds like common sense military precautions.

Well, that may not be the crucial issues that determine how abusive the use of the writ was. Care to specify what was then? Care to offer any specifics?

I am looking at specific acts and why they were done. (did they have any security justification)

I know that you like to define the terms of the debate, but wheather Davis had permission and Lincoln did not is not the essential issue, the essential issue is how they each used or misused the power. Write's Bensel: "In the south, Jefferson Davis was comparatively less assertive than Lincoln in several respects [on habeas corpus]. For one thing, the Confederate president never suspended the writ without first requesting and receiving congressional approval for this authority. For another, even when granted this power, Davis never used suspension as sweepingly or with much overt political purpose...The writ of habeas corpus was formally suspended by congressional action for only eighteen months and President Davis was unwilling to suspend the writ by executive proclamation. In other periods Confederate military officers often acted as if the writ were formally suspended by resorting to martial law The military thus partially filled the breach in periods when the Confederate Congress failed to pass enabling legislation. Even allowing for thes supporting, extrastatutory efforts, however, the Confederate experience with the suspension of the writ and martial law was considerably less statist than the administrative structure and implementation in the North." (p. 142-44)

It would seem that Bensel supports your view regarding the Writ.

However, on the general level of control by the Government over the people, based on the review of another reader (whom I quoted), Bensel would seem to point to the Confederates as being more statist then the North.

I have ordered the book and will see what Bensel states in regard to the level of Government control in both areas.

[GOPcapitalist]

In other words, you are resorting to a public amazon.com book review to evaluate Bensel's text? Why don't you take a look at the passage that is actually from the text as quoted in my last post, ftD? While Bensel is no fan of big government in the south by any means, he does not - as that reader claims - conclude that the south was worse.

In fact, Bensel conducts a thorough analysis of statist vote positions in the confederate versus union congresses, ranking them on a "statist" score of 0 to 100, 100 being the most pro-government. 30% of the Northern Congress scored between 90 and 100 on their statist vote patterns as opposed to only 2% of the confederate congress. Another 17% in the north scored between 80 and 90 as opposed to only 4% in the south. The south by contrast exceeded the north in the middle third of the scale due largely to the lopsided northern support for statist positions in votes (as in 47% of the yankee congress rating above 80)

[GOPcapitalist]

Your article's summary of Neely is entirely anecdotal and unsourced. Bensel's comparison of the two notes conclusively that the north was worse.

This is quickly evidenced when quantity is brought into the paper, according to the review of Neely you quoted earlier (http://www.upress.virginia.edu/books/neely.html), he estimates the Confederate arrests at 4,000 people. Bensel cites the Union Provost Marshal records showing 38,000 arrests in the North. So let's try your math skills again. Which is bigger:

38,000 or 4,000

[M. Espinola]

The original defeated confederates conveniently left out a number of despicable facts concerning their numerous totalitarian measures targeting loyal Americans with brutality & death, but one of the modern mouthpieces of Neo-Confedertism even distorts current history, plus defends Wall Street crooks:

"Recall that Rudolph Guiliani, as U.S. attorney, had "inside traders" handcuffed, chained, and dragged down Wall Street. Why? These people were simply operating in the free market in an entrepreneurial fashion. But he turned them into criminals. This catapulted him into the mayoral position, and now he is running for the Senate."

(Quoted from none other than the chief Neo-Confederate P/C spin-master himself) 'Tommy' DiLorenzo from a 1999 interview)

Since DiLorenzo enjoys defending criminals, maybe he should be investigated.

[GOPcapitalist]

And what makes you think he does that?

Knowing that Mark Neely is a notoriously biased writer and having seen the books in question.

[fortheDeclaration]

Thought this was interesting.

Peace Societies In The Confederacy

Soon after the war started, peace societies organized by disloyalists began appearing in the Confederacy. 3--the Peace and Constitutional Society, the Peace Society, and the Order of the Heroes of America--grew into well-developed disruptive forces that seriously undermined the Confederate war effort.

Disloyalists opposed the suspension of Habeas Corpus, Impressment, Tax-in-kind legislation, and conscription, denouncing these laws as unjust and unconstitutional. When possible they evaded or refused to obey them. Conscription in particular invited defiance that the Conscript Bureau countered with harsh retaliatory measures and made banding together necessary for self-protection. Because of the danger of being exposed and arrested by Confederate authorities, disloyalists operated clandestinely, with secret oaths, handshakes, and passwords. Initially dominated by Unionists and others who had opposed secession, the number of those disaffected grew as dissatisfaction with the government and suffering caused by the war increased.

The Peace and Constitutional Society, the smallest of the organized opposition groups, was founded by staunch Unionists in Van Buren City., Ark. Its existence was discovered in fall 1861 when civil authorities arrested and tried 27 men for refusing to support the Confederacy. During their trials, the men were exposed as members of the society, which was pledged to encourage desertion and support the Federal army when it reached Arkansas.

The Peace Society, a powerful subversive group in Alabama, extended its influence to East Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, and possibly Florida. Confederate officials suspected its existence in 1862 and believed it had originated within Union lines. They did not investigate until the society successfully influenced the Aug. 1863 elections and sent to the Confederate Congress 6 officials who advocated ending the war and returning to the Union. During this time, to subvert the Confederacy's war effort in every way possible, prominent members traveled through the Southwest recruiting support for the society's doctrine. Their success in carrying their activities into the army became evident Dec. 1863, when some 60 Peace Society members in Brig. Gen. Ames H. Clanton's brigade attempted to mutiny, betraying a plan to lay down arms and go home on Christmas Day.

The best developed of the peace societies, the Order of the Heroes of America, may have been organized as early as Dec. 1861, though by whom and where is uncertain. Active in North Carolina, southwestern Virginia, and eastern Tennessee, the Heroes protected deserters, aided spies and escaped prisoners, and supplied Federal authorities with information about Confederate troop movements and strength to bring about a Confederate defeat. Brig. Gen. John Echols, who investigated the order in Virginia when it was discovered there in 1864, believed it had been formed at the suggestion of Federal authorities. Union civilian and military officials cooperated with the order by assuring its members safe passage through the lines and by offering them exemption from military service if they deserted, protection for their property, and a share or confiscated Confederate estates after the war, Both Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant and President Abraham Lincoln belonged to the order. In addition to their signs and passwords, the Heroes identified themselves by wearing a red string on their lapels and thus were nicknamed the Red Strings" and the 'Red-String Band."

As Confederate morale declined, the strength of the peace parties increased despite efforts by the military to suppress them. Their influence played a strong role in the Confederate Congress reluctance to suspend Habeas Corpus for extended periods and boosted support for peace advocates in government. Protection of deserters and conscripts denied the army thousands of able-bodied men when they were critically needed. Faced with severe shortages of men and materiel and a hastily organized central government, the Confederacy suffered more disruption from the peace societies than the Union did from Copperheads .

Source: "Historical Time Encyclopedia Of The Civil War" Edited by Patricia L. Faust

[fortheDeclaration]

In other words, you are resorting to a public amazon.com book review to evaluate Bensel's text? Why don't you take a look at the passage that is actually from the text as quoted in my last post, ftD?

I did and in regards to the Writ, I stated that Bensel does support your view that the North was more abusive in that area.

That ofcourse, is a conclusion he reaches.

I am going to look at the same evidence he has and see if I come to the same conclusion.

While Bensel is no fan of big government in the south by any means, he does not - as that reader claims - conclude that the south was worse. In fact, Bensel conducts a thorough analysis of statist vote positions in the confederate versus union congresses, ranking them on a "statist" score of 0 to 100, 100 being the most pro-government. 30% of the Northern Congress scored between 90 and 100 on their statist vote patterns as opposed to only 2% of the confederate congress. Another 17% in the north scored between 80 and 90 as opposed to only 4% in the south. The south by contrast exceeded the north in the middle third of the scale due largely to the lopsided northern support for statist positions in votes (as in 47% of the yankee congress rating above 80)

Those sound like voting patterns, not ultimate acts that were put into effect.

The reader I cited came to a different conclusion then a earlier reviewer, so there does seem to room for interpretation.

[fortheDeclaration]

And what makes you think he does that? Knowing that Mark Neely is a notoriously biased writer and having seen the books in question.

I have his work on Lincoln and civil liberties, can you cite an example of an outright distortion of the facts?

[Gum Shoe]

"...what would the country be like had the South won the civil war."

I think the CSA and USA would have lived side by side in an uneasy peace. The Feds would continue to eye the Confederates with suspicion and continue attempts to coax the rebels into inequitable treaties and trade deals. The CSA would have fought the Spanish American War (perhaps other wars in Central and South America) without USA support. Both would have fought as allies in the two World Wars of the 20th Century.

[fortheDeclaration]

Your article's summary of Neely is entirely anecdotal and unsourced. Bensel's comparison of the two notes conclusively that the north was worse. This is quickly evidenced when quantity is brought into the paper, according to the review of Neely you quoted earlier (http://www.upress.virginia.edu/books/neely.html), he estimates the Confederate arrests at 4,000 people. Bensel cites the Union Provost Marshal records showing 38,000 arrests in the North. So let's try your math skills again. Which is bigger: 38,000 or 4,000

There you go again being simplistic.

How long the average person was actually held without trial and for what reason he was picked up might also be factors to look at.

[GOPcapitalist]

I have not avoided it, only want to put into context with other freedom issues.

Then why do you run the other way whenever I mention the most famous and widespread civil liberties abuse of the war, habeas corpus?

That sounds a bit different then having to have passports to go from state to state in the Union.

How so? Even Lincoln's close friend Ward Hill Lamon had to obtain an passport to travel from the District of Columbia to Virginia just across the river in 1865.

That sounds like common sense military precautions.

Oh, so when the North does it it's all "common sense military precautions" but when the south does it it's tyranny.

I am looking at specific acts and why they were done. (did they have any security justification)

I fully anticipate and predict your arbitrary and skewed analysis, which will without doubt exonerate any and all northern suspensions while simultaneously blasting the southern ones, even though they were far fewer in number. How do I know this? Because it's what you do all the time around here.

For the record though, I'll give you the circumstances of the CSA suspensions by the CSA congress. Davis' first suspension was in Norfolk and Portsmouth Virginia in February 1862 as McClellan moved up the peninsula. He expanded the suspension in March to include Richmond and a 10 mile surrounding radius as McClellan moved toward the city. Shortly after that he made a regional suspension in eastern Tennessee, which was being invaded by Grant at that time. Subesquent suspensions were regional and corresponded with union attacks on various cities such as New Orleans. The total period in which suspensions happened lasted only 18 months.

In perusing Bensel I also found another interesting note on page 144. He points out that there is only one single newspaper in the entire CSA was ever closed by the Confederate Government (in Knoxville, TN) and a second in North Carolina was seized and destroyed by the mob. In the north, by contrast, several hundred newspapers were shut down including many by direct order of Abe Lincoln. So there's another category Saint Abe loses on: freedom of the press.

However, on the general level of control by the Government over the people, based on the review of another reader (whom I quoted), Bensel would seem to point to the Confederates as being more statist then the North.

That review is simply wrong. Bensel does criticize the CSA and notes that it was worse in the area of domestic price and manufacturing controls and regulations. He also acknowledges that conscription was worse in the south though both had it - a fact he attributes to the war being in their territory rather than the north. Otherwise, his evidence points at the north being worse on most other civil liberties categories and virtually all the financial institution and banking categories.

[GOPcapitalist]

There you go again being simplistic.

There you go again showing that you will defy basic mathematical certainties in order to escape from admitting your side was wrong. No matter how you look at it, 38000 northern arrests is more than 4000 southern arrests.

How long the average person was actually held without trial and for what reason he was picked up might also be factors to look at.

According to Bensel: "most arrests under martial law [in the south] were probably related to the sale of liquor by civilians to enlisted men, usually in camps."

By comparison, in addition to noting that the north arrested far more numerically than the south, he describes their arrests as the detention of "thousands who represented real and imagined threats" to security, as well as the widespread closing of "dissident newspapers or influence of their editorial policies."

[GOPcapitalist]

I did and in regards to the Writ, I stated that Bensel does support your view that the North was more abusive in that area. That ofcourse, is a conclusion he reaches.

Yeah, and he reaches it after careful and balanced consideration of the facts surrounding each. Any way you look at it the evidence is overwhelming against the north.

I am going to look at the same evidence he has and see if I come to the same conclusion.

Since you cannot even bring yourself to acknowledge that 38,000 exceeds 4,000, I doubt that you will. You are too much of a True Believer in the Lincoln cult and thus will excuse away all acts of tyranny by Lincoln while simultaneously holding Davis to the harshest standard possible.

Those sound like voting patterns, not ultimate acts that were put into effect.

The votes were on whether or not to pass statist measures such as tariffs, conscription, paper currency, and the like. The majority of the CSA congress fell in the middle third. The yankee congress was skewed heavily towards scores of 80 or higher.

The reader I cited came to a different conclusion then a earlier reviewer, so there does seem to room for interpretation.

Or he simply got it wrong much like you do.

[fortheDeclaration]

There you go again showing that you will defy basic mathematical certainties in order to escape from admitting your side was wrong. No matter how you look at it, 38000 northern arrests is more than 4000 southern arrests. How long the average person was actually held without trial and for what reason he was picked up might also be factors to look at. According to Bensel: "most arrests under martial law [in the south] were probably related to the sale of liquor by civilians to enlisted men, usually in camps." By comparison, in addition to noting that the north arrested far more numerically than the south, he describes their arrests as the detention of "thousands who represented real and imagined threats" to security, as well as the widespread closing of "dissident newspapers or influence of their editorial policies."

Well, that is more important then mere numbers as I stated.

That gives greater weight to the actual arrests and thus, the numbers themselves do not tell the entire story.

But as I said, I have ordered the book and will see what Bensel has to say.

[GOPcapitalist]

Well, that is more important then mere numbers as I stated. That gives greater weight to the actual arrests and thus, the numbers themselves do not tell the entire story.

Unfortunately for your case though, if the majority of Confederate arrests were for a minor, non-political, and legitimate reason of selling alcohol to troops on military grounds, that puts Lincoln's arrests, which WERE often political, at a severe disadvantage.

[fortheDeclaration]

And that is what I said.

The numbers themselves are not the deciding issue until what they represent become known.

However, though Davis did not use the Writ as often as Lincoln, it does not mean he did not want to, or in fact, should have been restricted from doing so.

The fact is that suspension of the Writ is a necessity in times of war.

And Lincoln may have been in most cases justified in using it.

[fortheDeclaration]

A good review of these two works.


http://reason.com/0108/cr.co.southern.shtml

Southern Nationalism
Exploring the roots of the Civil War

By Charles Oliver

When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession, by Charles Adams, New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 255 pages, $24.95

The Counterrevolution of Slavery: Politics and Ideology in Antebellum South Carolina, by Manisha Sinha, Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 362 pages, $19.95