Targeting Lost Causers

Old Virginia Blog ^ | 06/09/2009 | Richard Williams

[Davy Buck]

My oh my, what would the critics, the Civil War publications, publishers, and bloggers do if it weren't for the bad boys of the Confederacy and those who study them and also those who wish to honor their ancestors who fought for the Confederacy?

[Non-Sequitur]

If true then that's one of the only times I'm aware of that the confederates paid for any of the property they stole.

I was being semi-facetious when I said that.

I know that Confederate troops sometimes paid for what they took, typically in Confederate money.

Or not. The few confederate campaigns in the North were noted for levying requisitions on cities and towns, and threatening to destroy them if the required supplies were not delivered. Troops foraged liberally among the farms in Pennsylvania without paying. What payment that was offered by the confederate commissary officers was in, as you pointed out, worthless confederate script.

...that in 1860 or early 1861 Union Lt. Richard Meade declined to take any South Carolina receipts for Castle Pinckney in Charleston Harbor.

I doubt he would have felt empowered to accept them, especially since Anderson commanded the area.

[rustbucket]

Or not. The few confederate campaigns in the North were noted for levying requisitions on cities and towns, and threatening to destroy them if the required supplies were not delivered. Troops foraged liberally among the farms in Pennsylvania without paying. What payment that was offered by the confederate commissary officers was in, as you pointed out, worthless confederate script.

J.E.B. Stuart's 1862 raid into the North paid for most of what it took, IIRC. As you know (because I've posted it to you before) the 1864 raid of General McCausland demanded that $100,000 in gold or $500,000 in devalued US greenbacks be paid by Chambersburg PA and maybe other small cities to compensate for the roughly 2 million dollars in damage done to Southern homes, farms, and universities, etc., a few weeks earlier by Union General Hunter.

As you will remember also, after the retaliation on Chambersburg, Lincoln asked Grant if he couldn't see about making an agreement with Lee for a mutual discontinuance of burning houses and destruction of private property. See My old post. But the destruction of Southern cities and homes that had begun long before continued.

[PeaRidge]

We do not agree. You can take it to mean that your post is dribble.

[PeaRidge]

Ditto again. You can find three references to his comment in the public record.

[rustbucket]

Again, I question the word "armistice" in this context.

FYI, from Lincoln Takes Command by John Shipley Tillery (excellent book, by the way):

An armistice is a formal agreement which opposing forces enter into for the purpose of suspending hostile relations either for a stipulated, or an indefinite period. Here was a truce of the most binding character, the stronger because of its simplicity. Captain Barron was right. The papers did constitute an armistice and the terms were transparent and explicit. There was no ambiguity for the most technical legalist to pounce upon; in the parlance of the courthouse it was airtight. Not only this, it was more than a formal obligation. In the truest sense, it was a gentlemen's agreement executed by honorable men whose several high positions in their respective sections attested their entire responsibility. The violation of the terms of such an armistice, the purpose of which was to allay irritation in a period in which the specter of war loomed, is unthinkable.

[rb]: The South offered to negotiate for a fair compensation for the forts, armories, etc., in their territory and a division of the public debt and property.

[BJK]: Not really. First of all, what they offered to discuss was only those matters which might be of interest to themselves.

See Post 1406. From the South Carolina Commissioners to Buchanan Dec. 28, 1860:

Sir: -- We have the honor to transmit to you a copy of the full powers from the Convention of the people of South Carolina, under which we are "authorized and empowered to treat with the Government of the United States for the delivery of the forts, magazines, light-houses, and other real estate with their appurtenances, within the limits of South Carolina, and also for an apportionment for the public debt and for a division of all the property held by the Government of the United States, of which South Carolina was recently a member, and generally to negotiate as to all other measures proper to be made and adopted in the existing relation of the parties, and for the continuance of peace and amity between this Commonwealth and the Government at Washington."

Negotiations concerning forts, magazines, light houses, other real estate, an apportionment of the public debt, a division of Federal property, and peace and amity were not of interest to the United States government? I guess not.

[rustbucket]

The usual method, especially in the beginning, was to hold POWs until they could be exchanged for captives held by the other side. As there were soon many captures on both sides, it was often not a long wait. Later on in the war, things changed drastically.

I think the first part of your sentence is incorrect. Portals to Hell by Lonnie R. Speer, which gives a description of WBTS prisons and treatment of prisoners, says, "In the beginning of the war, most of the captives were released on parole in the field ..."

[Who is John Galt?]

Which would make the discretion of a state, and not the Constitution, the measure of federal powers ...

Funny how that works out ...

Only if you blatantly ignore the Tenth Amendment - which is (actually ;>) part of the Constitution.

Funny how that works out ...

;>)

[Who is John Galt?]

You’re really cranky when you haven’t had your nap.

And you’re really cranky when you've lost a debate...

;>)

[x]

What you are doing is blatantly misreading the 10th Amendment as a guarantee of absolute state sovereignty. You and Jefferson both want to take the Amendment as enshrining a theory of state sovereignty that is at odds with the rest of the Constitution.

It's touchingly simplistic to believe that state power to choose which laws to accept is somehow constitutional -- indeed the essence of the Constitution -- but it's also simple-minded. Jefferson didn't see that his own reading of the Constitution in the Kentucky Resolutions made that document as much of a dead-letter as the theory he rejected.

[Who is John Galt?]

So, by any reasonable inference, a Congress which can declare War, can also declare those other conditions.

Actually, your argument was that that only Congress "can define just what exactly is an 'insurrection.' “

Care to comment on the Supreme Court, sport? Or the Tenth Amendment & the reserved powers of the States? Of course not.

;>)

WIJG: "So what? The words "marriage," and "funeral," are not mentioned in the Constitution either. You would suggest that both are therefore unconstitutional. Congratulations."

BJ: Do you even know what you just said? Go back and read your own words again. Do you still claim they make sense? And you accuse me of "irrational" argument? Come on, pal, clear your head! You can do better than that.

You’re the idiot who claimed that secession was unconstitutional, because it was 'not mentioned' in the Constitution.

Now I'm pretty sure you have a problem with logical thinking. Of course the Constitution, as first written in 1787 was not intended to be "perpetual." That's why provisions were made for legal amendments and constitutional conventions to modify or even abolish it in favor of something else.

Actually, you are the one who noted (in your Post 1799):

Of course President Lincoln's argument in 1861 was that the Articles' term "perpetual union" had been replaced in the Constitution with the phrase, "to form a more perfect union." Lincoln asked: how could a "more perfect union" not also be perpetual?

Apparently “you have a problem with logical thinking”…

Same with Jackson, in his proclamation to South Carolina in 1832:
" I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States…”

Once again, your ignorance is showing – you are conflating nullification and secession.

Point is, young Jackson lived the Revolution as a soldier, and lived the Constitution as a delegate to the Tennessee constitutional convention, as a Congressman, US Senator, judge and military commander.
So yes, I'd say President Jackson's constitutional opinions count for quite a bit.

Paraphrasing your Post 1588:
And Mr. Jackson's role in the US Constitutional Convention of 1787 was what, exactly?
And his contribution to the Federalist Papers was what?
And in 1832, what issue were his words responding to?

You’re a historical revisionist, even when it comes to your own ‘history’…

from 1,870 rockrr: "I am impressed with your continued patience with this klown. He figures he can insult you all day as long as he follows it with a ;>)"

BJ: And in the name of "John Galt," no less!

That kind of ‘jumps the shark,’ coming from a couple of ‘klowns’ who “squat-to-post”…

;>)

Sorry pal, but I think your arguments are a disgrace to the name you chose as your moniker: "John Galt." You need to pick out a more appropriate name for that mixture of insults and ridiculous nonsense you've been posting.

A couple of points:
* The name you cite ("John Galt") belongs to different Freeper, you idiot; and
* You seem to have a singular lack of success, posting anything that resembles a rational ‘argument’ refuting my posts (in no small part due to the self-contradictory nature of your arguments).

There is no discussion in any of those documents that I've ever found of such terms as "unilateral secession" or "unapproved withdrawal from the union”… But what those documents DO ENUMERATE are lawful methods for amending the Constitution…

You are a master of the ‘circular argument,’ and other irrational approaches to debate…

;>)

I just love it when people go nuts. Most entertaining. Sadly, it means you've lost what little power of logical thought you may have had, and you again disgrace the name of "John Galt," but, such is life... :-(

Whatever you say, “squat-to-post”…

;>)

[Who is John Galt?]

You and Jefferson both want to take the Amendment as enshrining a theory of state sovereignty that is at odds with the rest of the Constitution... Jefferson didn't see that his own reading of the Constitution in the Kentucky Resolutions made that document as much of a dead-letter as the theory he rejected.

Thanks for enshrining me in such excellent company - and for your opinion, which would make the United States Constitution even more of a "dead-letter" than the "theory" you have rejected...

;>)

[Non-Sequitur]

J.E.B. Stuart's 1862 raid into the North paid for most of what it took, IIRC.

With what? Confederate script or real money?

As you know (because I've posted it to you before) the 1864 raid of General McCausland demanded that $100,000 in gold or $500,000 in devalued US greenbacks be paid by Chambersburg PA and maybe other small cities to compensate for the roughly 2 million dollars in damage done to Southern homes, farms, and universities, etc., a few weeks earlier by Union General Hunter.

So their ire could be bought off with gold? Not at all surprising.

But the destruction of Southern cities and homes that had begun long before continued.

So you all claim. To hear y'all talk Sherman didn't leave one brick standing upon another through all Georgia. And the campaigns in Pennsylvania and Maryland? What's the excuse for that?

[rockrr]

It’s no use BroJoeK, grampa here is used to going around looking at life through rose-colored eyeballs. He’s gonna see only what he wants to (and whatever his trifocals will let him).

Time for a warm glass of milk and then off to slumberland grouchy!

[rockrr]

Apparently you’re so far gone you can’t tell cranky from bemused, You ain’t John Galt, because I’ve got nothing to be cranky about.

And you’re way short of winning anything yet gramps because we have yet to debate...unless you’re talking about the little conversation you’re having in your head.

Sleep tight grampa...

[rustbucket]

To hear y'all talk Sherman didn't leave one brick standing upon another through all Georgia.

You've got to work on your memory, both short term and long term. To save bandwidth, I'll simply link to previous posts.

Here is a post that listed Union correspondence in the Official Records about Sherman's march through Georgia and South Carolina [Union correspondence link, post 24]. Also provided in that post are newspaper reports and information available on the web. You corrected me once about one of the Union correspondence I had posted, so I know you've seen that part of this information.

Here are some posts about the destruction of Columbia, South Carolina. [See posts 100 and posts 108 and 109 on this linked thread]

Here is a Link to excerpts from an 1866 report about the destruction/burning of towns and villages along Sherman's path through South Carolina. You will note the towns and villages of Hardeeville, Grahamville, Gallisonville, McPhersonville, Barnwell, Blackville, Orangeburg, Lexington, Winnsboro, Camden, and Cheraw were burned. This report says:

For eighty miles along the route of his army, through the most highly improved and cultivated region of the State, according to the testimony of respectable and intelligent witnesses, the habitations of but two white persons remain. ... If a single town or village or hamlet within their line of march escaped altogether the torch of the invaders, the committee have not been informed of the exception. The line of General Sherman's march, from his entering the territory of the State up to Columbia, and from Columbia to the North Carolinea border, was one continuous track of fire.

That sounds roughly like the 60 miles of destruction in Virginia by Union General Hunter that prompted the Southern attack on Chambersburg. Link re Hunter destruction, post 85. A Confederate soldier reported a thousand homes destroyed by Hunter in Virginia in that 60 miles of destruction.

Here is a post about the burning and looting of Fredericksburg, post 2649.

And perhaps you are forgetting the 18-month long bombardment of civilians in Charleston, SC, post 128. I used to post that to you on occasion when I found casulaties listed in the old papers.

[BroJoeK]

from 2,076 rustbucket referring to 2,075:
quoting Official records "April 14.--From 4 to 8 a. m.: ... The steamer Nashville ran in for the harbor and when near hoisted the Palmetto flag."

rustbucket: "Some sources say the Confederates seized her. In any event the Confederates paid the owners $100,000 for her."

If I understand the timeline correctly, here's what we have:

evening of April 11: Major Anderson in Fort Sumter tells General Beauregard's representatives that he must surrender by April 15, for lack of supplies. He is given a deadline of 24 hours, which would be sometime on April 12.

evening of April 11: Harriet Lane arrives in Charleston Harbor.

3:20 AM of April 12: Beauregard's representatives again demand precise time for evacuation, and Anderson tells them noontime on April 15. Anderson is then told Confederates will begin bombarding within one hour.

4:30 AM of April 12: "the shoreline around Charleston Harbor erupts into flame as 18 mortars and 30 heavy cannon, backed by 7,000 troops, bombard Fort Sumter." Bombardment continues for 34 hours, ending around 2:00 PM of April 13.

Sometime on April 12: Harriet Lane encounters Nashville, which at this point is still a Union ship on Union business, but flying no flag.

So, one could easily argue here that Nashville's lack of a US flag would be perfectly natural, considering that objects with US flags would be fired on from shore.

On receiving a warning shot from Harriet Lane, Nashville raises her US flag, which would prevent her from sailing between Fort Sumter and the Confederate shore batteries then firing. This in no sense is a "Union blockade."

Finally, in the morning of April 14, even before Sumter officially surrenders, Nashville completes her mission by removing the US flag, then on nearing shore, raising a Palmeto flag and landing unmolested.

As to the signifigance of Nashville's Palmeto flag -- consider this: could Nashville have even landed on April 14 while still flying a US flag? I think not.

So, at what precise point does the Union ship Nashville become a Confederate Nashville? I'd say not until AFTER she lands and is first seized (or bought?) by Confederates.

Therefore, the incident in Charleston Harbor remains Union on Union action, having nothing to do with "first shots" of the Civil War.

[BroJoeK]

from 2,077 rustbucket referring to 2,070:
"Conventions that ratified the Constitution said their state could reassume their own governance and people such as John Marshall said during ratification that "does not a power remain till it is given away?" This was at a time when the states were exercising their power to secede from the Union set up by the Articles of Confederation. Where in the Constitution was the power to secede surrendered by the states?

Surely you can understand why I trust what the ratifiers said more than I trust your unsubstantiated assertions."

Unsubstantiated assertions?? Which of the following do you dispute?

• None of those few states' "signing statements," nor any of the Federalist Papers discuss the terms "unilateral secession," or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union."

• The US Constitution itself provides lawful methods for amending or even abolishing and replacing it, but not for secession

• The Constitution also ENUMERATES federal powers to declare War, and use the military to enforce federal laws, suppress insurrections, plus deal with rebellions, "domestic violence," treason and invasions of the United States.

• Lawful secession would, as a bare minimum, require that none of these ENUMERATED Federal powers be triggered, a matter of absolutely no concern to Southerners in January through April 1861, as they gleefully and illegally seized dozens and dozens of Federal forts, arsenals, customs houses and ships.

• Indeed, rustbucket ol' buddy, ol' pal, your mention of the Confederate attack on "Old Fort Kearney" in NEBRAKSA constitutes an ACTUAL INVASION of United States Territory, months before Confederate President Davis officially Declared War on the US.

So I will repeat my argument: SECESSION alone did not cause the Civil War. Instead, it was the South's repeated violations and triggering of Constitutionally ENUMERATED Federal powers, even before the Confederacy DECLARED WAR, which made violence inevitable.

Which part of that do you disagree with?

[BroJoeK]

from 2,077 rustbucket:
"In other words, the Declaration says in essence that all men are created equal but leave our slaves alone."

It's extraordinarily important to remember that Southern Founders like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson & others, and unlike their descendants of 1860, still had active consciences regarding slavery. This caused Washington, for example, to free his slaves in his will, and it caused Jefferson to make some extraordinary remarks in his draft of the Declaration of Independence -- remarks later edited out:

Jefferson's draft:

• "...He [King George] has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, & has endeavored to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes, & Conditions of existence.

• "He has incited treasonable insurrections of our fellow-citizens, with the allurements of forfeiture & confiscation of our property.

• "He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.

• "This piratical warfare, the opprobium of INFIDEL powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain.

• "Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.

• "And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the LIBERTIES of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the LIVES of another.

• "In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury..."

Please note that "Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms" included Benjamin Franklin for 18 YEARS trying to get the Brits to listen to sweet reason...

[BroJoeK]

from 2,085 rustbucket referring to 2,072:
"from Lincoln Takes Command by John Shipley Tillery (excellent book, by the way):

"An armistice is a formal agreement which opposing forces enter into for the purpose of suspending hostile relations "...

I'll say it again: when, for example, criminals or terrorists, take hostages police will send in "negotiators" attempting to arrange an "armistice" and free the hostages. To my knowledge, none of these "negotiations" confer on the police any legal obligations regarding the criminal or terrorists. Once the hostages are free, the authorities will do whatever they can to arrest or kill the hostage takers. That's what we are talking about in these cases.

rustbucket quoting:
"Sir: -- We have the honor to transmit to you a copy of the full powers from the Convention of the people of South Carolina, under which we are "authorized and empowered to treat with the Government of the United States for the delivery of the forts, magazines, light-houses, and other real estate with their appurtenances, within the limits of South Carolina, and also for an apportionment for the public debt and for a division of all the property... "

IIRC, President Buchanan met with these delegates, but refused to negotiate, at which point they went home mad. By contrast, from 1757 through 1775 -- 18 YEARS -- Benjamin Franklin worked to negotiate Colonial grievances with the British government, only sadly returning home AFTER the first battles had been fought.

So, I don't think your quote above represented a sincere effort in the least. Instead, the South realized that a War for Southern Independence, like the earlier Revolutionary War, was not only inevitable, but necessary. And they didn't want to waste a whole lot of time with political "foreplay," so to speak...

[BroJoeK]

frm 2,093 rockrr referring to 2,090:
"It’s no use BroJoeK, grampa here is used to going around looking... "

I'd say WIJG has passed beyond the realm of reason (if he was ever there), and entered into the Stand Waite world of insult and nonsense.

And it's so sad, to see someone using the name "John Galt" behaving so poorly. Oh well... ;-)