Grave found of man who bankrolled Confederates in American civil war

guardian.co.uk ^ | Monday 10 August 2009 10.16 BST | Maev Kennedy

[Nikas777]

Academic uncovers lost London resting place of Charles Kuhn Prioleau, and the forgotten story of Confederate support in Britain

Maev Kennedy

guardian.co.uk, Monday 10 August 2009 10.16 BST

The grave of a man who bankrolled the Confederate side in the American civil war, and ended up costing the British government £3.3m in compensation to the victorious north, has been tracked down in a patch of brambles in a London cemetery.

Charles Kuhn Prioleau, a cotton merchant born in Charleston, South Carolina, was based in Liverpool during the war, from 1861 to 1865. He disappeared from history in a bonfire of company records and correspondence after his firm went bankrupt, having sent supplies, funds, and blockade-busting ships to the Confederates.

But his mortal remains have now been traced to Kensal Green cemetery by a US academic who is gradually unearthing the almost forgotten story of Confederate support in England, which takes in the highest ranks of British politics and society.

[Nikas777]

The fact the Southern people split their allegiance between north and south (the north had regiments from all southern states but one) proves your statement is false. Let alone all the black peasants that left to go north and fight the south.

So I don't buy your revisionist history as the civil war being a peasant revolt. But I do appreciate your view point and it is a valid view you provided.

[stand watie]

inasmuch as between 100,ooo- 150,ooo free blacks VOLUNTEERED to fight for dixie FREEDOM, your view is (at least in my opinion & in that of many southern historians) is, in just one word, false.

furthermore, MANY northerners (including a whole regiment from NJ) and "out of country nationals" came to fight for dixie freedom, as they too knew what the war was REALLY about = throwing off the yoke of the northern ELITES from the necks of the common people.

to paraphrase an old grad school prof of mine: NOTHING in history is simple, except to simpletons.

also, sorry but REVISIONIST historiography came out of the northeastern "poison ivy league screwls" - whatever else we southrons are, it is NOT "revisionist".

free dixie,sw

[Nikas777]

inasmuch as between 100,ooo- 150,ooo free blacks VOLUNTEERED to fight for dixie FREEDOM,

I think you are being the revisionist and I did not need to capitalize whole words to say so.

[stand watie]

btw, you should (if you have not done so already) read:

BLACKS IN BLUE & GRAY by Dr Hubert C. Blackerby (late of Tuskegee University's department of history)

&

CROSS BORDER WARRIOR (Canadians in US service & Americans in Canadian service)

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

fyi, i type to suit me & nobody else.

as i've told any number of people here & elsewhere: complaining about my (admittedly eccentric) typing style frequently means that "the complainer" cannot overcome my FACTS, so they complain about "style".

free dixie,sw

[Nikas777]

Sir, I discounted the notion that the Confederate cause was a peasant revolt. I consider it a revisionist theory. But with that said I do not discount it and consider it a view of the war that is note worthy.

[stand watie]

certain words have "a generally accepted meaning" in scholarly works, which nobody can successfully change at their whim, without being misunderstood by others.

these words are called : terms of art.

REVISIONIST is one of those "terms of art" and it is "generally understood" in scholarly works as both statist & LEFTIST/"progressive" (some would say: socialist/Marxist/communist).

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

see #27.

free dixie,sw

[Mr. Lucky]

For what it's worth (and in the context of this thread, I guess not much) both the Preamble and Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation require that the union be perpetual.

[stand watie]

"for what it's worth" =====> after the Constitution was approved by the several States, your point is worth NOTHING.

any serious reading of the various documents surrounding the approval of the new Constitution will prove that NONE of the States (especially the smaller states. the "little brothers' feared, NOT without just reason, that PA,NJ,NY & VA would dominate the new union to the detriment of the other States.)would have approved the new union (which was seen as "experimental", at best, if not downright "revolutionary") if they didn't believe that they could leave the union at any time & "at their own motion".

free dixie,sw

[Nikas777]

I agree with mister Lucky. In fact when texas entered the Union it had various clauses for breaking up WITHIN the Union but NONE for breaking OUT OF the Union.

[stand watie]

what on earth are you talking about???

TX could have broken up into 5 States, had she chosen to AND could have reasserted her rights as a FRee & independent republic, according to many scholars in 1861 or NOW for that matter.

150 years of DAMNyankee/elitist domination does NOT change the TRUTH that the Constitution (particularly the 9th & 10th Amendments thereto) does NOT outlaw UNILATERAL secession. secession is still an option for EVERY State or group of States. furthermore, the States created the union & remain FREE to change/secede from/abolish that union at ANY time that they so choose.

free dixie,sw

[Nikas777]

I already said, Texas could break apart and form up to 5 states WITHIN the Union but there is no provision in the treaty for leaving the Union it joined.

This thus proves Mr. Lucky's point that no such provision or mechanism.

[Smokin' Joe]

But this time, there is no moral high ground that trumps the true argument.

Why, didn't you know that to disagree the consolidation of power by the current occupant of 1600 Penna. Ave. is considered racist. Things have indeedd come full circle as even that matter has been exhumed, albeit in a modified form.

The unfortunate transition from a Federal Government to a National Government, to a Totalitarian Government yet continues, to the detriment of us all.

[stand watie]

actually, it proves exactly NOTHING.

the BOR is written in simple/easy to understand words & it means what it says. (had any of the founders thought that the language of the BOR was NOT plain to any "reasonably literate person" of the 19th century, they would have made the words even simpler.)

fyi, the Constitution of these united States is NOT "a living document", which is subject to "perceived changes in society" by the federal/state/international courts or anyone else. it is what it IS & it means precisely what the "plain text" says.

PLEASE go read the NINTH & TENTH amendments to the BOR & then come back here & either:

a. tell everyone WHERE/WHEN that either the States and/or the people CEDED the POWERS/RIGHT of any free State or group of States to unilaterally change/secede from/reform/abolish the union

OR

b. admit that you are in error.

"the bottom line" is that, regardless of the revisionist/statist LIES that you were propagandized with in "duh fedrul gubmint apruvd public screwls sistim", unilateral secession was in 1861 & NOW is perfectly Constitutional.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

EXACTLY CORRECT.

i fear that we are headed toward a FASCIST government/oligarchy, from which we southerners (and perhaps some western/midwestern states) will (again) eventually remove ourselves.

free dixie,sw

[Nikas777]

If a mechanism existed that would allow Texas to leave the Union it would have been included just like it included the possibility of a pendactic (fancy Greek word for 5 way split) break up within the Union.

[johnnycap]

I thought it was closer to 625,000 that died in the Civil War???

[stand watie]

did you bother to actually READ the Constitution ( including the 9th & 10th Amendments to the BOR), instead of trying to think of an argument to try to avoid admitting that you are seriously in error???

but to answer your question, the RIGHT of secession was understood by educated people in 1845;nobody at that time needed any further explanation as to what the Constitution said/meant. (it is the STATISTS of 2009 that need to reevaluate their heresy/FOOLishness in reading the BOR.)

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

actually, it was much nearer a MILLION that died as a direct (including combat deaths & war crimes against civilians) AND indirect results (from starvation/war-related disease/exposure, for example, when innocent noncombatants died as a result of the DAMNyankees destroying crops/livestock/real property during & immediately after) of the WBTS.

the statists/DAMNyankees don't want to count civilians who were victims of atrocities/war crimes/died of "indirect causes", as it makes the DYs look BAD!!!

free dixie,sw