US Civil War reading Recommendations?

Free Republic ^ | 11/23/2016 | Loud Mime

[Loud Mime]

I am studying our Civil War; anybody have any recommendations for reading?

[jeffersondem]

“You have this nasty habit of trying to put words in other’s mouths . . .”

It looks like your rational answer tank is empty.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Bismark had views similar to yours but said it with more flourish:
The most indifferent arguments are good when one has a majority of bayonets.
Later shortened to just 'might makes right.'

Not quite:

"The first known use of might makes right in the English language was in 1846 by the American pacifist and abolitionist Adin Ballou (1803–1890), who wrote, 'But now, instead of discussion and argument, brute force rises up to the rescue of discomfited error, and crushes truth and right into the dust.
'Might makes right,' and hoary folly totters on in her mad career escorted by armies and navies.' "

So, it was abolitionists complaining about the Slave Power who first used "might makes right" in English.

Yes, Bismarck did issue many pithy quotes, but "might makes right" is not among them.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "But that was not the case in 1861. Read what a leading historian has found: '. . . nearly all 1861 Unionists (including Lincoln) believed that had the Deep South Fire Eaters contented themselves with declaring secession and setting up a Confederacy, the Union could not use force to stop them.' "

And that is exactly right.
In 1861 Unionists believed at the same time that 1) Fire Eaters had no constitutional authority to declare secession "at pleasure", but 2) also that the Federal government could not use force to stop them, unless they themselves started war.

In today's wording, we would say they operated under a "no first use of force" rule of engagement.
But once the Confederacy began using force (i.e., at Fort Sumter), then Unionists felt free to respond appropriately.

[jeffersondem]

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government become destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

You keep reading the term “at pleasure” into the Declaration of Independence. Can you identify exactly where in the DOI it is found?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Well here's your chance.
I believe this is the post to which I was referring."

And my post there effectively refutes the article's many false claims.

DiogenesLamp: "This is one of those 'flat bottomed boats' which you mentioned."

Here you are just confused.
In fact, no post of mine used the words "flat bottom", but posts by WarIsHellAintItYall and PeaRidge did discuss that subject.

My posting the SS Planter photo -- built, owned & operated by Southerners -- proves your claims about "Northeastern dominance" are, well, exaggerated:

DiogenesLamp: "This is what it said in the link you provided in that post. (See, I do sometimes read what you write and the links you provide.)"

But of course, you didn't read what I posted, because that would violate your terms as a dedicated pro-Confederate propagandist.
What I posted refuted your pro-Confederate arguments in the link I posted.
So, being DiogenesLamp, you did what DiogenesLamp does: you ignored my counter-arguments and reposted the link's arguments just as if they were facts.

DiogenesLamp quoting the link: "The trick was to have a good cargo going each way.
The New York packet lines succeeded because they sucked in all the eastbound cotton cargoes from the U.S.
The northeast didn't have enough volume of paying freight on its own.
So American vessels, usually owned in the Northeast, sailed off to a cotton port, carrying goods for the southern market.
There they loaded cotton (or occasionally naval stores or timber) for Europe.
They steamed back from Europe loaded with manufactured goods, raw materials like hemp or coal, and occasionally immigrants."

In this one paragraph alone are several misstatements of fact:

1. New York, or indeed all Northeastern ports combined, did not carry "all the eastbound cotton", but only 20%, at most.
   The balance, 80%, shipped directly from Gulf Coast ports like New Orleans to their European customers.

2. Return trips from Europe did often stop in New York, where they paid tariffs on whatever goods they imported, and there were two chief reasons:
   • 80% of US customers for European imports lived outside the Deep South, and New York was the most direct route to reach those customers.

   • Your link says "occasional immigrants" also came aboard returning ships, but in fact millions of immigrants arrived in New York aboard those ships, and it was a major source of income for them.
     Those immigrants wanted to land in New York where there were abundant jobs & housing for them, not in Charleston, SC, which had neither, and was unhealthy to boot.

DiogenesLamp quoting the link: "But New York was king."

More like "first among equals" on imports, not at all on exports.

DiogenesLamp quoting the link: "Since this "triangle trade" involved a domestic leg, foreign vessels were excluded from it (under the 1817 law)...
And since it was subsidized by the U.S. government, it was going to continue to be the only game in town."

Such "subsidies" applied to any US shipper, regardless of where they lived.
Nothing prevented Southerners from building, owning & operating their own ships, as indeed the photo shows they did do.

DiogenesLamp quoting the link: "New York dragged the commerce between the southern ports and Europe out of its normal course some two hundred miles to collect a heavy toll upon it.
This trade might perfectly well have taken the form of direct shuttles between Charleston, Savannah, Mobile, or New Orleans on the one hand and Liverpool or Havre on the other, leaving New York far to one side had it not interfered in this way."

But the facts say differently.
As this link points out, half of all US cotton shipped from New Orleans alone, not New York.
Further, more than half of the remaining cotton shipped from other Gulf Coast ports, from Texas to Florida, because that's where the cotton was produced.
These cotton exports moved on hundreds of ocean-going ships, any of which could have been built, owned and operated by Southerners.

DiogenesLamp quoting the link: "Even when the Southern cotton bound for Europe didn't put in at the wharves of Sandy Hook or the East River, unloading and reloading, the combined income from interests, commissions, freight, insurance, and other profits took perhaps 40 cents into New York of every dollar paid for southern cotton."

And 80% did not put in at New York.
So the alleged "40%" in transportation costs was earned by whoever cotton producers chose to carry their freight.

DiogenesLamp quoting the link: "As for the cotton ports themselves, they did not crave enough imports to justify packet lines until 1851, when New Orleans hosted one sailing to Liverpool.
Yet New York by the mid-1850s could claim sixteen lines to Liverpool, three to London, three to Havre, two to Antwerp, and one each to Glasgow, Rotterdam, and Marseilles.
Subsidized, it must be remembered, by the federal post office patronage boondogle."

The fact is that half of US cotton exported from New Orleans alone, and much of the rest from other Gulf Coast ports, not New York.
Imports did return through New York, because that is where customers and paying jobs for immigrants could most easily be found.
In other words: it was NY-bound immigrants and Northern import customers which subsidized cotton shipped from the Deep South, not the other way around.

DiogenesLamp quoting the link: "Which meant that any trading the South did, had to go through New York. Trade from Charleston and Savannah during this period was stagnant.
The total shipping entered from foriegn countries in 1851 in the port of Charleston was 92,000 tons, in the port of New York, 1,448,000.
You'd find relatively little tariff money coming in from Charleston."

Imports and immigrants landed where customers and jobs were, mainly New York.
That's because 80% of US citizens in 1860 lived outside the Deep Cotton South states and New York was the easiest way to reach them.

DiogenesLamp quoting the link: "According to a Treasury report, the net revenue of all the ports of South Carolina during 1859 was a mere $234,237; during 1860 it was $309,222.[4]"

Which corresponds to the relative value of South Carolina exports.
The fact is South Carolina was a small state with relatively little to offer the world.

DiogenesLamp: "The war was launched against the South to get back that money.
Not to free slaves, not because they gave a D@mn about a stupid fort they had no use for whatsoever, but because of MONEY!"

FRiend, just because you were indoctrinated in Marxist economic dialectics and so are blind to reality, doesn't mean there's nothing more to it.
Of course there is.
Indeed, no actual participants in 1861 mentioned any of your analysis as reasons for their actions.
All gave other reasons, from protecting slavery to defending the constitution.
That's because economics alone is not justification for war.
But responding to violent rebellion was, and remains, a valid reason for Federal military actions.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "It would have cost the United States, 3/4ths of all export trade with Europe.
It would have wrecked the shipping industry, the manufacturing industry, and would have left the Union Coastal states in serious economic distress."

Totally false, and we know that for certain because it's just what did happen in 1861 -- Deep Cotton South exports ended, virtually 100%.
And the result was: Northern cities adjusted, adapted and continued to prosper.
Meanwhile, Federal tariff revenues fell by only 26% for the year.
So Deep Cotton South exports turned out to be not nearly as important in the North as secessionists then, and pro-Confederates today, believed.

DiogenesLamp: "And you think the Power Baron/Government coalition was too stupid to notice this?
If you think this war was about anything other than lots and lots of money, you are naive."

I am "naïve" about nothing, but you were indoctrinated with Marxist economic dialectics and now can't see anything beyond, or higher.
The basic fact is that people of the time told us why they did what they did, and many mentioned slavery, others preserving the Constitution, but none mentioned your exaggerated economic theories.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Yes, the 300 million or so dollars that funneled annually through the port of New York was produced by slaves."

Only 20% at most "funneled" through New York.
The balance shipped directly from Gulf Coast ports to their European customers.

DiogenesLamp: "And Lincoln supported this amendment.
Apparently slave money was more important to him than slave freedom, but what else could you expect from a "Globalist" I mean "Mercantilist" President?"

No, what Lincoln said was he didn't believe such an amendment necessary, since the Constitution at the time implied it.
So your proposed amendment here was just one of many different ideas to "compromise" with Deep South secessionists.
None produced positive responses from Confederates and all came to nothing.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Oh, and while we're on the subject, Here is a thread about what Rutherford B. Hayes said back in 1888, you know about 23 years after the Civil War."

Sure, Hayes was a solid Ohio Republican, Union general and 19th US President.
His presidency ended Reconstruction and effectively turned the South over to Democrats.
By 1888 Hayes was highly disturbed after four years of Democrat President Grover Cleveland's administration, and wrote the words you quoted about the results of Democrat rule.

Hayes died in 1893 at age 70.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "You keep reading the term “at pleasure” into the Declaration of Independence.
Can you identify exactly where in the DOI it is found? "

Now you misrepresent my views too.
"At pleasure" is the term used by James Madison and other Founders to distinguish valid and legitimate reasons for disunion from other reasons not constitutionally approved.
Indeed, the Declaration of Independence itself makes 100% clear that their disunion is not "at pleasure" but rather was necessary due to the unlawful actions of the British government.

Once again: the two constitutionally valid reasons for secession are:

1. Mutual consent, exemplified by replacing the old Articles of Confederation with the new Constitution in 1788.
   
2. Necessity caused by "oppression" or "usurpations" such as experienced by Founders in 1776.

Neither valid condition existed in November 1860 when Deep South Fire Eaters began organizing to declare secession.
That made their disunion "at pleasure".

[jeffersondem]

The reason I asked about the term “at pleasure” was because I could not find it in the DOI and it sounded like something that had been scabbed-on. Let me look again in the U.S. Constitution and see if I can find it there. Perhaps it is somewhere in the 9th or 10th amendments.

[HandyDandy]

The Twentieth Maine by John J. Pullen

"The fascinating story of Joshua Chamberlain and his volunteer regiment, the Twentieth Maine, is reprinted with a new foreword by Civil War historian and UCLA professor Joan Waugh. Pullen's classic and highly acclaimed book tells how Chamberlain and his men fought at Antietam, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville on their way to the pivotal battle of Gettysburg. There, on July 2, 1863, at Little Round Top, they heroically saved the left flank of the Union battle line. The Twentieth Maine's remarkable story ends with the surrender of Lee's troops at Appomattox. Considered by Civil War historians to be one of the best regimental histories ever written, this beloved standard of American history is now available in a new Stackpole edition. Includes maps, photographs, and drawings from the original edition."

[BDParrish]

Delighted that you will be studying the war! The extensive reading list here is too much for you I fear. I have read almost all of the recommended books (not Divens for example) and a coupla hundred more besides! My dad just recently gave me a copy of the first civil war book I ever read as a 10 year old kid at the county library, “Mr. Lincoln’s Army” by Bruce Catton (pronounced Kay-ton).

The most satisfying book on the war that I ever read was called, “Why the South Lost the Civil War” by Beringer, Hataway and other members of the University of Georgia history faculty.

You keep seeing “Killer Angels” on this list but you should know that it is entirely based on General Longstreet’s theory of the battle of Gettysburg. Longstreet felt the sting of blame for the defeat after the war and wrote a defense of his actions there. His book made the sainted General Lee look bad and Longstreet, I think, regretted it. The disgusting numbskull, Martin Sheen, portrayed Lee as a deranged, religious kook in the movie, “Gettysburg”.

Some people get into this from those Ted Turner movies, and then read the Shaara works on which those movies were based. Those people give tooo much importance to Lawrence and the 20th Maine.

Some get into it from the Ken Burns PBS Documentary, and then read the trilogy by Shelby Foote, the delightful historian who starred in that series as Catton had done for an earlier documentary.

I got into it by seeing the 1967 widescreen release of “Gone With the Wind” and then reading all the books in the library civil war section, especially Bruce Catton’s trilogy on the “Army of the Potomac.”

Catton wrote one called “The Blue and the Gray” which was made into an excellent miniseries! You gotta see that. It was said at the time to be non-fiction and all the people in the series “lived and saw as they are portrayed in it”. The dialogue is fanciful of course. Stars Lloyd Bridges, Stacy Keach, and Gregory Peck (as Lincoln). 1982 CBS. Get the full 6 hour version on Amazon. Beware there is a cut version.

You must go see the Museum of the Civil War Soldier at Pamplin Park near Petersburg Virginia. Best museum ever.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "The reason I asked about the term 'at pleasure' was because I could not find it in the DOI and it sounded like something that had been scabbed-on."

The term Original Intent defines US Constitutional conservatives.
What did Founders mean at the time by what they wrote?
In the case of disunion or secession, their words are clear and consistent -- "at pleasure" secession is not constitutionally valid, while disunion by "mutual consent" (i.e., 1788) or "necessity" from oppression or usurpations (i.e., 1776), those are valid.

Of course, Jeffersondem, if you are not a strict constructionist who values Original Intent, if you believe the US Constitution is a "living document" which can mean whatever-the-h*ll you want it to mean... then you are not a real conservative and may belong with other Democrats on more "progressive" sites.

[PeaRidge]

Please note in post #265 a picture of a small ship, the SS Planter, was presented along with the following comment:

“My posting the SS Planter photo — built, owned & operated by Southerners — proves your claims about “Northeastern dominance” are, well, exaggerated”.

Since that boat was built and finished in 1860, and placed in service of the confederacy, it was never used in any trading capacity. Using it as an example of commercial shipping is a canard.

[jeffersondem]

“What did Founders mean at the time by what they wrote?”

BJK, read the text below and see if you can identify the words that do not belong:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government become destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, provided it is really, really, REALLY necessary, - and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness, provided it is done with the mutual consent of all parties.”

[jeffersondem]

“Of course, Jeffersondem, if you are not a strict constructionist who values Original Intent, if you believe the US Constitution is a “living document” which can mean whatever-the-h*ll you want it to mean... then you are not a real conservative and may belong with other Democrats on more “progressive” sites. “

Your statement here reminds me of a supposed ingroup member attempting to establish an "outgroup" stereotype.

[rockrr]

But the confederacy didn’t exist in 1860. Is it your contention that the shipbuilders knew in advance that the southern states would rebel and started building up their navy in 1859/1860?

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge: "Since that boat was built and finished in 1860, and placed in service of the confederacy, it was never used in any trading capacity.
Using it as an example of commercial shipping is a canard."

In fact, there is no reason to suppose the SS Planter was not used for its intended purpose, as a coastal packet for cotton from 1860 & 1861.
Indeed, this photo from the period shows it used in exactly that way.

SS Planter proves that Southerners in general, and South Carolinians specifically were fully capable of building, owning and operating ships, and so puts the lie to various claims that, somehow, New Yorkers had an iron grip on Southern exports.

This photo is here labeled:

"Steamer SS Planter loaded with a 1000 bales of cotton, at Georgetown, S. C., probably in 1860-61 or 1866-76.
US Naval History and Heritage Command photo # NH 74054, courtesy of E.D. Sloan, Jr., 1971."

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "BJK, read the text below and see if you can identify the words that do not belong:"

What doesn't belong is your claim that our Founders ever favored disunion or secession "at pleasure", meaning absent either mutual consent or necessity caused by oppression & usurpations.

Remember their examples: 1) the Declaration of Independence included a long list of serious grievances against the British king, and those made independence necessary.
2) Replacing the old Articles of Confederation was done by mutual consent.

Again I say, if you care to learn what our Founders really believed on this subject, start with James Madison.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Your statement here reminds me of a supposed ingroup member attempting to establish an "outgroup" stereotype. "

Pro-Confederates always like to pretend they are the true conservatives, and everybody else here are just a bunch of commie progressives.
But the truth, as DiogenesLamp reveals, is Lost Causer mythology rooted in Marxist dialectics and liberal reinterpretations of Founders' Original Intent.

The real fact is that our Founders no more favored secession "at pleasure" than they did abortion on demand, but people with ideological blinders somehow find both in the Constitution!
Right or wrong, neither is Founders' Original Intent, and that's what you need to call yourself, legitimately, a conservative.