THE SECESSION REBELLION: Official Account of the Battle of Philippi; An Advance of the Federal Troops Towards Manassas Gap; Editorial: Preparations for a Fall Campaign (6/5/1861)

New York Times archives – Times Machine ^ | 6/5/1861

[Homer_J_Simpson]

WASHINGTON, Tuesday, June 4.

Senor HURTIDO, the New-Granadian Commissioner for the settlement of the Panama claims, was presented to the President to day. By agreement, a delay of eighty days is to occur, before the Commissioners enter upon the discharge of their duties. The condition of the Government of New Granada, threatened to be overthrown by a revolution, is the reason assigned by the Minister for asking the delay, and our excuse for granting it. By the way, it is probable that Gen. HERRAN will again be sent as Minister to this country, in the event of the success of Gen. MOSQUERA.

Col. BARTLETT, who arrived in Washington, today, denies that his brigade has been ordered back to New-York. Indeed, he represents it as standing high in the estimation of Gen. BUTLER.

Parson BEECHER left for New-York this P.M., having succeeded in securing the acceptance of the Brooklyn Phalanx.

Preparations for repelling an attack, were made at Fort Corcoran, last night. Information of the probable attack of a rebel column, had been officially communicated to Col. CORCORAN, with instructions to hold his force in readiness to repel it. In accordance with orders from the War Department, the Fifth New-York fell back to a position abreast of the Sixty-ninth, and the Twenty-eighth, New-York, was placed as a reserve in position from the tete-de-pont of the Sixty-ninth to the Aqueduct Bridge. The Thirteenth, New-York, crossed the river, and was divided into two battalions, one of which was held in reserve at the foot of Corcoran Hill, with orders to support the right of the Sixty-ninth in case of a general attack. The other battalion of the Thirteenth took position in the rear of the Fifth, to support that regiment and to skirmish from the foot of Corcoran Hill to the tete-de-pont.

[Homer_J_Simpson]

Free Republic University, Department of History presents U.S. History, 1855-1860: Seminar and Discussion Forum
The American Civil War, as seen through news reports of the time and later historical accounts

First session: November 21, 2015. Last date to add: Sometime in the future.
Reading: Self-assigned. Recommendations made and welcomed.

Posting history, in reverse order

https://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:homerjsimpson/index?tab=articles

To add this class to or drop it from your schedule notify Admissions and Records (Attn: Homer_J_Simpson) by reply or freepmail.

Link to previous New York Times thread

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3964967/posts

[Homer_J_Simpson]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

[Homer_J_Simpson]

The Secession Rebellion: Official Account of the Battle at Philippi – 2-3
Our War Correspondence: The Service in Virginia – 3-4
Rumored Invasion of Harper’s Ferry – 4
Col. Kelly not Dead – 4
Affairs in Missouri: The Superseding of Gen. Harney – 4-5
Military and Naval Movements – 5
The Border State Convention – 5
From New Orleans and the South – 5
Reports from Cairo, Etc. – 5
Editorial: preparations for a Fall Campaign – 5-6
Editorial: Hatred to the South – 6-7
The Battle at Philippi – 7
More Seizures in St. Louis – 7
Reports from Chambersburgh – 7
The Maryland Bridge Burners – 7
The Border State Convention – 7
Unemployed Negroes in Richmond, Va. – 7
From Fortress Monroe – 7

[enumerated]

What’s the point of regurgitating Yankee propaganda now? They already won and got to record their version of history. :-)

[the OlLine Rebel]

Heh heh heh

Esp. Seeing what’s happening now.

[BroJoeK]

enumerated: "What’s the point of regurgitating Yankee propaganda now?
They already won and got to record their version of history. :-)"

You say the Yankees won, but that's only in the history books.
On Free Republic the North didn't win, can never win, because the war's not over and the South has risen again to claim its victories! ;-)

So I invite you to read the entire piece:

"Editorial: Hatred to the South – 6-7"

It addresses something often claimed on these threads and says, in part:

"Among the falsehoods industriously circulated by the rebel leaders and the rebel Press, to delude and stimulate their followers, is what they are pleased to term the 'hatred of the South' on the part of the people of the loyal States, as if the war was being prosecuted to satisfy popular malignity against brethren of the same nationality and kindred of the same race.
There never was a greater fallacy, a more wicked perversion, than this.
That the people of the Northern States hate the treason of the South, and would not hesitate to punish the unprincipled leaders who have fomented it into rebellion, is entirely true.
This is inevitable, growing out of and is the converse of their love for the Union against which that treason is in revolt; but there is not, and never has been, in the Northern minds, any such passion as hatred to the South.

The history of the past proves this, and the instincts of every true heart attest it.
The North has always been in the majority, and yet the honors and emoluments of official place have been enjoyed by the South to an extent greatly beyond their numerical proportion..."

The editorial goes on to review the history of Southern control over Washington, DC, the acquiescence of Northerners to Southern political demands, and their toleration of Confederate seizures of Federal properties.
It ends with this:

"...The people of the South are regarded as our brethren, deluded, deceived, betrayed, plundered of their freedom of inquiry, of speech and of action; forced into opposition to the Consitution and treason to the Union against their instincts, their sober judgment and free volition, by bold, ban men.
What is asked of them is to break away from their wicked and fatal leaderships and return to their allegiance to the Constitution; to take their place again among the States of the Union, place back the now veiled stars in their brightness in the banner of the Republic, and they will find a warm place in the Northern heart.
They will encounter no animosities, be harmed by no malice.
They will find this "hatred of the South" an idle phantom.
They will discover that kindness and not hatred, fraternal feeling and not malignity towards them will pervade, as they always have the Northern heart.

But the loyal army will march to the Gulf, if that be necessary to save the Union.
It will march there not in hatred of the South, but to save the South even from itself.
Its progress may be slow, and reverses may be encountered, but when a soldier falls two will take his place, and it will march to the Gulf."

Such views today are more often mocked & disparaged than openly expressed, but I think they were genuine at the time, and some of that remains even today.

As it happens, one of my great grandfathers did, literally, march to the Gulf, where he was wounded in battle and nearly died from the infection, at the war's very end.

[enumerated]

“So I invite you to read the entire piece:
“Editorial: Hatred to the South – 6-7””

I did read the entire piece - and that section about hatred of the South - that was exactly the part I was calling yankee propaganda - because it WAS yankee propaganda.

Your “entire piece” tells only one side - the Yankee side.

Do you deny it?

[BroJoeK]

regarding: "Editorial: Hatred to the South – 6-7"

enumerated: "I did read the entire piece - and that section about hatred of the South - that was exactly the part I was calling yankee propaganda - because it WAS yankee propaganda."

No, it's an editorial, an opinion piece -- an argument in support of some idea or cause, and clearly labeled as such.
An honest editorial is not "propaganda" and this particular editorial seems entirely honest to me.

The editorial addresses a claim made innumerable times on FR CW threads -- that Northerners "hate" the South and Southerners.
The editors rightly say, in effect: that's nonsense, that Northerners showed the highest respect for Southerners before 1861 and even in 1861 tolerated secessionist seizures of Federal properties, until Fort Sumter.
Now that the Confederacy declared war on the United States, Northerners require Southerners to give up loyalty to Confederates and return to the Constitution, or face Union armies marching to the Gulf.

Those are the Times' strong editorial opinions, but they were also facts, not propaganda.

[enumerated]

“No, it’s an editorial, an opinion piece — an argument in support of some idea or cause, and clearly labeled as such.”

I don’t care how it’s labeled; the only “argument” being supported here is the North’s argument - claiming that the South’s argument is a myth and a lie.

You can call it whatever you want - I call it pre-war propaganda.

The South’s claim of anti-South hatred was a legitimate reaction to hit pieces like this one, where Northern “editors” were attempting to turn Northern opinion against the South, leading up to the war.

[BroJoeK]

enumerated: "I don’t care how it’s labeled; the only “argument” being supported here is the North’s argument - claiming that the South’s argument is a myth and a lie.
You can call it whatever you want - I call it pre-war propaganda."

So let's start here: the Confederacy formally declared war against the United States on May 6, 1861.
"Today" is June 6, so that is hardly "pre-war".

Second, this Northern editorial addressed only one of the South's arguments -- the one from "rebel leaders" which claimed "Northern hatred to the South".
The editorial argues, entirely correctly, that claim is, as you say here, a myth and a lie.
It was a lie in 1861 and still is in 2021.

Third, back to the definition of your word "propaganda".
So it's not hard to find dictionary definitions which refer to normal commercial advertising as "propaganda", thus rendering the term harmless & meaningless.
But the truth is that in political discourse propaganda is always understood to mean lies, deceptions, misdirections & biases.
I don't see any of those in this particular editorial.

enumerated: "The South’s claim of anti-South hatred was a legitimate reaction to hit pieces like this one, where Northern “editors” were attempting to turn Northern opinion against the South, leading up to the war."

Except, first, that you've reversed the sequence -- this editorial is in response to "rebel leaders" claims of "Northern hatred to the South", not the other way around.

Second of course, that "today" we're not "leading up to the war", but rather Confederates have already provoked war, started war, formally declared war and begun to wage war against the United States.
Under such circumstances that Northern editorial was entirely appropriate and unusually kind to average Southern citizens.

In case you missed them, here is a listing of Civil War engagements "so far", meaning through June 6, 1861.
There have been eight, producing about 150 casualties (plus an unknown number of Baltimore civilians wounded), of which killed total around 60:

Date	Engagement	Military Units	Losses	Victor
April 12-14	Fort Sumter, SC	Confederate artillery, Union garrison	None	CSA
April 15	Evacuation of Fort Sumter, SC	Union garrison	Two Union soldiers killed, four wounded by accidental explosion	N.A.
April 19	Baltimore Riots, MD	MA 6th, PA 26th vs secessionist crowd	4 Union soldiers killed, 12 civilians killed, hundreds wounded	USA
May 10	St. Louis Riots, MO	Union forces vs secessionist crowd	4 Union soldiers killed, 3 prisoners, 28 civilians killed	USA
May 18-19	Sewell's Point, VA	Union naval squadron vs Confederate shore artillery	10 total	inconclusive
May 29- June 1	Aquila Creek, VA	Union naval squadron vs Confederate shore artillery	10 total	inconclusive
June 1	Fairfax Court House, VA	detachments from CSA & USA armies	8 on each side, 1 each killed	inconclusive
June 3	Philippi, WVA	Union Dept of Ohio (McClellan), CSA infantry	Union 4, CSA 26 (killed or wounded)	USA

[enumerated]

Everything you say supports the North’s side - and that’s Ok.

But remember, not everyone agreed - hence the war.

You should feel good though - the North won, so you get to present their side as if it’s the only side, even though there were obviously two sides.

[BroJoeK]

enumerated: "Everything you say supports the North’s side - and that’s Ok."

Everything I say is intended to support the truth of the matter, which in this case is expressed by the Times editorial opinion:

"Among the falsehoods industriously circulated by the rebel leaders and the rebel Press, to delude and stimulate their followers, is what they are pleased to term the 'hatred of the South' on the part of the people of the loyal States, as if the war was being prosecuted to satisfy popular malignity against brethren of the same nationality and kindred of the same race. There never was a greater fallacy, a more wicked perversion, than this."

One reason I insist on it is because that particular lie -- "hatred of the South" -- is often repeated even these days on FR CW threads.
I would also draw the connection between the old-time Southern Democrats' charge of "hatred of the South" and today's Northern Democrats' charge of "racist, racist, racist" -- both accusations are intended to, and often work to, shut down reasoned discourse.

enumerated: "But remember, not everyone agreed - hence the war."

Right, but to the degree that Confederates based their war on alleged "hatred of the South", it was based on a lie.

enumerated: "You should feel good though - the North won, so you get to present their side as if it’s the only side, even though there were obviously two sides."

Sure, but both sides on this issue were not equally true.

[enumerated]

If only you had been around back then to judge which side was right and which side was wrong. You could have prevented the war with your profound wisdom .... all wars for that matter. LOL

[BroJoeK]

There was plenty of wisdom around in, say, 1861, but it was not enough to prevent Southern Fire Eaters from first declaring secession (to defend slavery, they said) and then pushing for Civil War.

Sober, informed Southern politicians like Jefferson Davis opposed secession, but then did nothing to prevent or stop Civil War.

Indeed, during the war Davis refused to consider any peace offers better than Unconditional Surrender.
Wisdom had nothing to do with it.

[central_va]

The secession rebellion was about states rights and for the North "preserving the union". Don't hijack the war into "freeing the black man" yet. We are still covering 1861

[M Kehoe]

Did you ever wonder if the generals of the south read the NYT?

So far, most of the Times looks like good intel.

5.56mm

[Homer_J_Simpson]

I’m sure Lee subscribed. At least to the on line version.

[enumerated]

You are continuing to do a fine job of arguing the North’s case against the South.

But it is totally unnecessary - the North won the war over 150 years ago and one of the greatest spoils of war is the privilege of writing a favorable version of history and teaching it to future generations.

The North has enjoyed that privilege to the fullest ever since.

At this point you are just beating a dead horse. I get it: North good - freed the slaves. South bad - loved owning and abusing slaves.

Look, try to get over yourself for a minute and consider the following hypothesis:

The Fake News of today becomes the Fake History of tomorrow.

Let’s imagine a wonderful scenario where President Trump and the MAGA Movement make a big comeback, retake the House, the Senate, the White House, and convict a couple dozen top Democrats of high treason.

Let’s say we convince the public...
...that the 2020 Election was indeed stolen
...that the MSM lied about everything
...that there was no MAGA “insurrection” on January 6th
...that both impeachments were complete hoaxes
...that President Trump was right about everything and a national hero.

If that happens, that is the version of history that will be taught a hundred and fifty years from now.

But what if President Trump and MAGA are not victorious - what if the public is not convinced the MSM accounts of recent events are all lies? What happens to all these conflicting narratives then?

You know the answer.

If the enemies of Trump and MAGA prevail - the fake news narratives of the Left will prevail as well, and will become codified over time into a version of “history” that depicts Trump as worse than Benedict Arnold, worse than Adolf Hitler. We MAGA patriots will be described as ignorant racists who allowed ourselves to be incited to violence for an evil cause.

In other words, we will be viewed by history the same way Southern Confederates are viewed right now.

And in 150 years, will there be people like you who just accept the one-sided version of history handed down to them, and fail to recognize that of course there were two sides - but that history is written by the winning side?

[BroJoeK]

enumerated: "Let’s imagine a wonderful scenario where President Trump and the MAGA Movement make a big comeback, retake the House, the Senate, the White House, and convict a couple dozen top Democrats of high treason."

Potentially imagine only in the wettest of my wet dreams, and I'm way too old for those now.

But your basic problem is that you have the civil war narrative backwards -- it's not "Northerners" here trying to impose their "revisionist" history on others, we're only here to defend the truth against tons & tons of lies our FR pro-Confederates keep blasting us with, including this one:

enumerated: "At this point you are just beating a dead horse.
I get it: North good - freed the slaves.
South bad - loved owning and abusing slaves."

But it's not me who's flogging any kind of meat, it's you, FRiend.
And the truth is just a bit more complicated than your narrative: in fact, Republicans fought first to preserve the Union and then, as a necessity of war, to destroy Confederate slavery.
At war's end they abolished all remaining slavery, because nothing else made sense.

enumerated: "In other words, we will be viewed by history the same way Southern Confederates are viewed right now."

Ah, but the truth is Civil War history has been rewritten a good many times since 1865, sometimes with more dedication to the whole truth, and nothing but, than at other times.
Our pro-Confederate Lost Causers on Free Republic are dedicated to a version of history which is only tangentially attached to the whole truth.
They distort the Constitution's original intent, leave out the role of slavery, forget who demanded Fort Sumter's surrender, then launched an assault to force it, they ignore Confederates' declaration of war (5/6/61) and which side refused to stop fighting for any peace terms better than "Unconditional Surrender".
They also go out of their way to demonize Union behaviors which they are happy to accept when done by Confederates.

We are only here to defend the truth of history, not to condemn the South.

[enumerated]

You are just repeating yourself and I’m getting bored.