Racists Have No Place in the Conservative Movement (ZO!)

PJTV ^ | Zo

[mnehring]

Zo has strong words for neo-confederate libertarians, especially those who infiltrated the CPAC conference. He reminds viewers why some libertarians have no place in the conservative movement, and why Republicans should embrace the vision of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass.

(Video at link)

[lentulusgracchus]

If you were talking about Philip Foner (Eric's uncle) writing his books 60 years ago in between party meetings you might have a valid point, but just making personal attacks doesn't do much to support whatever argument you may have.

I'm arguing that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. This was demonstrated by conservative essayists in the 70's who went back and looked at the vitae of famous Mobe and SDS personalities and found liberals and Communists hatching out all over the family trees of these individuals. Far from the "radical break with their parents" these people sometimes talked about, they more often evinced a continuation of their parents' values. I don't think I've overgeneralized with Eric Foner.

[lentulusgracchus]

Surely, just how different individuals or groups or parts of the country reacted to John Brown is something that can be studied on its own, by evaluating arguments and assertions on their own merits, rather than by simply discounting whatever is said in a book by one author.

No, discounting is a necessary protection to the truth ... last year I read a new book about Alexander, in which the author spent a great deal of time doing just that, when confronting the disorderly state of ancient historiography about Alexander, from intimates who were constrained politically in their speech and recollections (one was murdered by Alexander for that reason) to those who were fabulists retailing tall tales to the public.

[x]

"Discount" may have been the wrong word because it's ambiguous. "Dismiss" is a better one in the context.

Being critical and simply dismissing arguments because of who makes them are different things.

Your sources and your own conclusions aren't always right. So I should just dismiss whatever you say?

Jefferson Davis, Lyon Gardiner Tyler, R.L. Dabney, the Kennedys, DiLorenzo? All of them pretty darned unreliable.

Gale Jarvis put together the theory you cite out of different incidents that others would interpret differently. I've caught Clyde Wilson saying things that didn't have any historical foundation.

Maybe these were honest mistakes -- I've made plenty of my own -- but if we start discounting or dismissing arguments or evidence of anybody we disagree with simply because we disagree with them, constructive argument becomes impossible.

[southernsunshine]

Winfield Scott was Buchanan's chief of staff at the time as well, and was giving Buchanan advice that reflects the views of Lincoln, Andrew, and other "war party" politicians. See also the reference and link above to Andrew's confidential communications in January with Winfield Scott (Lincoln was also communicating with Scott months before Lincoln's inauguration, and so he, too, was interfering. (lentulusgracchus)

May 23, 1860 (****mine****):

"In a letter to the Republican National Convention president ****George Ashmun of Massachusetts****, Lincoln drafted this acceptance of the party's nomination and closed with these words:"

"...and the perpetual union..."

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trt042.html

Carl Schurz to Lincoln December 18, 1860:

" The symptoms of a rising fighting-spirit are plainly perceptible, and it will be an easy thing, if matters are well managed by our papers and public men, to lead this spirit into the proper channel."

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mal:@field(DOCID+@lit(d0518800))

December 24, 1860:

"Governor ANDREW, Senators DOOLITTLE and TRUMBULL, Representatives BURLINGAME and TAPPAN, and a number of other Senators and members of Congress, held a conference, yesterday, at the rooms of FRANCIS P. BLAIR, Sr., and unanimously agreed that the integrity of the Union should be preserved, though it cost millions of lives."

http://www.nytimes.com/1860/12/25/news/latest-dispatches-federal-capital-conference-prominent-republicans-determination.html

Nope, wasn't about slavery that was just an abstract question:

Carl Schurz 02/07/1861 letter to his wife:

“Whatever the probable results of the conference, I don not believe that anything lasting can come of it. Should an agreement be reached on the slavery question, another question would instantly arise which for the moment is of surpassing importance, namely: Shall the laws be enforced in the seceded states and the Union by all means preserved? This question the northern states will answer in the affirmative, the southern in the negative, and since this is a definitely practical question it will lead to a new and final break however the abstract question of slavery may be adjusted. I therefore look for no decisive result from the conference. Anyway it will have no influence upon the cotton states, and in the end the War of Secession will have to be waged.”

J.M. Forbes and William H. Aspinwall making plans with Winfield Scott on February 7, 1861 (Forbes was a right hand man for MA Governor Andrews) - starts on p. 195 here:

http://archive.org/stream/lettersrecollect01forb#page/194/mode/2up

Also, Shuler's input starting p. 42 here:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2001.05.0152%3Apage%3D42

Carl Schurz to Lincoln April 5, 1861:

"Some time ago you told me, that you did not want to call an extra-session of Congress for fear of reopening the compromise-agitation. You were undoubtedly right then. But any vigorous act on the part of your Administration, any display of power and courage will remove that danger. If you first reinforce the forts and then call Congress together, the enthusiasm of the masses will be so great and overwhelming, that Congress will be obliged to give you any legislation you may ask for. You will be master of the situation, and supported by the confidence of the people, the government will be stronger than it ever was before."

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mal:@field(DOCID+@lit(d0880500))

“It was discovered that the State of Massachusetts had been quietly preparing for war, even before the election of Mr. Lincoln.”

Horton’s, “A Youth’s History of the Great Civil War in the United States, from 1861 - 1865” p. 117

“I have said that Massachusetts began to prepare for war before the election of Mr. Lincoln. Governor Andrew of that State boasted of the fact himself.”

Ibid, p. 120

Massachusett's Senator Wilson not only was the one to telegram Governor Andrew for troops, he's the one that introduced the legislation to "ratify and confirm" what Lincoln had already done when congress was back in session on July 4, 1861 - Congressional Globe, starts on p. 2/459:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=057/llcg057.db&recNum=19

I have info on MA's governor Banks prepping troops, will poke around and try to find it. Also, I have much more on what these guys were saying about WHY they couldn't let the South go, including Banks and Andrews. What their financial interests were and how they are all connected is interesting, to say the least. The Abolitionists I've looked at thus far have dirty hands, too.

[southernsunshine]

All of them pretty darned unreliable. (x)

So is The Massachusetts Historical Society. Wonder why?

[southernsunshine]

Remarkably difficult to find anything about what Banks did as governor.

That should be your first clue.

[southernsunshine]

I can't believe you guys go for that garbage. It was whomped up after Lincoln died by German Reds like Carl Schurz and is now being reinforced by Clintonistas as a political tool to divide the electorate. (lentulusgracchus)

I can't believe it either.

[Sherman Logan]

Ahh, the coverup theory!

I found plenty about Banks regarding his involvement in the disintegration of the Know-Nothing Party and about his Civil War record. Nobody seems to be interested in the period in-between.

Most northern and Republican officials either publicly denounced Brown without reservation or did that fancy dance about deploring his tactics regardless of how admirable his cause was.

If any officials openly proclaimed support for him, much less planned a military attack to rescue him, I’ve been unable to find it. If you have such evidence, I’d like to see it. There was kind of a panicked retreat from Brown on the part of northern supporters for a while. All but one of his financial backers, the Secret Six, chickened out and claimed to know nothing of his plans for violence.

Major weenies. The only one with balls wrote to one of the others (who had no balls), “Sanborn, is there no such thing as honor among confederates?... Can your clear moral sense justify holding one’s tongue…to save ourselves from all share in even the reprobation of society when the nobler man whom we have provoked on into the danger is the scapegoat of the reprobation-and the gallows too?”

Your post seems to imply that if there is no evidence something happened, it constitutes proof it did. Which is kind of silly.

[southernsunshine]

Ahh, the coverup theory! (Sherman Logan)

Huh? What coverup theory?

Your post seems to imply that if there is no evidence something happened, it constitutes proof it did. Which is kind of silly. (Sherman Logan)

Don't know where you got that.

You said: Remarkably difficult to find anything about what Banks did as governor.

And I responded: That should be your first clue.

My response merely indicates the same point you made (when attributing some conspiracy theory to me) when you said: I found plenty about Banks regarding his involvement in the disintegration of the Know-Nothing Party and about his Civil War record. Nobody seems to be interested in the period in-between.

See? You noticed the gap in the Massachusetts Historical Record, too. Wonder why the Massachusetts historical record isn't interested in the gap? I can fill in some of it and have a couple of sources in mind. Will post them when I dig 'em out.

[southernsunshine]

James McPherson, out of North Dakota and Gustavus Adolphus College, most likely didn't come from the same CP background, though he has given several interviews to the World Socialist Website. (x)

McPherson is a Progressive (not to mention Foner) for just one example:

"The Progressive Tradition: Politics, Culture and History"

http://web.princeton.edu/sites/progressive/PTparticip.html

[PeaRidge]

You said: “...the Confederacy...formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.

That is wrong. A formal declaration of war on the Union was never passed by the Confederate Congress.

[BroJoeK]

lentulusgracchus posting link to: http://www.onlinebiographies.info/gov/buckingham-william.html
"Note the dates of 'Lincoln's pre-inaugural visit to Connecticut', and of the NYT article about war preparations in Connecticut."

lentulusgracchus' link seems broken.
Here is the correct link.

We're seeing some new data here, not all of it accurately labeled.
For example, the Connecticut election which occasioned what lentulusgracchus calls "Lincoln's pre-inaugural visit to Connecticut" actually happened a year earlier, in early 1860, before Lincoln was even nominated, indeed even before the Democrat Convention first met on April 23, 1860, in Charleston, SC and Southern Fire-Eaters walked out.
So Lincoln's visit to Connecticut had nothing to do with secession or war.

Quoting from the lentulusgracchus' link:

"Abraham Lincoln was sent to this state, and he made six speeches throughout Connecticut.
Governor Buckingham traveled with Lincoln and usually presented him to his audience.
A warm friendship sprung up between the two men... and which lasted until the two were parted by death.
"On April 2, 1860, the election took place. "

But the larger questions here refer to degrees of readiness of various state militias in years before the Civil War.
What we know is:

1. The 1792 and 1795 Militia Acts required all free able-bodied white male citizens to arm themselves and join their local militias.
   The President was authorized to call up these militias for national service:
   "whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act."

   This Militia Act was first used by President Washington in 1794 to defeat the Whiskey Rebellion, and was referred to by President Lincoln in his April 15, 1861 call up of state militias, following the Confederacy's assault on Fort Sumter.

2. State militias were typically organized into 100 man companies in 1,000 man regiments under larger brigades and divisions.
   So the number of units per state was a function of its population of white male citizens.
   For examples, if a state the size of South Carolina had two active militia regiments, then Connecticut would have three, Massachusetts six and states like New York or Pennsylvania 15 & more each.

3. Most reports we have say these state militias were not well equipped or trained during long years of peace, except in the South, where militias were used to capture runaway slaves.
   But the simple fact is: we have no real data on any pre-war state militias, their sizes, readiness, leadership, etc.

4. It's important to note here that political hyperbole was common in those days, whenever the question of secession or "disunion" came up.
   For example, Bubba Ho-Tep quoted this Virginia newpaper's response to Northern talk of secession in 1814:
   "The majority of States which form the Union must consent to the withdrawal of any one branch of it.
   Until that consent has been obtained, any attempt to dissolve the Union, or obstruct the efficiency of its constitutional laws, is treason-treason to all intents and purposes."

   At the same time, President Madison moved troops from the border with Canada to Albany, NY, just in case they were needed against Northern secessionists.

   And we've seen President Jackson's response to South Carolinians during the nullification crisis of 1830:

   "...please give my compliments to my friends in your State and say to them, that if a single drop of blood shall be shed there in opposition to the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach"

   So the subject of secession was always occasion for strong language, and strong actions.

5. We know in 1853 that Massachusetts legislator Nathaniel Banks supported a state militia in the Massachusetts constitutional convention, and that as governor he reviewed a parade of state militia sometime before leaving office at the end of 1860.
   We don't know more details.

6. We also know from Sherman Logan's post #261 that South Carolina's Governor Gist threatened in December 1859 to send a regiment of his militia to Washington DC to enforce his will:
   "If you ... upon consultation decide to make the issue of force in Washington, write or telegraph me, and I will have a regiment in or near Washington in the shortest possible time."

   This same Governor Gist in 1860 first approved raising SC's active militia to 10,000 men, called for a secession convention, seized Federal property, sent emissaries to Washington and signed SC's declaration of secession, all before his term expired in December 1860.

My point is: everything we know still shows that in every step of the way from peace in 1860 to war in 1861, secessionists pushed and lead toward war, while Union officials slowly followed.

[southernsunshine]

Massachusetts Governor Banks has MA militia "conspicuously ready":

"Coming down through the period of the Republic, we find the Commonwealth conspicuously ready for the great Civil War. In 1859, long before any of the statesmen at Washington would admit that any serious trouble was likely to occur, Governor Nathaniel P. Banks, formerly captain of this company, whom I recall, when I was a boy, marching through the streets in the ranks of this company with a rifle on his shoulder, -- Governor Banks assembled the militia of Massachusetts on the State camp ground at Concord in a muster, had them reviewed and inspected, and made other preparations to fit them to go into active service. Preparations were very thoroughly made, overcoats and other necessary equipments were provided, so that when the drum beat in '61 the men of Massachusetts not only went to the front, but went properly equipped and disciplined, and the first regiment to arrive in Washington for the defence of the National Capitol with arms in its hands, was our 6th Massachusetts."

Starts the last paragraph of p. 30 here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=5XOdkoDEsDgC&pg=PP9&lpg=PP9&dq=The+two+hundred+and+seventy+sixth+annual+record+of+the+ancient+and+honorable+artillery+company+of+massachusetts+1913-1914&source=bl&ots=6_xxmlSYVq&sig=bmSd-4xoEYvB5J6xyt0jTh_GzJc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zP9aUdX0Ku6k8AGMmoCIBw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Can't help chuckling every time I read about the "defence of the National Capitol". It's a recurring theme in these books, and it doesn't have a shred of truth to it. There was no plot to take over the Capitol, nor was there any plot to stop Lincoln from taking office.

Also, MA Adjutant General report for 1858 including an appendix with an address by Governor Banks here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=yiz-eGlbzAMC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=massachusetts+adjutant+general+report+to+governor+banks+1858&source=bl&ots=bHnnDvvNFq&sig=HUDZpmdZkgCUiefaszFx66gVTQo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ugFbUYL7FpTW2wWh_IDQDA&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

No clue what is up with these links!? More to come when I have a few minutes. Some in Massachusetts may not want to talk about ALL aspects of the their history, but I do.

[BroJoeK]

Pea Ridge: "You said: '...the Confederacy...formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861'. "

Pea Ridge: "That is wrong. A formal declaration of war on the Union was never passed by the Confederate Congress."

It's odd you say that, since the link to the Confederacy's declaration has been posted here many times.

Confederacy's Declaration of War on the United States, May 6, 1861.

Of course, the Union never formally declared war on the Confederacy, because they treated it as a rebellion, which never gets a formal declaration of war.
However, Congress did approve all of President Lincoln's actions in that regard.

[southernsunshine]

BroJo said: But the simple fact is: we have no real data on any pre-war state militias, their sizes, readiness, leadership, etc.

(Ahem) Please see post 293 for 1858 Massachusetts Adjutant General Report.

[southernsunshine]

BroJo said: We're seeing some new data here...

Why haven't you seen it before? I mean, what with a little historical perspective and all that.

BroJo said re: Governor Banks: We don't know more details.

You might if ya started reading. Just sayin'.

[BroJoeK]

southernsunshine: "Also, MA Adjutant General report for 1858..."

If I read your link correctly, it says in 1857 the Massachusetts enrolled militia was around 151,000 out of a Massachusetts population around 1,200,000.
In 1858 the MA militia numbers declined over 3,000.

Since the Federal 1792 & 1795 Militia Acts required all able-bodied white men 18 to 45 to enroll in a militia unit, you might expect the Massachusetts enrolled numbers to be higher.

southernsunshine: "...including an appendix with an address by Governor Banks here:"

I took the time to read all of Governor Banks' September 1858 address carefully.
That may be the occasion of the review of Massachusetts troops referenced previously.

In this address, Banks discussed examples of historical and more recent local domestic violence events requiring a states' militia to suppress.
He also talked about the physical and mental benefits to soldiers of military training.
However, at no point in the speech did Banks hint at anything whatever having to do with either national politics or southerners.

[PeaRidge]

Correction. Your site says nothing about a declaration of war.

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge: "Your site says nothing about a declaration of war."

I double checked the link, and it works perfectly well.

"An act recognizing the existence of war between the United States and the Confederate States...

"...war exists between the Confederate States and the Government of the United States..."

Of course, I understand that many pro-Confederates like to pretend that act of the Confederate congress was not a "Declaration of War".
If that is your opinion too, then I'd invite you to explain the document's purpose, and in what sense, exactly, it is something other than a formal declaration of war on the United States.

[southernsunshine]

BroJo said: However, at no point in the speech did Banks hint at anything whatever having to do with either national politics or southerners.

Not in that one he doesn't, but don't worry it's coming. I just haven't gotten that far down in my pile yet.

While you're waiting, here's one of Banks's September, 1857 speeches that does touch on national politics and Southerners. He's put out becuase money is spent on Southerners in the Army and Navy, but the Southerners want to eliminate the bounties paid to fishermen. And heaven forbid! the route to the Pacific takes a Southern route, etc., etc., etc. He also says they must combine the material and moral interests. As if the Yanks were the moral ones. LOL!

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hx4pz1#page/n0/mode/1up