Bensel found that the north was overwhelmingly "freer" in terms of fewer instances of violations of personal or property rights; that the south, lacking even a Supreme Court to overrule Davis, had far fewer appeals of bad actions/verdicts/decisions; that private property was outright confiscated at a far higher level in the south than in the north (for one, the south took ALL the private gold in the private banks at the outset of the war---the north did not); that tax rates were higher; and so on. Further, Lee had the advantage of victories early in the war, which tended to generate little editorial criticism---his criticism came largely after Gettysburg, and by that time, he was too busy running from Grant to worry about his own editors.
IMHO, BOTH OF THEM should have shut down papers that were treasonous.
Thank you kindly, Sir, for this reference. I'll be sure to check it out the next chance I'm at the library (which should be in a week or so).
completely excluding from the argument slaves and any actions taken toward slaves in the South, which, I think we would agree, would always fall on the "oppression" side of government.
I would tend to put it right up there with the barbarity of instigating a servile war, so yes, I suppose on those terms we could agree. :)
(for one, the south took ALL the private gold in the private banks at the outset of the war---the north did not); that tax rates were higher; and so on.
This is a claim I had not heard before. I'll definitely research that - Thank you for the pointer!
Further, Lee had the advantage of victories early in the war, which tended to generate little editorial criticism---his criticism came largely after Gettysburg, and by that time, he was too busy running from Grant to worry about his own editors.
Jeff Davis leaves the reader with the impression that anti-war sentiments were fairly prevalent throughout the South. To clarify, in terms of the onset of war, that Southerners in general were reluctant to consider that the Northern government would even begin a war, and when the war continued to last longer than the few weeks that Southern intellectuals considered it would last, that Southerners began to criticize the Government for allowing things to stretch on.
He complains of being lambasted by the Confederate Congress and by the newspapermen in Richmond after Lee didn't march on Washington immediately following first Manassas, yet he doesn't recount any efforts to suppress these opinions.
I'll be sure to check out your reference to see what kinds of events the author recounts.
IMHO, BOTH OF THEM should have shut down papers that were treasonous.
Perhaps.. I think the standards of dissent have fallen so far today, that it's very easy to say, as modern observers, that all dissent is treason. However, back in the Civil War, I'd say that dissent could not necessarily be equated with "treason" in all cases. (That's not to say that there weren' cases where it would be considered "treason," but I'd tend to say that those instances are far less numerous than they are today, in the face of a morally bankrupt opposition.)
As always, Sir, it is an utmost honor to be able to seek your input on these issues. I will continue to hold you,
Most respectfully,
~dt~
free dixie,sw