We Wave the Bloody Shirt — But Whose?
Everyone familiar with American politics knows about the “bloody shirt” — that durable symbol of martyrdom and outrage guaranteed to stir up the masses, or at least the party faithful, at election time. The left’s recent seizure of the Giffords shooting as an opportunity to bash the right was only the latest instance of bloody-shirt-waving.
But was there a particular garment that gave rise to the metaphor? Search the Internet using the terms “’bloody shirt’ + American politics” and you’ll get page upon page of results, most discussing the meaning of the term itself, contemporary usages, and historical incidents reaching back to the assassination of Julius Caesar. There is also reference to a speech by Benjamin Butler in the House in 1871 in which he told of a horrific incident in Mississippi in support of an anti-terrorism bill aimed at the South. But although white southerners accused Butler of “waving the bloody shirt” in order to further oppress them, Butler did not, in fact, wave a shirt or anything else (except, perhaps, his hands) during his speech.
It must be acknowledged that there was more than one famous bloody shirt in those days. When Charles Sumner of Massachusetts was brutally caned by Preston Brooks of South Carolina on the floor of the Senate in 1856, Sumner’s beating became a symbol of what abolitionists saw as the “Slaveocracy’s” depravity — and southerners charged that he later used his red-stained clothes to stir up sympathy. Northern partisans were also quick to decry incidents after the war, when northerners who went south to administer Reconstruction were sometimes flogged or otherwise assaulted by southerners accusing them of “carpet-bagging.”
Nevertheless, a strong argument can be made that there was a bloody shirt — the uniform tunic worn by the young Col. Elmer E. Ellsworth on the morning of his shocking death on May 24, 1861.
Ellsworth, a Union colonel of volunteers and close friend of Abraham Lincoln, had just seized a large rebel flag from the top of the Marshall House, an inn in Alexandria, Va. The inn’s owner, James Jackson, met Ellsworth as he was coming down the stairs from the roof, holding the flag that Jackson had hoisted as an insult to Lincoln, who could see it from the White House. Jackson was holding something, too: a loaded shotgun. He blasted Ellsworth in the chest at point-blank range. Jackson was killed in turn by a soldier.
Interesting. The uniform shirt in the picture appears to be gray. Zouaves, in the Civil War, typically wore uniforms with outlandish colors: bright yellow, electric blue, fire engine red. I would have expected Ellsworth’s to be more colorful than it is…but that’s just a thought.
He was so beloved of Lincoln, btw, that if I remember right he laid in state in the White House or the Capitol. This was pretty much the first significant death of the Civil War, and people were still shocked.
Oh, and one of Ellsworth’s soldiers killed the pro-Confederate hotelier a minute after he shot Ellsworth.
Over the course of 150 years, especially if they weren’t careful about keeping it away from sunlight or overhead UV lighting, not to mention humidity, the fabric would have faded tremendously. First thing I learned in my museum curatorship class.
David wrote: “Oh, and one of Ellsworth’s soldiers killed the pro-Confederate hotelier a minute after he shot Ellsworth.”
Yes, which is why Mr. Durstewitz already had written: “He blasted Ellsworth in the chest at point-blank range. Jackson was killed in turn by a soldier.”
Occasionally I read too fast, and miss something. Ooops!
“It must be acknowledged that there was more than one famous bloody shirt in those days. When Charles Sumner of Massachusetts was brutally caned by Preston Brooks of South Carolina on the floor of the Senate in 1856, Sumner’s beating became a symbol of what abolitionists saw as the “Slaveocracy’s” depravity — and southerners charged that he later used his red-stained clothes to stir up sympathy.”
Well, at least it got Sumner’s, Congress’, and even the nation’s attention. Perhaps more Sentors need to be “caned” by other Sanators in Congress these days. It may actually wake them up to do something, rather than just kick the can down the road until we all go bankrupt.
It should be noted that a few days earlier, Sumner had virulently attacked Brooks’ uncle Andrew Butler, cruelly mocking him for infirmities caused by a stroke and impugning his morals, in a three-hour speech to the Senate.
The Civil War, meseems, was brought about by men on both sides who discovered, to their horror, that their words and actions did have consequences.
Frankly, although I follow politics fairly closely, I hadn’t heard, or at least don’t remember hearing, the “bloody shirt” reference. In any event, it would have been nice if you had pointed out, that the left inaccurately attributed the shooting to the right. The shooter was an Independent, apparently hated President Bush, and, as a federal judge found, nuttier than a fruitcake.
Sounds like a teabagger to me
It is interesting to note how the historyi of the american civil war has been twisted beyond recognition by the descendents of the terroristic abolitionists who provoked the war and were elated by the bloodletting it caused. John Brown was a homegrown American terrortist who sought the slaughter of Southern whites. Thaddesus Stevens of Pennsylvania sought to crush the South after the war with his take no prisoners mentality. The real villains in this war were the ones wearng the blue uniforms not the grey. The most notorius prison for captured soldiers was located in Chicago’s Fort Doughlas where Confederate POWs were starved and tortured for the delight of the Chicago public. It is no surprise that American teachers in the government controlled public schools are working feverishly to portray the Yankees as saviors of humanity. Abraham Lincoln ruled as if he were a fascist dictator; he abolished habeas corpus, shut down the opposition press and threatened those who opposed his war. Lincoln wanted this war which caused the deaths of more Americans than any other war in American history because of his egotistical and flawed personality. The abolition of slavery was not his primary motive; in fact Lincoln was a racist who planned to send all the newly liberated slaves back to Africa. Let us stop playing this game that the war between the states was a glorious victory. It was and will always be an example of how barbarous American democrats can be when they try to impose their mind set on people who disagree.
Oh, yes–how despicable the Northerners, especially in contrast to those exceptional humanitarians, the slave-owning (and/or slavery-defending) Southerners.
Thanks for your interesting comment!
(incredulous head-shake)
Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I “seem to be pursuing” as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.
Thanks for posting that, it is a very important historical document.
“It was and will always be an example of how barbarous American democrats can be when they try to impose their mind set on people who disagree.”
Lincoln was a Republican.
I had family on both sides who lost their lives in the conflict.
The disagreements were so deep that armed conflict was inevitable.
A lesson to not let our current differences be blown out of all proportion by extremists – and to minimize governmental interference in said arguments to prevent them from turning into chaos or worse.
Johann, I agree, History has been turned upside down. Conservatism lost the war of Northern agression.
The Civil War was the first major incident in the Leftists’ constant battle to make sure that nobody, anywhere, is doing something, anything, that they disapprove of. Benjamin Butler was one of the vilest scallawags that ever lived. His dishonesty was equalled only by his vulgarity. Of course, LIncoln had to claim that saving the Union was his true goal. He was already dealing with massive draft riots in Baltimore and New York City(!) by whites who could see no reason to die so some blackamoors could compete with them for jobs. The Radical Republicans were simply anti-white. They used southern blacks as cats-paws in their attempt to enslave southern whites. Not much has changed, as Affirmative Action demonstrates.
Jacobite: “Benjamin Butler was one of the vilest scallawags that ever lived. His dishonesty was equalled only by his vulgarity.” What did Ben Butler do that was so vile? Well, he’s guilty of 5 things, typically, in the history books:
1. He came up with the concept of the “contraband”. At the begining of the War, two different Union Generals jumped the gun and issued orders freeing some or all of the slaves in their areas. President Lincoln slapped both down, making them retract the orders, and insisting that such a move was his alone to make, when he thought the time right. However, during the campaigns in Virginia in 1862, the status quo became pretty frustrating to Union soldiers. The Confederates were using slaves to build fortifications opposite the Union forces. If one of the slaves escaped to the Union lines, as long as his owner wasn’t serving in the Confederate forces (and most large slaveholders weren’t) the owner could cross over into Union territory, and the Fugitive Slave Law required the Union army to return the slaves to him. The Yankees would see the same slave working on the fortifications the next day, often times. Under the rules of war, any item that could be used by an enemy was subject to being seized as “contraband of war” meaning that depriving the enemy of it was a legitimate act of war. Butler came up with the logical argument that if slaves weren’t people, couldn’t be citizens, and were property, then if they were working on fortifications, they could be seized as contraband, and not returned to their owners. This served to undermine slavery gradually, and (of course) outraged the Southerners, who after all weren’t fighting to defend slaver, or anything like that.
2. Was possibly corrupt in the management of New Orleans during the Union occupation, 1862-3. No one ever proved anything, and Butler went on to other commands, but his successor, Nathaniel Banks, supposedly turned down bribes that were offered to him as if they were expected, as if Butler had operated the administration like that while he was there. This led to one of Butler’s nicknames: “Spoons” because he supposedly stole lots of silverware from wealthy Louisiana homes.
3. The famous woman order. When New Orleans was occupied by Union troops in early 1862, Confederates didn’t want to accept that they’d so easily lost the fight for the city. Some Southern women took to assaulting Union soldiers in the street, hitting them with umbrellas, etc. One lady empted a chamber pot on Admiral Farragut’s head from a second story window. Since Victorian-era men were prohibited from physically resisting this sort of thing (you never struck a woman, regardless) Butler came up with a novel solution: he issued an order directing that any woman who “brought attention to herself” in this fashion would be arrested as a “woman of the streets plying her trade” or something to that effect. The shame of being arrested for prostitution, even if the accusation was false, was so great that the ladies stayed in doors and avoided the Yankees. This order led to his other nickname: “The Beast”. The rest of the South was greatly outraged, though, of course.
4. He was famously ugly. Google him and look at the picture if you don’t believe me. Sort of a cross between Dennis Franz and an angry bullfrog.
5. This is the worst. He was the Federal official who was earliest and most enthusiastic about the idea of recruiting ex-slaves into the army, arming them, and setting them to fight their former masters. The Confederates, of course, were horrified by this, and typically threatened to re-enslave any black soldiers they captured (regardless of their status prior to enlistment) and execute any officers leading black troops for “inciting slave rebellion.” Because in neo-Confederate cloud-cuckoo-land, the Civil War wasn’t about slavery, this part of the story usually gets left out or glossed over, but it actually was a big part of why the Rebs at the time were so energized about Butler.
Oh, and famously Butler experimented with Gatling guns in the last days of the Civil War. Not a good strategist or tactician (he bungled the Bermuda Hundred attack about as badly as you could) but an interesting mind, perhaps a bit corrupt, but clever nevertheless.
In short, a bit of a character, and homely…but vile and so forth? Not so much.
To Johann and also Suzanne. Thank you Johann for your comment. History has much been covered up about the lead up to and the war between the states. History is no longer taught truthfully. The heroes are always the North that won a “war” against it’s own people. The enemy is always the stupid ignorant white of the South. The “Slave” owner shall I say. What history does not tell you is the South was made up of everyday people that owned no slaves, had very little property and worked and bartered for their living. Plantation owners did not live in every house or shack in the Southern US. In the general population they were minor. History chooses to portray these plantation/slave owners as the face of the South and they were not. I could go on Suzanne, but Johann give a small clue to the North’s treatment of the South. Also, the Southern USA was occupied territory for many years. The devastation wreaked on the south was not as kind to the people as current day occupations. Laws implemented by the Federal government to punish the South lasted through the 1950′s. You cannot erase history, but you can change history by the way you word your books about history.
Johann wrote “The most notorius prison for captured soldiers was located in Chicago’s Fort Doughlas where Confederate POWs were starved and tortured for the delight of the Chicago public.”
Hmmmm, and now the guvment schools have created this myth about a place called Andersonville? What rock did you crawl out from?
The “bloody shirt” has become the “bloody” race card.
And you are the Racist.
“OH”;
You’re the perfect example. Keep up the good work.
Didn’t Jesse Jackson wipe is hands in MLK’s blood and then on his shirt and then go on TV with the shirt to make it seem he was standing next to King when he was shot? That’s what I always think of when I hear that term–not of a martyr, but a self promoting huckster.
Ha! I heard about that incident in a song by Frank Zappa! (“Rhymin’ Man” on the album “Broadway the Hard Way.”) I thought Frank was joking! Later, I found out it was another of Jessie’s legendary moves.
Ol’ Frank was a lot more on the ball than a lot of folks back in the day. . . .who can forget the classic satire of “Gregory Peccary”?
Although we have come to remember the Civil War as “Blue v. Gray”, there were no standardized colors at the beginning of the war. Yes, the federal forces (Army, Navy, Marines) had standardized government supplied uniforms, but the majority of the forces raised in the early years of the war were either state militia that existed pre-war, or state organized (and sometimes privately raised) “regiments” that were inducted into state service. As non-federal troops, there was no requirement for units to be outfitted with War Department schedule approved uniforms and equipment.
As the war dragged on, the cost and availability of “federal” uniforms led to the mass adoption of the standard union dark blue coat, lighter blue trousers. For a variety of cost and manufacturing reasons, the so called “butternut” (brown or khaki) became the de facto standard for confederate soldiers. This rough cloth was easier to produce since it did not require much finishing.
Pre-war uniforms were often not rugged enough for constant field service. They often proved to be hot in summer and cold in winter. As to be expected, soldiers, being practical, adapted as best as they could.
Also, most state militia uniforms were gray. This is why the Confederates chose it for their official uniform color. There actually were more Union troops at the Battle of Bull Run (1861) wearing gray uniforms, than there were Confederates. There even were a few Confederate regiments uniformed in blue. Famously, one of them marched up to the right flank of the Union line at a crucial point in the fighting, wasn’t fired on because the Union officers assumed it was friendly, and then attacked and helped rout the Union forces.
I would swear that I have seen references to ‘Waving the Bloody Shirt’ in referring to one of the French Revolutions. Or Garibaldi’s Italian revolution. And now that I think on it some more there might be some included reference to Garibaldi’s revolutionary ‘Red Shirts’.
“Patriot” always fail to mention atrocities committed by Northerners against Southerners, even before the war officially began. Look at the history of Maryland, for example.
Neo-Confederates: You whine worse than Arabs do about Israel. Your side lost. Get over it.
And your side “won”. The reward? The present Leviathan in DC. Nice work.
I guess you’d rather have slavery.
People like you make the entire conservative movement look bad.
Oh, history lesson. The Civil War ended in 1865. The New Deal, the beginnings of Fedzilla as a monster, came in 1933. There’s a bit of a gap there that you have to explain if you wanna blame the Northerners for Fedzilla.
I suppose then, that if the war of northern aggression hadn’t raped the south and burned Atlanta to the ground, we would still have slavery in the American south. And I also suppose, the loss of state sovereignty Saint Lincoln set in motion helped ensure no states could be defiant in the face of this new deal fedzilla.
“People like you make the entire conservative movement look bad.”
I beg to differ, sir. If you are really a Conservative, your grasp of history is very loose.
Go back and read a history book, instead of some silly piece of neo-Confederate propaganda. Whether we *would* have had slavery this far along, the South was determined to try and preserve their “peculiar institution.” The political leaders in the South were determined to strengthen the Southern States at the expense of the North as much as possible. The Gadsden Purchase, for instance, of an area of what’s now southern New Mexico and Arizona, was made largely because the area contained an east-west river valley through which Jefferson Davis (then Secretary of War) hoped that the first transcontinental railroad would be built. If the railroad crossed the continent from somewhere in the South, the economic benefits would be reaped by Southerners.
The South Carolina legislature, just after the Secession, composed and released a justification of their action, which clearly and explicitly states that the issue that was the center of everything was slavery. Yes, the South wanted to perpetuate it. There was often talk of conquering part or all of Latin America and turning the region into more slave states, to balance the Senate or maybe even tilt it in favor of the South. Cuba was often mentioned, and William Walker (the famous filibusterer in Nicaraugua) was trying to establish a country where slavery was legal, so he could then apply for statehood. Yeah, they were trying to continue, and if it had gone away, they’d have been upset.
“Owen
And your side “won”. The reward? The present Leviathan in DC. Nice work.”
Great reply Owen.
I was merely drawing attention to the smugness of Northerners on the topic of the War between the States. If that’s “whining,” then so be it.
This invokes a rule of mine, similar to “It ain’t braggin’ if you can do it” to wit: “It ain’t smugness, if you’re right.” Slavery was evil. Trying to argue about it like this is open to debate is just wrong. It’s not like this is hard to figure out. It didn’t work economically, it was morally repulsive, and should have been criminal. Whatever else the Federal Government did in the 19th, or 20th Centuries, abolishing the institution that kidnapped people, carried them thousands of miles from home, worked them as forced laborers with no reward, and bought and sold them like cattle…well that was a very good thing. Perhaps the New Deal and the creep of Federal bureaucracy into the rest of our lives since is onerous, but it’s *NOTHING* compared to what was done to black people during the first 80 years or so of our country’s history. Trying to argue that this isn’t so is pathetic.
No one is arguing for slavery, or that slavery was morally good. Personally, I wish no one had ever set foot in this country as a slave.
Once again, I wish to draw attention to the smug, self-regarding ways in which many Northerners speak of Southerners concerning the Civil War.
You’re trying to act as if Northerners are “smug” because their ancestors destroyed slavery. The Confederacy was devoted to the institution, and as I noted elsewhere in these comments, the South Carolina Legislature, explaining their reasoning for seccession, explicitly singled out keeping slavery legal as the motivation. The war wasn’t about anything else. The South has tried repeatedly to obscure this fact, but it’s the case and shouldn’t be forgotten, regardless.
I’ll agree with you that it would have been better if no one was ever enslaved (not only here but everywhere). I think however that it’s reasonable to honor those who fought and died to drive the institution out of our country–it was a worthy goal, and many of the Union participants were quite conscious of what they were doing and why. I’ll grant you that there were a lot of Union soldiers fighting for the more ephemeral concept of “the Union”, but there also were abolitionists, many of them. Two famous ones (both killed in battle) are Charles Russel Lowell, and his brother-in-law Robert Gould Shaw. Both went into battle pretty much knowing they would be killed, but both were such abolitionists that they were willing to sacrifice their lives to participate in the end of slavery. I’m not sure why honoring their sacrifice is “smug”. I do know that I honor their sacrifice, anyway.
Those who want to read a really provocative account of Lincoln and the first two years of the Civil War should pick up William Safire’s “Freedom.” It’s a novel, but as exhaustively researched as any work of nonfiction; in fact, probably far more than most. Safire, btw, thought Lincoln bent the constitution unjustifiably.
Safire’s book “Freedom” has always been a bit of a puzzle to me. I didn’t particularly like the portrait of Lincoln (I didn’t like Vidal’s, either) and I especially found two portions of the book annoying. He turns Belle Boyd into a dominatrix (!) and has her whipping Union army secrets out of Henry Wilson (a U.S. Senator who has come down through history as a radical abolitionist, and therefore must be regarded as the ultimate evil) and he ascribes the success of Grant’s Henry-Donelson campaign in 1862 to a female political operative whose name escapes me. Safire mentions briefly that she had been a Know-Nothing, without mentioning their vile politics, and has her devising this campaign and then pass on the idea to Grant, who of course uses it and never acknowledges her contribution (she’s a woman, and he’s a sexist man, so of course). The idea that she *could* do this, and that anyone would have listened to her had she been capable of doing it, is more than a bit silly. As a result I didn’t think much of the book, especially as history. I seriously doubt Belle Boyd wielded a riding crop to get Union army secrets, for instance!
There’s a reason it’s called fiction. He gets to make things up.
The damage to American society was not the war, it was Reconstruction.
Lincoln, Grant and Sherman had a plan to avoid it. (Stanton, Secretary of War seems to have been pointedly excluded.) Once the CSA forces surrendered, if 10% of the total population of any confederate state swore a very mild loyalty oath, agreeing to no slavery and no secession, then status quo ante. And the whole thing was to be accomplished while Congress was in recess.
I rather imagine that Uncle Billy came up with the idea, Lincoln signed on to it readily and Grant took another drink and said “(Hic) sounds good to me.”
Had it not been for John Wilkes Booth, we would have had a much better post bellum history than we have had.
Oh, and may I take the liberty of mentioning a certain ancestor of mine? He was a Virginia businessman and an outspoken abolitionist. He is better known as A. P. Hill, Lieutenant General CSA.
I’ve never heard that A.P. Hill was any sort of abolitionist, let alone an outspoken one. He was a very good general, but from what I’ve read rather quite and unassuming in character (his one bit of flamboyance being the red shirt he wore when he thought there was going to be a fight). I would say that the Virginia soldier who was an outspoken abolitionist was George H. Thomas, the closest Confederate to abolitionism being Patrick Cleburne of Arkansas (and originally County Cork, Ireland).
I agree with you though about the 10% plan, though I seriously doubt “Uncle Billy” concocted it. He was way too apolitical to have bothered, and it’s generally ascribed to Lincoln. Grant was uninterested in the political aspects of the war, at least until the shooting stopped; he and Sherman had a hard-headed view of the war and what it would take to win it. Regardless, Lincoln might have gotten it past a Radical Congress, but Johnson, a Unionist Southern Democrat, had no chance at all.
Powell certainly was an abolitionist. Now for a pro-slavery general, look no farther than George McClellan. Por-slaver and anti-secession. What a loser. O f course you could say he was the best General the south ever had.
The Zouave in the early US Civil War was patterned after French troops of North African origen, famous not only for their short jackets and baggy red pantaloons, but for their ferocity on the battlefield. In their way, they were the 1860′s infantry equivilent of Seal Team 6, and every red blooded American wanted to be just like them. The Fire Zouaves were only one of many such unbits, and there existed Zouave regiments in the south as well, especially from Louisianna.
Lest we forget, the party of seccession and slavery in the run-up to April 12, 1861 was and always will be the Democrat Party. That the Democrat Party has attempted to disguise that is understandable; they are still the party of slavery, only now their titular slaves are the minority votors who are in bondage to the largess promised them, so neatly spelled out in the language of the 1965 Civil Rights Act.
Ben Butler was a Democrat, by the way. An influential, Northern Democrat. Which is why Grant could not get rid of him after he totally screwed the pooch in the initial assault on lightly held Petersburg in June 1864.
Secessionists were mostly Democrats, but some southern Whigs joined in too. Confederate VP Alex Stephens had been a Whig colleague and good friend of Abraham Lincoln when they were both U.S. Representatives in 1847-1849.
But there were plenty of Union Democrats, too. When Lincoln had composed his proclamation of a state of rebellion, and call for 75,000 troops, he asked his old adversary Stephen Douglas to look it over. Douglas told him it was fine – but he thought Lincoln should call for 200,000 troops. Lincoln himself remarked later that if he was to get rid of all the officers who were Democrats, he would hardly have an army left.
Butler was a Democrat – at the 1860 convention he voted 57 times for the nomination of Jefferson Davis (nobody else did, though). But he committed himself completely to the Union cause, though it took Southerners a while to realize that.
He commanded the land forces in the New Orleans expedition; and at least one Confederate leader wrote that proved the expedition was a feint: “A ‘Black Republican’ dynasty will never give an old Breckenridge Democrat like Butler command of any expedition which they had any idea would result in such a glorious success as the capture of New Orleans.” They soon learned how much Butler had adapted.
He did not fumble the attack on Petersburg – that was Baldy Smith, and also Meade. He did however fumble the Bermuda Hundred expedition, and narrowly avoided losing his entire force. Lincoln and Grant wanted to get rid of him, but he had become very influential in the Radical wing of the Republican Party, and if not otherwise engaged might have tried to get the 1864 Republican nomination.
After the war he was a “Radical Republican”, helping lead the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, and then branched out into proto-populism with the Greenback Party.
For all of you that think slavery was so rampant in the Southern States and Confederacy, you need a more comprehensive history lesson. Slavery was such a viable, lucrative enterprise, the blacks/Africans were the most prolific traders in the commodity.
See:
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/slavetra.html
Another book is “Backfire”, by Bob Zelnick, which is rich in research and data. (And has other metaphors for “The Bloody Shirt” that are more current in U.S. History.)
But, I know there are too many that will not let data, research, facts, nor history influence a solid opinion that feels good and works to intimidate so well. (And has become worth so much in cash and benefits).
After all, look what the “race industry” has done for “blacks” in America; It has installed a representative in the White House; The highest ranking government job in the land! Even though that representative is a cheap imitation of any true black slave descendant. And I’d venture a hypothesis, that, researching the Obama Sr.’s history and lineage, there’s involvement in slave trading in his ancestry.
You are the most racist pile of crap on this site!
Have a Happy Juneteenth!
With that statement, you must think I’m responsible for the items in HISTORY I cite; My going away will never change those facts.
The above reply was directed to “OH that”.
I’m not sure what the purpose of this post is. Slavery was widespread in some Southern states prior to 1860. There were several states (Alabama and Mississippi come to mind off the top of my head) that had slave populations larger than their white, free populations. Yes, I know that not that many Southerners owned slaves. I also know that a lot of Southerners didn’t particularly want to fight to defend slavery either, something most Southerners now try to forget. Some actively resisted. A number of “sons of the South” fought in the Union Army during the war, in spite of where they were born, including George H. Thomas, David G. Farragut, John Gibbon, John C. Fremont, and Benjamin “Grimes” Davis (this last a cousin of the Confederate President).
Your comment on the “race industry” while not completely off the mark doesn’t really make much sense. Are you implying that we’d be better off if the Rebs had won the war, and there had been no Civil Rights Movement, because blacks were never freed? Or are you somehow trying to say that if the South was left in charge of things, they somehow would have freed the slaves in a more sympathetic fashion, so that blacks would be better off today? Whichever opinion you’re trying to put forward, it looks confused and ill-informed to me. Yes, we’ve had race problems, and yes the wrenching shock that was the Civil War started them, for the most part. So what? Social change as profound as emancipating all the slaves and then eliminating the barriers that were formerly placed in their path is bound to cause some upheaval. Acting like it wouldn’t is rather confused, at best.
As for whether Obama’s father was involved in slavery…so what? He wouldn’t be the first president to have such a background. Hell, back in the day some Presidents actually owned slaves themselves. You can hardly attack Obama for *perhaps* being the descendant of slave-owners, without any evidence that his ancestors actually were, and give George Washington, Madison, Monroe, Andrew Jackson, etc., a free pass. Stick to how he’s screwed up the economy, you’ll get more traction there.
Knights of the Golden Circle were the rabble-rousers promoting a great slave-owning empire down to Tierra del Fuego. They made their recruits in the South
but their financing, command and control, etc seems to have been in the North and/or Europe. Main tool of recruitment ws fear of slave uprisings first, perpetuating slavery second.
Down in Texas, Sam Houston proposed that Texas secede from the secession. Declare itself once again an independent republic. Something that neither Lincoln nor Davis could have done anything about. And nobody would pay Big Sam a lick of attention. Shows the emotionalism that had been stirred up and why reason was not going to prevail in 1861.
You don’t confuse me with your mental girations; The post was very straight forward, and I even cite references.
Sorry if it was too complex for you.
The above reply was directed to David W. Nicholas.
I still always think of Reza Aslan when I hear the term ‘bloody shirt.’ He should have quit while he was ahead.
So, violating free speech rights by governmental officials was common even then. My, how things fail to change.
Lincoln was a thug. His minions were thugs, too.
I do not consider Lincoln a thug. An airhead, yes but a thug no. What he and many others refused to recognize was the fact that a federal union cannot be kept intact by force of arms if and when somebody wants to leave it. To secede simply means “I no longer desire to continue this association with you and will take my leave”. It is a natural right of all human beings. The great shortcoming of the constiutuion was that it failed to make provision for how to do this. So to “save the Union” by force is the same as “saving the marriage” by outlawing divorce. Whatever is left ain’t what you are calling it.
In addition to that, Lincoln, again along with many others, signed on to the unspoken belief that the mere existence of a central government meant that said government was to be immune from challenge.
Last but not least, Lincoln’s economic beliefs approached Marxist standards at times. This blinded him, again along with so many others, as to what kept slave labor showing nominal black ink. After all the slave trade had already become a one-way ticket to bankruptcy. So what was keeping slave labor (sort of) profitable. Answer: government sponsored and enabled suppression of competing methods.
In Texas, Hill Country Germans were out-producing East Texas slave plantations and doing it on much poorer land. Astute abolitionists would have insisted on learning from this and behaving accordingly. There were damned few astute abolitionists. The abolitionist movement was by this time defined by those who wanted slave owners punished never mind whether or not the insitution was eliminated. Same attitude is seen today when any and all pro-Confederacy sentiments are denounced as being pro-slavery.
Try to extract your craniums from your rectums folks.
Finally I must note that Congress met and declared a State of Insurrection and Rebellion in the confedrate states. Thaey should not have done that but they did. This gave Lincoln the same powers that a Declaration of War against a foreign country would give. Thus Lincoln’s suppression of dissent was consitutionally proper. I will add that he showed a pretty deft touch in how he went about it. This contained and reduced damage and most important of all, it did not outlive the war. A less adroit and resoluted President would have created nationwide reconstruction post bellum. Means the scrufulous damnyankee showed redeeming qualities after all.
In the South, Jefferson Davis did not need to suppress dissent. Vigilantes took care of that for him. Different set of cultural mores. ‘Nuff said.