Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gen. Patrick R. Cleburne—Stonewall Jackson of the West
Huntington News ^ | March 6, 2010 | Calvin E. Johnson, Jr.

Posted on 03/06/2010 2:27:46 PM PST by BigReb555

Who was Gen. Patrick R. Cleburne?


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: civilwar; cleburne; confederacy; confederate; irish; robertelee; slave; slavery; south; southern; warbetweenthestates
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-102 next last
To: gthog61
How come any post regarding the Civil War always brings forth the back-and-forth about who was holier about slavery?

I'm not saying one was holier than the other concerning slavery. I'm correcting a statement made which is false. Why are you so touchy about the truth?

21 posted on 03/06/2010 3:20:08 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000
unlike Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, Lee actually emancipated some slaves...

By the time of his murder, Lincoln had by means of the EP emancipated something upwards of 3M slaves, more than any other person in history. With possible exception of Tsar Alexander II, depending on how you define slavery. (They murdered him, too.)

Of course, the EP didn't by itself directly and instantly free any slaves. How could any proclamation do so? But the Union Army's enforcement of the EP did a dandy job.

22 posted on 03/06/2010 3:21:11 PM PST by Sherman Logan ( .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000
So, unlike Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, Lee actually emancipated some slaves...

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation freed hundreds of thousands of slaves. They just had to wait for the Union army to arrive.

Lee freed slaves off and on during his life. Lee was also a supporter of voluntary colonization of freed slaves to Africa. He paid passage for some of his, which was to their benefit since Virginia's constitution at the time said that any slave freed had to leave the state or be sold back into slavery.

23 posted on 03/06/2010 3:22:42 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: yarddog
I have not personally researched the issue but it has been discussed on this forum enough that I know that your take is in error.

Tis not a very convincing argument.

24 posted on 03/06/2010 3:37:34 PM PST by LoneRangerMassachusetts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BigReb555; Harold Shea; Reagan Man; JLAGRAYFOX; Virginia Ridgerunner; Non-Sequitur

25 posted on 03/06/2010 3:37:38 PM PST by Fiji Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gthog61

As you say, the northern states don’t have a tremendous amount of right to be all self-righteous about this issue.

When each northern state passed emancipation, the black population dropped dramatically by the time it went into effect.

Why? Because most of the slaves were sold south by their owners before the law could free them.

Lincoln himself said that both sections shared guilt for the crime and sin of slavery. The big difference (prior to the war) was that the north wanted to limit the expansion of slavery, while the south wanted to expand it. In fact, a great many in the South were planning wars of conquest in Latin America to create a great Slave Empire.

It is one thing to say a great evil is difficult to get rid of. Certainly in 1860 it’s impossible to see how, given the attitudes of those involved, slavery could have been peacefully scheduled for extinction. But it’s quite another to claim that a great evil is actually a positive good and should be expanded.


26 posted on 03/06/2010 3:39:42 PM PST by Sherman Logan ( .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Maybe or maybe not. Craig Symonds certainly makes that argument in his book Stonewall of the West: Patrick Cleburne and the Civil War.

There weren't that many West Pointers in the Army of Tennessee, relative to the Army of Northern Virginia, who Cleburne had to compete with. Most of the West Pointers in that theater of the war had already fallen out with Davis. So Cleburne's failure to rise above Division Commander is inexplicable in my opinion, except for the bad impression he made within the Confederate High Command (Davis, Bragg, and Johnston) and the Confederate Congress with his written memorandum on the subject of allowing slaves to fight in exchange for their freedom.

Richard McMurray has a great book on the subject entitled Two Great Rebel Armies: An Essay in Confederate Military History

27 posted on 03/06/2010 3:45:52 PM PST by Virginia Ridgerunner (Sarah Palin has crossed the Rubicon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“That charge is often leveled but it probably is incorrect. Cleburne didn’t rise above division commander most likely because he wasn’t a West Pointer in an army where virtually all senior commanders were West Pointers.”

Who really knows for certain? The fact is that he took a real risk in taking that position and it did not help him. Jefferson Davis made mistake after mistake in the West. Braxton Bragg, John Bell Hood. The point is that Cleburne’s sentiments, which were well known long before he circulated the petition in early January 1864 did him a world of harm in advancing, and you can read the link below if you doubt it.

http://www.thewildgeese.com/pages/cleburne.html

The fact is that Cleburne was promoted in December 1862 to Major General (having been promoted to Brigadier General in March 1862) for his splendid efforts at Perryville and Shiloh. In January 1863, he performed brilliantly again at Stones River, superbly at Chicamauga in September and perhaps most critically in saving Bragg’s army at Missionary Ridge in November. Yet he was never promoted after December 1862. His meteoric rise stopped, and it certainly had nothing to do with his performance in battle. Maybe it was because he was not a West Pointer, but I think it had more to do with his views about black recruits for the Confederate Army becoming common knowledge at around the same time of the Emancipation Proclamation. The timing is just too coincidental.

I think it is easier to make the argument that Forrest’s lack of a West Point degree held him back, because he lacked any prior military experience whatsoever. Cleburne was a trained soldier and a veteran of the highly regarded British army. IN spite of his brilliance, Forrest rose much more slowly than Cleburne. After being promoted to Brigadier General in July 1862, it took him 18 months until December 1863 to attain the rank of Major General and another 13 months to attain the rank of LIeutenant General in January 1865.

Cleburne went from Colonel to Major General in nine months in 1862 and, for the remaining two years of his service until his death, was not promoted again. He wasn’t a West Pointer in 1862 but that did not seem to be holding him back.


28 posted on 03/06/2010 4:03:33 PM PST by Brices Crossroads (Politico and)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: JLAGRAYFOX

From what I’ve read, many, if not most, Americans at that time considered themselves Americans, but also citizens of their states more so than citizens of the U.S.


29 posted on 03/06/2010 4:05:08 PM PST by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Of course, the point was that it was carefully crafted to free no one at the time it was issued. I didn’t realize that Lee supported voluntary colonization. Lincoln also supported the colonization movement during his political career.


30 posted on 03/06/2010 4:27:25 PM PST by achilles2000 (Shouting "fire" in a burning building is doing everyone a favor...whether they like it or not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BigReb555

You trying to re-fight the Civil War?


31 posted on 03/06/2010 4:35:10 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
It should be noted that Lincoln had no legal or constitutional authority to make any changes to the system of slavery in the loyal states.

Again, revisionism. After Lousiana was captured by Federal troops, slaves were not freed. So much for the "war powers" nonsense. The constitutional authority under "war powers" does not extend to states. Lincoln wanted it both ways: the Southerners were "states" when he wanted them to be, and a foreign power when he didn't.

And while we are on the subject of "war powers" - is that what Licoln exercised when he placed the entire state assembly of Maryland in prison in Fort McHenry?
32 posted on 03/06/2010 4:38:23 PM PST by Tzfat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000
Of course, the point was that it was carefully crafted to free no one at the time it was issued.

Quite correct. That is because it was issued as a war measure against those in active rebellion at the time of issuance.

It could not have been otherwise.

You would perhaps prefer a country in which the president can confiscate the private property of law-abiding citizens whenever it pleases him to do so?

33 posted on 03/06/2010 4:39:40 PM PST by Sherman Logan ( .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation freed hundreds of thousands of slaves. They just had to wait for the Union army to arrive.

Really? Where. When the Federal troops arrived, were the slaves freed? I would like some examples please.

The "Emancipation Proclamation" was a political stunt. Nothing more.
34 posted on 03/06/2010 4:40:04 PM PST by Tzfat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Re-fighting the War Between the States again? ;-)

It could have been otherwise.


35 posted on 03/06/2010 4:41:56 PM PST by achilles2000 (Shouting "fire" in a burning building is doing everyone a favor...whether they like it or not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000
I didn’t realize that Lee supported voluntary colonization. Lincoln also supported the colonization movement during his political career.

It was a fairly mainstream position in the early 19th Century among those who found slavery distasteful but weren't ready or willing to do anything about it just then. Barely anyone except the wildest New England abolitionists were seriously talking about emancipation and integration.

36 posted on 03/06/2010 4:47:29 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Tzfat
The constitutional authority under "war powers" does not extend to states.

Au contraire.

Section 8: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

Of course, when the militia is suppressing insurrections it is under the command of the President. There is nothing in the Constitution to imply the president has fewer war powers to suppress an insurrection than to repel an invasion.

After Lousiana was captured by Federal troops, slaves were not freed.

The EP freed all LA slaves except those in the city of New Orleans and in 13 named parishes at the time under federal control.

Lincoln wanted it both ways: the Southerners were "states" when he wanted them to be, and a foreign power when he didn't.

As do CSA apologists. If the CSA was a foreign government, as it claimed and fought to uphold, it had no rights under the Constitution. The EP was fully valid as a means of injuring the foreign enemy. If the states were still part of the US, they were quite obviously in insurrection. Look, the Constitution is a very flexible document, but it isn't flexible enough to stretch around a civil war. Any attempt to do so results in a variety of legal fictions.

"war powers" - is that what Licoln exercised when he placed the entire state assembly of Maryland in prison in Fort McHenry?

Reference please. My research indicates that a grand total of 26 MD state legislators were imprisones at different times during the war, not the whole body. There was discussion of doing so within the government, but it wasn't carried out.

http://www.abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/Library/newsletter.asp?ID=108&CRLI=156

37 posted on 03/06/2010 4:56:09 PM PST by Sherman Logan ( .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Tzfat
Really? Where. When the Federal troops arrived, were the slaves freed? I would like some examples please.

Galveston, Texas. June 19, 1865. General Gordon Granger lands with 2000 men and issues General Order Number 3, stating that, "in accordance with a proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free."

Celebrated to this day as Juneteenth.

38 posted on 03/06/2010 4:58:36 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Brices Crossroads

That’s an excellent analysis of Cleburne’s career and the career wall that he hit in 1864. Thank you!


39 posted on 03/06/2010 6:04:53 PM PST by Virginia Ridgerunner (Sarah Palin has crossed the Rubicon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
Galveston, Texas. June 19, 1865

After the South surrendered? Big whoop.
40 posted on 03/06/2010 7:02:52 PM PST by Tzfat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-102 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson