Posted on 03/06/2010 2:27:46 PM PST by BigReb555
Who was Gen. Patrick R. Cleburne?
Johnston was West Point. Bragg had been West Point. The corps commanders - Hardee, Hood, Hill, Lee, Stewart, Polk - were West Point. The majority of his division commander peers were West Point. Like the Union Army, rising above the division level without the West Point credentials was difficult.
It was crafted to free those slaves that Lincoln could legally free.
I didnt realize that Lee supported voluntary colonization. Lincoln also supported the colonization movement during his political career.
And Lincoln is generally painted as a racist because of it.
There were several hundred thousand examples who joined the Union army.
The "Emancipation Proclamation" was a political stunt. Nothing more.
Then it was a very effective one.
Only the Lost Causers who call themselves conservatives.
BTW, the South was only an "insurrection" in Northern minds.
And the minds of the rest of the world, since none of them ever recognized confederate independence.
They were advocating joining an armed rebellion currently being waged against the government. The term for that, I believe, is treason.
When Cleburnes body was removed from the Franklin Battlefield in 1866, his body went by rail South to Mussel Shoals, AL, and then West to Corinth where his body laid in State for a day for honors, and then resumed the trek to Helena.
I live within a mile or two from where Cleburne fell.
I go by there daily going up Columbia Pike into Franklin.
My boys know the history too, I make sure of it.
it's a sickness....a candid discussion on slavery and black culture life between here and back in mother Africa is aways interesting
as well as just how free anyone was back then outside the US but especially back in primitive tribal chieftain west Africa
but having said all that....how Grant and Lee treated the slaves they both inherited seems to depend on whose account is reading and what their bias is
All that said....Cleburne was a remarkable field commander and struck fear in the hearts of Federals who faced him...much like Forrest..he was underutilized by Jeff Davis who should have known better.
Lincoln supported colonization while president.
I’ll say it’s lost to history. I’ve been unable to find any references to it at all. The common perception is that the Siege of Corinth was marked primarily by the evacuation of the southern armies. I’ve been unable to find any reference to such a battle at all.
There’s a Shelton House near a battlefield, but it’s in Virginia.
The situation you describe is extraordinarily odd, if true, since Pope was called east within weeks and given the Army of Virginia, which would be strange for a guy who just suffered an ignominious defeat.
The Union had so many battles to be embarassed about I wonder why they’d choose this one to do a coverup on. Chancellorsville or Second Manassas might seem a better choice.
I assume you have references for this secret battle?
If this is a fact, you should have no problem posting a reference to prove it.
I at least did some research, even if on a site of which you disapprove. You have merely asserted your claims are fact without proving it.
I’ve seen this claim made before, but I’ve yet to see any proof.
Before you go slandering a dead First Lady, perhaps you could provide some documentation.
By modern standards, he was a racist.
Depends on your definition of "free," I guess.
From the Galveston Daily News, June 20, 1865, about the actions in Galveston of the Federal Provost Marshal-General for the state of Texas, Lt. Colonel R. G. Laughlin, 13th army corps:
He [Laughlin] requested the Mayor to say to the citizens that they should meet with the fullest protection in both person and property ... that negroes fleeing from the country to this city would not be allowed to live in idleness or become a burthen [their spelling] to the people, that they would be arrested as they arrived, and forced to work on fortifications or be put to other labor. ... The Mayor said that it had been his rule to send all such negroes home, but as the United States authorities were now here he would consult them ... The Provost Marshal General said, it might be very well to send them to their homes, but as he had work for them to do, he would send them, for the present, to the Quartermaster for employment. This was accordingly done, but the Quartermaster having no immediate work for them, sent them to jail for safe-keeping till he should want them. We mention this as an indication of the policy our Government is now pursuing in relation to runaway negroes.
That is consistent with General Orders, No. 3, the Juneteenth order. It said in part, "The Freedmen are advised to remain at their present homes, and work for wages. They are informed that they will not be allowed to collect at military posts; and they will not be supported in idleness either there or elsewhere."
If memory serves me correctly, later that summer the federal army encouraged/ordered former slaves to stay on their plantations. I think the army recognized that there would be a serious food problem in Texas if former slaves did not stay on their plantations and farms and produce food.
The argument that it was necessary to keep blacks on the plantations and farms to ensure food production was also a key argument used against enrolling slaves in the Confederate Army. From the Richmond Daily Dispatch of November 9, 1864 in part of their argument against enrolling slaves in the army:
Armies must be fed, and in order to feed them, crops must be made. The negroes are our agricultural laborers. Take them from farmwork, and you destroy the army more effectually than Grant can do it with a million of men to back he has in the field.
Then, of course, there was the Federal conscription of the former slaves during the war. See my old posts from the Official Records: Link 1 and Link 2.
Well, that came out of left field. I don’t suppose you have any reference for that, do you? Other than gossip and prejudice?
So it’s not kosher for me to use a source you claim is overly friendly to Lincoln as a reference, but it is ok for you to use a book specifically written as a polemic to justify secession.
Doesn’t that seem even the slightest bit unfair to you?
I don’t have access to the book. Do you have something on the web?
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.