Posted on 07/04/2019 7:04:21 AM PDT by Antoninus
One of the advantages of the present media-driven furor to remove or demolish monuments to the Confederacy is that it is forcing numerous Americans, myself included, to dig deep into the history of the Civil War. And what a strange, convoluted period of history it is! The primary sources are plentiful, rich and deep which makes for endlessly fascinating reading. If the aim of the iconoclasts was to push this period of history even further from the national consciousness, or gloss over it with cherry-picked anecdotes allowing for knee-jerk verdicts, they have failed miserably.
For my own part, I have started looking into the lives and characters of the generals of the Confederacy—and a more intriguing group of characters is seldom to be found. Having done some research into the Cherokee Confederate general, Stand Watie, I next moved on to another atypical rebel officer, General James Longstreet. As I was doing so, CNN published an article asking the question: “Where are the monuments to Confederate Gen. James Longstreet?” It's an interesting question. In truth, there are two that I was able to find. One at Gettysburg, and another in Gainesville, Georgia. Given his bio, however, the man deserves more recognition.
Most people’s familiarity with Longstreet stems from his role as Lee’s second-in-command at Gettysburg, and thus his prominent place in popular historical entertainment such as the movie Gettysburg and Michael Shaara’s novel, The Killer Angels upon which the movie was based. Longstreet’s virtues and flaws as a military leader have long been the subject of spirited debate. But his career on the battlefield is not primarily what interests me here. Longstreet’s life after the war is, if possible, even more interesting than his deeds as Lee’s lieutenant.
During Reconstruction, Longstreet became a pariah to his southern compatriots. In the election of 1868, Longstreet endorsed his old friend from West Point, Ulysses S. Grant, and became a Republican. After winning the election, Grant appointed Longstreet to a customs position in New Orleans, and he was subsequently made a general in charge of the Louisiana state militia. As a result, he was ostracized by many in the South, who considered him a scalawag and a collaborator with carpet-bagging Union profiteers.
It was in his role as head of the Louisiana militia that Longstreet participated in an action that caused his name to be blackened even further within former-Confederate circles. Following a contested election in 1874, a Democrat mob known as the White League attempted to remove the Republican administration from New Orleans by force. Descending on the city in numbers greater than 5,000, they were confronted by a smaller number of largely Black police and militia headed by General Longstreet. As the two sides lined up for battle, Longstreet rode out to meet the rioters in an attempt to quell the matter before the sides came to blows. One White League leader later claimed that it was only with the greatest difficulty that he restrained his men from shooting Longstreet dead on the spot. Instead, they pulled him from his horse and took him prisoner. In the resulting fight, known to history as the Battle of Liberty Place, the White League caused Longstreet’s men to retreat, with about 100 dead and injured on both sides.
Federal troops were later called in to suppress the White League, free Longstreet and restore order. But Longstreet’s days as a military officer were now over, and his role in the affair attracted even more vituperation from those still attached to the Lost Cause. This rancor from his countrymen wounded him. In 1877, he had a religious awakening, as recorded in the book, Lee and Longstreet at High Tide (1904), by his wife, Helen Dortch Longstreet:
“General Longstreet was a most devout churchman. In early life he was an Episcopalian, and he regularly attended that church in New Orleans until the political differences developed between himself and his friends. After that he noticed that even his church associates avoided him. They would not sit in the same pew with him. Cut to the quick by such treatment, he began to wonder if there was any church broad enough to withstand the differences caused by political and sectional feeling. He discovered that the Roman Catholic priests extended him the treatment he longed for. He began to attend that church, and has said that its atmosphere from the first appealed to him as the church of the sorrow-laden of earth. He was converted under the ministration of Father Ryan. After accepting the faith of the Catholic Church he followed it with beautiful devotion. He regarded it as the compensation sent him by the Almighty for doing his duty as he saw it. He clung to it as the best consolation there was in life. He went to his duties as devoutly as any priest of the church, and was on his knees night and morning, with the simple, loving faith of a little child.” [Lee and Longstreet at High Tide, page 118]
Longstreet passed away of cancer in 1904 at the age of 82. He was buried in Gainesville, Georgia where the impressive statue shown above may be found today. By the time of his death, any animosity his Confederate comrades had felt for him was gone. Newspaper reports of the funeral service mentioned vast throngs of mourners arriving to pay their last respects. Lavish tributes to Longstreet poured in from all corners of the country. Following the funeral Mass, an oration was given by Bishop Joseph Keily of Savannah, Georgia who had fought under Longstreet during the Civil War. In that eulogy, Bishop Keily gave the man a fitting tribute, saying:
“Having passed the span which Providence ordinarily allots as the term of human life, General James Longstreet has answered the roll-call of the great God. What a brilliant page in history is filled with his grand career….When the Southern States withdrew from the Union by reason of attacks on their reserved rights which were guaranteed by the Constitution, and were forced into the war between the States, James Longstreet offered his services and sword to the cause of self-government. No history of the war may be written which does not bear emblazoned on every page the story of his deeds…“It is my duty as a priest of God to call your attention to the obvious lesson of this occasion—the vanity of mere earthly greatness and the certainty of death and the necessity of preparation for it. James Longstreet was a brave soldier, a gallant gentleman, but better still—a consistent Christian. After the war between the States, he became a member of the Catholic Church, and to his dying day remained faithful to her teaching and loyal to her creed…” [Lee and Longstreet at High Tide, page 219]
This seemed to sum up Longstreet in a nutshell. He was a man disappointed by political creeds offered to ephemeral temporal powers, who found fulfillment in loyalty to an eternal creed professed to an everlasting power.
By way of a postscript, I will mention the two extraordinary women in General Longstreet’s life. His first wife, Maria Louisa Garland Longstreet, passed away in 1890 after 40 years of marriage and 10 children. Surprisingly, he married again in 1897 at the age of 76 to Helen Dortch Longstreet. It was Helen who recorded many anecdotes about the general in the abovementioned book, Lee and Longstreet at High Tide. Interestingly, Helen lived to be nearly 100 years old, surviving until 1962 – a full century after her husband’s famous exploits during the Civil War.
These are truly amazing people worthy of remembrance.
The Thomas Freeborn might not have been armed at this point, but it was certainly armed by the end of the month, because I have read reports of it firing it's cannon in the later part of April.
And you do not consider this a protection for slavery?
Slavery was not “Protected” in the Constitution. It was recognized as existing. If slavery was “protected” then there would have been no “free states”
I have argued before that there essentially wasn't, and that people just pretended they had the authority to ban slavery in their states, when they did not really have this authority.
They could declare that their own laws banned the creation of slaves in their states, but they could do nothing about the creation of slaves in other states by their laws, and they could not rightfully preclude people in other states from bringing their slaves into any state in the union and working them as they saw fit.
This is effectively an unwritten breaking of the privileges and immunities clause, and they should not have been allowed to do it.
Transferring an entire Corp between VA and TN took almost every rail car and engine in the CSA. Many consider this action to be the first rudimentary form of mechanized warfare, ever.
Lee and Longstreet got along fine after Gettysburg. Generals argue all the time but still faithfully execute battle plans.
But it is not a “warship”. A cargo ship, not armed with naval ordnance is just that, a cargo ship. Even if it is carrying troops and munitions. Baltic was a chartered cargo ship, she was not armed with naval ordnance, therefore, not a warship. Your opinion doesn’t count. No navy in the world at that time would have labeled the Baltic a “warship”.
It does not make a difference when Thomas Freeborn was armed with naval guns. At the time of she was charter for the voyage to Charleston, she was an unarmed civilian steam powered tug. She was armed after she was purchased by the United States Navy.
“people just pretended they had the authority to ban slavery in their states, when they did not really have this authority.”
The Chief Justice Roger Taney would disagree. In his decision on Scott v. Sanford he often refers to “free states”.
Yes, a state could outlaw slave ownership by citizens of that state in that state. The 1860 census lists 19 states with “0” slaves in the state. A person who owned a slave could go to a “free” state, take the slave with him, conduct his business, then leave the state. That was legal. What he could not do is be a citizen of the state of New Hampshire and own a slave in and keep that slave in that state. He could live in New Hampshire and legally own hundreds of slaves in Alabama, that was legal.
Unwritten anything does not have the standing of law. Whether it should be allowed is just a private opinion and has no standing in law in the United States.
The only point of significance was whether she was intended for a belligerent purpose, and that answer is clearly "yes."
It does not make a difference when Thomas Freeborn was armed with naval guns. At the time of she was charter for the voyage to Charleston, she was an unarmed civilian steam powered tug. She was armed after she was purchased by the United States Navy.
I do not know for a fact that she wasn't armed before the Charleston mission. I do know for a fact she was armed shortly thereafter, and so she may have been armed before.
I do think you make a good argument that she wasn't, but it is not the same things as proof that she wasn't. She probably wasn't, but it isn't yet established as something I would consider a fact.
I'm with you so far.
What he could not do is be a citizen of the state of New Hampshire and own a slave in and keep that slave in that state.
Still agree here.
And then you don't address the example of which I am thinking. Being a citizen of another state, and bringing your slaves into a "free" state to work there, as George Washington did.
By 1860 it would have been illegal for Washington do have done this. Pennsylvania act abolishing slavery was passed in 1790. It called for a gradual emancipation of the slaves in that state. Washington died in 1799. By 1810 there were 795 slaves in the state. By 1850 that number had dropped to 64. The 1860 census shows that there were zero slaves in the state.
I disagree. To ban slaveowners from bringing their slaves into a state is a violation of the privileges and immunities clause.
What privileges citizens enjoyed in 1787 cannot be changed by unilateral decree of a single state. Since they had the right to bring in slaves in 1787, to subsequently deny them that right is a violation.
He could bring them there, conduct his business, then leave with them. He could not reside in the state with slaves.
We will all grow old and die waiting for you to do that.
Could he do so in 1787? If yes, then they cannot forbid it subsequently.
That was the agreement when the constitution was written. Changing the agreement without permission from the other signatories is illegal. It's a form of "secession".
People like their history to be satisfying to them, whether it be accurate or not.
Okay, once again, diplomacy fails.
So here’s another proposal: I’ll go and find this “help” if you’ll try reading a book or two, or just sit through a lecture. Actually, forget the books, you obviously have issues with reading. A lecture it is; just one or two of those.
What do you say? Please be specific as to the ‘help’ you seem to think I need.
And while you’re at it, look for something called a ‘sense of humor;’ you’ll have to go off campus a block or two to find one. Acquiring one of those would make you much more pleasant.
Your humble and obedient servant,
Bud
In 1787 Yes. Was Washington a citizen of the State of Pennsylvania. Was Washington a resident of the State of Pennsylvania? The law took over 50 years to fully implement. By 1860 there were no slaves in the state of Pennsylvania. Show me the Federal Court cases that ruled against the actions of that state. Show me the Supreme Court decision that said the Pennsylvania law was unconstitutional.
It must require the majority of all the states to change the meaning of a constitutional clause. One state cannot unilaterally decide they want to revoke a specific privilege that was agreed to in 1787.
Show me where the Pennsylvania law was found unconstitutional.
You and I must have a completely different philosophy about constitutional interpretation. I don't need a court to tell me what it means. I can read for myself.
My first thoughts are never "what does the court have to say about this?" My first thoughts are always, "What does this mean in accordance with the laws and practices of the time?"
You’re side lost. End of story.
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.