 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! February 21, 2011 To go for a soldierBy GreyhawkJudge Leander Stillwell was only 64 years old when he retired from the bench...
A few years later he compiled his memoirs - not of his years on the bench, but rather of his youthful experiences as an enlisted soldier during the Civil War. His book begins... I was born September 16, 1843, on a farm, in Otter Creek precinct, Jersey County, Illinois. I was living with my parents, in the little old log house where I was born, when the Civil war began. The Confederates fired on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, and thus commenced the war. On April 15, 1861, President Lincoln issued a call for 75,000 men, to aid in putting down the existing rebellion. Illinois promptly furnished her quota, and in addition, thousands of men were turned away, for the reason that the complement of the State was complete, and there was no room for them. The soldiers under this call were mustered in for three months' service only, for the government then seemed to be of the opinion that the troubles would be over by the end of that time. But on May 3, 1861, Mr. Lincoln issued another call for volunteers, the number specified being a little over 42,000, and their term of service was fixed at three years, unless sooner discharged. The same call provided for a substantial increase in the regular army and navy. I did not enlist under either of these calls. As above stated, the belief then was almost universal throughout the North that the "war" would amount to nothing much but a summer frolic, and would be over by the 4th of July. We had the utmost confidence that Richmond would be taken by that time, and that Jeff Davis and his cabinet would be prisoners, or fugitives. But the battle of Bull Run, fought on July 21, 1861, gave the loyal people of the Nation a terrible awakening. The result of this battle was a crushing disappointment and a bitter mortification to all the friends of the Union. They realized then that a long and bloody struggle was before them.Which - I was surprised to read - he thought was all in all a good thing. But Bull Run was probably all for the best. Had it been a Union victory, and the Rebellion then been crushed, negro slavery would have been retained, and the "irrepressible conflict" would have been fought out likely in your time, with doubtless tenfold the loss of life and limb that ensued in the war of the sixties. The "your time" reference was to his son, who had requested the Judge set down his story in writing. But that certainly brings to mind a great historical "what if" - one that hadn't occurred to me before. It also serves to remind that while the South indeed went to war to preserve slavery, the North did so to preserve the Union. Few of those who felt "that it was the duty of every young fellow of the requisite physical ability to "go for a soldier," and help save the Nation" would do so for reasons other than that. Next: The tale of Fernando and Abraham Posted by Greyhawk / February 21, 2011 4:16 PM | Permalink 3 TrackBacksHere's how I know that big word: back when I was a kid my home state celebrated 150 years of statehood, a sesquicentennial. Some stuff you learn when you're a kid stays with you a long time... You might see that word more often in the near future, as ... Read More ANTICIPATIONS OF THE FUTURE ****** Washington, D. C, Nov. 11th, 1864. Edmund Ruffin The complete election reports have now been received. As anticipated, California, Oregon, Washington, and also Sonora (the new Pacific free state, formed of territory ... Read More So there I was, writing about the 150th anniversary of the American Civil War (though the story of Fernando Wood has obvious parallels to our modern world...), when all of a sudden we got involved in the Libyan Civil War, and captured Osama bin Laden.... Read More 3 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
You always have the best stories, GreyOne. I love coming here to see what you can find next.
Will you ever consider teaching history to youngsters? You certainly have the gift for it.
Subsunk
Blog link
This is a surprise to you? That if the North won right away, slavery would continue?
In fact, if the war had ended the first year, or second, or third, slavery would have continued, not just at Bull Run. The Southern leaders were desperately trying to save slavery right up to the surrender. Davis had sent VP Stephens to Hampton Roads conference with Lincoln, expressly to save slavery if he could. Davis also sent Blair up to Washington, trying to save slavery. Lincoln wouldnt budge - Lincoln spoke of compensation, of paying the slave owners, but he was not about to end the war until slavery ended.
Many in the North would have gladly ended the war and kept slavery. Lincoln's own advisors begged him -- in writing that we still have -- to LET slavery alone. Just end the war, let slavery be decided later. One of his advisors was quite specific -- if you don't let slavery go as an issue, you will lose the election (of 64) and slavery goes on anyway.
In fact, Northner Congressmen were calling for the arrest and excecution of anyone who said slavery had to end for the war to end. Let me repeat that, because you obviously don't know that. Northern Congressmen were calling for the arrest and EXECUTION of anyone who even said slavery had to end for the war to end.
They didn't say Lincoln by name, but that is who they had in mind. Just stop the war, they were screaming.
Lincoln was under tremendous pressure to let the slave issue be decided LATER, after the war ended. Lincoln refused. He personally pushed like a maniac to get the 13th Amendment passed in Congress, where it was hopelessly stuck, before the fighting stopped. He knew how tenacious slavery was, and while he had to speak about Union, he was kicking the living fudge out of slavery.
People love to quote Lincoln's letter to Greely, where he emphasized UNION. They take this as proof Lincoln didn't care about slavery.
Utter nonsense. Lincoln full speeches, his clear meaning, was to end slavery. He said slave owners should be "kicked to death" -- a quote you never hear from Lincoln haters. His totality of quotes against slavery is mind boggling hostile to slavery. He didn't say slave owners should be kicked to unconsciousness, or kicked till they quit slavery -- he said kicked to DEATH.
And while he had to give lip service to men like Greely, he was kicking slavery hard, fast and often.
There simply is no one else so dedicated to ending slavery -no one. Yes, Lincoln had to play games with those who would gladly let slavery continue. But Lincoln wasn't going to do it. Once he had armed the black soldiers, once there were 200-300 thousand blacks in the Union Army, the Civil War was a battle to the death for slavery, and Lincoln knew it.
Well, since Northern congressmen were calling for the arrrest and execution of people who said otherwise, Lincoln wisely gave lip service to Union, while giving repeated kicks to the groin of slavery, in the field, and in his 13th Amendment.
Since you don't know that there was a huge segment of the NORTHERN population that would have gladly let slavery continue, you don't know what Lincoln was up against. Lincoln could have easily just ended the fighting, and let slavery be decided by national referendum, or the states. He personally - PERSONALLY - pushed the 13th Amendment through. No one else did that - -Lincoln did that. WIthout Lincoln's personal and extreme push to pass 13th, it doesnt pass. Did you know that? Do you think it got passed by magic?
Even Lincoln's death played a huge role in the sympathy for the 13th Amendment, when it was ratified by the states, as it had to be. Lincoln signed the 13th Amendment, and his signature is clearly on it. Go see it at Cornell University library, where a copy is kept in a special vault, visible rarely.
The judge you quotes mentions that slavery would have continues -- of course he was right, and everyone else thought about this too, including Lincoln. No one was trying to end slavery at Bull Run. The Southern Ultimatums in March of 1861 had demanded the SPREAD of slavery, and promised war if slavery was not spread. So the issue was slavery, and the spread of it, to the South. That is what THEY said at the time. That is what THEIR leaders said, and their own newspapers shouted from the rooftops. It wasnt till the South lost that they cowardly and deceptively claimed it wasn't about the spread of slavery. Their own Ultimatums and own newspaper headlines at the time boasted it was about the SPREAD of slavery.
But to the North, the war was to put down the illegal attacks by Southern rebels. The South only attacked AFTER LIncoln refused to obey their Ultimatums to spread slavery.
At first, stopping the south from using the 4 million slaves for their war effort - -to grow food, to build the defenses (slaves built the massive earth works around Richmond) and to supply the Army. In pure number of people, the South had more men involved in the war effort -- a fact they don't admit -- because of the massive use of slaves in the war effort.
US was merely restricting slavery like they restricted anything that the South was using for the war effort. Lincoln could use the powers of martial law, to control the railroads in the SSouth, if he could reach them. And he issued the EP as a WAR MEASURE - and said so. The EP didn't end slavery forever, it could only end slavery during martial law. When martial law ended, so did the order to stop slavery.
So if the war ended, and slavery was not outlawed by Constitutional Amendment, slavery would continue, exactly as it had been in 1861.
Lincoln was extremely aware of that - and so was the South.
We have the benefit of hindsight, we know slavery ended. But no one knew how it would turn out in 1862, 63, 64, even up to March of 65 the South was trying desperately to keep slavery. Vice President Stephens trip to Hampton Roads conference proves that.
Of course, you have some people who claim slavery was on the way out anyway, which is nonsense, but thats another story.
Blog link
The surprise was that a soldier would see losing the battle that resulted in his service as a good thing. His reasoning led me to imagine the Civil War fought a generation or more later, with WWI-era weapons. This was more a simple soldier post than a national strategy one.
But I much appreciate your contribution, and agree with much of what I think you're saying on that broader view. You mention Greeley, and I can't help but wonder how much Lincoln would have enjoyed sharing his already-written Emancipation Proclamation with the illustrious New Yorker before he'd penned his "Prayer of the Twenty Millions." Too bad Greeley declined the invitation to Washington.
But Horace knew batter than than old Abe, didn't he? (After all, you don't get to be a successful New York City newspaper man by being a dummy!) He shows that in his own autobiography, where he relates this story of Lincoln's stop in New York while on his way to his inauguration.
From that account Greeley concludes "Mr. Lincoln did not fully realize that we were to have a great civil war till the Bull Run disaster."
I'd say there's a better lesson in that - there's a difference between what Lincoln didn't say and what he didn't know (though I'm sure Lincoln himself would admit the former was a very small percentage of the latter). Greeley absolutely missed it. What's really revealed in the passage is Greeley's own conceit, isn't it?