Paul,
Thanks for the historical note about the St. Charles Avenue Street Car Line. It is, after all, a Confederate railroad.
John
Johnny,
I'll follow your advice and be careful of what I say the next time I get to the Crescent City. I plan to move back there and live in a shack between the levee and the river.
As long as we're wandering all around the original subject, and speaking of Gen.Beauregard, some of you may not know that after the war, in 1866 he leased the New Orleans & Carrolton Railroad (present St. Charles line) which was on the verge of bankruptcy. He proceeded to make improvements, double-tracking the downtown section, ordering new lightweight cars to replace heavy double decker "horse-killers", and experimenting with different means of propulsion such as ammonia and fireless locomotives. He also devised a cable car system which employed an overhead cable to pull the cars, which ran sucessfully, but was considered too costly to install over the whole route. There was a lawsuit against Hallidie a few years later which was settled by compromise-- Hallidie got the west coast and Beauregard got the rest of the country.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulofcov/8473108670/
This is from "The St. Charles Streetcar" by James Guilbeau
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
John WR Perhaps New Orleans should take down the statue of General Pierre G. T. Beauregard and replace it with a statue of General Ben Butler.
Perhaps New Orleans should take down the statue of General Pierre G. T. Beauregard and replace it with a statue of General Ben Butler.
My maternal grandfather, who was born in April of 1862, was given a middle name of Beauregard; he did not like the name. And, his oldest sister saved the house from being burned in early 1865 by refusing to leave the house when the sergeant of the invading force ordered the house to be burned; he rescinded the order.
Johnny
DeggestyThere was a song, only a part of which I remember--"Picayune Butler's come to town, Anht anh, anht anh...."
It's a sarcastic adaptation of a song about an entirely different Butler* -- here is the original:
Picayune Butler
I am looking for the Ben versions now. (There is always "Beauregard's Bells" but that's a bit different; it's about collecting all the bells in the city to make cannon...)
(*actually two of them, but that's another story irrelevant here)
EDIT: Bad news again for South Carolina: it appears that Butler anticipated the problem, and had a bandmaster prepare a version of the tune for his entry into New Orleans!
"Irvin Seward3 was in the Union Army as a musician and the story goes that at the capture of New Orleans he was called on to write the score of a tune that the Commanding General wanted played as the troops marched into the city. It was a popular tune but the band had never played it, in fact he had written it just from hearing it whistled."
Footnote to this says it was confirmed in a book written by Butler himself after the War. Wily Ben outsmarts the bints again!
I heard about "Beast" Butler when I was a small boy growing up in South Carolina. I had always understood that it was a common practice, not limited to one instance, of dumping chamber pots on any "blue-belly" who pased beneath a window at an opportune time to empty a pot. I also heard about his confiscating the silver spoons. There was a song, only a part of which I remember--"Picayune Butler's come to town, Anht anh, anht anh...."
Paul of Covington "Beast" Butler also had the knickname "Spoons" Butler.
No doubt Ben Butler was unpopular with the ladies of New Orleans. He did a lot for the poorest people, seeing that food was shipped in to prevent starvation and providing poor relief. He also improved sanitation which meant that deaths from yellow fever were greatly reduced but this too probably benefited poor people disproportionately. Personally, he was an abolitionist and I suspect he had little sympathy for those who disagreed with his abolitionist ideals.
Thanks for the information, John
Thanks for the information but I think I will have to pass this book up.
The book has 64 pages and is fairly general according to the reviews. It does have many outstanding illustrations. That suggest to me a hard back would be better in this particular case.
The paper back for $6.68 comes from the UK. Minimum shipping is $17. Actually a more expensive book from the US would be cheaper because then shipping is $4.49.
But all things considered I think I have to look to my budget. These days I'm on a fixed income and really have very little extra.
Best regards, John
Paul of Covington "Beast" Butler also had the knickname "Spoons" Butler. He had ordered all silverware confiscated to be melted down for the war effort.
"Beast" Butler also had the knickname "Spoons" Butler. He had ordered all silverware confiscated to be melted down for the war effort.
Well, that's the story. Since the ladies of New Orleans were telling it I kind of doubt its veracity. I'll admit, could be true.
John WR Paul, I tried searching for Hodges book. Unfortunately neither my library nor any library in a 4 county interlibrary loan system has it. I agree with you that Clark get repetitious. That's why I provided the paragraph which sums up his idea. John
I tried searching for Hodges book. Unfortunately neither my library nor any library in a 4 county interlibrary loan system has it. I agree with you that Clark get repetitious. That's why I provided the paragraph which sums up his idea.
John, Amazon lists it used in paperback for $6.98, I think. (I don't quite understand all their pricing strategies.) I got it on Kindle, but it has quite a few illustrations which don't show up too well on the screen.
PS. Even today New Orleans has a lot of railroads. It also has a port. The St. Charles Avenue Streetcar line is the oldest street railway in the country. I'm sure General Butler's men rode on it.
Firelock76 "Thank you, young man," she said, "That was very kind of you. If there's a cool place in Hell I hope you get it!"
Firelock,
I lived in New Orleans for 7 years back in the 70's and I would be willing to return there to live although many things have changed since Katrina. For one thing, its population is about 2/3 of what it was. But New Orleans has its own personality. It is not typical of the south or typical of any place except for New Orleans. Frankly, I'm surprised New Orleanians gave the Yankees such a hard time back then. I would have thought them too cosmopolitan for that. But I guess I'm wrong. But things do change in time. This Yankee always found the people of New Orleans very gracious and I have nothing but good memories.
Oh yeah, I've heard of Butlers Order 28. The plain fact of the matter was the ladies of New Orleans weren't behaving in a very ladylike manner. The last straw was when one of them dumped a chamber pot on Admiral Farragut as he was standing on the sidewalk with General Butler. That was too much for old Ben. It would have been too much for me too, had I been there. The insults and harassment stopped PDQ, but of course the ladies of New Orleans never forgot or forgave.
The best insult from a southern woman to a Union soldier has to be the following: During the post-war Union occupation of Richmond an old woman tripped crossing the street. A Union soldier very gallantly helped her up and carried her packages home for her. "Thank you, young man," she said, "That was very kind of you. If there's a cool place in Hell I hope you get it!"
Firelock76Butler wasn't exactly a great general, but a pretty good lawyer just the same.
No doubt you know of General Butler's Order 28 where he stated that if any New Orleans woman insulted one of his soldiers she would be treated as "a woman of the town plying her tread." That put an end to the overt insults but it did not endear him to the ladies of New Orleans.
New Orleans was, at the war's beginning, the single most important port to the Confederacy. Yet it was almost completely undefended which is why it was taken by the Union early in the war.
Another argument General Butler used to refuse returning escaped slaves was the Fugitive Slave Act only applied to states within the Union. Since the Confederate states had declared themselves OUT of the Union they couldn't expect to benifit from its laws. "You declared yourselves an independant country, so don't whine if I treat you like one!" was his rationale. Pretty canny. Butler was an Abolitionist to begin with, so any excuse to grant asylum to escaped slaves was OK with him.
Butler wasn't exactly a great general, but a pretty good lawyer just the same.
narig01Gen Benjamin Butler captured same at Fort Monroe, I think. When the fight was over a large number of prisoners were repatriated(a common practice early on), he did not send any of the slaves back. A confederate officer then went over to negoiate for the return of the blacks. Butler being a lawyer let the man dig his own legal grave by letting him describe them as property subject to the fugitive slave act. Being property Butler could then seize them as "Contriband".
That is true. In fact many Union Generals sought to emancipate slaves who escaped through the lines. However, early on Abe Lincoln recognized that slavery was legal and he refused to allow it. He believed secession was an illegal act of a relatively small group of people and that the Confederate states never really left the US. He remained strong on that point until General Ambrose Burnside wrote him a letter pointing out that after Union Generals returned slaves to their owners the Confederates used them in their war effort. That got Lincoln to thinking.
Ever since 1858 he had argued that the Dred Scott decision was binding only the the facts as they related to Dred Scott and the rest of the opinion, incluing the statement that slaves were not people but property, was dicta -- opinions of the majority of the court but not binding as law because it was not part of the facts of the case. Now he reversed himself and accepted the finding that slaves were property. That was the basis of the Emancipation Proclamation. He deliberately limited to those areas "in rebellion" so no slave owner would be able to appeal to the Supreme Court.
What I find interesting is that the Emancipation Proclamation enraged the British ruling class. Of course some Britons had invested large amounts of money in the Confederate effort. I think that it was beginning to dawn on them that just maybe the Confederacy would not win independence.
narig01if you were black and were captured doing things for the union some southern officers would shoot captured blacks to keep them out of union hands(at least that was the rational). But what that led to is another story.
Slaves did work for railroads both as their property and because their owners rented them out. When a railroad was built by a plantation the plantation owner could have his slaves work for the railroad in return for stock in the road. Some slaves worked in trades connected with the railroads. Of course that showed the falsity of the mudsill theory of slave labor; slaves could and did work with the same ability as white men.
On a possibly verboten subject a lot of labor was done by slaves. The interesting story is how that labor ended up with the emancipation proclamation. Gen Benjamin Butler captured same at Fort Monroe, I think. When the fight was over a large number of prisoners were repatriated(a common practice early on), he did not send any of the slaves back. A confederate officer then went over to negoiate for the return of the blacks. Butler being a lawyer let the man dig his own legal grave by letting him describe them as property subject to the fugitive slave act. Being property Butler could then seize them as "Contriband".
A lot of these blacks ended up doing a lot of manual labor for the union like building railroads. The unfortunate part was if you were black and were captured doing things for the union some southern officers would shoot captured blacks to keep them out of union hands(at least that was the rational). But what that led to is another story.
Thx IGN
As far as I know discussion slavery is not verboten. Slavery certainly was a part of the American Civil was. Some Confederate railroads actually owned slaves and used them in various capacities.
On a possibly verboten subject a lot of labor was done by slaves. The interesting story is how that labor ended up with the emancipation proclamation. Gen Benjamin Butler capturedcaptured
I am rewriting this.
John WR Paul, If you have time for a paragraph I think this one sums up John E. Clark's book: Excellent management of its war-making resources became critically important when the smaller, weaker Confederacy recognized that it faced a long struggle for independence. Though hardly the first people to find themselves unprepared for the war they found themselves fighting, the Jefferson Davis proved inflexible and incapable of rising to the challenge. The Confederate leaders did not adjust to the unfamiliar and seemed unable to improvise to meet the unexpected. The Davis Administration never took charge. It overlooked obvious problems, responded slowly and timidly to others and bungled still others. It never adopted central planning, which would have enabled it to establish priorities and allocate scarce resources for maximum benefit. This meant that it squandered part of its war production. It performed hardly better at allocating skilled manpower. The would be nation thus left itself ill equipped to meet the endless grind and relentless confusions the Clausewitz called the "friction" of war. The Confederacy's flawed management emerges clearly in its failure to effectively mobilize southern railroads to achieve its war objectives. It allowed "badly conducted" railroads as [chief of ordnance General] Josiah Gorgas described them to deteriorate, then collapse. The Confederate Armies followed. -- from Railroads in the Civil War: The Impact of Management on Victory and Defeat. p 21. Black letters added. Clark gives a lot of details. I don't thing he leaves out a single bar Longstreet's men sought refreshment at. But this paragraph is what his book is all about. Best regards, John
If you have time for a paragraph I think this one sums up John E. Clark's book:
Excellent management of its war-making resources became critically important when the smaller, weaker Confederacy recognized that it faced a long struggle for independence. Though hardly the first people to find themselves unprepared for the war they found themselves fighting, the Jefferson Davis proved inflexible and incapable of rising to the challenge. The Confederate leaders did not adjust to the unfamiliar and seemed unable to improvise to meet the unexpected. The Davis Administration never took charge. It overlooked obvious problems, responded slowly and timidly to others and bungled still others. It never adopted central planning, which would have enabled it to establish priorities and allocate scarce resources for maximum benefit. This meant that it squandered part of its war production. It performed hardly better at allocating skilled manpower. The would be nation thus left itself ill equipped to meet the endless grind and relentless confusions the Clausewitz called the "friction" of war. The Confederacy's flawed management emerges clearly in its failure to effectively mobilize southern railroads to achieve its war objectives. It allowed "badly conducted" railroads as [chief of ordnance General] Josiah Gorgas described them to deteriorate, then collapse. The Confederate Armies followed.
-- from Railroads in the Civil War: The Impact of Management on Victory and Defeat. p 21. Black letters added.
Clark gives a lot of details. I don't thing he leaves out a single bar Longstreet's men sought refreshment at. But this paragraph is what his book is all about.
John, I read both books, and while I found both of them interesting, "American Civil War Railroad Tactics" by Robert Hodges concentrated more how the railroads were used. The body of Clark's book was interesting, but I found the constant repetition of the point that the north used the railroads efficiently, and the south didn't rather annoying. I've never been much of a fan of the civil war, but I'd recommend both books. I might check into the books on the Jackson era, too.
Firelock76Maybe you're spending too much time sitting in front of the computer?
No doubt that is the source of my discomfort. Perhaps a train ride is what I need.
John WR Firelock, If what you are kicking is ideas how come I'm sore in a tender place? John
If what you are kicking is ideas how come I'm sore in a tender place?
Maybe you're spending too much time sitting in front of the computer? I'm about to sign off myself and do something REALLY constuctive, like watch a railroad video!
John, it's not a certainty the British would have siezed the line of the Mississippi given the chance. On the other hand, look at all the money they'd have made charging tolls at the river crossings and for passage through New Orleans to the sea!
Just kickin' ideas around, even if they're farfetched.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.