Firelock76 John, looking out for the little guy so the big guys don't shaft 'em is what the best of Jacksonian Democracy was all about. Certainly Jackson wasn't right all the time, but it's hard to fault his concern for the working man. Indians, sadly, didn't count, hence the "Trail of Tears." Can't excuse that in any way shape or form. Oh, and I forgot about some of Jackson's men running out of ammunition at Second Manassas and holding their positions by throwing rocks until Longstreet's corps came up and smashed into Pope's flank. But that's the only time the Rebs had an ammunition problem. AND there's a great Confederate battle cry, almost as powerful as the "Rebel Yell"... "Come on and let's get 'em boys! They got CHEESE in their haversacks!" Wayne
John, looking out for the little guy so the big guys don't shaft 'em is what the best of Jacksonian Democracy was all about. Certainly Jackson wasn't right all the time, but it's hard to fault his concern for the working man. Indians, sadly, didn't count, hence the "Trail of Tears." Can't excuse that in any way shape or form.
Oh, and I forgot about some of Jackson's men running out of ammunition at Second Manassas and holding their positions by throwing rocks until Longstreet's corps came up and smashed into Pope's flank. But that's the only time the Rebs had an ammunition problem.
AND there's a great Confederate battle cry, almost as powerful as the "Rebel Yell"...
"Come on and let's get 'em boys! They got CHEESE in their haversacks!"
Wayne
I think that my grandfather's regiment (J.B. Brockenbrough's) did not get into Manassas in time to really share in the looting of the depot (it is several years since I read a detailed account of the battle), nor was it one which ran out of ammunition.)
As to the rebel yell, the descriptions of it that I have read indicated that it was a frightening thing to hear, especially if you had never heard it before.
Johnny
The "Rebel Yell." In my experience, I think there wasn't just one, but several, depending on what part of the South that particular soldier came from. How can I say that? Well, in a way, I've heard it. When I was in the Marines, and we were doing a final assault during war games the Southern guys used to cut loose with Rebel yells. All similar, and all just a little bit different. It was amazing to hear, all I could think of was "Man, I'm glad they're on our side!" I can imagine what it was like to be on the recieving end. at least until Billy Yank realized it was just noise and noise can't hurt you.
Mind you, when some of those Southern Marines started yelling "KILL YANKEES!" I made sure I dropped back just a little bit.
Don't know what it's like now, but back in my day I'd swear the US Marine Corps was really Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia in disguise. Maybe it still is?
John WR Wayne, I agree about the trail of tears. And I agree Andrew Jackson saw himself as looking out for the little man. But I don't think his veto of the Second Bank of the United States really helped the little man. Granted, the bank was sort of a shadow government setting financial policy but it also tended to stabilize the economy. Jackson's pet banks led to a lot of inflation which seemed like a good thing for a while. Then Jackson issued is Specie Circular demanding that all debts to the US Government be paid in gold. That led to the depression of 1837 which was pretty bad for a lot of little men and well as some who were not so little. So on the whole I think Andrew Jackson was pretty misguided. But at Chalmette battle field he did win the Battle of New Orleans for what ever that is worth. And he still stands guard of the city in Jackson Square. Best regards, John
Wayne,
I agree about the trail of tears.
And I agree Andrew Jackson saw himself as looking out for the little man. But I don't think his veto of the Second Bank of the United States really helped the little man. Granted, the bank was sort of a shadow government setting financial policy but it also tended to stabilize the economy.
Jackson's pet banks led to a lot of inflation which seemed like a good thing for a while. Then Jackson issued is Specie Circular demanding that all debts to the US Government be paid in gold. That led to the depression of 1837 which was pretty bad for a lot of little men and well as some who were not so little. So on the whole I think Andrew Jackson was pretty misguided.
But at Chalmette battle field he did win the Battle of New Orleans for what ever that is worth. And he still stands guard of the city in Jackson Square.
Best regards, John
The defeat of the bank was his greatest achievement. I don't condone the trail of tears though. Anyways with a central bank you always end with one thing and one thing only which is plutocracy. The panics happened because Nicolas Biddle planned them as a way getting the bank renewed in fact he was arrested for this.
Railroad to Freedom
ontheBNSF The defeat of the bank was his greatest achievement. I don't condone the trail of tears though. Anyways with a central bank you always end with one thing and one thing only which is plutocracy. The panics happened because Nicolas Biddle planned them as a way getting the bank renewed in fact he was arrested for this.
And I suppose that having JP Morgan & Co. as a de facto central bank in the era prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve was better for the country.
ontheBNSFThe panics happened because Nicolas Biddle planned them as a way getting the bank renewed in fact he was arrested for this.
Do you have a source for this? A few years ago I read The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln by Sean Wilentz. He certainly talks about the issues between Andrew Jackson and Nicholas Biddle but as I recall he does not attribute the 1837 depression to Biddle. But it has been a while; I'll have to re-read Wilentz. (This is one of the few books I actually have).
Based on your comments guess we don't really see eye to eye about Jackson's policies. But we can't agree about everything.
Uh John, the "Nicholas Biddle's Revenge" comment wasn't one of mine, I don't know enough about that subject to say anything about it.
Now, if you wan't to get me started on the Battle of New Orleans that's another matter!
"In 1814 we took a little trip, along with Colonel Jackson down the Mighty Missisipp..."
John WR ontheBNSFThe panics happened because Nicolas Biddle planned them as a way getting the bank renewed in fact he was arrested for this.T Wayne, Do you have a source for this? A few years ago I read The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln by Sean Wilentz. He certainly talks about the issues between Andrew Jackson and Nicholas Biddle but as I recall he does not attribute the 1837 depression to Biddle. But it has been a while; I'll have to re-read Wilentz. (This is one of the few books I actually have). Based on your comments guess we don't really see eye to eye about Jackson's policies. But we can't agree about everything. Best regards, John
I recommend one watches The Money Masters (super long but really good and somewhat old), Secret of Oz(shorter and newer), or The History Channel's The President's about Andrew Jackson which covers the bank. Cheers
Standard bios by historians include: Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr., The Age of Jackson. Newer is Remini, Robert V. The Life of Andrew Jackson. Specifically about Jackson and the "bank wars" Remini, RV Andrew Jackson and the Bank War (Norton Essays in American History).
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Firelock,
I guess my fingers got ahead of my brain and I wrote too fast. I apologize for attributing Nicholas Biddle to you.
No doubt you know more about the Battle of New Orleans than I do. I lived in that fair city for seven years and I've been to the Chalmette battlefield. And I've strolled around Jackson Square and its environs. What I am sure of is that the Battle of New Orleans occurred after the end of the the War of 1812. We did win the battle but I'm not sure what that means.
OK, you guys gotta stop recommending these books. When searching with my Kindle for the one on civil war railroads by John Clark, I came across another smaller one by Robert Hodges which I also found interesting. Now you're bringing up all these other books I gotta read.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
I'll check my local public library for the books you suggest. In the meantime I did look at Wikipedia. Wiki does say that Biddle caused a panic in 1818 and 19 and that his own bank went broke after Jackson had the US Treasurer withdraw the country's money from it. It also says that after Biddlle's bank went broke he was arrested for fraud but acquitted.
My own understanding is that after Jackson withdrew US funds from the Second Bank of the US he deposited those funds in various state banks which were called pet banks. With the new US funds in their vaults those banks began making a lot of loans while led to a real boom. Among other things, there was a lot of new railroad construction. Somehow the boom caused Jackson to be concerned. To cool things down he issued the Specie Circular. That did cool things down too much and the economy fell into a recession during Martin Van Buren's administration. As far as I know the Specie Circular itself was not connected to Nicholas Biddle.
Schlimm,
I'll check my library for the books you suggest too. They have a big biography section so I think I'll find at least one of them.
Thanks for the suggestions, John
Well John, if you've been to the Chalmette battlefield that's better than I've done, I've never been there.
Winning the battle after the war was done? Well here's the thing, the peace treaty had been signed but not ratified. Had the British won the battle of New Orleans it would have placed them squarely on the mouth of the Mississippi. According to historians Steven Ambrose and Robert Remini that would have caused the British government to say "Hang on a minute! If we can regain control of the Great Lakes that would put us within easy portage distance of the Mississippi's headwaters. We can control the whole line of the river. Let's see how the Yankees deal with THAT!" Hard to argue with that. Westward expansion of the US would have been stopped cold, and who knows with what results. The British had lost control of the Lakes because the Royal Navy personnel they sent over were. quite frankly, second stringers. The best of the RN was involved keeping an eye on Napoleon. A victory at New Orleans would have rectified THAT situation very quickly!
So the Battle of New Orleans was a very important battle which the Americans had to win, even if they didn't know just how dangerous the situation was at the time.
Could the British have won it? I think so. If they'd co-ordinated attacks properly, if they hadn't underestimated the American militias ability to fight from fortifications, (how'd they forget Bunker Hill?), if they hadn't been in such a rush, who knows?
We're getting off-topic again but hey, are we havin' fun or what?
War of 1812? I'd suggest the following two works by Donald R. Hickey:
Don't Give Up the Ship!: Myths of the War of 1812
The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict, Bicentennial Edition
I didn't know about the signing vs ratification issue. Thanks for educating me. But I wonder if the British would have seized control of the Mississippi River as you suggest.
After the war the British and Americans resumed trading. This was beneficial to both sides and Britain had none of the liabilities (such as defense) they had when we were colonies. Also, slavery was arising as an issue in Britain. Slavery in their colonies was not yet illegal but there was a movement to make it illegal. Beginning with the invention of the cotton gin in 1790 they were building a textile industry with American cotton grown under plantation slavery but since the slaves were in a different country they did not pose a problem. Finally, Britain had never wanted the War of 1812. The issue of British impressment of American citizens happened to involve American citizens who were born in Britain and emigrated to the US. I think Thomas Jefferson got us into that war and the whole thing was a big mistake that could have been resolved diplomatically. As you point out, Britain's main concern with dealing with Napoleon. They did keep hold of Canada as a colony which was all they really wanted. So I really doubt they would have taken the opportunity to seize the Mississippi although they certainly could have.
In any event, after the war the cotton trade resumed and became even more profitable for both sided.
Thanks for your 1812 suggestions, Schlimm, but my reading list is filled up right now.
John
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.
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.
If what you are kicking is ideas how come I'm sore in a tender place?
John WR Firelock, If what you are kicking is ideas how come I'm sore in a tender place? John
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!
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 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
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.
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.
Thx IGN
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.