I just learned

[alexava 6,973]

This was my grandmother's great uncle. http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/09/a_confederate_generals_forgott.html

[AUDub 11,131]

Pretty cool.

Beauregard is an interesting figure. He had a series of bad luck circumstances during the war. He once turned over his command to Braxton Bragg while recuperating from a rather severe illness, and he was relieved of command by Davis himself for "abandoning his post". Not a great general, but certainly better than the aforementioned fellow, one promoted above his competence, he turned his command over to. After the war he also, upon becoming a railroad and lottery magnate, turned down several offers to command the armies of Romania and Egypt.

He wrote several books on the war. I have one entitled "A Commentary of the Campaign and the Battle of Manassas." This was a reprint by the Louisiana State Museum commission done in 1964 from Beauregard's work that was published in 1891.

[augolf1716 21,095]

[alexava 6,973]

My cousin posted the article. A lot of family still in Nola not happy the monuments are being removed. 

[AUDub 11,131]

13 minutes ago, alexava said:

My cousin posted the article. A lot of family still in Nola not happy the monuments are being removed. 

I'm all for them being displayed in a manner where people can put them in proper historical context. Maybe have them re-erected in a museum as part of a Civil War exhibit. Given the historical relevance the monuments have, it does seem silly just to do away with them. However, leaving them in place on a public street as monuments gives them a status of reverence rather than one of historical artifact. After all, these monuments are literally meant to worship people who committed treason against our country.

[alexava 6,973]

1 hour ago, Bigbens42 said:

I'm all for them being displayed in a manner where people can put them in proper historical context. Maybe have them re-erected in a museum as part of a Civil War exhibit. Given the historical relevance the monuments have, it does seem silly just to do away with them. However, leaving them in place on a public street as monuments gives them a status of reverence rather than one of historical artifact. After all, these monuments are literally meant to worship people who committed treason against our country.

I was and am all for taking the rebel flag of f government buildings and property. It was popularized for the wrong reasons after the war. While the monuments were representative of the confederacy,  they were not exploited like the flag was. One of my peeves with the far left is they don't know when to stop. Either way I don't give a rip but seems a waste of resources. While I know the sight of a rebel flag stirs negative emotions for a lot of people and understandably so. I don't see these monuments doing the same. 

[AUDub 11,131]

47 minutes ago, alexava said:

I was and am all for taking the rebel flag of f government buildings and property. It was popularized for the wrong reasons after the war. While the monuments were representative of the confederacy,  they were not exploited like the flag was. One of my peeves with the far left is they don't know when to stop. Either way I don't give a rip but seems a waste of resources. While I know the sight of a rebel flag stirs negative emotions for a lot of people and understandably so. I don't see these monuments doing the same. 

You could make a good case for Beauregard's statue to stand, given his work after the war, but he would probably be offended at his image being used the way it is, and why they are there is important. These statues aren't really about the Civil War as much as they are about the fetishistic fad of Confederate nostalgia that swept the south in the early 20th century, when most of these statues were erected. That's when a lot of people who only had vague early childhood memories (or no memories at all since they weren't born yet) of the actual suffering and destruction. They developed a romantic view of the era typified by things like Birth of a Nation. This romantic view was imparted to their kids and grandkids and still holds today, as we can see when people rally around these statues waving confederate flags. 

But we as a society started to get our heads out of our asses regarding racial matters and realized what a joke the romantic notion of the antebellum south really was. 

The fad is long over and there is no good reason to remember it forever by keeping every one of these statues around.

ETA: Or at least, in places of honor. As a said earlier, in a museum with proper historical context would be ideal. 

[alexava 6,973]

24 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

You could make a good case for Beauregard's statue to stand, given his work after the war, but he would probably be offended at his image being used the way it is, and why they are there is important. These statues aren't really about the Civil War as much as they are about the fetishistic fad of Confederate nostalgia that swept the south in the early 20th century, when most of these statues were erected. That's when a lot of people who only had vague early childhood memories (or no memories at all since they weren't born yet) of the actual suffering and destruction. They developed a romantic view of the era typified by things like Birth of a Nation. This romantic view was imparted to their kids and grandkids and still holds today, as we can see when people rally around these statues waving confederate flags. 

But we as a society started to get our heads out of our asses regarding racial matters and realized what a joke the romantic notion of the antebellum south really was. 

The fad is long over and there is no good reason to remember it forever by keeping every one of these statues around.

ETA: Or at least, in places of honor. As a said earlier, in a museum with proper historical context would be ideal. 

I think the link did emphasize the monument of Beauregard was representing his service to the confederacy not his work postwar. Maybe the city will replace it with a different memorial depicting his later accomplishments. If that wasn't in the story it might have been in my cousins comments. He is a very middle of the road politics guy. 

[AU64 10,122]

3 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

I'm all for them being displayed in a manner where people can put them in proper historical context. Maybe have them re-erected in a museum as part of a Civil War exhibit. Given the historical relevance the monuments have, it does seem silly just to do away with them. However, leaving them in place on a public street as monuments gives them a status of reverence rather than one of historical artifact. After all, these monuments are literally meant to worship people who committed treason against our country.

Don't know that this was a widely held view at that time....and certainly not after the war....or there would have been mass executions .....which would of course have just perpetuated the conflict by people with "nothing to lose".  

As for the view of separation of various states from the United States which precipitated the actual war...well that and some cannon fire on Fort Sumter.   Back in the day, the country was not that far removed from the Articles of Confederation and the philosophy of independent states and the views of the 10th Amendment which in opinion some people gave states all rights not "enumerated" in the Constitution.  Further it seems the Federal Government sanctioned those state's rights by allowing special considerations as new states were added to the union, some allowing slavery and some prohibiting it.  

To some extent I guess, Federal law was not universally applicable and some considered succession as a right since there was nothing in the Constitution prohibiting it.  There are records of numerous arguments going back before the Civil War to indicate that many states thought that 10th Amendment gave them the right to secede since it was not among the enumerated rights granted the Federal government.  Lincoln successfully challenged that view of course.  

This is the era of revisionism...and aside from removing objectionable monuments here and there we are faced with what to do about the untold numbers of towns, counties, schools, etc. named to honor or remember those old treasonists.....and just wondering where it stops?

Meanwhile. ... just wondering  if succession was in fact a treasonous act in 1861, could it be considered that those folks in California who are strongly advocating withdrawal from the United States now are promoting treason?   I even read there could be a chance of getting that on the ballot. Supposedly from a poll back in January, about 1/3rd of California residents support succession...funny thing is, the idea of California succession might be even more popular outside of California ..treasonous or not.

 

 

[AUDub 11,131]

1 hour ago, AU64 said:

Don't know that this was a widely held view at that time....and certainly not after the war....or there would have been mass executions .....which would of course have just perpetuated the conflict by people with "nothing to lose".

Oh, it was. The prime offenders, the leadership, of which Beauregard was a part, had to apply for pardon. I've discussed this in the past regarding Lee:

On ‎01‎/‎31‎/‎2014 at 9:58 PM, Bigbens42 said:

On ‎01‎/‎31‎/‎2014 at 8:06 PM, Elephant Tipper said:

You show that you have no clue about what you are arguing. You extrapolate outlandish thoughts of treason by citing those two documents. So I'm typing this very slowly so you can read very slowly and hopefully comprehend.

First, the parole document stipulates that those Confederates who surrendered were promising to not restart the war or support those who might. THAT'S ALL. THAT IS IT'S ONLY PURPOSE, AND NO MORE.

Second, the amnesty document is the promise by the signatory that he would honor the Constitution of the Union and with the specification that he would uphold the laws regarding slavery that changed during the war. NOTHING MORE.

Neither document discusses the concept of treason or even imply such. PERIOD. I don't see how you could even interpret either as documents of treason.

 

Here's two links detailing two of the proclamations issued by Andrew Johnson. The first proclamation detailed the classes, of which General Lee was a part, that must appeal to the president directly for pardon and amnesty. The first issued in 1865 and the other in 1868:

http://history.ncsu.edu/projects/cwnc/items/show/13

Quote

The following classes of persons are excepted from the benefits of this proclamation: 1st, all who are or shall have been pretended civil or diplomatic officers or otherwise domestic or foreign agents of the pretended Confederate government; 2nd, all who left judicial stations under the United States to aid the rebellion; 3d, all who shall have been military or naval officers of said pretended Confederate government above the rank of colonel in the army or lieutenant in the navy; 4th, all who left seats in the Congress of the United States to aid the rebellion; 5th, all who resigned or tendered resignations of their commissions in the army or navy of the United States to evade duty in resisting the rebellion; 6th, all who have engaged in any way in treating otherwise than lawfully as prisoners of war persons found in the United States service, as officers, soldiers, seamen, or in other capacities; 7th, all persons who have been, or are absentees from the United States for the purpose of aiding the rebellion; 8th, all military and naval officers in the rebel service, who were educated by the government in the Military Academy at West Point or the United States Naval Academy; 9th, all persons who held the pretended offices of governors of States in insurrection against the United States; 10th, all persons who left their homes within the jurisdiction and protection of the United States, and passed beyond the Federal military lines into the pretended Confederate States for the purpose of aiding the rebellion; 11th, all persons who have been engaged in the destruction of the commerce of the United States upon the high seas, and all persons who have made raids into the United States from Canada, or been engaged in destroying the commerce of the United States upon the lakes and rivers that separate the British Provinces from the United States; 12th, all persons who, at the time when they seek to obtain the benefits hereof by taking the oath herein prescribed, are in military, naval, or civil confinement, or custody, or under bonds of the civil, military, or naval authorities, or agents of the United States as prisoners of war, or persons detained for offenses of any kind, either before or after conviction; 13th, all persons who have voluntarily participated in said rebellion, and the estimated value of whose taxable property is over twenty thousand dollars; 14th, all persons who have taken the oath of amnesty as prescribed in the President’s proclamation of December 8th, A.D. 1863, or an oath of allegiance to the government of the United States since the date of said proclamation, and who have not thenceforward kept and maintained the same inviolate.

Provided, That special application may be made to the President for pardon by any person belonging to the excepted classes; and such clemency will be liberally extended as may be consistent with the facts of the case and the peace and dignity of the United States.

 

In the 1865 proclamation he didn't say "treason." He said the war was a "rebellion." That's sufficient to identify its leaders as traitors. He didn't mince words in the '68 proclamation, though:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=72360#

Quote

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson President of the United States, by virtue of the power and authority in me vested by the Constitution and in the name of the sovereign people of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare unconditionally and without reservation, to all and to every person who, directly or indirectly, participated in the late insurrection or rebellion a full pardon and amnesty for the offense of treason against the United States or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws which have been made in pursuance thereof.

So one can reasonably infer that the letter addressed to President Johnson in my prior post as well as the application for pardon and amnesty are in fact for the crime of treason. Here's the letter, just in case:

On ‎01‎/‎31‎/‎2014 at 9:58 PM, Bigbens42 said:

Being excluded from the provisions of amnesty & pardon contained in the proclamation of the 29th Ulto; I hereby apply for the benefits, & full restoration of all rights & privileges extended to those included in its terms. I graduated at the Mil. Academy at West Point in June 1829. Resigned from the U.S. Army April '61. Was a General in the Confederate Army, & included in the surrender of the Army of N. Va. 9 April '65.

 

The decision by northern leadership to be magnanimous in victory was the balance of wisdom. In most other countries, they would have been hung. Not that the republicans didn't screw up reconstruction after Lincoln's untimely demise, though.

Quote

As for the view of separation of various states from the United States which precipitated the actual war...well that and some cannon fire on Fort Sumter.   Back in the day, the country was not that far removed from the Articles of Confederation and the philosophy of independent states and the views of the 10th Amendment which in opinion some people gave states all rights not "enumerated" in the Constitution.  Further it seems the Federal Government sanctioned those state's rights by allowing special considerations as new states were added to the union, some allowing slavery and some prohibiting it.  

To some extent I guess, Federal law was not universally applicable and some considered succession as a right since there was nothing in the Constitution prohibiting it.  There are records of numerous arguments going back before the Civil War to indicate that many states thought that 10th Amendment gave them the right to secede since it was not among the enumerated rights granted the Federal government.  Lincoln successfully challenged that view of course.  

Meanwhile. ... just wondering  if succession was in fact a treasonous act in 1861, could it be considered that those folks in California who are strongly advocating withdrawal from the United States now are promoting treason?   I even read there could be a chance of getting that on the ballot. Supposedly from a poll back in January, about 1/3rd of California residents support succession...funny thing is, the idea of California succession might be even more popular outside of California ..treasonous or not.

Texas v. White settled the secession question. Calexit is unconstitutional and the dolts out there need to get over it.

Would I call it treasonous? I'd probably just call it illegal and pants on head stupid until they formed an army, fired upon and seized federal property, thereby sparking a war. Then it's treason, and I have no qualms about crushing said army, hanging their leadership for starting a war that cost American lives and treasure, then seizing them back into the union. Lincoln was a lot nicer than I would be about it.

Quote

This is the era of revisionism...and aside from removing objectionable monuments here and there we are faced with what to do about the untold numbers of towns, counties, schools, etc. named to honor or remember those old treasonists.....and just wondering where it stops?

This is a really bizarre position to take.

The "revisionism" argument implies that monuments and the like are something like historical sources or contemporaneous artifacts with something of value to historians today. This monument was built in 1915, 50 years after the Civil War ended. It tells us nothing about the Civil War itself. Any value it does provide is served better in a library or a museum, not in a public place implying government endorsement.

Monuments are value statements for a society. Treason is one of the most ancient and morally inexcusable crimes in human history, and is virtually always punished by death. Why these monuments were erected to begin with really reveals a lot about us, and it's not all good.

[AU64 10,122]

Why these monuments were erected to begin with really reveals a lot about us, and it's not all good. 

Probably many reasons....but the US has been a pretty pragmatic victor in wars......and rarely imposed harsh penalties except for the most inhuman actions of certain leaders.   Yet, we brought their scientists here (who built the V2s that bombed British cities) to help us put a man on the moon and immediately began doing business with Japan and Germany after the war and contributed to the rebuilding.   

And of course, all over my part of the country, there are references to the British military leaders, neighborhoods, streets, parks, etc...if not memorials of some of them.     Maybe we honor valor on both sides.... as it seems we've done at the end of many wars.    

[AUDub 11,131]

2 hours ago, AU64 said:

Probably many reasons....

Pretty much what I said earlier. These monuments were going up when the "Lost Cause of the South" was gaining a lot of traction. One purpose, probably the biggest, of this was to try and redefine the meaning of the war. One important aspect of the Lost Cause is hagiography of the confederate leaders. Hence the monuments.

Quote

but the US has been a pretty pragmatic victor in wars......and rarely imposed harsh penalties except for the most inhuman actions of certain leaders. Yet, we brought their scientists here (who built the V2s that bombed British cities) to help us put a man on the moon and immediately began doing business with Japan and Germany after the war and contributed to the rebuilding.

The Japanese leadership were very much deserving of their own Nuremburg for their actions during the war. Pragmatism stayed our hand, much like it did Lincoln and Johnson, even with the radical republicans baying for blood.

But this is a red herring, as waging war against us doesn't constitute treason if they were never loyal to us to begin with.

Quote

And of course, all over my part of the country, there are references to the British military leaders, neighborhoods, streets, parks, etc...if not memorials of some of them.     Maybe we honor valor on both sides.... as it seems we've done at the end of many wars.    

Let me know when you find the street named for Benedict Arnold or the Rosenbergs (or Rommel, Göring, Yamamoto and Tojo if you insist on bringing up foreign enemies).

[AU64 10,122]

Let me know when you find the street named for Benedict Arnold or the Rosenbergs (or Rommel, Göring, Yamamoto and Tojo if you insist on bringing up foreign enemies).

 

I do recall a Von Braun Space Center ...but you make a good good point though it helps to be on the side of the victors...who as they say..:writes the history" though Rommel has been portrayed in heroic terms by US movies and the like....most likely because he was killed (more or less) by the Nazi's for committing treason...which was viewed a good thing on this side of the ocean. 

And yet, the British established slavery on this continent and supported it for 150 years ...and somehow have mostly gotten a free pass on the matter.

But...still wondering if the promoting succession in California is fomenting Treason?  Or perhaps is Sedition the proper term?  

From the US Code:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontention (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws.

[AUDub 11,131]

24 minutes ago, AU64 said:

I do recall a Von Braun Space Center ...but you make a good good point though it helps to be on the side of the victors...who as they say..:writes the history" though Rommel has been portrayed in heroic terms by US movies and the like....most likely because he was killed (more or less) by the Nazi's for committing treason...which was viewed a good thing on this side of the ocean. 

Von Braun was a special case. Recall Operation Paperclip, where we were secretly snatching up Nazi scientists left and right, seeking an advantage in the burgeoning Cold War. The USSR was a lot less subtle about it, "convincing" something like 2000 of them at gunpoint. There's been a lot of recent criticism too, focusing on his use of forced labor while in the SS. In Germany, his name was removed from a gymnasium due to mounting criticism and a speech by a Holocaust survivor. 

Rommel, on the other hand...

Rightly so. He was respected by his opponents for a good reason, in spite of Hitler building  him up as some sort of Chuck Norris like figure. He was crafty, but never dirty. He flat refused to commit any war crimes and the Afrika Korp was never even accused of any. As for his "treason," there is a point in which "treason" becomes necessary against a leader who happens to be a madman, and whose continued rule guarantees naught but utter ruin for your country. 

Quote

And yet, the British established slavery on this continent and supported it for 150 years ...and somehow have mostly gotten a free pass on the matter.

They also renounced it much more quickly than us. Slavery was a hot topic in Britain during the war, and was the main reason that a**hole Palmerston, who hated America and would have dearly loved to see us weakened, was not able to extend diplomatic recognition to the Confederacy. Once the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, any hope for foreign recognition and aid for the Confederacy was dashed, as it became a good/evil war from the POV of those across the pond.

This was a big deal, as formal diplomatic recognition would have dealt a huge blow toward preserving the Union. Under the law of nations, the Confederacy was never anything more than a belligerent. States in rebellion, and under the jurisdiction of the United States. And nobody wanted to mess with us, as long as we were united. Lincoln, Palmerston, Napoleon. They knew what time of day it was. The power of the United States, and the hope for democracy which it represented in Europe were only possible because of the union. Failing to preserve the union would have spelt disaster for the future of all Americans. Nobody had he power to mess with us, as long as we were united. 

Quote

But...still wondering if the promoting succession in California is fomenting Treason?  Or perhaps is Sedition the proper term?  

From the US Code:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontention (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws.

The sedition act isn't in force.

As it stands, it's protected speech under the 1st. It's perfectly legal to advocate for such a thing. 

BUT

It's not a one way path, you just cannot unilaterally withdraw. If the country agrees to let a state secede, a state can leave. The reason it cannot be unilateral is the same reason any contract cannot be unilaterally broken. It consists of a web of mutual promises and mutual gains. To allow one party to leave at their own whim unfairly disadvantages those who kept their word. In many ways, the United States is a mutual defense pact. In fact, if you go back and read the justifications at the time, that one was paramount. The point of such a pact is the commitment to keep the cannons pointed at the sea and not each other.

If the Confederacy had been content to solve the difference of opinions on secession by political means, that'd be one thing. But the whole "going to war with the United States" strategy put squarely in the realm of treason.

[AU64 10,122]

Thanks for the commentary Bigben........appreciate the effort you went to. 

The sedition act isn't in force.

As it stands, it's protected speech under the 1st. It's perfectly legal to advocate for such a thing. 

But looking like these days there is no such thing as protected speech in many parts of the country since the protectors of free speech have been cowed by those who would deny it.   Auburn caved in under the most mild threat and the old standby view attributed to Volaire I think it was...."I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it " is a thing of the past. 

Well...I've strayed a long way from the OP but appreciate your observations and the way you presented them....I don't see all of it the same way you do, but you gave me something to think about....and also slightly renewed my faith in the premise of this part of the forum..."serious meaningful discussion".....rather than snarky and arrogant putdowns that seem to predominate...JMO

[augolf1716 21,095]

Good discussion guys. Thanks Now lets all be happy for alexava     

[AU64 10,122]

20 hours ago, alexava said:

This was my grandmother's great uncle. http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/09/a_confederate_generals_forgott.html

Very good and interesting that someone took the time to gather that background .....a man ahead of his time....

[AUDub 11,131]

 

45 minutes ago, augolf1716 said:

Good discussion guys. Thanks Now lets all be happy for alexava     

It really is one of those topics I could prattle on endlessly about, even only being a lay historian.

EDIT: Hey, 10,000th post. Couldn't have picked a better topic. That's a milestone. What do I win?

[AUDub 11,131]

25 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Very good and interesting that someone took the time to gather that background .....a man ahead of his time....

I really wish I could accurately trace my genealogy back to then. Dad's side of the family, my great grandparents floated down from Columbus, Ohio in 1903. Mom's side is from the hinterlands west of Bham and isn't traceable beyond that. 

[AU64 10,122]

10 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

I really wish I could accurately trace my genealogy back to then. Dad's side of the family, my great grandparents floated down from Columbus, Ohio in 1903. Mom's side is from the hinterlands west of Bham and isn't traceable beyond that. 

 It is worth giving it a try if you have time . My grandfather came from England in early 1900s and eventually settled in Perry County where he raised kids and horses in about equal numbers. Found a picture of him on an Auburn agricultural extension site taken at his farm in the 1920s. ...that was a chilling experience. Traced his family back to the 1400s. One of his uncles was killed with Custer at Little Big Horn. His wife was from Massachusetts and we traced them back a ways including a two members who fell at Petersburg . My mother was from Faunsdale.

I am sure you are aware of all the historical records now online including census, birth and death records in Alabama among others states.  Takes time and sometimes personal visits to courthouses and newspapers in towns where family members lived. It can be fun doing the detective work.

[alexava 6,973]

This is my Dad's mother's great uncle. Both her parents were French. Only one, I don't remember which was born here the other stowed away on a ship from France.  Illegally I presume. My Dad's dads parents were both Italian came here in their 20's. I kinda remember them but barely. 

  My Mom's family are all just "regular Americans" as Archie Bunker put it. 

I might try to chase more down.