What happened with Jeb Stuart? (1 Viewer)

[DCN1898]

Preservation of the Union was most probably the major motivation for most Union soldiers. That is especially true of the southerners in in Union Army. And state's rights was the primary motivation for the Confederate soldier. Which is kind weird in that the Confederate national government was forced by circumstances to institute a draft first.
Jeb Stuart should be remembered for so much more than Gettysburg.

 

[Scott]

Preservation of the Union was most probably the major motivation for most Union soldiers. That is especially true of the southerners in in Union Army. And state's rights was the primary motivation for the Confederate soldier. Which is kind weird in that the Confederate national government was forced by circumstances to institute a draft first.
........

Considering Canada had British troops stationed there, Russia was in Alaska, France had Mexico, Spain still had Cuba, and Brazil was a slave state, there was still some threat of the divided USA being cut up piecemeal. I can see a concern about that.

The "states rights" question has to be seen as "rights" to do what?

 

[Spitfrnd]

Considering Canada had British troops stationed there, Russia was in Alaska, France had Mexico, Spain still had Cuba, and Brazil was a slave state, there was still some threat of the divided USA being cut up piecemeal. I can see a concern about that.

The "states rights" question has to be seen as "rights" to do what?

Scott, the states rights question then and even now is the right to have governmental decisions made at a more local and less central location. I happen to think we still have far too much of our fate decided by those who have no common interest in the outcome.

 

[Peter Reuss]

While the good Minnesota farm boys may have had concern about state's rights, I suspect they also feared a Mississippi River than ran through foreign soil. That was their economic link to the world. They had crops to sell. The prospect of sending it down river was much more appealing than hauling it overland to the east coast!

 

[Spitfrnd]

While the good Minnesota farm boys may have had concern about state's rights, I suspect they also feared a Mississippi River than ran through foreign soil. That was their economic link to the world. They had crops to sell. The prospect of sending it down river was much more appealing than hauling it overland to the east coast!

Wait now, Minnesota was in the Union correct? The union boys didn't care about states rights but that economic issue would really be a preservation of the union concern, which I think we all agree they probably had.

 

[Scott]

I like the idea of of traveling throughout the US of A w/o a passport and my money is good and my rights and health protected by the same laws everywhere. Must be just me.

 

[Peter Reuss]

Wait now, Minnesota was in the Union correct? The union boys didn't care about states rights but that economic issue would really be a preservation of the union concern, which I think we all agree they probably had.

Hmm, Minnesota IS a bit up north...

My brain got ahead of my fingers apparently...the point I wanted to make is that the MN boys didn't just fight out of a principle of retaining the union, they had definite economic reasons for doing so. They fought for their own personal wellbeing!

 

[jazzeum]

I like the idea of of traveling throughout the US of A w/o a passport and my money is good and my rights and health protected by the same laws everywhere. Must be just me.

At the fear of leading us down another fiery debate, that is the difference between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. For example, the former had different currencies and other requirements impeding commerce (I'm going from memory so don't crucify me if I'm incorrect ). The Constitution involved giving up some of that power to a central government and ensuing history and politics was, to a certain extent, the pull and tug of that grant and whether it was too much. Thus, you have enacted the 10th Amendment to try to make sure that not everything was given away: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

[thebritfarmer]

I like the idea of of traveling throughout the US of A w/o a passport and my money is good and my rights and health protected by the same laws everywhere. Must be just me.

I know different states have different laws and taxes etc... but you need a passport to travel to different parts of the USA

 

[Scott]

I know different states have different laws and taxes etc... but you need a passport to travel to different parts of the USA

"I like the idea of of traveling throughout the US of A w/o a passport....."


Sorry thebritfarmer ....w/o = without.

 

[thebritfarmer]

"I like the idea of of traveling throughout the US of A w/o a passport....."


Sorry thebritfarmer ....w/o = without.

Sorry my mistake I read it wrong,. I read it as you'd like to be able to travel without a passport, not you like not having to use a passport to travel.

 

[Aleš]

well corect me if i am wrong,but USA try to be an democratic country,with the human rights,chance to vote for all people,...so why was such a problem to let go some other countries if they wish to go?

 

[Scott]

Sorry my mistake I read it wrong,. I read it as you'd like to be able to travel without a passport, not you like not having to use a passport to travel.

No No...It was probably the way I wrote it. I like that at this time in US history we don't need passports to travel internally or have to avoid the local drinking water or that my wife and daughter don't have keep their ankles covered in some states. You can sail down the Inter coastal Waterway on the Atlantic side and all the buoys and lights mean the same thing all the way to Florida. The US Coast Guard will rescue you on both coasts, the great lakes and on the rivers.

(I live on the coast so you'll see why the nautical references)

There are really well intentioned folks here that are concerned about big government but I can see some advantages that shouldn't be tossed lightly.

South Carolina had Federal forts in 1860 that they took but there were also about six Federally owned (tax payer's money) and operated lighthouses on the South Carolina coast that benefited everyone that were shut down because of the secession.

 

[Spitfrnd]

well corect me if i am wrong,but USA try to be an democratic country,with the human rights,chance to vote for all people,...so why was such a problem to let go some other countries if they wish to go?

Well interestingly enough a democratic rule can include submission to the laws adopted by a majority. On a federal level, the majority was very definitely for the preservation of the union for various reasons noted here and others. Ironically, the majority of Southerners were probably for that as well but did not appreciate having certain issues, including slavery, dictated to them by the federal government. Brad summarized the Constitution versus Conferderation conflict rather nicely I thought. At that time, the US was still relatively a democratic infant and one of the first at that so there was not much clear guidance on some of these questions but there certainly was much passion.

 

[UKReb]

Although the thread has strayed a little from the original question I have found a lot of the posts very interesting in the variable views expressed by the postees. So although in danger of being verbally crucified on the cross of what the hell does an Englishman know about an American war please excuse this Brit's two cents worth on some of the discussion points.

As stated I too have read far too many books written about the various causes of the Civil war and am only too aware that every historian brings his or her bias to the table and even when something appears unbiased and neutral in tone, it's still pretty difficult to find a completely accurate and unbiased historical account of something. This is especially evident in the thousands of books written about the causes of the ACW. However, whether it's state's rights, pressures of westward expansion or the behemoth of industrial and political power of the North vs the simple country folk of the South, slavery is always lurking beneath the surface. The South's economy based on slave man-power was an accident of nature that made the soil of the South incredibly arable to grow tobacco and cotton which swiftly became extremely successful for by the end of the 1600's Virginia and Maryland were exporting more than 9 million tons of tobacco a year to Europe and a key component of this trade was African slaves.

Any student of early American history can easily identify amongst his/her history tomes the way the two economies of the North and the South developed and divided in the 17th and 18th century exacerbated by the slavery question. But the match that ignited this powder keg was the unusually strong pull each state held on its citizens. But as mentioned on this thread many of those citizens were reluctant for their state to leave the Union-prime example being Bobby Lee who wrote to a friend just before Virginia seceded "If Virginia stands by the old Union, so will I. But if she secedes, then I will follow my native state with my sword, and, if need be with my life."

But for most and in particular the participants in the war, choosing sides was as easy as figuring out one's home state. However, as aforementioned there were many others who decided to take up the cause of an adopted state. General George Thomas (The Rock of Chickamauga) a Virginian fought for the North primarily because his wife came from New York. Generals Samuel Cooper, Martin Smith, Roswell Ripley all Northerners married to Southern ladies gave up their heritage and fought for the South. I could list at least another couple of hundred such cases leaving me no doubt that just as today the ladies had quite a bit of pull.

However, Union Brigadier-General Phillip St George Cooke is my all time favorite divided house story. He had one son who joined the Confederacy much to his father's chagrin. He also had three daughters who married men who became generals during the war: one for the Union and two for the Confederacy. One of these Reb generals embarrassed his father-in-law by riding around, through and over St George Cooke's cavalry division early in the war culminating in father-in-law seeing no further field service throughout the war.

The son-in-law culprit? JEB Stuart himself which kinda brings the thread back full circle

Reb

 

[jazzeum]

I'm sure this has occurred to several (maybe many and I include UK Reb and Bill in that catergory) but it just hit me today -- and I'm sorry if this is slightly off topic -- but today in the United States we see very little attachment (and I don't know if this applies to other countries) to the states from which we came or in which we now live whereas at the time of the Civil War this was clearly not the case. Now, why is that: why have we lost that attachment to our states? What comes to mind is that back then the United States was a developing country and the federal government wasn't what it is in today in terms of size or influence. In addition, transportation wasn't as developed (obviously) as it is today where we think nothing of hopping on a plane and heading to California, Florida or Texas. Back then, moving from one place to another was an arduous task, one you were not usually going to repeat often so that you developed ties to your community and state, ties which seem to have weakened somewhat.

Some mid-day musings

 

[VanguardFC007]

I'm sure this has occurred to several (maybe many and I include UK Reb and Bill in that catergory) but it just hit me today -- and I'm sorry if this is slightly off topic -- but today in the United States we see very little attachment (and I don't know if this applies to other countries) to the states from which we came or in which we now live whereas at the time of the Civil War this was clearly not the case. Now, why is that: why have we lost that attachment to our states? What comes to mind is that back then the United States was a developing country and the federal government wasn't what it is in today in terms of size or influence. In addition, transportation wasn't as developed (obviously) as it is today where we think nothing of hopping on a plane and heading to California, Florida or Texas. Back then, moving from one place to another was an arduous task, one you were not usually going to repeat often so that you developed ties to your community and state, ties which seem to have weakened somewhat.

Some mid-day musings

I would beg to differ a bit. Growing up in Texas, I can safely tell you that many of us see ourselves as Texans long before we ever even begin think of ourselves as Americans. My elementary school didn't event have an American flag out front, it was only the Texas flag. In the morning we said the Pledge of Allegiance to Texas, not the United States. When I travel and people ask where I'm from, I am proud to say Texas. When I meet people from other countries, I tell them Texas.

Dont take this as me being un-American or anything, just how it was in my hometown.

 

[Spitfrnd]

I would beg to differ a bit. Growing up in Texas, I can safely tell you that many of us see ourselves as Texans long before we ever even begin think of ourselves as Americans. My elementary school didn't event have an American flag out front, it was only the Texas flag. In the morning we said the Pledge of Allegiance to Texas, not the United States. When I travel and people ask where I'm from, I am proud to say Texas. When I meet people from other countries, I tell them Texas.

Dont take this as me being un-American or anything, just how it was in my hometown.

Texas has always been a special case. Nonetheless, I think's Brad's observation is quite valid for a large majority of current Americans. Many likely have no concept of state whatsoever and for those who do, it is general more a place where you grew up rather than an subject of allegiance. The American population is much more mobile than it was even 100 years ago and with the recent huge advances in travel and communication, local and regional ties are becoming much less the norm.

 

[Scott]

You have to pause and think that the area inside of a few man-made property lines and a few geographic features is only as sacred as how well you are doing within those boundaries. People able to get up and leave and a good reason to go will go find home somewhere else.



"A granfalloon, in the fictional religion of Bokononism (created by Kurt Vonnegut in his 1963 novel Cat's Cradle), is defined as a "false karass." That is, it is a group of people who outwardly choose or claim to have a shared identity or purpose, but whose mutual association is actually meaningless."

 

[Aleš]

nah,people who come to live in some place for economics reasons,and than they leave country and go somewhere better for them do not count.
It is not the same.I tell them tourists.They will never fight for their country,they will not love their country as much as love people who are born there,who live there for whole their live.
So i understand Texans that they are texans before they are anything else.
I remmember when Chuck Norris(famous actor) once say that texas was a republic before and that they can be republic for their own again.
I think USA is more a continent than a country,because there are 50 states and they have diferent laws in diferent states,the economic power is very diferent in dakota that is in California,or there are some rich towns like New York,Vegas,Houston,...but than is also town like Boise in Iowa,Rapid City in dakota,....it is just to diferent and i am sure people in Rapid city do not share the same "american dream" that share people in New York or Chicago,Boston,...