"Screw the Troops" and Other Copperhead Methodology

Read this and imagine how our nation and our world would look today if the Reids, Pelosis and the New York Times of Lincoln's time succeeded. They were scum then and they are scum now. I say this as the great grandson of an officer with the Virginia 8th.

This is eerily like today.

Newspaper OpinionsThe Press and Army Morale
"'Spend Much Time in Reading the Daily Papers': The Press and Army Morale in the Civil War."

by James McPherson

...

News from the homefront as well as from other theaters of war affected army
morale. A soldier's conviction that he was risking his life for a worthwhile
purpose, a Cause with a capital C, was rooted in the support of his family and
community for that Cause. Some of that support, or the lack of it, was conveyed
to soldiers by the letters they received from home. But much of it came via the
press and the political process, which were intertwined institutions during the
Civil War. In both North and South, antiwar movements arose and flourished at
times when the war seemed to be going badly for one's own side. These movements
advocated an armistice and a negotiated peace. The governments in both
Washington and Richmond viewed such proposals as defeatist at best, treasonable
at worst. So did most soldiers. They labeled the peace proponents in the
Confederacy as "Tories" and in the North as "Copperheads." On both sides,
opponents of the war -- or more accurately, perhaps, opponents of their
governments' war policies -- made their case through the press as well as
through the political process.

After the triple disasters to Confederate arms
in the summer of 1863 -- Vicksburg, Gettysburg, and the Army of Tennessee's
retreat from its namesake state some Southern civilians began urging a
compromise peace. A nineteen-year-oid private in the 7th Alabama Cavalry
denounced what he called this "miserable class of men that now infest the
country," while another Alabamian, an infantry captain, deplored the lack of
"patriotism of a great many of the people at home. The army cannot be sustained
without the cooperation of the people." Even in South Carolina, a few Tories
seemed to surface after Gettysburg and Vicksburg, causing a nineteen-year-old
veteran from that state to cry out: "Shame for South Carolina! Go back into the
union, degraded despised dishonorable.... This is the way we are rewarded -- our
own people forsake us in the trying hour -- and after our all -- honour-and
everything else is at stake.... Degrading, wretched, unpatriotic, infamous
thought!"24

In 1863, peace sentiment manifested itself most powerfully in North Carolina. The
state's largest newspaper, the North Carolina Standard, edited in Raleigh by
William W. Holden, became an outspoken advocate of peace negotiations. So
incensed toward Holden were Confederate soldiers that on the night of September
9-10, 1863, several men of General Henry L. Bennings's brigade of Georgia
troops, passing through Raleigh on their way from Virginia to Georgia where they
would suffer heavy losses at Chickamauga ten days later, broke into the
Standard's office and wrecked it.25

Union soldiers did the same to so-called "Copperhead" papers in the North. And judging from the volume and bitterness of soldiers' denunciations of homefront
"traitors," the Copperhead press in the North was far more extensive and
outspoken than the Tory press in the South. Especially during the early months
of 1863 and again in the summer of 1864, the drumbeat of defeatism and anti-war
editorials in Copperhead newspapers caused morale problems in Union armies. A
captain in the 8th Connecticut complained in January 1863 that "the papers (many
of them) published at the North & letters rec[eive]d by the soldiers are
doing the Army an immense amount of evil." From Grant's army in the Western
theater came similar testimony from a captain in the 103d Illinois: "You can't
imagine how much harm these traitors are doing, not only with their papers, but
they are writing letters to the boys which would discourage the most loyal of
men. . . . I put in a great deal more of my time than I would wish to, in
talking patriotism at the boys ... to counteract the effect of these letters
[and papers] ... and doing good solid cursing at the home cowardly vipers." An
enlisted man from Iowa believed that the Copperhead press not only discouraged
the boys in blue but also encouraged the enemy. "The Rebels in the South well
know how we are divided in the North," he wrote in March 1863. "It encourages
them to hold out, with the hopes that we will get to fighting in the North, well
knowing that 'a house divided against itself cannot stand."26

At the same time, however, a backlash against the Copperheads' anti-war rhetoric
forged a bond of unity among Union soldiers that actually improved their morale.
"Copperheadism has brought the soldiers here together more than anything else,"
wrote a corporal in the 101st Ohio in April 1863. "Some of the men that yoused
to be almost willing to have the war settled in any way are now among the
strongest Union soldiers we have got." Many Northern soldiers lumped the Rebels
and Copperheads together as twin enemies who deserved the same treatment. "My
first object is to crush this infernal Rebellion," wrote a Pennsylvania infantry
captain in March 1863, "the next to come North and bayonet such fool miscreants
as [Clement] Vallandigham" the foremost Copperhead political leader. A private
in the 49th Ohio told his sister in June 1863 that "it would give me the
greatest pleasure in the world to be one of a regiment that would march through
Ohio and Indiana and hang every Copperhead in the two States."27

When Northern homefront morale plunged to perhaps its lowest point in the summer of 1864 because of horrendous casualties in the Army of the Potomac without much apparent progress toward victory, Union soldier morale remained higher than it had been in the spring of 1863 because of this bond of unity against the Copperheads. As a New York captain wrote to his wife, "it is the soldiers who
have educated the people at home to a true knowledge ... and to a just
perception of our great duties in this contest."28

That is one reason why many Union regiments established their own camp
newspapers at various times and places during the war -- at least one hundred
such newspapers, most of them short-lived. (There seem to have been few if any
counterparts in Confederate camps.) They bore such names as Stars and Stripes,
Whole Union, Banner of Freedom, New South, Free South, American Patriot, and
other such patriotic titles. Many Union soldiers (and some Confederates as well)
also served as army correspondents for their hometown newspapers. Perhaps the
most famous of these was Wilbur Fisk of the 2d Vermont, whose dispatches have
been published in book form in two modern editions. Fisk signed his letters with
the pen name "Anti-Rebel," which pretty much sums up their dominant theme.29

That is why almost 80 percent of the Union soldiers who voted in 1864 cast their
ballots for Abraham Lincoln on a platform of conquering a peace by military
victory, compared with 53 percent of the civilian vote for Lincoln. As one Union
officer put it in August 1864, at the low point of civilian morale, "We must
succeed. If not this year, why then the next, or the next. And if it takes ten
years, then ten years it must be, for we can never give up, and have a Country
and Government left."30

...

The Copperhead's grand children and great grand children are alive and well today. They're just as scummy.

Jane's not Dead!!!!!

Nor has Jane been ill. She's back tomorrow and my coffee will taste all the sweeter for it!

I will not make any bad'ems, like I have Jane's Addiction. oops.

Now, my vast audience...., we need to get Tom Blogical to post more! He's good and if you're so smart, why didn't you come up with Blogical Conclusions for your masterpiece?

Dr. Helen

Just saw Instapundit's better half, Dr. Helen Smith, on a true crime show. Pretty cool. So is she.

Hey. I was just flipping through the channels to find some news.

I'd Bitch-Slap Harry Reid

Following up on his the war is lost , the Liberal Minister of Myopia, Harry Reid sinks to a new low.

Reid: Congress Will Pass Withdrawal Bill Despite Veto Threat
Reid noted disapprovingly that in a speech last week, Bush repeatedly said
there were signs of progress in Iraq in the wake of a troop increase he
ordered last winter.

"The White House transcript says the president made those remarks in the
state of Michigan. I believe he made them in the state of denial,'' said
Reid.

Here in Ohio we have the Buckeyes to offset the bad taste of Dennis Kucinich. I guess Nevada can say they have whorehouses to offset the bad taste of Reid.

Of course, we have to pay more to enjoy the Buckeyes, but it lasts longer.

Dead White Guys

I'm sure you've read this, as I have, but it is good to remind one's self of what these dead white guys stood for, against and by.

"Our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor."

Our Founding Fathers paid the price for the United States of America.

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe
ColumnistCopyright 2000 Boston Globe

On July 2, 1776, the
Continental Congress voted 12-0 -- New York abstained -- in favor of Richard
Henry Lee's resolution "that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to
be, free and independent States."

On July 4, the Declaration of Independence drafted by Thomas Jefferson -- heavily edited by Congress -- was adopted without dissent. On July 8, the Declaration was publicly proclaimed in Philadelphia. On July 15, Congress learned that the New York Legislature had decided to endorse the Declaration. On Aug. 2, a parchment copy was presented to the Congress for signature. Most of the 56 men who put their name to the document did so that day.

And then?

We tend to forget that to sign the Declaration of Independence was to commit an act of treason -- and the punishment for treason was death. To publicly accuse George III of "repeated injuries and usurpations," to announce that Americans were therefore "Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown," was a move fraught with danger -- so much so that the names of the signers were kept secret for six months.

They were risking everything, and they knew it. That is the meaning of the Declaration's soaring last sentence:

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on
the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives,
our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

Most of the signers survived the war; several went on to illustrious careers.

Two of them became presidents of the United States, and among the others were future vice presidents, senators, and governors. But not all were so fortunate.

Nine of the 56 died during the Revolution, and never tasted American independence.

Five were captured by the British.

Eighteen had their homes -- great estates, some of them - looted or
burnt by the enemy.

Some lost everything they owned.

Two were wounded in battle.

Two others were the fathers of sons killed or captured during the
war.

"Our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." It was not just a
rhetorical flourish.

We all recognize John Hancock's signature, but who ever
notices the names beneath his? William Ellery, Thomas Nelson, Richard Stockton,
Button Gwinnett, Francis Lewis -- to most of us, these are names without
meaning.

But each represents a real human being, some of whom paid dearly
"for the support of this Declaration" and American independence.

Lewis Morris of New York, for example, must have known when he signed the Declaration that he was signing away his fortune. Within weeks, the British ravaged his estate, destroyed his vast woodlands, butchered his cattle, and sent his family fleeing for their lives.

Another New Yorker, William Floyd, was also forced to flee
when the British plundered his property. He and his family lived as refugees for
seven years without income. The strain told on his wife; she died two years
before the war ended.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, an aristocratic planter who
had invested heavily in shipping, saw most of his vessels captured by the
British navy. His estates were largely ruined, and by the end of his life he was
a pauper.

The home of William Ellery, a Rhode Island delegate, was burned to
the ground during the occupation of Newport.

Thomas Heyward Jr., Edward Rutledge, and Arthur Middleton, three members of the South Carolina delegation, all suffered the destruction or vandalizing of their homes at the hands of enemy troops. All three were captured when Charleston fell in 1780, and spent a year in a British prison.

"Our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

Thomas Nelson Jr. of Virginia raised $2 million for the patriots' cause on
his own personal credit. The government never reimbursed him, and repaying the
loans wiped out his entire estate. During the battle of Yorktown, his house,
which had been seized by the British, was occupied by General Cornwallis. Nelson
quietly urged the gunners to fire on his own home. They did so, destroying it.
He was never again a man of wealth. He died bankrupt and was buried in an
unmarked grave.

Richard Stockton, a judge on New Jersey's supreme court, was
betrayed by loyalist neighbors. He was dragged from his bed and thrown in
prison, where he was brutally beaten and starved. His lands were devastated, his
horses stolen, his library burnt. He was freed in 1777, but his health had so
deteriorated that he died within five years. His family lived on charity for the
rest of their lives.

In the British assault on New York, Francis Lewis's home
and property were pillaged. His wife was captured and imprisoned; so harshly was
she treated that she died soon after her release. Lewis spent the remainder of
his days in relative poverty.

And then there was John Hart. The speaker of the New Jersey Assembly, he was forced to flee in the winter of 1776, at the age of 65, from his dying wife's bedside. While he hid in forests and caves, his home was demolished, his fields and mill laid waste, and his 13 children put to flight. When it was finally safe for him to return, he found his wife dead, his children missing, and his property decimated. He never saw any of his family again and died, a shattered man, in 1779.

The men who signed that piece of parchment in 1776 were the elite of their colonies. They were men of means and social standing, but for the sake of liberty, they pledged it all -- their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

Which politicians of today would be this resolute?

Architecture as Politics

I have been reading a most excellent site, veritas et veustas, which posted a piece concerning the traditional architecture school at Viseu, Catholic University of Portugal.

I am merely a self-taught designer (Fine Arts background), not an architect and I am married to an absolutely wonderful woman who is Catholic (Either I or my Episcopal Church has fallen), but I am not Catholic, so I cannot adequately address the two issues of Catholicism or architecture with much force. What struck me as an appalling parallel though was a piece referenced in the above Massengale piece by Nikos A. Salingaros that speaks to the fight between traditional and modern architects by quoting Andres Duany.

"The problem with countering the avant-gardists (they are not modernists, and we cannot grant them that position) with Reason is that they have set up a field of
combat that explicitly devalues the light of reason and privileges the raw force
of unreason. In other words, they are set to fight by rolling us into the gutter
in the night. By proposing to counter them with reason we are proposing to
counter them with 18th Century gentlemen's dueling rules. They will continue to
trounce us. Reason is but one weapon to be used in the appropriate
circumstances. Power is another -- and the only one they play by.

Check out the details of the coup! Classic! Perfect! Can anybody not now see what utter sons-of-bitches we are up against? Have I not been saying that we need to learn to attack, like them? What are we prepared to do now? Well ... how about some more moral superiority discussions?...”

I have come to respect all of the people referenced here and I hope I do not cause them consternation by using their work in an improper way, but if you replace Traditional Architecture with Republican/Conservative and replace avant-gardists with Democrat/Liberal, you have the same argument with the same problems.

Modernist Liberals/Progressives speak in non-sensical circles stating that their new “reality-based” reason is actually more reasonable than reason itself because theirs is the only reason.

This “reality-based community” has gained much power by debasing not only reason, but the language of reason. Today, a patriarchal relationship is not a tradition or a choice, but is an evil. Our Global War on Terrorism is lost, not based on reason or military wisdom, but it is lost based on polls.

Our future is not to be built on the strength of reason, but on an innovation idea of what they think our future should look like.

“…they spend their time learning how to design and build sensitive and adaptive
buildings. By contrast, the "other side" spends all of its time in mastering the
arts of war and propaganda. Their main (phony) argument is that they are being
innovative; never mind that they are religiously following cult dogma.”

In many cases, architecture is a reflection of the moral health of a society. To Liberal/Progressives, the architecture of the Soviet built slums is their architecture. So to is the “modernistic” architecture of communist China, of Castro’s Socialist paradise and the ruined plans of Hitler’s Germania.

Theirs is not a future in which I would like to live. Hell, the here and now requires rejuvination to counter their shallowness and constant (non)moralizing.
.

Sheryl Crow Discriminates Against Prisoners

I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in
any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her
God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can
make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on
those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required.

Normally, prisioners get three squares per day. What if they need a fourth? ACLU?