PDA

View Full Version : Maryland my Maryland under attack!



JMByrnes
02-17-2009, 08:32 PM
Mods,

I'm not sure if this is the best place for this, but please leave it here so it has max exposure.

Please follow the link below:
http://authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?p=135856#post135856

sbl
02-17-2009, 09:01 PM
Yeah, when I used to play CW music in the car, my son, about four, asked if we were Northern Scum. :)

MBond057
02-17-2009, 09:47 PM
Jared,

Hello!

The song was written in response to the “Baltimore Riot” by a Marylander who was away from his home state, and was angered at what occurred when Federal Troops tangled with Maryland citizens.

IMHO, changing the song for political correctness is as ridiculous as offering a formal state sponsored apology for slavery 145 years after the fact. It was done not to heal but to get favor with the black voters in Baltimore.

I'm all for healing and building bridges that bring us closer as a people and one nation, but to change our past history to reflect current political trends is silly. If we forget the roads traveled that brought us to this point and change details of our rich history both good and bad, it becomes fiction and folklore and it’s no longer history.

JMByrnes
02-17-2009, 10:05 PM
Mark,

I couldn't agree with you more. If you have a minute shoot one of the MD senators a quick email asking them to vote no to SB 892

28thNY
02-17-2009, 11:12 PM
Why do you think the Brits only sing the first verse of our national anthem... It's for the very same reason. The sixth verse makes reference to "crushing the rebellious Scots" when in the modern world (like it or not), Scotland is part of Britain.

Political correctness? Maybe! But definitely needed.

In the same way, the wording of the ninth verse of Maryland, My Maryland could be construed as being derogatory towards people from the northern US states and people are obviously sensitive to that sort of internal division.

Political correctness? Maybe! But definitely needed? I've leave that for people from Maryland to decide that one.

hendrickms24
02-17-2009, 11:32 PM
Wow fourth grade students at Glen Burnie Park Elementary School think the song should be changed! It kind of makes me proud that children feel so strong about something that they are doing more than most adult Americans have done! They are trying to make changes in their state. They are not trying to change history in my mind but are using the rights that our and their Forefathers fought for. Way to go Glen Burnie Park Elementary!!!!!

RJSamp
02-17-2009, 11:32 PM
Jared,

Hello!

The song was written in response to the “Baltimore Riot” by a Marylander who was away from his home state, and was angered at what occurred when Federal Troops tangled with Maryland citizens.

IMHO, changing the song for political correctness is as ridiculous as offering a formal state sponsored apology for slavery 145 years after the fact. It was done not to heal but to get favor with the black voters in Baltimore.

I'm all for healing and building bridges that bring us closer as a people and one nation, but to change our past history to reflect current political trends is silly. If we forget the roads traveled that brought us to this point and change details of our rich history both good and bad, it becomes fiction and folklore and it’s no longer history.


They aren't changing history, they're changing the words to a song about Christmas Trees..... how could you be more authentic! Tons of songs had new words written to them..... heck, even the school song for some 2,500 educational institutions had its words changed soon after U of C dropped football (as in "Run the ball clear round Chicago, a touchdown sure this time"....the dreaded Maroons, Wisconsin's biggest rival 'back in the day').

There will still be songs about Despots, Christmas Trees, those darn Scots, and the slaughter of every 1st born male in England.....hundreds of years from the actual event. It doesn't become fiction, folklore, or no longer history.....that's why we have print, film, video, digital, and who knows what's next.....so we won't forget.

The tune is great.....the Rebels hated it after the retreat from Antietam.....and the words are outdated..... I hear over in the IInd Corps camps they're coming up with some parody's on life as a Schneider fighting mits Sigel. Who woulda thunk it, and so soon after Chancellorsville.

BrooksvilleRaider
02-17-2009, 11:35 PM
Why do you think the Brits only sing the first verse of our national anthem... It's for the very same reason. The sixth verse makes reference to "crushing the rebellious Scots" when in the modern world (like it or not), Scotland is part of Britain.

Political correctness? Maybe! But definitely needed.

In the same way, the wording of the ninth verse of Maryland, My Maryland could be construed as being derogatory towards people from the northern US states and people are obviously sensitive to that sort of internal division.

Political correctness? Maybe! But definitely needed? I've leave that for people from Maryland to decide that one.

Neither is needed. Those songs are part of our history (I'm half-scot) and they need to stay as is. Those who forget history and bound to repeat it.

Rob Weaver
02-18-2009, 08:03 AM
The words of ancient hymns are periodically updated so that topical references are minimized. I see no difference here. "Maryland, My Maryland" as written is irrelevant. I sang a verse during a men's choir rehearse last fall, and the historical footnote took longer than the song. Sentiments change.

tompritchett
02-18-2009, 08:30 AM
Mods,

I'm not sure if this is the best place for this, but please leave it here so it has max exposure.

I left it up here for a while so that others could see it but now I am going to move it to a more appropriate conference but leave a link up in the Military Conference so that people can follow up if they are interested.

Pvt Schnapps
02-18-2009, 11:20 AM
"Maryland, My Maryland" with its current text will remain as a historical artifact. In the meantime the people of the state have a right to a song that makes sense to them today.

I wouldn't mind ditching all succeeding stanzas of the "Star Spangled Banner," too. Is there anyone who doesn't honestly believe that the first is plenty enough? ;)

sbl
02-18-2009, 05:35 PM
I wish we had a good kick-@$$ secular national anthem like Yankee Doodle! As for Maryland....eventually you have to take down the Christmas lights.

NUCDT08
02-19-2009, 06:43 PM
Gentlemen,

Have any of you bothered to look at the newly proposed song? They want to change the state song to one that make no reference to Maryland history. As an avid Maryland historian that I am, I believe that the current song should stay. Please read up on the bill at http://mlis.state.md.us/2009rs/billfile/SB0892.htm (http://mlis.state.md.us/2009rs/billfile/SB0892.htm) I am sure you all will agree that the current song is more personal to the patriotic Maryland. When I hear the song played it strikes more patriotism for my home then anyone could know. As far as 4th graders making the decision, well I personally can say that there is a little more adult influence then necessary. I will pressure for the bill to be abandoned as much as I can.

MBond057
02-19-2009, 07:08 PM
Adam,

As a person born, raised, and lived in Maryland for 40 years. I agree with you. Maryland History was always part of the elementary curriculum both good and bad. If the words of the song spark debate all the better to leave the original words.

If the state wishes to adopt a completely different official state song then that's democracy in action and the citizens of the “Old Line State” have spoken. Let’s not change the words of a historical states song.

Just adopt a different song and that will meet the agenda of those feeling the song is outdated and the state historians can still protect Maryland’s rich history.

reb64
02-19-2009, 08:15 PM
Gentlemen,

Have any of you bothered to look at the newly proposed song? They want to change the state song to one that make no reference to Maryland history. As an avid Maryland historian that I am, I believe that the current song should stay. Please read up on the bill at http://mlis.state.md.us/2009rs/billfile/SB0892.htm (http://mlis.state.md.us/2009rs/billfile/SB0892.htm) I am sure you all will agree that the current song is more personal to the patriotic Maryland. When I hear the song played it strikes more patriotism for my home then anyone could know. As far as 4th graders making the decision, well I personally can say that there is a little more adult influence then necessary. I will pressure for the bill to be abandoned as much as I can.


the sponsor and party should go if you disagree, just dont give lip service, tell where to get off.

sbl
02-19-2009, 08:45 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_Tannenbaum#Other_uses
The tune has also been used (as a contrafactum) to carry other texts.

* Knights of Columbus - Opening Ode - Along with prayer, it is sung to begin meetings.
* British Labour Party - The Red Flag
* Cornell University - Evening Song
* Nankai University (Tianjin, China) - university song
* Maryland - Maryland, My Maryland - official state song
* Iowa - The Song of Iowa - official state song[2]
* Florida - Florida, My Florida - former state song[3]
* College of the Holy Cross - O Holy Cross - official school song (Class Of 1975!)

The lyrics wee written by a man and can be changed or not by the citizens on Maryland. I don't believe that the secessionist sentiments were held by the entire state. Perhaps that should be taught as well.

bob 125th nysvi
02-19-2009, 10:24 PM
like a book or a movie or a story has social relevance when it is written.

After time much of that relevance is lost.

A great example is "John Brown's Body" to create it a new set of verses were written for an already popular song. When written it had relevance today it has none.

Another example would be "God Save Our Queen" (Britain's current national anthem) the base tune of which also forms the base of "The Prayer of the Russians" (Russia's first national anthem) and "America the Beautiful". Kind of ironic isn't it that one of "our" songs should be based on Britain's national anthem.

It is not unreasonable for the people of Maryland to decide either to rewrite their state song or to decide that they want a new one. And doing so doesn't change the fact that the song was once differnet with different meaning. Those old lyrics aren't going to disappear. They are still 'history' they still exist as 'history'.

tompritchett
02-20-2009, 12:15 AM
I don't believe that the secessionist sentiments were held by the entire state.

As Lee learned when his took his army into Central Maryland on a recruiting trip in 62.

sbl
02-20-2009, 10:03 AM
Or the guy from Middleton, MD who sent daughter of the regiment Kady Brownell a US flag after her husband's unit marched though. (Kady Brownell Pension files NARA)

Rob Weaver
02-20-2009, 05:28 PM
What's Pennsylvania's state song? I was born there and lived there the majority of my life and I couldn't answer that question to save my life. Speaking of irrelevancy, what does the last line of the last verse of "Maryland My Maryland" mean to you? what do you think it means to junior high school choirs who have to sing this stuff for civic events? I'm not sure I could sing that without blushing. Context is everything.

Marc
02-20-2009, 05:45 PM
What's Pennsylvania's state song? I was born there and lived there the majority of my life and I couldn't answer that question to save my life. Speaking of irrelevancy, what does the last line of the last verse of "Maryland My Maryland" mean to you? what do you think it means to junior high school choirs who have to sing this stuff for civic events? I'm not sure I could sing that without blushing. Context is everything.

No state song until 1990...see link


http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_71258_0_0_18/

sbl
02-20-2009, 07:01 PM
The Massachusetts state song.

No it isn't The Internationale ;)

Massachusetts State Folk Song
"Massachusetts"
by Arlo Guthrie

Like a dream in the night
As the snow settles white
There's a fire burning bright
In Massachusetts
And there's a house upon a hill
That keeps us from the chill
And by the grace of God
We will be in Massachusetts

CHORUS:

You can tell me about the times you spent
In the Rockies and on the plains,
Please don't think that I'm the last to say
That there ain't lots of other places
In this world that still remain
Beautiful and unchanged
But they're just not the same
The sun comes up to meet the dawn
And there's a day that must go on
There's another night that's gone
In Massachusetts
And I could spend all of my days
And remain each day amazed
At the way each day is phrased
In Massachusetts....."


Maryland at least has a popular tune that most folks can hum or whistle that makes you feel good.

sbl
02-20-2009, 07:08 PM
Does your state have a "state polka?"

Massachusetts State Songs
"Ode to Massachusetts."
"All Hail to Massachusetts."
State Folk Song, "Massachusetts."
State Polka, "Say Hello to Someone from Massachusetts."

jthlmnn
02-20-2009, 07:55 PM
Does your state have a "state polka?"

All of them. The polka is Wisconsin's state dance. ;-)

NUCDT08
02-20-2009, 09:33 PM
the sponsor and party should go if you disagree, just dont give lip service, tell where to get off.


So What does this mean? You quoted me but I have no idea what you mean? Maybe try to proofread a bit. It would less confusing of what you mean that way.

jthlmnn
02-20-2009, 10:26 PM
Lets see, we have the lyrics currently designated as official. So designated in 1939. Not exactly a deep tradition there. Said lyrics are arguably treasonous, definitely spiteful, angry and insulting to an entire section of the U.S. They are also anachronistic, not historic. They speak to an event and a sentiment that (supposedly) ended 144 years ago. The author was a Maryland native, but did spend his adult life elsewhere. (South America, Louisiana, etc.)

Then we have different (not new) lyrics, composed in the 1890s. The author is a Maryland native and lifetime resident that served all the people of the state as an educator for his entire adult career. Said lyrics describe the beauty of the state, its honorable history, and calls on current citizens to live up to the ideals established by those who preceeded them. It is timeless and positive in its phrasing.

Which one would better represent the people of that state to themselves, the rest of the U.S., and the world?

Pvt Schnapps
02-20-2009, 10:41 PM
As Lee learned when his took his army into Central Maryland on a recruiting trip in 62.

True. While many reenactors seem to think even today that Marylanders supported the Confederacy in overwhelming numbers, the impression is contradicted by the numbers of men who served on each side.

According to the ORs, Series III, Volume 4, pp. 264-270, Maryland provided 50,316 men to the Union army.

The number of Marylanders in the southern ranks, however, totaled less than half that – “The Maryland Line in the Confederate Army” (published in 1900) cites General Trimble as estimating the number at 20,000.

I should add that these only include white soldiers. I don't have the figures for USCT volunteers from Maryland.

The "traditional" lyrics of "Maryland, My Maryland" do a real disservice to the majority of her soldiers in the war. The words are long overdue for an overhaul.

reb64
02-21-2009, 12:24 AM
So What does this mean? You quoted me but I have no idea what you mean? Maybe try to proofread a bit. It would less confusing of what you mean that way.


the dems hate everything southern. and as for the modern pc idiots, lets just go changing things just for the sake of change. when the song was adopted, did it ever occur to you that this was settled then? and we will never know how md would have sided if her hands werent tied by the fed govt. you were forced to be union so you really didnt choose a side.

sbl
02-21-2009, 09:34 AM
Rob, I knew Exactly what you ment.

tompritchett
02-21-2009, 10:47 AM
Moderator Hat: I allowed this modern political comment to stand only because it was in response to a direct question from another member. Any other posts either confirming or denying this opinion will be deleted as being modern political discussion.

tompritchett
02-21-2009, 10:50 AM
The number of Marylanders in the southern ranks, however, totaled less than half that – “The Maryland Line in the Confederate Army” (published in 1900) cites General Trimble as estimating the number at 20,000.

Did his analysis include estimates of the number of Marylanders who went South to enlist in Virginia and other state volunteer regiments being formed?

tompritchett
02-21-2009, 10:52 AM
Maryland at least has a popular tune that most folks can hum or whistle that makes you feel good.

As does the great state of Kentucky - home of fast horses and beautiful women.

sbl
02-21-2009, 11:01 AM
Some states have it the other way around.

tompritchett
02-21-2009, 11:32 AM
Some states have it the other way around.

For humor, I reverse it all the time (my wife is also from Kentucky so I do have to be careful about that though) but, as we all know, you have to be careful with non-specific targetted humor on an Internet forum.

MBond057
02-21-2009, 12:58 PM
Tom,

Excellent point! There are many Marylanders that fought with North Carolina units and also served in PA units for the union. The numbers are skewed at best to try and make an argument that Maryland was pro north or south. The state was split with their loyalties and truly makes one of the unique states of the CW in which brother fought brother and neighbor fought neighbor.

Why is it OK to preserve a battlefield but not a song from the war? Both honor those that have fallen in their cause. Seems to me that preservation of Civil War history with many of these lads doesn't apply to all things period related. My fear is if you don't fight for it all and give ground and comprise on one area of CW history you back peddle the entire time until all that is left will be the history books, and when will that then be in somebody’s gun sights of political correctness.

sbl
02-21-2009, 02:49 PM
"My fear is if you don't fight for it all and give ground and comprise on one area of CW history you back peddle the entire time until all that is left will be the history books, and when will that then be in somebody’s gun sights of political correctness."

Mark, I don't think it's the straw man of "PC." At a certain point you have to put things like songs in historical context and put them away. Is it really "PC" to stop singing or saying something that insults people that don't really deserve it?

I like the original words to "One B@lled O'Rilley"...............;)

Pvt Schnapps
02-21-2009, 04:21 PM
Did his analysis include estimates of the number of Marylanders who went South to enlist in Virginia and other state volunteer regiments being formed?

Yes. The quote from Trimble also appears in "The Maryland Line in the Confederate Army" by W. W. Goldsborough, 1900 (good old Google Books) and appears to take into account all those who served. Goldsborough only lists two infantry regiments, two cavalry regiments, and four batteries for Maryland, as well as a couple of companies of Marylanders in Virginia regiments, so the distinctively Maryland formations would not likely account for 20,000 men.

Confederate statistics are nearly always problematical, so I'm not sure where you'd find a better number. The book, and Trimble, are pro-Confederate sources so I don't think they undercounted. But I'm no expert and there might be something else out there.

jthlmnn
02-21-2009, 05:05 PM
Why is it OK to preserve a battlefield but not a song from the war? Both honor those that have fallen in their cause. Seems to me that preservation of Civil War history with many of these lads doesn't apply to all things period related. My fear is if you don't fight for it all and give ground and comprise on one area of CW history you back peddle the entire time until all that is left will be the history books, and when will that then be in somebody’s gun sights of political correctness.

Nobody is talking about banning the song or confiscating all the copies and burning them. It could still be sung by anyone that chooses to do so. A "state song" designation makes a tune a symbol to the rest of the world. It says, "This is what Maryland is like and what Marylanders stand for." The question being debated (again) by the Maryland legislature is whether the currently designated lyrics suit the purpose. Put the 1861 lyrics and the 1890 lyrics side-by-side and ask yourself the same question. Then look at them again, pretending that you are the head of the Chamber of Commerce or the Dept. of Tourism. Which one better fits the bill?

FloridaConfederate
02-21-2009, 09:25 PM
Feel don't think.

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

50th vice pres
02-21-2009, 10:42 PM
Wow fourth grade students at Glen Burnie Park Elementary School think the song should be changed! It kind of makes me proud that children feel so strong about something that they are doing more than most adult Americans have done! They are trying to make changes in their state. They are not trying to change history in my mind but are using the rights that our and their Forefathers fought for. Way to go Glen Burnie Park Elementary!!!!!
Surely you are not so blind to see that this is all backed with adults in the picture who are hiding behind 4th graders doing what they are too chicken to do in the first place, and that is say what they want to, for fear of being politically incorrect. They hind behind innocent children, children who are told what to say and think from adults. Those children are probably more into the next greatest video player than our countrys' history. This is all over being poiltical correct. Politically Correct. What a crock of s!!! that term is.

Pvt Schnapps
02-21-2009, 10:52 PM
Politically Correct. What a crock of s!!! that term is.

Yes, that's what that term is.

So stop using it.

The citizens of Maryland have a right to new lyrics. Based on the statistics, the new lyrics will not only better represent the current citizens of Maryland, but those who served during the Civil War.

Don't beat yourself up over it.

50th vice pres
02-21-2009, 11:13 PM
Yes, that's what that term is.

So stop using it.
Oh I never have and never will, just a made up thing like global warming

sbl
02-21-2009, 11:22 PM
Oh I never have and never will, just a made up thing like global warming

[deletion - THP; modern political commentary]

I can't see why not being offensive in public or officially is a restriction of freedom. Time to take down the Christmas decorations.

50th vice pres
02-21-2009, 11:27 PM
Yeah!! And WMDs in Iraq. (Sorry Thomas)

I can't see why not being offensive in public or officially is a restriction of freedom. Time to take down the Christmas decorations.
Oh they are somewhere........

sbl
02-21-2009, 11:35 PM
Bin Ladin killed my daughter's doctor on 9/11. She knows he's in Pakistan.

I don't know if you're joking or not about Global Warming. Cleaner air will help my daughter's asthma either way.

tompritchett
02-22-2009, 03:43 AM
just a made up thing like global warming

You may believe that but a large majority of scientists overall and the vast majority of climatologist would disagree with you. And let's not forget the Eskimos you are experiencing first-hand the effects from it. But then that is a discussion for another forum but not here.

sbl
02-22-2009, 09:07 AM
Thomas it gets me when folks just toss off a statement like that in fun. I've tried to keep up with the subject and it seems some folks see doubting as a matter of political loyalty.

Let's face it, in popular culture such as Sci-Fi films, the scoffers end up eaten, blasted, caught be Tsunamis, or left on the doomed planet. This story is even in the Old Testiment. ("How Long can You Tread Water?")

Back to the topic........

FloridaConfederate
02-22-2009, 09:56 AM
Thomas it gets me when folks just toss off a statement like that in fun. I've tried to keep up with the subject and it seems some folks see doubting as a matter of political loyalty.



It is farce not based on political loyalty but the scientific fact.

I think folks are following as a matter of political ulterior motives.

Follow the money.

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

sbl
02-22-2009, 10:07 AM
Let it drop so this thead isn't deleted.

reb64
02-22-2009, 10:29 AM
Yes, that's what that term is.

So stop using it.

The citizens of Maryland have a right to new lyrics. Based on the statistics, the new lyrics will not only better represent the current citizens of Maryland, but those who served during the Civil War.

Don't beat yourself up over it.

why change them, we are once again under attack from the fed govt. illegalls and yanks from up north trying to change our grits and scrapple eating habits.

Pvt Schnapps
02-22-2009, 11:02 AM
I like scrapple with pupusas.

But mostly I like pie.

hanktrent
02-22-2009, 11:10 AM
Surely you are not so blind to see that this is all backed with adults in the picture who are hiding behind 4th graders doing what they are too chicken to do in the first place, and that is say what they want to, for fear of being politically incorrect.

I agree that fourth graders are too easily manipulated by adults and can be easily used as a front.

But wait... Are you saying the adults are afraid that changing the lyrics is politically incorrect, so they're hiding behind the fourth graders? But isn't changing the lyrics to something less divisive and insulting, the "politically correct" thing to do, as that term is usually used?

Are history buffs and Yankee-haters now such a large group that they determine what's "politically correct"? Maybe I'm not understanding something here.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

hendrickms24
02-22-2009, 11:21 AM
Surely you are not so blind to see that this is all backed with adults in the picture who are hiding behind 4th graders doing what they are too chicken to do in the first place, and that is say what they want to, for fear of being politically incorrect. They hind behind innocent children, children who are told what to say and think from adults. Those children are probably more into the next greatest video player than our countrys' history. This is all over being poiltical correct. Politically Correct. What a crock of s!!! that term is.


So if I understand you correctly. My son and all the other children in the State of Maryland are a bunch of idiots and can't think for themselves. I personally think that this is a great learning experience for these children in how democracy works. Just remember that these horrible video game playing children do care about many things and have every right to speak up if they do not like what they see, read or sing. Are the children doing this action all on their own? No, teachers and parents are doing what they are supposed to do by mentoring these children and showing them how the process works.

You also have to realize that most people below the Potomac River consider "Marylander" as Northern and so do many Marylanders. I was very surprised as a child when I learned that I was technically a "Southerner." So do I like to be called “Northerners Scum?” No, I don’t and believe that my state song shouldn’t either.
I also do not like my state song talking about treason because I love my Country so much that I gave her four years of my life to protect it.

I also love how people complain about Democracy when it goes against what they want but I guess complaining is a great American tradition. Also please stop looking down at the younger generation because you’re no better or worst then they are.

My Name is Mark Maranto and I'm a Marylander that wants to see the State song changed to a song that represents the whole state and not the ancestor of the southeastern part of the state.

hanktrent
02-22-2009, 11:23 AM
I like scrapple with pupusas.

But mostly I like pie.

Those damyankees are going to take away our grits and make us eat New England hasty pudding.

Hank Trent
(It's a foodways joke--get it?)
hanktrent@voyager.net

sbl
02-22-2009, 12:26 PM
So if I understand you correctly. My son and all the other children in the State of Maryland are a bunch of idiots and can't think for themselves. I personally think that this is a great learning experience for these children in how democracy works. Just remember that these horrible video game playing children do care about many things and have every right to speak up if they do not like what they see, read or sing. Are the children doing this action all on their own? No, teachers and parents are doing what they are supposed to do by mentoring these children and showing them how the process works........".

"In 1931, Constitution embarked on the National Cruise to thank Americans for contributing to her restoration. A national campaign sponsored by the Order of Elks had raised $154,000 from children bringing pennies, nickels and dimes to school to help save “Old Ironsides."

Yes, Grownups guiding kids.

JIMboW
02-23-2009, 12:26 PM
True. While many reenactors seem to think even today that Marylanders supported the Confederacy in overwhelming numbers, the impression is contradicted by the numbers of men who served on each side.

According to the ORs, Series III, Volume 4, pp. 264-270, Maryland provided 50,316 men to the Union army.

The number of Marylanders in the southern ranks, however, totaled less than half that – “The Maryland Line in the Confederate Army” (published in 1900) cites General Trimble as estimating the number at 20,000.

I should add that these only include white soldiers. I don't have the figures for USCT volunteers from Maryland.

Yes. The quote from Trimble also appears in "The Maryland Line in the Confederate Army" by W. W. Goldsborough, 1900 (good old Google Books) and appears to take into account all those who served. Goldsborough only lists two infantry regiments, two cavalry regiments, and four batteries for Maryland, as well as a couple of companies of Marylanders in Virginia regiments, so the distinctively Maryland formations would not likely account for 20,000 men.

Confederate statistics are nearly always problematical, so I'm not sure where you'd find a better number. The book, and Trimble, are pro-Confederate sources so I don't think they undercounted. But I'm no expert and there might be something else out there.


Pvt Schnapps, I included both of your previous postings because I believe this to be too important to miss. One needs to be careful here with troop counts and such. All too often, apples are compared with oranges, as is the case here. Most of those 20,000 Marylanders went South in the late Spring and Summer of 1861 (and for just for fun, let's slice 10% off the top and make it 18,000, adding the other 2000 during the rest of the war). I do not like to use absolutes (as an historian I try to shy away for that), but Maryland NEVER once made its quota for any of Lincoln's Calls for Troops. Considering that all a Union man had to do was walk down the street to enlist in the Union Army (again, only considering 1861), a Southern-sympathizer had to go a bit more in distance, get through the pickets, cross a major river (the Potomac), and still go some to get to Harper's Ferry or Richmond, and all on his own money. Also consider that in all of 1861, there were just over 9000 Marylanders who joined the Union ranks, most of them were German immigrants who came here during the 1850s. Nearly all of the Marylanders who went South were from the old-line families, men who could count generations of Marylanders before them. Twice the number!! So where did Marylanders stand when it came to the Union or the Confederacy? After you properly defined the term, I believe I just answered that question. (see Lawrence Denton's book A Southern Star for Maryland, and especially Chapter 6, on the military numbers; I know I do not do him justice).

But if you want more proof, please come to my hometown of Baltimore, and I will take you to Federal Hill. We can walk along the path at the top, and view the cannon mounted there (and look at the old photos). Where were these cannon pointing? Not towards the outer harbor, ready to defend Baltimore against the imminent Confederate invasion fleet, but across the Inner Harbor, at City Hall and the Police Headquarters. We can go to Fort McHenry, used as a Prison for Southern-sympathizing men (all later released with no charges filed). I will take you to the Thomas Viaduct (where the B&O crosses the Patapsco River), and show you where the Union Army placed guard posts at either end. Also remember that Maryland was the only state where the Writ of Habeus Corpus was suspended by the Lincoln Administration. Maryland may not have seceeded to the Confederacy, but the Lincoln Adminstration, and the North treated her as if she had.

Robert A Mosher
02-23-2009, 12:35 PM
But if you want more proof, please come to my hometown of Baltimore, and I will take you to Federal Hill. We can walk along the path at the top, and view the cannon mounted there (and look at the old photos). Where were these cannon pointing? Not towards the outer harbor, ready to defend Baltimore against the imminent Confederate invasion fleet, but across the Inner Harbor, at City Hall and the Police Headquarters.

Jim -
Just as a technical point re the military engineering of the period, I must point out that all fortifications on land included defenses to the landward side. This was to prevent the fortification being easily overrun by any troops landed by an opposing naval force. The Royal Navy was particularly adept at these kinds of operations as demonstrated during the war of 1812 and during its operations in the Peninsular War against Napoleon. I would ask if you have researched (I have not) the development of the area surrounding the defenses in question to determine if this area was in fact populated at the time of the construction of the fortifications - it is possible that it was, but it is even more likely that it was not a developed area at the time.

Robert A. Mosher

JIMboW
02-23-2009, 01:02 PM
Jim -
Just as a technical point re the military engineering of the period, I must point out that all fortifications on land included defenses to the landward side. This was to prevent the fortification being easily overrun by any troops landed by an opposing naval force. The Royal Navy was particularly adept at these kinds of operations as demonstrated during the war of 1812 and during its operations in the Peninsular War against Napoleon. I would ask if you have researched (I have not) the development of the area surrounding the defenses in question to determine if this area was in fact populated at the time of the construction of the fortifications - it is possible that it was, but it is even more likely that it was not a developed area at the time.

Robert A. Mosher


I understand what you are saying, Mr. Mosher, and as an historian, I am well aware of landward defenses, and yes this area surrounding "Federal Hill" was populated. The backside of the hill (the southern exposure) slopes gently down to the Middle Branch (and includes the residential neighborhoods of South Baltimore and Riverside) and had little need for big guns; there was precious little to shoot at here or across the Middle Branch. I will try to find period pictures of Federal Hill, and when you see them, it will become all too obvious where and what the target for the big guns actually was.

Pvt Schnapps
02-23-2009, 02:29 PM
Pvt Schnapps, I included both of your previous postings because I believe this to be too important to miss. One needs to be careful here with troop counts and such. All too often, apples are compared with oranges, as is the case here. Most of those 20,000 Marylanders went South in the late Spring and Summer of 1861 (and for just for fun, let's slice 10% off the top and make it 18,000, adding the other 2000 during the rest of the war). I do not like to use absolutes (as an historian I try to shy away for that), but Maryland NEVER once made its quota for any of Lincoln's Calls for Troops. Considering that all a Union man had to do was walk down the street to enlist in the Union Army (again, only considering 1861), a Southern-sympathizer had to go a bit more in distance, get through the pickets, cross a major river (the Potomac), and still go some to get to Harper's Ferry or Richmond, and all on his own money. Also consider that in all of 1861, there were just over 9000 Marylanders who joined the Union ranks, most of them were German immigrants who came here during the 1850s. Nearly all of the Marylanders who went South were from the old-line families, men who could count generations of Marylanders before them. Twice the number!! So where did Marylanders stand when it came to the Union or the Confederacy? After you properly defined the term, I believe I just answered that question. (see Lawrence Denton's book A Southern Star for Maryland, and especially Chapter 6, on the military numbers; I know I do not do him justice).

But if you want more proof, please come to my hometown of Baltimore, and I will take you to Federal Hill. We can walk along the path at the top, and view the cannon mounted there (and look at the old photos). Where were these cannon pointing? Not towards the outer harbor, ready to defend Baltimore against the imminent Confederate invasion fleet, but across the Inner Harbor, at City Hall and the Police Headquarters. We can go to Fort McHenry, used as a Prison for Southern-sympathizing men (all later released with no charges filed). I will take you to the Thomas Viaduct (where the B&O crosses the Patapsco River), and show you where the Union Army placed guard posts at either end. Also remember that Maryland was the only state where the Writ of Habeus Corpus was suspended by the Lincoln Administration. Maryland may not have seceeded to the Confederacy, but the Lincoln Adminstration, and the North treated her as if she had.

Very few of the states in the north made the quotas established by the Federal government, but that had a lot to do with the fact that the states and central government bickered over who owed what, as well as the fact that the final call was truncated by the end of the war. On the whole the percentage of the quota that was filled seems less relevant to the overall question of loyalty than the fact that more than twice as many Marylanders ended up in northern ranks than southern. If they were as loyal to the south as you and couldn't make it south, they wouldn't have signed up at all.

You can argue that the greater recruitment for the north was due to ease of enlistment -- I would argue it probably had at least as much to do with bounties. But the idea that those with southern sympathies couldn't go south after 1861 is belied by the porousness of the border throughout the war. Southern Maryland, as you probably know, had fairly easy communications with the Northern Neck.

Overall, I don't see much in your argument besides emotion and unsupported generalizations. For example, you seem to imply that the majority of northern enlistments from Maryland were foreigners. But the total of 50,000 would account for a quarter of all German soldiers who enlisted in the northern army (at the maximum; Kaufman's numbers are rather higher than other estimates).

Even 9,000 would be a bit much, given the number of Germans in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, and other states. And 9,000 would still leave twice as many native Marylanders in northern ranks than southern. Unless of course all the 41,000 remaining were Irish.

Since you don't provide much in the way of numbers or sources to support the rest of your argument, the effort to separate "real" Marylanders from those who had merely been there a decade or so doesn't carry much weight.

You also conflate Baltimore with the rest of Maryland. As Tom pointed out earlier, so did the rest of the Confederacy, and was a bit disappointed in 1862.

History isn't about what we want to believe. If you want to argue against the numbers, you have to do a better job of explaining them.

tompritchett
02-23-2009, 03:58 PM
the fact that more than twice as many Marylanders ended up in northern ranks than southern.

Is this figure based upon numbers listed in Maryland Union and Confederate regiments or does it based upon a more thorough search of enlistment papers for all the Union and Confederate regiments as the state that contained their stated home of residence?

Pvt Schnapps
02-23-2009, 05:03 PM
Is this figure based upon numbers listed in Maryland Union and Confederate regiments or does it based upon a more thorough search of enlistment papers for all the Union and Confederate regiments as the state that contained their stated home of residence?

Neither, quite.

In the case of the Confederate numbers, it represents a guess by a Confederate general. I assume that it more likely over than under-estimates the total of Marylanders, "real" or recent, who served in the CSA.

In the case of the Union numbers, the total represents the number furnished by the state of the total requested, and nothing more.

One correction -- the charts I referred to begin on page 1260, not 260 of volume 4 of Series III in the ORs. If you want to look at the different ways of counting troops received under different calls, and appreciate the joys of converting all terms of enlistment to a three year standard, it's worth a look.

Neither the state nor national origin of the recruit shows in that count. I understand that some of the "Maryland" troops in the 1st Potomac Home Brigade came from Virginia, for example. But I don't have a count on those, nor on the number of Marylanders who might have signed up with regiments in other northern states. In the absence of any information to go on either way, I assumed it was a wash.

You raise an interesting question about exactness, but I'm not sure whether it can be answered without a thorough search of every muster role, with due allowance for clerical errors.

Beyond that, I'm not sure the answer would really mean anything. I'm thinking of my home unit, a Michigan company. A total of 98 men signed up over the course of the war. Very few were born in Michigan. Twenty-five were born overseas. The majority were born in New England, New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. One was born in Virginia.

Michigan claims them all, and the memorials to their dead fail to distinguish between "real" Michiganers, and those who merely fought beneath her flag. That attitude might in itself be one more result of the war.

Robert A Mosher
02-23-2009, 05:36 PM
I understand what you are saying, Mr. Mosher, and as an historian, I am well aware of landward defenses, and yes this area surrounding "Federal Hill" was populated. The backside of the hill (the southern exposure) slopes gently down to the Middle Branch (and includes the residential neighborhoods of South Baltimore and Riverside) and had little need for big guns; there was precious little to shoot at here or across the Middle Branch. I will try to find period pictures of Federal Hill, and when you see them, it will become all too obvious where and what the target for the big guns actually was.

Thank you for your quick reply, the additional detail is very helpful to the discussion I believe.

Regarding your assessment of the little need for big funs on the backside of the hill, your description of the area as being gently sloped would suggest to me (without personal observation) that there may in fact have been a need. I'm curious enough to see what my sources have on the fort and will share anything that seems useful.

Robert A. Mosher

tompritchett
02-23-2009, 07:04 PM
First, thank you for getting back to me with your response


You raise an interesting question about exactness, but I'm not sure whether it can be answered without a thorough search of every muster role, with due allowance for clerical errors.

That is a major part of the problem here. In one case we have an estimate by a Confederate general who may be basing his estimate on just men in Maryland regiments or who may be also including an estimate of Marylanders who came South and enlisted in the first recruiting Confederate regiment they ran into. That uncertainty could introduce a fairly significant in the estimate. You are then comparing what I would best term a "guestimate" against much harder (accurate) numbers provided by the states actually conducting the enlistments and formation of units. It would be analogous to comparing a newspaper poll on who readers are likely to vote for against the election results themselves


Beyond that, I'm not sure the answer would really mean anything.

Except that you have made a claim based upon these numbers to demonstrate the relative sympathies within the state for the Union and Confederacy. I am not contesting that large sections of Maryland were predominantly pro-Union or even that possibly a majority of the population would have voted against secession if given a chance. I am just contesting that the numbers which you provided can be used to reliably project just how strong the pro-Union sentiments were relative to the pro-Confederate sentiments.

JIMboW
02-23-2009, 08:00 PM
Very few of the states in the north made the quotas established by the Federal government, but that had a lot to do with the fact that the states and central government bickered over who owed what, as well as the fact that the final call was truncated by the end of the war. On the whole the percentage of the quota that was filled seems less relevant to the overall question of loyalty than the fact that more than twice as many Marylanders ended up in northern ranks than southern. If they were as loyal to the south as you and couldn't make it south, they wouldn't have signed up at all.

You can argue that the greater recruitment for the north was due to ease of enlistment -- I would argue it probably had at least as much to do with bounties. But the idea that those with southern sympathies couldn't go south after 1861 is belied by the porousness of the border throughout the war. Southern Maryland, as you probably know, had fairly easy communications with the Northern Neck.

Overall, I don't see much in your argument besides emotion and unsupported generalizations. For example, you seem to imply that the majority of northern enlistments from Maryland were foreigners. But the total of 50,000 would account for a quarter of all German soldiers who enlisted in the northern army (at the maximum; Kaufman's numbers are rather higher than other estimates).

Even 9,000 would be a bit much, given the number of Germans in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, and other states. And 9,000 would still leave twice as many native Marylanders in northern ranks than southern. Unless of course all the 41,000 remaining were Irish.

Since you don't provide much in the way of numbers or sources to support the rest of your argument, the effort to separate "real" Marylanders from those who had merely been there a decade or so doesn't carry much weight.

You also conflate Baltimore with the rest of Maryland. As Tom pointed out earlier, so did the rest of the Confederacy, and was a bit disappointed in 1862.

History isn't about what we want to believe. If you want to argue against the numbers, you have to do a better job of explaining them.

Oh Mr. Schaffner, you disappoint me. Obviously you did not read my post or understand it. I gave you my source (which I now have in front of me, and will keep close by until you either understand, or we agree to disagree). My source is A Southern Star for Maryland, by Lawrence Denton, specifically chapter 6 The Military Issue: More than just Numbers. Mr Denton states, and I agree, that "1861 was the year of the enthusiastic volunteer." p.167.

You want numbers; here are a few:
The April 15th Call for Troops established a quota of 3,123, yet not a single man stepped forward to enlist. A 2nd Call for Troops was issued on May 3 (500,000 men for 3 years), and Maryland raised 9,355 of 15,578 as her quota. The only group that established itself as enthusiastic Northern volunteers were the newly immigrated Germans of Baltimore. (Dieter Cunz, "The Maryland Germans in the Civil War," Maryland Historical Magazine, 36 (1941): 305-6)

In August 1861, Congress passed a law authorizing a bounty of up to $100 for each able-bodied recruit. That was for Union troops, no bounty existed for Marylanders going South to the Confederacy. Next came the draft. July17th, 1862, Congress enacted the Militia Law (you will need to do your own research on this one). On the heels of this a call for troops of 300,000 men, plus another for 300,000 nine-month men. But I digress. The year where apples can honestly be compared with other apples is 1861, for by the summer of 1862 there were very few men enlisting of their own free will in the Union Army whether USA or Maryland Regiment(US). If we are to compare a volunteer for the North and a volunteer for the South, the term volunteer must be precise: un-coerced, one's own free-will enlistee. Drafted conscripts, bought substitutes, and bounty men have no bearing.

As for sources, your response lacked any sources at all. Please substantiate the "porousness of the border" and the "fairly easy communications with the Northern Neck".

As for "foreigners", the 1860 census reported nearly 78,000 immigrants, out of a total white population of 600,000, or 13%. Another 41,000 Marylanders were born out of state. Therefore 1 in 5, or 20% were not born in Maryland, and most settled in Baltimore (the 4th largest city in the US at the time), or in Western Maryland, which is where Lee made his move in September 1862. If he had moved east instead of west, and threatened Baltimore, the same thing that happened to Union troops in Winchester in May 1862 may (and I am willing to admit may) have happened there. Yes, speculation on my part, but based on the facts that Baltimore was a Union-occupied city....

About 2/3 of the immigrants were Germans (again according to the census). They cared little for states rights. "It made no difference to them whether they lived in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, or Texas." (Cunz, "Maryland Germans in the Civil War,"394-95). The mountain people of Alleghany County (extreme far western Maryland) were basically German stock (along with British coal miners) and aligned politically with other mountaineers, pro-Union.

Now I could be a good part of the night here typing the names of those Marylanders who made names for themselves leading Confederate soldiers and sailors as flag officers. So let me type a few: Admiral Franklin Buchanan, Brig. Gen George Hume Steuart, Brig Gen. Bradley T. Johnson, Major Gen. Isaac R. Trimble, Rear Admiral Raphael Semmes, and Brig. Gen Charles Winder, to name a few. To be fair, the Union had Major Gen. Andrew Woods, Major Gen. William Henry French, Major Gen John Kenly, Major Gen. Edward Ord.

I am sure even you can see, I have the facts, and the numbers on my side. I haven't even begun to look at the politics. The elections of 1860, the governor's race of 1861, the farce of an election of 1864, and the trouncing of the Radical Republicans in 1868, are all a matter of record. You are entitled to your opinion, Mr. Schaffner, but not to your own facts. I have lead you to the trough, it is up to you to drink. What say you??

hendrickms24
02-23-2009, 11:14 PM
About 2/3 of the immigrants were Germans (again according to the census). They cared little for states rights. "It made no difference to them whether they lived in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, or Texas." (Cunz, "Maryland Germans in the Civil War,"394-95). The mountain people of Alleghany County (extreme far western Maryland) were basically German stock (along with British coal miners) and aligned politically with other mountaineers, pro-Union.



My question to you is what is a Marylander? Are they only people that can trace their roots back to the Ark and the Dove? Many Germans were here years before the war started as you state "most of them were German immigrants who came here during the 1850s" So if they are not Marylanders neither was Major Gen. Isaac R. Trimble who was born in Culpeper, Virginia. Gen. Trimble was only in MD to make money on the railroads but that qualifies him better than the Blacks and krauts who fought for the Union? Before you start throwing around your facts you need to define what is a Marylander.
I consider these "Germans" as "Marylanders" because so many of them died in the service of their state that The German Protestant Orphan Association of the City of Baltimore, Maryland was organized in 1863 to establish and manage the German Protestant Orphan Asylum, a facility for children of German descent orphaned by the Civil War. You can still see this orphanage at 205 Bloomsbury Avenue Catonsville, Maryland.

I still don't see how you can say that more "Marylanders" fought for the south when the following units servered in Federal service.
Three Regiments of Cavalry
Two Battalions of Cavalry
One Independent Company of Cavalry
Fifteen Regiments of Infantry
Four Battalions of Infantry
One Independent Company of Infantry
Six Batteries of Artillery
Six Regiments of USCT

The same state that organized 39 units for the north supplied the south with only one regiment and one Battalion of Cavalry, four batteries of Artillery, one Regiment, three Battalion and a few independent companies of Infantry. Now that does not look like a pro southern state.

I understand that not every man in the federal units were not from Maryland but your numbers are very low take a look at "the History and Roster of Maryland Volunteers, War of 1861-6, "

This book's intro explains it all with this.


THE State of Maryland responded promptly to the call for the preser-
vation of the Federal Union. "While her people were divided in
sentiment, many of them being connected by social and business
ties with the Southern States, which attempted to divide the Union
and set up a separate Confederacy, nevertheless the dominant
sentiment was in favor of the Union. The Union people, especially
in the western section of the State, in the early days of 1861, with-
out waiting for the authorities to act, took initiatory proceedings to form military organizations to protect themselves and preserve order.

They subsequently, upon the call of the proper authorities, enlisted regularly in the Army or Navy of the United States.

A considerable number of the people of Maryland who sympathized with the Southern Confederacy, and who had the courage of their convictions, promptly left the State and joined the Confederate troops.

Maryland was on the border land, and in the early days of the Civil War,
before the Government was apparently making any serious effort for its own maintenance, and while Confederate troops were stationed on the banks of the Potomac (on her borders),
with a full knowledge that her territory would become, in part, the seat of war, her people did not hesitate as to their duty.

They enlisted in the regular Army or Navy of the United States, and in regiments from, other States of the Union. They formed military organizations, and the Union Home Guards, of Western Maryland, armed and equipped, protected, confirmed and strengthened the Union sentiment in that section of the State. No appeal made to them, even when their territory was occupied by Confederate armies, or their fair fields desolated by contending hosts, property seized, appropriated, consumed, burned or destroyed, could make them waver in their allegiance to the Union.

The sacrifices made by the people of Maryland for the preservation of the Union have never been properly understood or appreciated.

bob 125th nysvi
02-23-2009, 11:58 PM
Those damyankees are going to take away our grits and make us eat New England hasty pudding.

Hank Trent
(It's a foodways joke--get it?)
hanktrent@voyager.net

you let this yankee keep his grits?

But I will give you the New England hasty pudding and throw in two deep fried twinkies just to keep the table with a southern flavor.

bob 125th nysvi
02-24-2009, 12:00 AM
Pvt Schnapps, I included both of your previous postings because I believe this to be too important to miss. One needs to be careful here with troop counts and such. All too often, apples are compared with oranges, as is the case here. Most of those 20,000 Marylanders went South in the late Spring and Summer of 1861 (and for just for fun, let's slice 10% off the top and make it 18,000, adding the other 2000 during the rest of the war). I do not like to use absolutes (as an historian I try to shy away for that), but Maryland NEVER once made its quota for any of Lincoln's Calls for Troops. Considering that all a Union man had to do was walk down the street to enlist in the Union Army (again, only considering 1861), a Southern-sympathizer had to go a bit more in distance, get through the pickets, cross a major river (the Potomac), and still go some to get to Harper's Ferry or Richmond, and all on his own money. Also consider that in all of 1861, there were just over 9000 Marylanders who joined the Union ranks, most of them were German immigrants who came here during the 1850s. Nearly all of the Marylanders who went South were from the old-line families, men who could count generations of Marylanders before them. Twice the number!! So where did Marylanders stand when it came to the Union or the Confederacy? After you properly defined the term, I believe I just answered that question. (see Lawrence Denton's book A Southern Star for Maryland, and especially Chapter 6, on the military numbers; I know I do not do him justice).

But if you want more proof, please come to my hometown of Baltimore, and I will take you to Federal Hill. We can walk along the path at the top, and view the cannon mounted there (and look at the old photos). Where were these cannon pointing? Not towards the outer harbor, ready to defend Baltimore against the imminent Confederate invasion fleet, but across the Inner Harbor, at City Hall and the Police Headquarters. We can go to Fort McHenry, used as a Prison for Southern-sympathizing men (all later released with no charges filed). I will take you to the Thomas Viaduct (where the B&O crosses the Patapsco River), and show you where the Union Army placed guard posts at either end. Also remember that Maryland was the only state where the Writ of Habeus Corpus was suspended by the Lincoln Administration. Maryland may not have seceeded to the Confederacy, but the Lincoln Adminstration, and the North treated her as if she had.

but the reality is that MORE Marylanders fought for the Union than against her. Slice it anyway you want.

I could make the same comparison with Ireland and England and Irish bred soldiers but that would not be germain to this board.

sbl
02-24-2009, 04:37 AM
Looking at a period map, a nautical chart, and Google Maps plus "street view" which gives a nice tour around Federal Hill Park, it looks like fortifications facing inland were coving the landward approaches to Locust Point, the Inner Harbor, and Middle Branch.

Pvt Schnapps
02-24-2009, 06:33 AM
Tom, I haven't seen any other numbers for Maryland volunteers for the south, except those provided by Trimble. As I said in my first post, the total exceeds the number likely to have signed up in the very few Confederate units specifically designated as Marylanders (see Mark Maranto's count). So I believe Trimble was counting everyone.

If there are better numbers out there I'm happy to look at them, but I won't take responsibility for the problems that crop up in Confederate government record-keeping. :)

Jimbo, none of your quotes from secondary sources address the basic issue presented by the numbers. As Mr. Maranto points out, far more units from Maryland served in the U. S. Army than the Confederate Army. As Mr. Sandusky pointed out, with all the text you provide, you nonetheless dodge the basic fact that more Marylanders fought for the north than the south.

It's not me that's disappointing you, but your sudden discovery of historic facts.

I thought the porousness of the border and access to the Northern Neck were common knowledge. If you want to look at a good source, I suggest you read the testimony on Dr. Mudd's case in Benn Pitman's transcript of the trial of the Lincoln conspirators ("The Assassination of President Lincoln and the Trial of the Conspirators"). You don't have to buy anything, it's on Google Books.

I'll add that the number of Maryland volunteers in Union ranks came as a surprise to me last year when I first looked it up. Just as Confederate bumper stickers on cars from West Virginia don't necessarily reflect the breakdown of loyalties of people there in 1861, and other "southern" states like Kentucky actually provided more men to the north, Maryland was not on the whole the hotbed of secession suggested by the lyrics of the song or some Marylanders born long after the war.

hanktrent
02-24-2009, 10:23 AM
you let this yankee keep his grits?

But I will give you the New England hasty pudding and throw in two deep fried twinkies just to keep the table with a southern flavor.

Finally somebody bit--no pun intended. :p

Here's the problem: New England hasty pudding (the classic period recipe) and southern grits (what's usually called "mush" in the period) are, actually, the same thing!

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

JIMboW
02-24-2009, 10:30 AM
Gentleman,

Again I reiterate that you are either not reading my post or not fully understanding it. I underlined and used bold font to sharpen the focus on the topic at hand. Do I need to change font style, size and color to show it again? Guess I will have to (see below).

My apologies on Isaac Trimble. I did not go far enough back to see that he was, in fact, born in Culpepper, Va. Score one for you, Mr. Maranto.

But I am, and always have been, focusing on 1861.

Mr. Maranto listed a large number of Units of Marylanders who fought for the North. But how many of those Regiments were for Home Defense only? How many were 90-day men, or 9-month men? What year were these units raised? Certainly not all in 1861. I will not discount their service, however. I myself served in the Navy Reserve for almost 24 years (never deployed anywhere exciting, always here in the States, ashore, in support of various exercises, in training, or as Rear Echelon support in the Global War on Terror, etc.)

Of course more "Marylanders", in total, fought for the Union. I am not discounting the African-Americans. Almost 19% of Maryland's Union volunteers were black, supplying 6 Regiments of USCT, but not until 1863. I am not discounting those Germans (still recent immigrants from the 1850s, mind you), that "volunteered" for duty. Some saw it as a way of using their past wartime experience as a way to assilmilate into this society. But from 1862 through the end of the war, a large number of men HAD to be coerced, either by bounty, draft conscription, or other, less palatable means.

The original post was about the Maryland State song (based on a poem written by a Marylander who was teaching in New Orleans at the time, 1861 (there's that number, again, bolded and underlined, AGAIN) I believe we all can agree that Maryland was a border state (as were Missouri, Kentucky, and Delaware); that according to the 1860 census, had both a large (in relative terms) slave (87,189) and free black (83,942) population, as well as a large (mostly German) immigrant (nearly 78,000) population; and that Baltimore was the 4th largest city (by population) in the US. These are numbers from the 1860 Census; we can probably quibble over the numbers a few hundred either way, but they are what they are.

I do not agree, however, that Maryland was a Union state. I will state for the record that I believe Maryland was a Union-occupied state, beginning on 22 April 1861, when Gen Butler arrived with the 7th New York at Annapolis and disembarked, ignoring the Governor's protest. At the same time, I believe we can all agree, there were a number of people in Maryland who sympathized with the South, and a large number who sympathized with the plight of runaway slaves, and a large number of people who paid lip-service to whomever was in charge.

If I was living back then, I probably would have been what Daniel Crofts referred to as a "Reluctant Confederate". I would not have voted for Lincoln, as he would not be representative of my interests. I would have worked for compromise and reconciliation between Nothern and Southern states. I would have been intellectually disgusted by Lincoln's disregard for States Rights, and reviled for his flagrant violation of Individual Liberty (given his repeal of Habeus Corpus in April, and declaration of Martial law in May).

As for Maryland units under arms under the Union flag:
In the summer of 1861 (there's that number, again, bolded and underlined, AGAIN) the 1st Regiment of Infantry, Maryland Volunteers under then Colonel John Kenly were mustered into the service of the US. They fought bravely under Gen N. Banks in the Valley Campaign of 1862, before being surrounded and captured at Front Royal, in May (by the 1st Maryland Infantry, CSA). It reorganized in Baltimore, and served with distinction in the AoP, taking part in 28 battles and skirmishes. The 2nd and 3rd also campaigned in coastal North Carolina, northern Virginia, and eastern Tennessee, and were at Sharpsburg with Burnside at the Bridge. However, the units of designated Maryland volunteers, 4th - 13th regiments saw little action, primarily used for picket duty and guarding prisoners. The Potomac Home Brigade (I believe there were 2), the Purnell Legion, and the 1st and 2nd Eastern Shore regiments were all organized for home defense only. The PHB surrendered to Stonewall Jackson at Harpers Ferry. The Eastern Shore Regiments were pulled along for Gettysburg, and returned immediately to their assigned picket duties thereafter. All of this is found in the Maryland Roster

Again, I reiterate, you are entitled to your own opinion(s), but not to your own facts. I will admit to needing to do more research on the Artillery and Cavalry, but again, I am only concentrating, in the context of the poem/state song, on Maryland volunteers, in 1861.

Pvt Schnapps
02-24-2009, 10:58 AM
Jimbo, why on earth would a discussion of Maryland loyalties during the war limit itself to 1861?

It looks like you're trying to make a case for greater loyalty toward the south by assuming all 20,000 southern troops from Maryland left immediately at the beginning of the war, and that no Federal enlistments after 1861 should count.

But on what basis do you even assume that all 20,000 southerners left at once? Even the 20,000 was just a swag by Trimble and may very well be an overestimate of Marylanders in Confederate service.

Your citation of immigrant statistics overstates their numerical contribution. Wilhelm Kaufman, in his book on Germans in the American Civil War, gives a total of about 3,100 Germans among the Maryland enlistments.

That leaves you with 47,000 yankees to explain away. Those would include the several regiments you admit were raised in 1861, which appear (based on your own count) to exceed the total number of southern regiments from Maryland.

By the way, only the First PHB was paroled at Harper's Ferry. Two more regiments were formed. Elements of the Third PHB distinguished themselves at Frederick on the eve of Monocacy. Though mere "home defense" troops, their actions helped delay Early in his advance on Washington.

You may not think they should count, but Jubal Early would probably differ with you.

If you think different fonts will make your argument more coherent, go ahead, but so far you're doing a fine job of contradicting yourself without them.

...

BTW: Hank, I like pesto on my grits. I suspect that's an affectation that started with the 39th New York. ;)

sbl
02-24-2009, 12:16 PM
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME XIX/2 [S# 28]
Correspondence, Orders, And Returns Relating To Operations In Northern Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, And Pennsylvania, From September 3 To November 14, 1862.
UNION CORRESPONDENCE, ETC.--#6

HEADQUARTERS SEVENTH ARMY CORPS,
Fort Monroe, Va., September 15, 1862.
Maj. Gen. H. W. HALLECK,
General-in-Chief :
GENERAL: Before I left Baltimore I designed to represent to the Government the importance of making Fort Federal Hill a permanent fortification, but was prevented by my sudden departure. There is now an admirable earthwork there, and all that is necessary is to surround it with brick walls, and construct casemates within. I do not think an essential alteration of the plan necessary. The ground would probably cost, on appraisement, $100,000; the work, $250,000, which, in view of the important object to be secured, is a very moderate expenditure.
The considerations by which this measure is supported are as follows:
1st. The geographical position of Baltimore renders it indispensable that it should be under the control of the Government military force, in order to insure the quietude and safety of the capital. The direct connection of the two cities, and the preponderance of Baltimore in population, require that the latter should not be left to the dangers arising from popular or political excitement.
2d. There is no city in the Union in which domestic disturbances have been more frequent or carried to more fatal extremes from 1812 to the present day. Although the great body of the people are eminently distinguished for their moral virtues, Baltimore has always contained a <ar28_305> mass of inflammable material which ignites on the slightest provocation. A city so prone to burst into flame, and thus become dangerous to its neighbors, should be controlled by the strong arm of the Government whenever these paroxysms of excitement occur.
3d. Fort Federal Hill completely commands the city, and is capable, from its proximity to the principal business quarters, of assailing any one without injury to the others. The hill seems to have been placed there by nature as a site for a permanent citadel, and I beg to suggest whether a neglect to appropriate it to its obvious design would not be an unpardonable dereliction of duty.
As I was more than ten months in command at Baltimore, and as Fort Federal Hill and Fort Marshall (*) were undertaken and completed on my recommendations and under my supervision, I trust I shall be excused for these suggestions. General Cullum went over the ground with me before the plan of defense, of which the two forts referred to were the principal parts, was formally adopted, and is familiar with the whole subject.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOHN A. DIX,
Major-General."


*I found a picture but I don't know the exact location of Fort Marshall

http://pro.corbis.com/images/IH156586.jpg?size=67&uid={D74CE293-903B-47E0-BADC-22256E297B3D}

hendrickms24
02-24-2009, 02:22 PM
Mr. Maranto listed a large number of Units of Marylanders who fought for the North. But how many of those Regiments were for Home Defense only? How many were 90-day men, or 9-month men? What year were these units raised? Certainly not all in 1861.


Take a look at my quick find! This list of units does not take in account the number of wounded but as you can see a large number of Maryland units saw action. I did not add the USCT because I really don't have the time! I still do not know what difference it makes if the units were formed in 1861 or later but the following were formed in 1861: one Artillery Battery, one cavalry Regt. while another one was starting to be organized, one Legion was formed (unit made up of a mix of Cavalry, Infantry, & Artillery), Six Infantry regiments with three more starting to organized at the end of 1861 and one independent company of infantry. I think that 6 regiments were formed as "Home Guard" but from their service show differently most of the Home Guard units saw service in parts of PA, DEL, VA, and WVA.

Not sure what the difference if units were 6 month or 100 days but here are the totals: Five 6th month units and two 100 day units.
1st Maryland Cavalry Regiment – Saw lots of action!
Regiment lost during service 3 Officers and 65 Enlisted men killed and mortally wounded and 3 Officers and 130 Enlisted men by disease. Total 201.

1st Maryland Regiment Potomac Home Brigade Cavalry - Saw lots of action!
Regiment lost during service 2 Officers and 45 Enlisted men killed and mortally wounded and 2 Officers and 120 Enlisted men by disease. Total 169.

2nd Maryland Cavalry Regiment (6 Month men) – Provost Duty in Anne Arundel and Calvert counties and at Annapolis, Md and saw no action.
Lost 13 by disease during service.

3rd Maryland Cavalry Regiment – Saw some action in La & Ala area.
Regiment lost during service is not listed.

Purnell Legion Cavalry (3 companies) - Some companies saw action.
Legion lost while in service 7 Enlisted men killed and mortally wounded and 24 Enlisted men by disease. Total 31.

Smith’s Independent Company of Cavalry – Special duty on eastern shore of Md.
Company lost during service is not listed.

Rigby's Battery "A" Light Artillery – Saw lots of action!
Battery lost during service 6 Enlisted men killed and mortally wounded and 28 Enlisted men by disease. Total 34.

Snow's Battery "B" Light Artillery- Saw lots of action!
Battery lost during service 5 Enlisted men killed and mortally wounded and 27 Enlisted men by disease. Total 32.

Battery "D" Light Artillery - Duty in Defenses Baltimore and Washington.

Battery "A" Junior Light Artillery (6 Month men) – Duty in the Defenses of Baltimore

Battery "B" Junior Light Artillery (6 Month men) – Duty in the Defenses of Baltimore

Baltimore Independent Battery Light Artillery- saw some action.
Battery lost during service 1 Enlisted man killed and 7 Enlisted men by disease. Total 8.

1st Maryland Regiment Heavy Artillery – Organization not complete.
Company A on duty in the Defenses of Baltimore

1st Maryland Regiment Infantry - Saw lots of action!
Regiment lost during service 8 Officers and 110 Enlisted men killed and mortally wounded and 1 Officer and 148 Enlisted men by disease. Total 267.

2nd Maryland Regiment Infantry - Saw lots of action!
Regiment lost during service 5 Officers and 84 Enlisted men killed and mortally wounded and 3 Officers and 134 Enlisted men by disease. Total 226.

3rd Maryland Regiment Infantry - Saw lots of action!
Regiment lost during service 8 Officers and 83 Enlisted men killed and mortally wounded and 4 Officers and 130 Enlisted men by disease. Total 225.

4th Maryland Regiment Infantry– Saw lots of action!
Regiment lost during service 3 Officers and 32 Enlisted men killed and mortally wounded and 1 Officer and 72 Enlisted men by disease. Total 108.

5th Maryland Regiment Infantry- Saw action numerous times.
Regiment lost during service 1 Officer and 63 Enlisted men killed and mortally wounded and 6 Officers and 91 Enlisted men by disease. Total 161.

6th Maryland Regiment Infantry- Saw lots of action!
Regiment lost during service 8 Officers and 120 Enlisted men killed and mortally wounded and 1 Officer and 107 Enlisted men by disease. Total 236.

7th Maryland Regiment Infantry- Saw lots of action!
Regiment lost during service 1 Officer and 78 Enlisted men killed and mortally wounded and 1 Officer and 109 Enlisted men by disease. Total 189.

8th Maryland Regiment Infantry- Saw some action.
Regiment lost during service 3 Officers and 54 Enlisted men killed and mortally wounded and 70 Enlisted men by disease. Total 127.

9th Maryland Regiment Infantry (6th Month men) – Saw action at Charleston, W.VA.
Regiment lost during service 2 Enlisted men killed and mortally wounded and 124 Enlisted men by disease, Total 126.

10th Maryland Regiment Infantry (6th Month men) – Duty at Harpers Ferry and saw no action.
Regiment lost 22 by disease during service.

11th Maryland Regiment Infantry (100 Day men) – Saw action at the Battle of Monocacy.
Regiment lost 29 by disease during service.

12th Maryland Regiment Infantry (100 Day men) – guard duty along Baltimore & Ohio Railroad between Baltimore, Md., and Kearneysville, Va., and saw no action.
Regiment lost 2 by disease during service.

1st Maryland Regiment Potomac Home Brigade Infantry – saw action a number of times and was at Battle of Gettysburg and Monocacy.
Regiment lost during service 3 Officers and 42 Enlisted men killed and mortally wounded and 1 Officer and 85 Enlisted men by disease. Total 131.
- Reorganized from Veterans 1st Potomac Home Brigade Infantry March 1, 1865, Designated 13th Regiment Infantry

2nd Maryland Regiment Potomac Home Brigade Infantry – was in a couple of skirmishes mostly on guard duty.
Regiment lost during service 1 Officer and 9 Enlisted men killed and mortally wounded and 84 Enlisted men by disease, Total 94.

3rd Maryland Regiment Potomac Home Brigade Infantry – saw action at Battle of Monocacy & Snicker’s Gap.
Regiment lost during service 1 Officer and 8 Enlisted men killed and mortally wounded and 1 Officer and 73 Enlisted men by disease. Total 83.

1st Maryland Regiment Eastern Shore Regiment – saw action at Gettysburg
Regiment lost during service 9 Enlisted men killed and mortally wounded and 52 Enlisted men by disease. Total 61.

2nd Maryland Regiment Eastern Shore Regiment – Fought at Battle of Winchester - 7/24/64
Regiment lost during service 10 Enlisted men killed and mortally wounded and 1 Officer and 62 Enlisted men by disease. Total 73.

Purnell Legion Infantry – saw some action.
Regiment lost during service 1 Officer and 42 Enlisted mortally wounded and 1 Officer and 73 Enlisted men by disease. Total 117.

Patapsco Guard Independent Company – involved in one skirmish.
No losses reported.



I am not discounting those Germans (still recent immigrants from the 1850s, mind you), that "volunteered" for duty. Some saw it as a way of using their past wartime experience as a way to assilmilate into this society. But from 1862 through the end of the war, a large number of men HAD to be coerced, either by bounty, draft conscription, or other, less palatable means.


Many other Northerners and Southerners also served to better their status in life so not sure why this matters! Coerced by bounty? That’s a little bit of a stretch!

hendrickms24
02-24-2009, 03:08 PM
*I found a picture but I don't know the exact location of Fort Marshall

http://pro.corbis.com/images/IH156586.jpg?size=67&uid={D74CE293-903B-47E0-BADC-22256E297B3D}




Ft Marshall was located in the Highlandtown/Canton area just east of Patterson Park.

sbl
02-24-2009, 03:25 PM
Thanks! I just looked. Fort Paterson would control the way out to Sparrow Point etc and overlook the city.

I was thinking about the Baltimore forts all night. We had a fort on the end of Bearskin Neck in Rockport that was destroyed by the Brits in 1814. They attacked it from the base of the Penninsula of Bearskin Neck where their was just the Militia barracks.

Pvt_Idaho
02-24-2009, 09:20 PM
My own personal version sung whenever the song is sung in official venues such as at the 4th of July celebrations at Antietam where my northern scum relatives are buried:


Maryland, My Maryland, we stole it from the Christmas tree.

We stole it from the Christmas tree to make a song for the Con-fed-eracy.

Oh Maryland, My Maryland, we stole it from the Christmas tree.

repeat refrain until done.


I think John White's version is better.

jthlmnn
02-24-2009, 10:40 PM
I am not discounting those Germans (still recent immigrants from the 1850s, mind you), that "volunteered" for duty. Some saw it as a way of using their past wartime experience as a way to assilmilate into this society. But from 1862 through the end of the war, a large number of men HAD to be coerced, either by bounty, draft conscription, or other, less palatable means.

Mr. Ward,

I suggest that you paint those early Union volunteers who were born in the Germanic states with a brush that is both too broad and too simplistic. As with any group, Germanic immigrants held a wide variety of opinions and took an equally wide variety of actions when they settled in the U.S. Focusing on the more recent (to the Civil War) settlers, a large number of them were idealistic, educated, and willing to fight for principles. I speak, of course, of that group commonly referred to as "'48ers".

Specifically addressing your emphasis on 1861 enlistments, I have found in my studies that these idealists were usually the first of the German-speaking Americans to volunteer. Why? Because union (which they had unsuccessfully fought for in the lands of their birth), freedom (as opposed to slavery-which they viewed to be no better, and even worse than, serfdom), were what drew them to America in the first place. Evidence of this can be found in the constitution of the first union of Turnverein organizations (c.1850) "The Turners oppose slavery. Slavery is a principle opposed of a republic and they consider it extremely unworthy of Americans". Further evidence is provided by the Turner members who formed Lincoln's bodyguard at his first inauguration. Still more by the percentage of Turner members who served in the Union Army (75%). You might also look at the "Turner" regiments/units and check their organization dates. (To clarify: Turnverein clubs were heavily supported, even founded, by "48ers". Where you found one, you would find the other.) I believe the Dieter Cunz article you cited*, (Maryland Germans in the Civil War, Maryland Historical Magazine, Fall 2005) further reinforces the point.
"The concept of slavery stood in the sharpest contrast to their (German immigrants) liberal and progressive ideas. Naturally they knew nothing of the specifically American background, the economic conditions, which for a certain period made slavery understandable and pardonable; what they did observe was the horror of slavery as judged from the standpoint of their ideals and theories". p359

On a specifically Baltimore note, the anti-slavery newspaper The Baltimore Wecker was founded by 48er Carl Heinrich Schnauffer and edited by another 48er, August Becker. I believe the Turner Hall in Baltimore was burned by a Nativist/Know-Nothing mob in the late 1850s. (The date is foggy and I stand to be corrected.) So, idealistic Germanic-born Americans were present and active in Maryland at that time. They loved the country they had chosen and the principles which it espoused. They were willing to fight and die for her survival.

(Note: I am well aware that there were also units of German-speaking Confederates, even Turner units. The numbers are not even a whisper of those that served in the Federal Army, but that is beside the point here. I am only addressing the motivation of German-speaking Maryland citizens who would have enlisted in the Federal Army in 1861.)

bob 125th nysvi
02-24-2009, 11:15 PM
Finally somebody bit--no pun intended. :p

Here's the problem: New England hasty pudding (the classic period recipe) and southern grits (what's usually called "mush" in the period) are, actually, the same thing!

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

I make them they aren't Hank ;)

Jonah Begone
02-25-2009, 10:54 AM
Whenever I hear the Maryland State Song I think of a Christmas tree wearing a Rebel uniform.

Jonah

hendrickms24
02-25-2009, 11:44 AM
Gentleman,
But how many of those Regiments were for Home Defense only?

The more I think about the six units that are so called "Home Guard!"
They are not home guard since they were all in Federal service and not controlled by the State of Maryland. In my mind a Home Guard unit would be like a State militia that can only stay in the boarder of the said state unless it was federalized. Not sure how it was done during ACW but during the War of 1812 militia units could only be in federal service for short periods of time from a month or two at a time. The following are the units that many people look at as “Home Guard” units and I’m sure it’s because of their strange names.

1st Maryland Regiment Potomac Home Brigade Infantry
2nd Maryland Regiment Potomac Home Brigade Infantry
3rd Maryland Regiment Potomac Home Brigade Infantry
1st Maryland Regiment Eastern Shore Infantry
2nd Maryland Regiment Eastern Shore Infantry
1st Maryland Regiment Potomac Home Brigade Cavalry

hanktrent
02-25-2009, 12:01 PM
I make them they aren't Hank ;)

What, you think I don't make them? ;)

Are you thinking of the kind of hasty pudding with eggs? Seems the name was used for both kinds in the period. Nothing different about these recipes.

From Lydia Child in Massachusetts, 1832 (The Frugal Housewife):

Hasty Pudding. Boil water, a quart, three pints, or two quarts, according to the size of your family; sift your meal, stir five or six spoonfuls of it thoroughly into a bowl of water; when the water in the kettle boils, pour into it the contents of the bowl; stir it well, and let it boil up thick; put in salt to suit your own taste, then stand over the kettle, and sprinkle in meal, handful after handful, stirring it very thoroughly all the time, and letting it boil between whiles. When it is so thick that you stir it with a great difficulty, it is about right.

From Lettice Bryan in Kentucky, 1839 (The Kentucky Housewife):

Indian Mush... Sift some fine Indian meal, make a smooth batter of it by stirring in a sufficiency of cold water. Having ready a pot of boiling water, throw in a handful of salt, and stir in your batter till it is like very thick soup. Boil it till of the proper consistence, and stir it frequently to prevent its being lumpy, and to keep it from burning at the bottom.

Now the question is, what did Marylanders call it? That's surely the final answer for whether the state was northern or southern. ;)

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

bob 125th nysvi
02-26-2009, 11:51 PM
Are you thinking of the kind of hasty pudding with eggs? Seems the name was used for both kinds in the period. Nothing different about these recipes.

about the one with eggs. Know some Vermonters who make it that way.

I make mine just hard and dry (unless I got some cheese!) and throw pepper sauce on top unless it is for breakfast then it is butter.

50th vice pres
02-28-2009, 10:49 AM
You may believe that but a large majority of scientists overall and the vast majority of climatologist would disagree with you. And let's not forget the Eskimos you are experiencing first-hand the effects from it. But then that is a discussion for another forum but not here.
A general warming of the globe over all MAY be true, but I'll never, ever believe MAN had anything or could even institute a start of it. Don't know about anyone else, but here in Northern IN its been colder than a witches, well, ya'll know, in quite a few years, just seems to me that were going thru global FREEZING!:p

50th vice pres
02-28-2009, 11:06 AM
So if I understand you correctly. My son and all the other children in the State of Maryland are a bunch of idiots and can't think for themselves. I personally think that this is a great learning experience for these children in how democracy works.
Sir, I'm not at all saying that the children of the state of Maryland are idiots, far from it, and they, for the majority, have decent parents who love and care for them. But come on, a forth grader who understands right from wrong completely? While that would be ideal, I remember being around that age and the LAST thing I wanted to do was follow orders, but be a boy, a child, more interested in nintendo and pinching the girls butts. I certainly didn't care about anything political, barely could stand up and remember the words 'I pledge alligiance ...". I'm just saying I believe adults took this time to pass on what they wanted to have changed, and are saying that the children did this all on their own.

50th vice pres
02-28-2009, 11:12 AM
....eventually you have to take down the Christmas lights.
Please, please tell this to my wife!:p

sbl
02-28-2009, 12:11 PM
;) ;) ;)


http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/wpr0260l.jpg

sbl
02-28-2009, 12:14 PM
The secret is...go out on the first warm day after New Years Day and do it quick. We usually get a short thaw before winter sets in hard.

jthlmnn
02-28-2009, 12:47 PM
Sir, I'm not at all saying that the children of the state of Maryland are idiots, far from it, and they, for the majority, have decent parents who love and care for them. But come on, a forth grader who understands right from wrong completely? While that would be ideal, I remember being around that age and the LAST thing I wanted to do was follow orders, but be a boy, a child, more interested in nintendo and pinching the girls butts. I certainly didn't care about anything political, barely could stand up and remember the words 'I pledge alligiance ...". I'm just saying I believe adults took this time to pass on what they wanted to have changed, and are saying that the children did this all on their own.

First, fourth grade is commonly where students focus on state and local history. Things like their state animals, bird, motto & song are a standard part of the curriculum.

Second, fourth graders have an intense sense of right/wrong, proper/improper, fair/unfair, etc. (In one way, this makes classroom management much easier, as they will rat each other out in a heartbeat. ;))

Third, keep in mind how students are trained to behave with each other. Respect, non-insulting language, etc. are constantly preached as the ideals of good behavior.

Based on my own experience with fourth graders, I have no difficulty believing that they were offended by the current lyrics of their state song and that the school librarian (along with their classroom teacher) recognized a "teachable moment" for a civics lesson, a writing exercise, and development of research skills.

You cannot force fourth graders to get fired up over something that does not interest them. A smart teacher will take what does interest them and use that energy to further the students' education. That school has some sharp educators. I tip my forage cap to them.

tompritchett
03-01-2009, 02:36 PM
A general warming of the globe over all MAY be true, but I'll never, ever believe MAN had anything or could even institute a start of it. Don't know about anyone else, but here in Northern IN its been colder than a witches, well, ya'll know, in quite a few years, just seems to me that were going thru global FREEZING

I have gigabytes of downloaded scientific reports on my hard drive at work stating otherwise but, as I said in my earlier post, this is not the place for such a debate.

bob 125th nysvi
03-01-2009, 11:44 PM
I have gigabytes of downloaded scientific reports on my hard drive at work stating otherwise but, as I said in my earlier post, this is not the place for such a debate.

you PROMISED we weren't going to go down this path again.

If you won't keep your promises I'm talking my ball and going home!

Pvt_Idaho
03-02-2009, 10:55 AM
The lyrics to this song I shun,
Maryland, My Maryland.
The Despot made the Johnnies run,
Maryland, My Maryland.
I rejoice the Union won,
but that's because I'm northern scum,
and pay your taxes when your done,
Maryland, My Maryland.

GaWildcat
03-02-2009, 02:06 PM
Why do you think the Brits only sing the first verse of our national anthem... It's for the very same reason. The sixth verse makes reference to "crushing the rebellious Scots" when in the modern world (like it or not), Scotland is part of Britain.

Political correctness? Maybe! But definitely needed.

In the same way, the wording of the ninth verse of Maryland, My Maryland could be construed as being derogatory towards people from the northern US states and people are obviously sensitive to that sort of internal division.

Political correctness? Maybe! But definitely needed? I've leave that for people from Maryland to decide that one.

Sixth Verse??? of the Star Spangled Banner??

Okay, maybe I am dumb, but I have searched and searched for this Sixth Verse and havent found it yet. There was a fifth written by Oliver Wendell Holmes during the WBTS, but I have not found anything on a sixth stanza, and the poem by Key The Defense of Fort McHenry only has four. Were is this sixth Verse from??

hendrickms24
03-02-2009, 02:14 PM
Sixth Verse??? of the Star Spangled Banner??

Okay, maybe I am dumb, but I have searched and searched for this Sixth Verse and havent found it yet. There was a fifth written by Oliver Wendell Holmes during the WBTS, but I have not found anything on a sixth stanza, and the poem by Key The Defense of Fort McHenry only has four. Were is this sixth Verse from??


He is talking about the British National Anthem

1. God save our gracious Queen,
Long live our noble Queen,
God save the Queen!
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us;
God save the Queen!

2. O Lord our God arise,
Scatter her enemies
And make them fall;
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix,
God save us all!

3. Thy choicest gifts in store
On her be pleased to pour;
Long may she reign;
May she defend our laws,
And ever give us cause
To sing with heart and voice,
God save the Queen!

4. Not in this land alone,
But be God's mercies known,
From shore to shore!
Lord make the nations see,
That men should brothers be,
And form one family,
The wide world over.

5. From every latent foe,
From the assassins blow,
God save the Queen!
O'er her thine arm extend,
For Britain's sake defend,
Our mother, prince, and friend,
God save the Queen!

6. Lord grant that Marshal Wade
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
And like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush.
God save the Queen!

GaWildcat
03-02-2009, 02:32 PM
My apologies... Call it mistaken Identity:oops:

Regular3
03-03-2009, 02:39 PM
As does the great state of Kentucky - home of fast horses and beautiful women.But you do know that "My Old Kentucky Home" has been fileted ... This is not a subject I bring up to my Kentucky-born mother.

And let's don't get started on "Carry Me Back to Ol' Virginny".

Put me in the camp of "if you want 'x' to be the state song, leave it alone. If you change the lyrics, it's not 'x' any more, it's another song with the same title."

sbl
03-03-2009, 10:23 PM
"Tis summer, the darkies are gay;...."

Remember, they changed the Pledge of Allegiance back in the 50s.

tompritchett
03-03-2009, 10:24 PM
But you do know that "My Old Kentucky Home" has been fileted

Yes, I knew.

sbl
03-03-2009, 10:33 PM
In a 4th Grade show I had to be in a Stephen Foster medley in blackface. This was the early 60s. I hate "Old Black Joe." Keep those lyrics in context of their time.

5 th Alabama Infantry
03-04-2009, 09:13 PM
My 5th grade teacher taught us all the well know Stephen Foster songs with the original lyrics.

sbl
03-04-2009, 10:37 PM
We got that too but we also "goofed" on the lyrics of Old Black Joe with a Portuguese kid named Joe in the class. It was the early 1960s and our parents and teachers started to become more aware that there was no reason to insult people that didn't deserve it with an old fashioned "pop" tune. The Stephen Foster lyrics are more like relics now. Nice for study in historical context, but they shouldn't be waved around. Let's face it Foster was a Yankee anyway right?

hiplainsyank
03-10-2009, 12:50 PM
About 2/3 of the immigrants were Germans (again according to the census). They cared little for states rights. "It made no difference to them whether they lived in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, or Texas." (Cunz, "Maryland Germans in the Civil War,"394-95). The mountain people of Alleghany County (extreme far western Maryland) were basically German stock (along with British coal miners) and aligned politically with other mountaineers, pro-Union.



They cared little for states' rights? And Confederate soldiers did? This bugaboo again? Honestly, JImbow, the term "states' rights" is mentioned almost NEVER in the writings and speeches of Confederates from soldiers to policitians; slavery is mentioned over and over and over again.

They were fighting for their way of life, which was both social and economic. They freely admitted it. Why do we have to PC Confederates, and try to substitute something moderns find more appealing (states' rights) for what they realy were trying to do when seceeding: establish a country in which they could keep slaves and expand slavery as they wished?

Which explained why people who lived in areas where slavery was NOT commonplace resisted the Confederacy. It had nothing to do with how people in Appalachia viewed states' rights. They didn't like the slaveocracy that dominated southern life, economy and politics.

This is not to say we vilify Confederate soldiers, just admit that they were people of their time and place, just as were the 90-some odd percent of white northerners who were shockingly racist by today's standards and who practiced that racism in a closeted form for generations after the war was over.

RebelBugler
03-28-2009, 09:00 PM
Sir, I'm not at all saying that the children of the state of Maryland are idiots, far from it, and they, for the majority, have decent parents who love and care for them. But come on, a forth grader who understands right from wrong completely? While that would be ideal, I remember being around that age and the LAST thing I wanted to do was follow orders, but be a boy, a child, more interested in nintendo and pinching the girls butts. I certainly didn't care about anything political, barely could stand up and remember the words 'I pledge alligiance ...". I'm just saying I believe adults took this time to pass on what they wanted to have changed, and are saying that the children did this all on their own.

I testified before the House Committee of the General Assembly, in opposition to changing the State song. An entire busload of 4th graders from Glen Burnie Elementary School came to testify and sing the proposed lyrics. Clearly, the children had been unduly influenced by the media teacher's agenda. The children stated that the words were old fashioned, hard to understand and objected to calling Lincoln a despot. It is unfortunate that the children weren't exposed to history, civics and the Constitution. If they had been, their perspective on the song may have been different.

To my knowledge, Maryland was the only state whose citizens suffered the indignity of having their duly elected State Legislators arrested by Lincoln's tyrannical administration. The Patriot Act, warrantless surveillance and other claimed Constitutional infringements of modern times pale in comparison to the innumerable violations of Constitutional liberties suffered by Marylanders which included suspension of habeas corpus, false imprisonment, illegal searches and seizures, suppression of free speech, censorship of the press and voter intimidation. Let Maryland my Maryland continue to remind us of the dangers of allowing the government to trump the Constitutional rights of its citizens!

hendrickms24
03-29-2009, 12:47 PM
Clearly, the children had been unduly influenced by the media teacher's agenda. The children stated that the words were old fashioned, hard to understand and objected to calling Lincoln a despot. It is unfortunate that the children weren't exposed to history, civics and the Constitution. If they had been, their perspective on the song may have been different.
Right! Children can not think for themselves! Just because you disagree with these children does not mean they are a group of mindless drones. If you take the time to look around you will see lots of cases were children have done wonderful things because they believed in what they were doing.



To my knowledge, Maryland was the only state whose citizens suffered the indignity of having their duly elected State Legislators arrested by Lincoln's tyrannical administration. The Patriot Act, warrantless surveillance and other claimed Constitutional infringements of modern times pale in comparison to the innumerable violations of Constitutional liberties suffered by Marylanders which included suspension of habeas corpus, false imprisonment, illegal searches and seizures, suppression of free speech, censorship of the press and voter intimidation. Let Maryland my Maryland continue to remind us of the dangers of allowing the government to trump the Constitutional rights of its citizens!

If the citizens of Maryland suffered so much then why did so many of them join the Federal army to fight against the rebellion? I personally look at Maryland as being one of the states that did not allow themselves to be railroaded into session by the few! The majority seemed to understand what was happening and through their lack of action supported the federal government.

I hope that the 4th graders helped to change the song to the new lyrics!

Pvt Schnapps
03-29-2009, 01:10 PM
To my knowledge, Maryland was the only state whose citizens suffered the indignity of having their duly elected State Legislators arrested by Lincoln's tyrannical administration.

If one believes James M. McPherson in "Battle Cry of Freedom" (p. 287), your knowledge may require further augmentation:

"Although Baltimore remained tense, the buildup of Union military strength along Maryland's railroads and a declaration of martial law in the city on May 13 dampened secession activities. Nevertheless, Governor Hicks succumbed to pressures to call the legislature into session. Lincoln considered sending troops to arrest disunionist legislators, but thought better of it. To the president's surprise, the legislature turned out to be all bark and no bite. The lower house denounced the war which 'the Federal Government had declared on the Confederate States' and proclaimed Maryland's 'resolute determination to have no part or lot, directly or indirectly, in its prosecution.' At the same time, however, the legislature refused to consider an ordinance of secession or to call a convention to to so. In effect, the legislators accepted Governor Hicks's recommendation of 'a neutral position between our brethern of the North and of the South.'"

McPherson goes on to discuss the Unionist loyalties of Garrett of the B&O Railroad and to point out that Unionist candidates won all six seats in a special congressional election on June 13.

The contrast between Mr. Maranto's well-researched documentation of the fact that the majority of Maryland enlistments even in 1861 were in Union regiments, and your own unsupported allegations about Lincoln's "despotism", is pretty striking.

RebelBugler
03-29-2009, 07:34 PM
If one believes James M. McPherson in "Battle Cry of Freedom" (p. 287), your knowledge may require further augmentation:

"Although Baltimore remained tense, the buildup of Union military strength along Maryland's railroads and a declaration of martial law in the city on May 13 dampened secession activities. Nevertheless, Governor Hicks succumbed to pressures to call the legislature into session. Lincoln considered sending troops to arrest disunionist legislators, but thought better of it. To the president's surprise, the legislature turned out to be all bark and no bite. The lower house denounced the war which 'the Federal Government had declared on the Confederate States' and proclaimed Maryland's 'resolute determination to have no part or lot, directly or indirectly, in its prosecution.' At the same time, however, the legislature refused to consider an ordinance of secession or to call a convention to to so. In effect, the legislators accepted Governor Hicks's recommendation of 'a neutral position between our brethern of the North and of the South.'"

McPherson goes on to discuss the Unionist loyalties of Garrett of the B&O Railroad and to point out that Unionist candidates won all six seats in a special congressional election on June 13.

The contrast between Mr. Maranto's well-researched documentation of the fact that the majority of Maryland enlistments even in 1861 were in Union regiments, and your own unsupported allegations about Lincoln's "despotism", is pretty striking.


I don't believe McPherson and never cared for him as an author or historian.

As to "Mr. Maranto's well-researched documentation of the fact that the majority of Maryland enlistments even in 1861 were in Union regiments", one would have to know the number of Confederate enlistments in 1861 to make a meaningful comparison and claim that the majority were Union enlistments.

Lincoln's despotism and violations of the Constitution are not unsupported allegations. They have been substantiated in any number of books. If you need me to forward a list of suggested readings, I will be happy to oblige.

As to veracity of the claim that members of the Maryland General Assembly were arrested on orders of the Lincoln Administration, perhaps the Maryland State archives might be a suitably unbiased source. Initially, in April 1861, Lincoln was opposed such an action. However,by the time a special session of the Maryland General Assembly was convened in August of 1861, Lincoln's Cabinet Secretary's were issuing orders for the arrest of Maryland's elected Legislators. Please review the facts and then report back to us that you erred in your previous posting.

http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/speccol/sc5500/sc5572/000001/000000/000017/html/t17.html (http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/speccol/sc5500/sc5572/000001/000000/000017/html/t17.html)

"On August 7, the General Assembly adjourned, intending to meet again on September 17. However, on that day Federal troops and Baltimore police officers arrived in Frederick with orders to arrest the pro-Confederate members of the General Assembly. Thus, the special session in Frederick ended, as did Frederick's summer as the state capital, as Maryland found itself inexorably drawn further and further into the heart of the bloodiest war in American history".

"The despot's heel is on thy shore,
Maryland! My Maryland

His torch is at thy temple door,
Maryland! My Maryland
Avenge the patriotic gore
That flecked the streets of Baltimore,
And be the battle queen of yore,
Maryland! My Maryland!

Pvt Schnapps
03-30-2009, 08:25 AM
I don't believe McPherson and never cared for him as an author or historian.

As to "Mr. Maranto's well-researched documentation of the fact that the majority of Maryland enlistments even in 1861 were in Union regiments", one would have to know the number of Confederate enlistments in 1861 to make a meaningful comparison and claim that the majority were Union enlistments.


Somehow I'm not surprised that you don't believe McPherson. I guess the Pulitzer Prize committee is part of the conspiracy.

As for Mr. Maranto's documentation, all you have to do is read it in this very thread. But that's too much to ask, I suppose.

It would also seem to much to ask you to read the link you pasted. I note that it leads to this statement about the Frederick legislative session:

"The main topic of discussion in those tastefully appointed halls was, of course, the question of whether or not to secede from the Union. As the General Assembly met throughout the long summer, a bill and a resolution were introduced calling for secession. Both failed because the legislators said that they did not have the authority to secede from the Union. Even many of the pro-Southern delegates and senators did not support the bills."

Following the link within a link to the Official Records, one finds that a number of secession legislators were arrested because they were associated with an attempt to import arms from Virginia and pursue secession, despite the outcome of the vote mentioned above. It's interesting that after they were arrested, most took the oath of allegiance. As to the conditions of their treatment, the President directed:

"The marshals of the United States in the vicinity of forts where political prisoners are held will supply decent lodgings and subsistence for such prisoners, unless they shall prefer to provide in those respects for themselves, in which cases they will be allowed to do so by the commanding officers in charge."

Some despot!

jthlmnn
03-30-2009, 09:03 PM
I testified before the House Committee of the General Assembly, in opposition to changing the State song. An entire busload of 4th graders from Glen Burnie Elementary School came to testify and sing the proposed lyrics. Clearly, the children had been unduly influenced by the media teacher's agenda. The children stated that the words were old fashioned, hard to understand and objected to calling Lincoln a despot. It is unfortunate that the children weren't exposed to history, civics and the Constitution. If they had been, their perspective on the song may have been different.


As I stated in an earlier post, typical fourth graders have a very intense sense of right-wrong, fair-unfair, etc. So the attitude they demonstrated would have required no prompting from anyone. Trying to "unduly influence them" would have, in fact, been an exercise in futility. Obviously they had a history lesson, as they knew the ACW era lyrics as well as the 1894 lyrics. They would have learned the background of the two authors in the process. If writing to their state legislator and testifying isn't part of a "civics lesson" (and you can bet they've been studying the legislative process and tracking the progress of the bill), then I would like to know what is. That school has, from my reading, a top-notch group of students and teachers.

RebelBugler
04-03-2009, 09:47 PM
As I stated in an earlier post, typical fourth graders have a very intense sense of right-wrong, fair-unfair, etc. So the attitude they demonstrated would have required no prompting from anyone. Trying to "unduly influence them" would have, in fact, been an exercise in futility. Obviously they had a history lesson, as they knew the ACW era lyrics as well as the 1894 lyrics. They would have learned the background of the two authors in the process. If writing to their state legislator and testifying isn't part of a "civics lesson" (and you can bet they've been studying the legislative process and tracking the progress of the bill), then I would like to know what is. That school has, from my reading, a top-notch group of students and teachers.

Perhaps if you would have attended the session of the General Assembly as I did, as opposed to commenting from afar, you might well have a different perspective. The educator orchestrating the student protest was a media instructor, not a civics or history teacher. It's great that the children had a chance to see how the General Assembly functions. It is unfortunate that they were not taught how despotic Lincoln's administration was nor how the Emancipation Proclamation freed not a single slave!

Pvt Schnapps
04-04-2009, 05:32 AM
Perhaps if you would have attended the session of the General Assembly as I did, as opposed to commenting from afar, you might well have a different perspective. The educator orchestrating the student protest was a media instructor, not a civics or history teacher. It's great that the children had a chance to see how the General Assembly functions. It is unfortunate that they were not taught how despotic Lincoln's administration was nor how the Emancipation Proclamation freed not a single slave!

You keep slinging around rhetorical statements and words like "despot" with little or nothing to back them up.

We've already established that your account of that era of Maryland history is contradicted by a Pulitzer Prize winning historian, a Maryland state web-site that you linked to, the portion of the Official Records linked to that site, and the records of enlistments of Marylanders in U.S. and C.S. ranks.

If your appearance before the General Assembly, opposite those children, was no better organized or researched than your posts here, you probably did your cause more harm than good.

And for that we can all thank you. :)

RebelBugler
04-04-2009, 10:25 AM
You keep slinging around rhetorical statements and words like "despot" with little or nothing to back them up.

We've already established that your account of that era of Maryland history is contradicted by a Pulitzer Prize winning historian, a Maryland state web-site that you linked to, the portion of the Official Records linked to that site, and the records of enlistments of Marylanders in U.S. and C.S. ranks.

If your appearance before the General Assembly, opposite those children, was no better organized or researched than your posts here, you probably did your cause more harm than good.

And for that we can all thank you. :)

And what can we thank you for besides your cultish devotion to Lincoln and your smarmy sarcasm:lol: ?

What part of "However, on that day Federal troops and Baltimore police officers arrived in Frederick with orders to arrest the pro-Confederate members of the General Assembly" are you having difficulty comprehending?
http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/speccol/sc5500/sc5572/000001/000000/000017/html/t17.html (http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/speccol/sc5500/sc5572/000001/000000/000017/html/t17.html)

Perhaps if you carefully read the accompanying documents on pages 678-685, you will comprehend that the Lincoln administration was complicit in violating the Constitutional rights of Maryland's duly elected legislators. I see no evidence that any of these men committed a crime but rather that they were suspected of having pro-secession sentiments. Were any of them ever tried or convicted?

http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?frames=1&cite=http%3A%2F%2Fcdl.library.cornell.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmoa%2Fmoa-cgi%3Fnotisid%3DANU4519-0114&coll=moa&view=50&root=%2Fmoa%2Fwaro%2Fwaro0114%2F&tif=00700.TIF&pagenum=678

So, what would it take to convince you that Lincoln was a despot? Perhaps you might do some independent research and investigate legislators from other States that were arrested and held without charges? If you identify the legislators from Maine and New Jersey, I'll even give you bonus points! It is not that I "keep slinging around rhetorical statements and words like despot with little or nothing to back them up" but rather your niavete and facination with the Lincoln myth!

Pvt Schnapps
04-04-2009, 03:41 PM
If you go back to my message of March 30 you'll see that the last time I tracked down your "documentation" it proved a point opposite to the one you thought you had made, which I demonstrated by posting excerpts. Those men were arrested after the Maryland legislature had declined to vote for seccession or for a commission for the same purpose. They were arrested after a plot had been discovered to import weapons from Virginia. By that time the war was already on. What part of "national defense" do you not understand?

At this point I simply refuse to do any more of your reading for you. If you really think that calling Lincoln a "despot" represents the results of clear-headed objective historical research, all I can do is encourage you to continue to personally pronounce your findings in public forums like the General Assembly. If you are as convincing in person as you are on line, I honestly believe you'll be doing me a favor. Good luck.

hiplainsyank
04-04-2009, 05:51 PM
Contrary to popular neo-Confederate myth, it is NOT unconstitutional to suspend Habeas Corpus in times of rebellion:

Right from the horse's mouth, while it may have been unpopular in Baltimore, it was LEGAL to suspend Habeas Corpus, as the country was in the middle of a REBELLION.

While some may argue that Congress was granted this right, this article stands alone and does not designate who has the power.

I am just kind of curious, rebbugler, if you think the world would be a better place if the south had won the war?


ARTICLE 1, SECTION 9


The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.



And PS--The EP freed all the slaves in the state in rebellion. While you argue it didn't free anyone, the slaves KNEW it once they heard of the EP, and rejoiced. They weren't stupid and knew that the EP really meant real change, that slavery was as good as dead, but just hadn't finished its death throes.

MBond057
04-04-2009, 06:54 PM
This is a good read for those engaged in this debate.

Revoking Civil Liberties: Lincoln's Constitutional Dilemma

His suspension of habeas corpus is part of what some consider the "dark side" of his presidency

By Justin Ewers, US News
Posted February 10, 2009

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/history/2009/02/10/revoking-civil-liberties-lincolns-constitutional-dilemma.html?PageNr=1

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
04-04-2009, 07:14 PM
Hallo!

Whew!

Sure glad Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois weren't Border States.

;) :)

CHS

Blockade Runner
04-04-2009, 09:53 PM
Oh Mr. Schaffner, you disappoint me. Obviously you did not read my post or understand it. I gave you my source (which I now have in front of me, and will keep close by until you either understand, or we agree to disagree). My source is A Southern Star for Maryland, by Lawrence Denton, specifically chapter 6 The Military Issue: More than just Numbers. Mr Denton states, and I agree, that "1861 was the year of the enthusiastic volunteer." p.167.

You want numbers; here are a few:
The April 15th Call for Troops established a quota of 3,123, yet not a single man stepped forward to enlist. A 2nd Call for Troops was issued on May 3 (500,000 men for 3 years), and Maryland raised 9,355 of 15,578 as her quota. The only group that established itself as enthusiastic Northern volunteers were the newly immigrated Germans of Baltimore. (Dieter Cunz, "The Maryland Germans in the Civil War," Maryland Historical Magazine, 36 (1941): 305-6)

In August 1861, Congress passed a law authorizing a bounty of up to $100 for each able-bodied recruit. That was for Union troops, no bounty existed for Marylanders going South to the Confederacy. Next came the draft. July17th, 1862, Congress enacted the Militia Law (you will need to do your own research on this one). On the heels of this a call for troops of 300,000 men, plus another for 300,000 nine-month men. But I digress. The year where apples can honestly be compared with other apples is 1861, for by the summer of 1862 there were very few men enlisting of their own free will in the Union Army whether USA or Maryland Regiment(US). If we are to compare a volunteer for the North and a volunteer for the South, the term volunteer must be precise: un-coerced, one's own free-will enlistee. Drafted conscripts, bought substitutes, and bounty men have no bearing.

As for sources, your response lacked any sources at all. Please substantiate the "porousness of the border" and the "fairly easy communications with the Northern Neck".

As for "foreigners", the 1860 census reported nearly 78,000 immigrants, out of a total white population of 600,000, or 13%. Another 41,000 Marylanders were born out of state. Therefore 1 in 5, or 20% were not born in Maryland, and most settled in Baltimore (the 4th largest city in the US at the time), or in Western Maryland, which is where Lee made his move in September 1862. If he had moved east instead of west, and threatened Baltimore, the same thing that happened to Union troops in Winchester in May 1862 may (and I am willing to admit may) have happened there. Yes, speculation on my part, but based on the facts that Baltimore was a Union-occupied city....

About 2/3 of the immigrants were Germans (again according to the census). They cared little for states rights. "It made no difference to them whether they lived in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, or Texas." (Cunz, "Maryland Germans in the Civil War,"394-95). The mountain people of Alleghany County (extreme far western Maryland) were basically German stock (along with British coal miners) and aligned politically with other mountaineers, pro-Union.

Now I could be a good part of the night here typing the names of those Marylanders who made names for themselves leading Confederate soldiers and sailors as flag officers. So let me type a few: Admiral Franklin Buchanan, Brig. Gen George Hume Steuart, Brig Gen. Bradley T. Johnson, Major Gen. Isaac R. Trimble, Rear Admiral Raphael Semmes, and Brig. Gen Charles Winder, to name a few. To be fair, the Union had Major Gen. Andrew Woods, Major Gen. William Henry French, Major Gen John Kenly, Major Gen. Edward Ord.

I am sure even you can see, I have the facts, and the numbers on my side. I haven't even begun to look at the politics. The elections of 1860, the governor's race of 1861, the farce of an election of 1864, and the trouncing of the Radical Republicans in 1868, are all a matter of record. You are entitled to your opinion, Mr. Schaffner, but not to your own facts. I have lead you to the trough, it is up to you to drink. What say you??


Jim...The points that you mention from the Denton book are excellent and irrefutable by the Sarge and his minions.

I also testified before the MD. State Legislature in an effort to retain our venerable State Song. I'm very happy to report that my State Senator e-mailed me asserting that he would not vote for changing the lyrics. I also heard from my delegates, none of whom indicated that they would vote for a change.

As for Lincoln, he was undoubtedly a despot in every sense of the word. As Rebel Bugular indicated, he supressed freedom of speech and imprisoned individuals (including elected officials) that were suspected of being Southerner sympathizers. He refused to adhere to an order by Chief Justice Taney to allow those imprisoned at Fort McHenry to be freed. He actively pursued war, and he killed 600,000 Americans in the process.

One last point...In the Presedential election of 1860, Dishonest Abe recieved a paltry 2.5 of the vote in Maryland and finished a distant 4th behind Breckenridge (the Secession candidate), Bell, and Douglas. So, one can clearly argue that Marylanders knew what Lincoln was all about.

tompritchett
04-05-2009, 02:05 AM
Contrary to popular neo-Confederate myth, it is NOT unconstitutional to suspend Habeas Corpus in times of rebellion:

...

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 9


The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

While it is not unconstitution to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus, it is unconstitional for any part of the government besides Congress to do so. Remember Article 1 addresses the powers and responsibilities of Congress and not the Executive Branch, whose powers and responsibilities are covered in Article 2. Since the only mention of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is in Article 1, it is responsible to assume that then only Congress was Constitutionally vested with that power. Furthermore, the 1861 Congress apparently agreed with this interpretation when it felt it necessary to authorize Lincoln's action of suspending the Writ. In addition, the 1861 Supreme Court definitely agreed with interpretation when it ordered the release of all person's jailed under Lincoln's original order prior to Congress's actual authorization.

RebelBugler
04-05-2009, 07:42 AM
One last point...In the Presedential election of 1860, Dishonest Abe recieved a paltry 2.5 of the vote in Maryland and finished a distant 4th behind Breckenridge (the Secession candidate), Bell, and Douglas. So, one can clearly argue that Marylanders knew what Lincoln was all about.

That is probably the very reason that Maryland Legislature funded the state supported Confederate Soldiers Home in Pikesville, Maryland following the War!

To date, I haven't found evidence that the State of Maryland did anything similarly benevolent for the returning Yankees other than the descriptive road signs with an arrow pointing north and the legend "Yankee go home"!:lol:

hendrickms24
04-05-2009, 12:08 PM
That is probably the very reason that Maryland Legislature funded the state supported Confederate Soldiers Home in Pikesville, Maryland following the War!

To date, I haven't found evidence that the State of Maryland did anything similarly benevolent for the returning Yankees other than the descriptive road signs with an arrow pointing north and the legend "Yankee go home"!:lol:



I just look at the Marylanders, who voted to support the Confederate Soldiers Home in Pikesville, Maryland as doing the right thing and taking care of their own men no matter which side of the war they fought on! It look to me that the men that fought in the Civil War were able to move on with their lives. The northern and southern troops were able to serve in the same Maryland units after the war! So why can’t you get beyond the hate since this war did not effect you directly unless of course your family lost all its valuable property because of the war.

The push to change the song may have failed this time but that was just one small skirmish and time will show the Maryland legislator that the song is out of date!

Hey have a great weekend and enjoy the nice weather that we are having in the lovely State of Maryland.

Pvt Schnapps
04-05-2009, 02:37 PM
While it is not unconstitution to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus, it is unconstitional for any part of the government besides Congress to do so. Remember Article 1 addresses the powers and responsibilities of Congress and not the Executive Branch, whose powers and responsibilities are covered in Article 2. Since the only mention of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is in Article 1, it is responsible to assume that then only Congress was Constitutionally vested with that power. Furthermore, the 1861 Congress apparently agreed with this interpretation when it felt it necessary to authorize Lincoln's action of suspending the Writ. In addition, the 1861 Supreme Court definitely agreed with interpretation when it ordered the release of all person's jailed under Lincoln's original order prior to Congress's actual authorization.

Actually, I think it was Justice Taney, acting in his capacity as a circuit court judge, who ruled against Lincoln in ex parte Merryman. The Court itself never did, though Congress finally passed the Habeas Corpus Act in 1863 to remove this possible objection. Some justices supported Lincoln, including James Wayne of Georgia, who said, "It is my opinion, that Congress has constitutional power to legalize and confirm executive acts, proclamations, and orders done for the public good, although they were not, when done, authorized by any existing laws."

hiplainsyank
04-05-2009, 04:24 PM
I am just kind of curious, rebbugler, if you think the world would be a better place if the south had won the war?


And PS--The EP freed all the slaves in the states in rebellion. While you argue it didn't free anyone, the slaves KNEW it once they heard of the EP, and rejoiced. They weren't stupid and knew that the EP really meant real change, that slavery was as good as dead, but just hadn't finished its death throes.

Still awaiting answers to these points.

tompritchett
04-05-2009, 07:03 PM
Actually, I think it was Justice Taney, acting in his capacity as a circuit court judge, who ruled against Lincoln in ex parte Merryman.

In hind sight, I believe that you are right. However, that still does not change the fact the power to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus is only mentioned in Article 1, which defines the powers of Congress, in the Constitution and no where else. Whether or not one agrees with Lincoln's actions in this matter or not, the fact remains that he was exercising a power that the Constitution did not explicitly grant to the Executive Branch.

RebelBugler
04-05-2009, 09:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiplainsyank
I am just kind of curious, rebbugler, if you think the world would be a better place if the south had won the war?


And PS--The EP freed all the slaves in the states in rebellion. While you argue it didn't free anyone, the slaves KNEW it once they heard of the EP, and rejoiced. They weren't stupid and knew that the EP really meant real change, that slavery was as good as dead, but just hadn't finished its death throes.



Still awaiting answers to these points.
__________________

1. Yes

2. The EP was a stroke of brilliance for Lincoln in that it appealed to Britain's support of the abolitionist cause and likely discouraged England entering the war in support of the South. By the same token, it was a similar tactic to the freedom offered slaves willing to fight for the Crown during the American Revolution. Lastly, it was a tactic to incite civil unrest and insurrection. William Seward, Lincoln's secretary of state, commented, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."
Undoubtedly, slaves viewed the EP with a sense of optimism and the hope that freedom would soon come. Considering that Lincoln had been quite willing to accept the Ghost 13th amendment, maintaining slavery where it existed in perpetuity, one must question whether the EP reflected his sense of morality or was merely a wartime expedient.

Pvt Schnapps
04-06-2009, 08:12 AM
In hind sight, I believe that you are right. However, that still does not change the fact the power to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus is only mentioned in Article 1, which defines the powers of Congress, in the Constitution and no where else. Whether or not one agrees with Lincoln's actions in this matter or not, the fact remains that he was exercising a power that the Constitution did not explicitly grant to the Executive Branch.

But the next question we have to ask ourselves is why it was Judge Taney of Dred Scott fame rather than Congress who asserted Congress's prerogatives in this matter. Congress has seldom been shy about asserting itself without such help from a judge.

One way to get an answer is to look at the context. Right now I'm reading "The History of the Greenbacks" which deals with fiscal policy during the war. It makes it pretty clear that the administration and congress were cooperating very closely in this critical area.

This, the general make-up of the cabinet, a consideration of everything else going on at the time, and the fact that Congress later went ahead and passed the Habeas Corpus Act, all lead me to think that Congress didn't object to Lincoln's exercise of the power in 1861 because they approved, and had a lot of other work on their hands.

I only mention it because it gets back to the whole question of using terms like "despot" or "tyrant" regarding Lincoln. To call him such, as some of the posters have, overlooks the degree to which he depended on Congress, loyal governors, northern businessmen, and a cabinet best characterized by Goodwin (another member of the cabal of Pulitzer Prize winning Lincoln cultists :) ) as a "team of rivals" in order to get anything done at all.

No serious historian has fixed that label on Lincoln, and to the extent that we reenactors do, we only reinforce a public stereotype of us as ignorant revanchists.

But I think that's the kind of thought process you have to indulge in if you wish to support, in this day and age, a song with lyrics that treat a mob attack on nervous militiamen as some sort of martyrdom, and refers to fellow countrymen as “scum.” It seems significant that the author of those lyrics wasn’t even in Baltimore at the time, and that Maryland itself didn’t officially adopt the song until 1939. And by 1939, we can suppose that other influences were in play.

Whether these represented conservative attacks on the New Deal or an excess of enthusiasm for “Gone with the Wind,” probably requires discussion in some other forum, if at all.

jthlmnn
04-06-2009, 08:36 PM
2. The EP was a stroke of brilliance for Lincoln in that it appealed to Britain's support of the abolitionist cause and likely discouraged England entering the war in support of the South. By the same token, it was a similar tactic to the freedom offered slaves willing to fight for the Crown during the American Revolution. Lastly, it was a tactic to incite civil unrest and insurrection. William Seward, Lincoln's secretary of state, commented, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."
Undoubtedly, slaves viewed the EP with a sense of optimism and the hope that freedom would soon come. Considering that Lincoln had been quite willing to accept the Ghost 13th amendment, maintaining slavery where it existed in perpetuity, one must question whether the EP reflected his sense of morality or was merely a wartime expedient.

(It would be helpful if you would preview your posts. The confusion of typed instructions-see above-could be eliminated.)

The Constitution did not allow Lincoln to do anything about slavery in the law-abiding, loyal states. This was a point he made in his speeches, correspondence, etc. throughout the 1850s and into the war. While he abhorred the practice (see the Lincoln correspondence of the 1850s, particularly his August 1855 letter to Joshua Speed http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/speed.htm), the territories were the only places where he believed the federal government had the right, by law, to ban the institution. States engaged in armed insurrection and rebellion were another matter entirely.

Lincoln did suggest a program to the loyal border states whereby they could receive federal compensation for emancipated slaves if they would voluntarily abolish slavery (the only constitutional way to abolish, shy of ammendment). The proposal was snubbed and slaveowners in those states eventually lost all their "chattel", without compensation, via constitutional ammendment.

Going back to the 4th graders, my interpretation of their actions is based upon professional experience, training and research, plus a knowledge of common educational curriculum and practice. (I also did a little homework and checked out the school). At a good school, which, by definition, has a good staff, subjects are not taught in isolation from each other. The communications teacher would guide them in research techniques and materials on subjects/topics that are taught by other staff members. There would be a coordination of lessons.

Thus far, the only support provided to your interpretation is that their stated opinions do not agree with yours, so they must be "unduly influenced".

hiplainsyank
04-06-2009, 10:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiplainsyank
I am just kind of curious, rebbugler, if you think the world would be a better place if the south had won the war?


.



__________________

1. Yes



Next time you run into some descendants of slaves, be sure to tell them you wished their ancestors had stayed in bondage for generations more.

And don't give me that line that the south was on the way to emancipation. Slavery had adapted and grown stronger, and the south was seeking ways to expand it into the west.

I am just curious now as to how long you expect people living under the proven brutality of slavery to continue to live under that system?

RebelBugler
04-07-2009, 08:11 AM
(It would be helpful if you would preview your posts. The confusion of typed instructions-see above-could be eliminated.)

The Constitution did not allow Lincoln to do anything about slavery in the law-abiding, loyal states. This was a point he made in his speeches, correspondence, etc. throughout the 1850s and into the war. While he abhorred the practice (see the Lincoln correspondence of the 1850s, particularly his August 1855 letter to Joshua Speed http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/speed.htm), the territories were the only places where he believed the federal government had the right, by law, to ban the institution. States engaged in armed insurrection and rebellion were another matter entirely.

Lincoln did suggest a program to the loyal border states whereby they could receive federal compensation for emancipated slaves if they would voluntarily abolish slavery (the only constitutional way to abolish, shy of ammendment). The proposal was snubbed and slaveowners in those states eventually lost all their "chattel", without compensation, via constitutional ammendment.

Going back to the 4th graders, my interpretation of their actions is based upon professional experience, training and research, plus a knowledge of common educational curriculum and practice. (I also did a little homework and checked out the school). At a good school, which, by definition, has a good staff, subjects are not taught in isolation from each other. The communications teacher would guide them in research techniques and materials on subjects/topics that are taught by other staff members. There would be a coordination of lessons.

Thus far, the only support provided to your interpretation is that their stated opinions do not agree with yours, so they must be "unduly influenced".

The Constitution ostensibly prevented Lincoln from doing a number of things that he did anyway. So your point is that Lincoln could selectively interpret the portions of the Constitution that he favored and reject those portions of the Constitution that he didn't? I haven't seen much comment on Lincoln's willingness to accept the ghost 13th amendment, thereby establishing slavery in perpetuity in the States where it existed. Lincoln was being a typical politician, talking out of both sides of his mouth, and willing to say or do anything to preserve the Union

William Seward, Lincoln's Secretary of State, pointed out this contradiction stating "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free".

As to the 4th graders, I am glad you did a little homework. Keep up the good work!

RebelBugler
04-07-2009, 08:18 AM
Next time you run into some descendants of slaves, be sure to tell them you wished their ancestors had stayed in bondage for generations more.

And don't give me that line that the south was on the way to emancipation. Slavery had adapted and grown stronger, and the south was seeking ways to expand it into the west.

I am just curious now as to how long you expect people living under the proven brutality of slavery to continue to live under that system?

That is your interpretation as to how things would have turned out if the South had won. Slavery would have ended gradually and peacefully as it did in most other civilized countries, as a result of mechanization. Reconstruction, and the ensuing racial discord, would likely have been avoided. Governmental involvement in our daily lives would have been kept to a minimum.

Pvt Schnapps
04-07-2009, 08:47 AM
That is your interpretation as to how things would have turned out if the South had won. Slavery would have ended gradually and peacefully as it did in most other civilized countries, as a result of mechanization. Reconstruction, and the ensuing racial discord, would likely have been avoided. Governmental involvement in our daily lives would have been kept to a minimum.

And Scarlett would never go hungry again...

Seriously, how many generations do you think would have had to pass before the nation that bled itself white, so to speak, to defend slavery turned around and amended its constitution to abolish that institution? Bear in mind that, apart from the 6 year presidential term, line item veto, and lack of reference to "the people" in its preamble, the CS constitution differed from its model only in expressly forbidding any of its states to limit ownership in human property.

Once the necessary generations and amendment had passed, how do you see the peaceful liberation of the slaves happening? Would the CS government have appropriated the funds necessary to compensate owners? At what rate, do you think, for the comparatively unproductive infants and old people? Do you suppose they would have made any provision for settling the new freemen on their own property, or would they have attempted to ship them back whence their ancestors came?

Normally I would consider all these questions unfair, as it seems obvious that the whole point of the rebellion was to preserve slavery. But you seem pretty confident about the question of eventual emancipation, so please take this opportunity to tell the rest of us how and when it was supposed to happen.

hendrickms24
04-07-2009, 09:34 AM
That is your interpretation as to how things would have turned out if the South had won. Slavery would have ended gradually and peacefully as it did in most other civilized countries, as a result of mechanization. Reconstruction, and the ensuing racial discord, would likely have been avoided. Governmental involvement in our daily lives would have been kept to a minimum.

I love this argument about slavery would have gradually died out. There are still cases today of slavery in the United States of America.
One quick search turned up this article:http://gvnet.com/humantrafficking/USA.htm

So why do you think slavery would have die out since its illegal today and its still going on?


That is probably the very reason that Maryland Legislature funded the state supported Confederate Soldiers Home in Pikesville, Maryland following the War!

This occurred to me last night. The reason the State of Maryland did not open any homes for the Federal soldier is because that was the job of the Federal government. The care of the Confederate troops fell to the states that enlisted them. Since the Maryland’s Confederate soldiers were not in service of the US government or enlisted but the state of Maryland no one technically had to help them, but did this matter? No, the State did the right thing by taking care of their own no matter what side they fought on. This again shows me that the people of Maryland put the war behind them before the Lost Causers started to rewrite history.

tompritchett
04-07-2009, 09:50 AM
Slavery would have ended gradually and peacefully as it did in most other civilized countries, as a result of mechanization.

Considering that the mechanization of picking cotton was not developed until well into the 20th Century, that would not bode well for the slaves in the deep South were cotton was one of, if not the, permier cash crop. I might agree with you about the gradual phasing out of slavery in the upper South but I have seen nothing that suggests that it would have died out gradually in those states where cotton, sugar and rice were the premier cash crops. Even today, another key cash crop, tobacco, is still a labor intensive crop that in many states today is often reliant on migrant farm workers. IMHO, all that the abolition of slavery meant in terms of the labor force for many Southern cash crops was the establishment of the sharecropper system which was then replaced by the advent of the migrant worker - a work force now dominated by immigrant workers.

tompritchett
04-07-2009, 09:55 AM
But the next question we have to ask ourselves is why it was Judge Taney of Dred Scott fame rather than Congress who asserted Congress's prerogatives in this matter. Congress has seldom been shy about asserting itself without such help from a judge.

One way to get an answer is to look at the context. Right now I'm reading "The History of the Greenbacks" which deals with fiscal policy during the war. It makes it pretty clear that the administration and congress were cooperating very closely in this critical area.

This, the general make-up of the cabinet, a consideration of everything else going on at the time, and the fact that Congress later went ahead and passed the Habeas Corpus Act, all lead me to think that Congress didn't object to Lincoln's exercise of the power in 1861 because they approved, and had a lot of other work on their hands.

I only mention it because it gets back to the whole question of using terms like "despot" or "tyrant" regarding Lincoln. To call him such, as some of the posters have, overlooks the degree to which he depended on Congress, loyal governors, northern businessmen, and a cabinet best characterized by Goodwin (another member of the cabal of Pulitzer Prize winning Lincoln cultists ) as a "team of rivals" in order to get anything done at all.

I was not arguing anything about anyone being a despot, I was merely making a point of law. As far as Congress "objecting", if Congress felt that Lincoln did have the Constitutional authority to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus, why did it feel the need to codify his action with their own bill authorizing such an action? I would submit that Congress felt that Lincoln's action was on Constitutional shakey ground, especially in light of Taney's decision, and felt that it was necessary to give his action the Constitutional foundation that it needed.

Pvt Schnapps
04-07-2009, 12:10 PM
I was not arguing anything about anyone being a despot, I was merely making a point of law. As far as Congress "objecting", if Congress felt that Lincoln did have the Constitutional authority to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus, why did it feel the need to codify his action with their own bill authorizing such an action? I would submit that Congress felt that Lincoln's action was on Constitutional shakey ground, especially in light of Taney's decision, and felt that it was necessary to give his action the Constitutional foundation that it needed.

The "despot" part of my response wasn't directed at you, Tom, and I didn't mean to infer such. I believe that you are correct that Congress wished to address the Constitutional issue by passing the Habeas Corpus act. But I also believe that they didn't pass it sooner because the suspension had lapsed and, as I suggested, they had more pressing concerns. The larger point is that Lincoln was part of a big team of players, in and out of government, who did their utmost to preserve the Union.

RebelBugler
04-08-2009, 08:02 AM
And Scarlett would never go hungry again...

Seriously, how many generations do you think would have had to pass before the nation that bled itself white, so to speak, to defend slavery turned around and amended its constitution to abolish that institution? Bear in mind that, apart from the 6 year presidential term, line item veto, and lack of reference to "the people" in its preamble, the CS constitution differed from its model only in expressly forbidding any of its states to limit ownership in human property.

Once the necessary generations and amendment had passed, how do you see the peaceful liberation of the slaves happening? Would the CS government have appropriated the funds necessary to compensate owners? At what rate, do you think, for the comparatively unproductive infants and old people? Do you suppose they would have made any provision for settling the new freemen on their own property, or would they have attempted to ship them back whence their ancestors came?

Normally I would consider all these questions unfair, as it seems obvious that the whole point of the rebellion was to preserve slavery. But you seem pretty confident about the question of eventual emancipation, so please take this opportunity to tell the rest of us how and when it was supposed to happen.

As to emancipation, how do you think things would have played out had Lincoln been successful in obtaining the States' ratification of the Ghost 13th amendment(Corwin amendment), which would have maintained slavery in perpetuity? The offer was clearly on the table and calls to question the assumption that the war was fought over slavery. Clearly, it appears the war was fought over the Union, and the continuance of slavery was offered as an inducement for the South to remain in the Union. The South had every reason to believe they could have kept their slaves yet they rejected the offer. Accordingly, there must have been other significant differences to cause the South to secede. How do you rationalize the willingness to maintain slavery in perpetuity with the notion that Lincoln fought the war was fought to end slavery?

"No Amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." --Joint Resolution of Congress, Adopted March 2, 1861

hanktrent
04-08-2009, 09:32 AM
The South had every reason to believe they could have kept their slaves yet they rejected the offer. Accordingly, there must have been other significant differences to cause the South to secede.

I think that by the time the war came, the South no longer trusted the North's attempts at compromise and appeasement. They claimed to know what the Republicans really planned when it came to slavery, and as it turned out, they were right. As a fire-eater wrote in DeBow's Review, concerning "The Issues of 1860":


The present leaders of this [Republican] party claim to respect all existing rights, political, real, and personal. They all negate orally and through their journals the doctrines of the abolitionists proper. But... they moreover look forward with exultation and gratulation to the time, not very distant, when, through amendments to the Constitution constitutionally made, the slaveholding States themselves may be reached and controlled by Congress in the line of their real designs... On one point alone, is there absolute agreement between the [abolitionists and Black Republicans], and that is the ultimate property robbery of the South in respect to both real and personal estate...Source (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moajrnl;cc=moajrnl;g=moagrp;xc=1;xg=1;q1=irr epressible%20conflict;q2=corwin;q3=repeats;op2=and ;op3=and;rgn=pages;idno=acg1336.1-28.003;didno=acg1336.1-28.003;node=acg1336.1-28.003%3A1;view=image;seq=0252)

Given a background like that, the South wasn't in a mood to trust the slavery-protecting overtures of the Republicans. They'd already been through the Missouri compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska act, the Fugitive Slave act, and seen each being undermined. They'd even seen what good the Constitution did, when abolitionists started gaining power. Not only was the return of slaves guaranteed in the Constitution, Article IV, (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A4Sec2) it was also promised by the Fugitive Slave act, and yet northern states had passed personal liberty laws as well as staging rescues and generally making it obvious that they were trying to take back what they'd given.

So I think the South wasn't in a mood to trust Northern attempts at appeasement anymore, especially when it was clear that the members of the newly-powerful Republican party weren't really behind them. Clement Vallandigham summed it up:


The Adams or Corwin amendment... was but a bare promise that Congress should never be authorized to do what no sane man ever believed Congress would attempt to do--abolish Slavery in the States where it exists; and yet, even this proposition, moderate as it was, and for which every Southern member present voted--except one--was carried through this House by but one majority, after long and tedious delay, and with the utmost difficulty--sixty-five Republican members... having voted against it and fought against it to the very last. Source (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moa;cc=moa;g=moagrp;xc=1;xg=1;q1=corwin%20am endment;op2=and;op3=and;rgn=works;idno=ABT5550.000 1.001;didno=ABT5550.0001.001;view=image;seq=000003 15).

I think the South believed that the North was indeed intent on bringing about the "irrepressible conflict" between freedom and slavery, so that compromise at this point was useless.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Blair
04-08-2009, 09:47 AM
It's a matter of money and greed. And the blame for it does not lay at the door sept of the south or Southern Planters alone.
It can start with the African Chieftain/Clan leader that sold their own people into slavery, to the Muslims that found their way into the interior and offer exotic goods for human beings. to the Northern owned Shipping Companies that bought and those slaves, and the northern owned mill towns who's bread and butter came from that slave picket southern grown cotton.
It's called Greed my friends and if your going to point the finger of blame at any one of those that stood to make a profit from slavery, then you must point the finger of blame at everyone who did profit.
Slavery was a Southern American institution, but the World profited from it. Is that an excuse? No. It is not, it's a fact.
Think about that the next time you go to the grocery store and buy those affordable fruits and veggies that "Cheap" migrant/immigrant labor picked for you. It's called greed and you profit from it everyday no matter what part of the country you live in.
Just my two cents worth. But it sure gets tiresome hearing how it was all the Souths fault for slavery, considering its been in practice about 5000 years before there ever was a South.
Blair Taylor

Pvt Schnapps
04-08-2009, 01:03 PM
As to emancipation, how do you think things would have played out had Lincoln been successful in obtaining the States' ratification of the Ghost 13th amendment(Corwin amendment), which would have maintained slavery in perpetuity?

Why don't you answer my questions about your last set of answers before you set yourself up again? You said the south would have emancipated the slaves itself -- tell us how, given the constitutional and economic issues involved.

tompritchett
04-08-2009, 03:04 PM
The South had every reason to believe they could have kept their slaves yet they rejected the offer. Accordingly, there must have been other significant differences to cause the South to secede.

That definitely does not show up in the arguments that the Secesssionist Commissioners were making as they lobbied other states to join the secession movement. The two predominant themes throughout their letters and speaks were the Republicans were going to free the slaves and the Republicans were going make blacks the legal equivalents of whites.

Pvt Schnapps
04-08-2009, 04:18 PM
It's a matter of money and greed. And the blame for it does not lay at the door sept of the south or Southern Planters alone... Blair Taylor

I wouldn't argue with that. It's a shame we didn't have the political will to commit to compensated emancipation. For what the war cost we could have freed the slaves, provided a grubstake for the new freemen, and given the planters the capital to go into other businesses or blow it all in Monte Carlo. But I guess no one had any idea in 1860 what the war was going to cost.

Blair
04-08-2009, 05:36 PM
M. A.
What happened to the 40 acres and a mule promised to the newly emancipated slaves? A promise from the Government that just took credit for having just emancipating them?
It cost too much! Too much to whom?
They were left instead with a new a far more insidious form of slavery, now call "share cropping". This in my opinion is a true travesty! So where does it stop? And who do we make culpable for these injustices?
The 5000 year-old Sumerians? There's no fun in that, there all dead! (I think) or anyone of the other half dozen "modern" UN Nations that still deal in slaves? Not Politically Correct to beat up on the "good guys"!
It just my opinion, what do I know. Look it up for yourself

jthlmnn
04-08-2009, 05:43 PM
As to emancipation, how do you think things would have played out had Lincoln been successful in obtaining the States' ratification of the Ghost 13th amendment(Corwin amendment), which would have maintained slavery in perpetuity? The offer was clearly on the table and calls to question the assumption that the war was fought over slavery. Clearly, it appears the war was fought over the Union, and the continuance of slavery was offered as an inducement for the South to remain in the Union. The South had every reason to believe they could have kept their slaves yet they rejected the offer. Accordingly, there must have been other significant differences to cause the South to secede. How do you rationalize the willingness to maintain slavery in perpetuity with the notion that Lincoln fought the war was fought to end slavery?

"No Amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." --Joint Resolution of Congress, Adopted March 2, 1861

Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861....long after this resolution was introduced and debated and two days after it was passed. That being said, it did not contradict his adherence to constitutional law regarding slavery. It left that decision to the individual states. He was very consistant on that point, as I have stated previously.

The territories were another matter. It was activist judge Justice Taney and his colleagues on the Supreme Court who changed existing law and ignored established precedent (Northwest Ordinance & Missouri Compromise) that empowered federal regulation of slavery in the territories. Lincoln was also consistant in maintaining the constitutional right of the national government to decide such matters.

The critiques of Lincoln, in regards to the Constitution, stem from actions taken after armed insurrection and rebellion had been initiated on an unprecedented scale. This was novel territory as far as the application of constitutional law was concerned. Lincoln chose actions that favored the safety of the national government (in Washington, D.C.) and was much more lenient in their application (suspension of habeas corpus) than the Generals who were authorized to implement the suspension. Questionable actions? Yes, but then any action (or inaction) would have been questionable in attempting to deal with a unique and particularly dangerous set of circumstances.


As to the 4th graders, I am glad you did a little homework. Keep up the good work!
Thank you. More to the point, however, did you do your homework? Is there any actual evidence that students (and, by extension, their parents) were unwittingly manipulated to serve the socio-political agendas of scheming educators? Or are you conceding that the students were merely assisted in finding constructive avenues to express their own beliefs and opinions (while learning some very practical lessons in history, civics, and written-oral communication)?

50th vice pres
04-08-2009, 10:17 PM
More to the point, however, did you do your homework? Is there any actual evidence that students (and, by extension, their parents) were unwittingly manipulated to serve the socio-political agendas of scheming educators? Or are you conceding that the students were merely assisted in finding constructive avenues to express their own beliefs and opinions (while learning some very practical lessons in history, civics, and written-oral communication)?
Amen, nuff said

5 th Alabama Infantry
04-15-2009, 08:49 AM
The Maryland legislature ended it’s session. Our State song is safe, …at for another year.

Pvt Schnapps
04-15-2009, 12:39 PM
...and the state fossil remains a predatory sea snail:

http://mlis.state.md.us/2009rs/fnotes/bil_0000/sb0980.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecphora_gardnerae_gardnerae

tompritchett
04-15-2009, 12:48 PM
...and the state fossil remains a predatory sea snail:

And your point is?

Pvt Schnapps
04-15-2009, 01:38 PM
And your point is?

Just trying to keep things in perspective :)

MBond057
04-15-2009, 02:53 PM
This is a no brainer to me. As a person who was born and raised in Maryland I was taught the song in elementary school and have found memories of all things Maryland.

If the residents of Maryland feel the state song is outdated and no longer relevant then they should replace the song with something more contemporary. Don’t change the Words to a historical Maryland song. Just vote in a new state song and leave the current song alone and part of Maryland’s long history.

hiplainsyank
04-15-2009, 05:13 PM
But why can they not have changed words to the old popular tune? Christian hymns writers have been making up new words for old tunes, or amending old words for centuries. That's why the back of many hymnals has a whole separate section where the name of the tunes are listed, along with however many times that tune is used to different words in the book.

REally, other states changed their words from offensive ones to ones that respect all citizens. Why can't Maryland?

hiplainsyank
04-15-2009, 05:26 PM
If, say, Massachusetts, where I currently live, or Ohio, where I grew up, had a song with a line calling southerners "scum," I can't imagine what the hew and cry would be here!

C'mon folks, get real. we are AMERICANS and insults to fellow Americans have NO PLACE in ANY official song of ANY state. There are "northern scum" dying for Marylanders right now. Why should they be called scum in an official anything from any state?

And, mr bugler, what makes you think that even after years and years of further brutal slavery, and the "compensated emancipation" that you argue they would have soon chosen, that southern whites wouldn't have gone to legalized apartheid, or terrorism to keep the blacks in line (the KKK), which is what happened despite the presence of federal troops on southern soil? Slavery was a SOCIAL institution. It regulated how society worked.

I think you delude yourself to think that white southerners would just have given up this social regulation even if they had had the chance to choose to give up slavery with financial compensation.

And Blair, no one is arguing here that there is not collective guilt regarding slavery. Only, in this particular part of the thread, that the war really did start because of slavery.

5 th Alabama Infantry
04-15-2009, 06:45 PM
If, say, Massachusetts, where I currently live, or Ohio, where I grew up, had a song with a line calling southerners "scum," I can't imagine what the hew and cry would be here!

C'mon folks, get real. we are AMERICANS and insults to fellow Americans have NO PLACE in ANY official song of ANY state. There are "northern scum" dying for Marylanders right now. Why should they be called scum in an official anything from any state?

And, mr bugler, what makes you think that even after years and years of further brutal slavery, and the "compensated emancipation" that you argue they would have soon chosen, that southern whites wouldn't have gone to legalized apartheid, or terrorism to keep the blacks in line (the KKK), which is what happened despite the presence of federal troops on southern soil? Slavery was a SOCIAL institution. It regulated how society worked.

I think you delude yourself to think that white southerners would just have given up this social regulation even if they had had the chance to choose to give up slavery with financial compensation.

And Blair, no one is arguing here that there is not collective guilt regarding slavery. Only, in this particular part of the thread, that the war really did start because of slavery.


Yes , we needed you to come down here and fix us.

MBond057
04-15-2009, 07:53 PM
Joanna,

This is the whole debate. Maryland historians and many Maryland heritage groups don’t want the words changed to the state song. Why re-write history just to be politically correct? Just select a new song if the majority of Marylanders want their state song changed and allow this historical song to keep its original meaning.

As a Marylander (in excel in Arizona) with Southern Military Heritage I don’t want the original song changed with the old tune. Simply retire the song and allow it to stay a part of Maryland’s rich history. I will gladly support a new song if the majority of my Marylanders feel a need for change.

Let Marylanders decide and keep the Lincolnites out of the debate. I believe that’s called states rights.

5 th Alabama Infantry
04-15-2009, 08:10 PM
Joanna,

This is the whole debate. Maryland historians and many Maryland heritage groups don’t want the words changed to the state song. Why re-write history just to be politically correct? Just select a new song if the majority of Marylanders want their state song changed and allow this historical song to keep its original meaning.

As a Marylander (in excel in Arizona) with Southern Military Heritage I don’t want the original song changed with the old tune. Simply retire the song and allow it to stay a part of Maryland’s rich history. I will gladly support a new song if the majority of my Marylanders feel a need for change.

Let Marylanders decide and keep the Lincolnites out of the debate. I believe that’s called states rights.


I don't want to "retire" the song . That's what the PC crowd got away with in Virginia.

Pvt Schnapps
04-15-2009, 09:19 PM
Yes , we needed you to come down here and fix us.

Apparently so.

MBond057
04-15-2009, 10:49 PM
I’m not trying to be politically correct but rather realistic. It is a dated song and adopting a newer song that reflects the current state of the state is really at the heart of the issue.

By preserving the song in-tack and retiring the song for a more updated song that reflects current attitudes and social culture is the proper thing to do. It preserves the history and allows for a new historical chapter in Maryland to be written.

hiplainsyank
04-16-2009, 09:53 AM
I don't want to "retire" the song . That's what the PC crowd got away with in Virginia.


so getting rid of racist language is "PC"? And therefore is BAD. Don't you just love that? Anything people want to change to better alow their neighbors human dignity is BAD.

You have GOT to be kidding me. Oh, lets hanker for the good ol' days! Those were good times, I tell you, when white men were white men, and white women and slaves knew their place.

A change would not eliminate the song from all human records and memory. It would still be there, and I would join in singing it with you if portraying a Confederate at an event before the battle of Antietam (and I do proudy reenact Confederates as well as Federals). But that is where those lyrics belong, in the past, or in proper historical context. Just like some of the more demeaning minstrel songs.

You complain about people "coming down there and fixing your problems". Why didn't you fix them on your own, then?

THere are "northern scum" putting their lives on the line right now for YOU, and you still want to call them scum. That sounds about the same as me as people who called Vietnam veterans "baby killers" and spat on them. By upholding these current lyrics, you are spitting on American soldiers RIGHT NOW.

If you want to live in the past mentally, then that's your right, but you shouldn't expect to force 99% of the population of this country happily with you.