Michael "Palmetto Patriot" Cushman
Once again my usual run through all things neo-confederate yeilds up a dozy of an article that can be found in a post over at the Southern War Room by my “good friend “Palmetto Patriot”. Palmetto Patriot is not the author of the poor history, but since he posted the link one must assume that he endorses it. Here are two quotes to inform the reader of the level of historical knowledge being dealt with here…
“Okay, you see friends, to me, being a Confederate has nothing to do with slavery, bigotry or racism. It has to do with rebellion. The Confederate States of America was formed because of the over-reaching federal government under Lincoln. They succeded because their State’s rights were being stepped all over by some jokers in Washington DC.”
“The Civil war (or war of Northern Aggresion as its called down here in the South) was defensive in nature; where young men were defending their homeland from fanatical Unionists who were willing to kill anyone in their sights if they did the unthinkable (that being declare their constitutional rights and not listen to the Federal gov.) And before anyone says that the Southerners were the true fanatics for defending the institution of slavery, let me inform you that the average young man who fought in the Confederate army was hardly wealthy enough to own a slave at all, so, slavery being legal or not was irrelevant to them. Again, they were defending their individual and State’s rights, not because they were racist or bigots like they like to tell you in (bias) American History class.”
It is very obvious the author of this article, which is located on a blog that has not been updated since 2006, is not now nor ever been a serious student of the Civil War or American history. That leads me to a recent post by Kevin Levin over at Civil War Memory about a Tea Party/Republican Congressional hopeful from Ohio, Rich Iott ,and his Nazi WWII reenacting. (See also here, here, and here ). Rich Iott is a member of the 5th Waffen SS Panzer Wiking Battalion although you will not find his name or picture on the reenactment site or any mention of his German reenacting on his political campaign site.
In Kevin’s article there are some very good questions asked about what reenactors do. I have been a reenactor for 20 years now and I have done both Civil War and WWII…I actually participated in the WWII Reenactment in Rockford, Il. in which Iott’s 5th Waffen SS takes part…and I still am not sure exactly what we do. I do know that as reenactors we are responsible for the way we portray the past and how people interpret the past. Therefore, we must have an understanding of the past in order to portray it correctly. Can we do that at 100% accuracy…no…never. Can we discuss the hard question…we better.
A group of 82nd Airborne Reenactors have come to the defense of the 5th Waffen SS and reenactors in general. Here is just part of what they said which ties directly into the hard questions Kevin asked in his blog post…
Any person or political group who believes there is some bizarre hidden Nazi agenda by reenactors is not only ignorant of the facts but using false representation to foster their own political ambition and beneath contempt. Would these same accusers point a finger at Civil War Confederate reenactors and say they are all racially prejudice?
Yes…we should all question how are history is being intrepreted and portray and for what reason. Does this mean all German WWII reenactors are anti-semitic or all Confederate reenactors racist…No. Those questions should be asked. The problem is that no matter how hard legitamate historians and teacher try to teach the history there will always be those like the people who post and comment of the Southern War Room and SLNM that will never have the same views. Those views will not be different because of the place in which they live, but because they believe the still have a stake in how that history is portrayed and a stake in making sure their ancestors are not harmed by the truth.
I will try to post an article on why I reenact in the coming days once I have some time to think about it more and deal with the questions that have been asked here and on other blogs.
YOu are just over the top corey with this statement in particular:
“making sure their ancestors are not harmed by the truth”
The truth is that you are making up truth as you go.
At least we know for sure and can prove that slaves were very expensive – if you paid 1-2 thousand dollars for a slave you sure didn’t go about beating them to death.
A few were bad slave owners and a lot of these were absent and living in the North.
The issue about slavery for the South was STATES RIGHTS – our right – the people who lived and breathed everyday with 3 million of them should have the say so as to how they will be freed – the how, why , when of it. There was 50,000 freed slaves already in the South who were thriving! And some of them owned slaves as well.
The South would have freed the slaves in an organized way and not just turn them out like Lincoln who said: “Let Them Root Hog or Die”
Can you cite any evidence of the south’s plan to free the slaves in an organized way?
Maybe it’s different if you inherit them, though. Robert E. Lee certainly wasn’t hesitant about having runaway slaves beaten at Arlington — he told the overseer to “lay it on well,” and when the overseer refused to whip the female slave in the group, he hired the constable to do it. And then he had their wounds rinsed in brine. Charming fellow, that Bobby Lee.
Elizabeth Brown Pryor found seven separate accounts of this incident, all of which are consistent and support each other. As history goes, that’s about as strong a collection of evidence for the incident as one is likely to get. So my question: do you consider Lee to be one of the “bad slave owners” you mentioned? Just curious.
Corey Common Sense my good man – Common Sense! Think about it.
a trait you feelie progressive liberals forget exist.
Andy “beat to death” and a beating as punishment are really different. Elizabeth Pryor likes to stretch the truth for fame and money and you Andy do too! se google search wounds dressed in brine below
Web Results 1 – 10 of about 24,200. Search took 0.34 seconds.
*
Treating Wounds With Salt Water | eHow.com
http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4898741_treating-wounds-salt-water.html – 70k – similar pages
Treating Wounds With Salt Water. Salt water has long been considered a natural antiseptic and … Then rinse the wound in cold water and dry thoroughly. …
*
Answers.com – Is salt water good for healing wounds
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_salt_water_good_for_healing_wounds – 75k – similar pages
The reason dentists sometimes suggest we rinse our mouths with salty water ( after extractions or … What is the ratio of salt to water for healing wounds? …
*
Normal Saline for Wound Care: Normal saline is used for many …
http://www.suite101.com/content/normal-saline-for-wound-care-a16216 – 47k – similar pages
Mar 14, 2007 … It is also used as a rinse for contact lenses, and is used in wound care for irrigating, cleansing and hydrating wounds. …
I’ll take that as an acknowledgment on your part that Lee had his slaves beaten — just not “to death.” Thanks for clarifying your position.
Interesting to learn that I’m in this “for fame and money.” If so, then somebody, somewhere, owes me a check.
Josephine…your not really suggesting Lee was whipping them and using brine then to help heal their wounds are you.
Unbelievable
The South had an on going process of freeing the slaves. They had already freed 50,000 slaves who were self-supporting and contributing to the general society of the day. You are attempting to distract from the fact that lincoln’s freed slaves were freed inhumanly – in fact horribly – i challenge you to research the truth about what actual harm was done to these indigent peoples who now had no job no home no money as a direct result of lincoln’s invasion, destruction, and theft caused by lincoln’s army of invaders and takeovers – total war on civilians. You should read about the freed slaves on the Mississippi – it was just horrible there for them stranded on an island, dead bodies everywhere, living in filth. To this very day blacks may not trust Southerners, but they trust yankees even less.
True, there may have been a free black population in the south but it was by no means due to an effort by the southern state governments to free those slaves.
Fifty thousand out of four million? That’s um, one and one-quarter percent. After how many years of “process?” That doesn’t even keep up with natural increase.
Given the affectations of righteous indignation from the Southron Heritage™ crowd over the abuse of Confederate imagery and icons, I wonder why Palmetto Patriot would pose with a Confederate Battle Flag defaced with a Federal Eagle.
I’m really trying to understand, and it’s just not working for me.
Andy Hall:
“Elizabeth Brown Pryor found seven separate accounts of this incident, all of which are consistent and support each other.”
Are you sure it’s seven? I’ve seen only three and they are not consistent and do not support each other.
And Pryor slips in a few lies along the way that lead you to believe something for which there is little evidence…
I don’t have the book in front of me at the moment, but she says seven in her Q&A at Arlington House on C-SPAN. As she points out in the book, some of the accounts include names of the participants (phonetically rendered) that match other historical documents. As a matter of historical research, the evidence for this incident is pretty solid.
@BorderRuffian: And I’m still waiting for Josephine to respond. She seems to do that a lot — make an outraged, indignant claim and, when asked to provide actual evidence for it, slip back into silence until something else gets her riled.
I checked, it’s seven — the account of Wesley Norris (one of the men beaten), five other eyewitnesses, and Lee’s own account book that records payment to the constable. The discussion of this incident, detailing the sources that document it, take up most of Chapter 16, “Theory Meets Reality.” The references for that chapter alone span five pages of very small type.
It’s important to remember, as well, that Norris’ account was published a few years after the incident, in 1866, when Lee was in good health and able to defend himself. He never publicly did so.
We can argue, I suppose, the meaning of what defines “consistent” and “supporting” and really get nowhere. There are a number of small differences in the accounts, but they all repeat the same basic story. (Similarly, if you interview three witnesses to an automobile accident, you’re likely to get three slightly-different accounts of it, but nonetheless the accident still happened.) From the perspective of the professionally-trained historian, who’s taught to weigh and assess documents — not just what they say but where they come from, when they originate and their intended audience, Pryor’s work on this is solid. It draws from multiple sources including Lee’s own payment book, which is damning. Even if one argues (however implausibly) that all the other separate eyewitness descriptions of the event were part of a larger conspiracy to disparage Lee, you can’t dismiss the evidence of his own account book.
Clearly though, your comment shows you’re familiar with Pryor’s book, so I won’t go on. You have read it, yes? Because there’s no point in going into further discussion if you’re only going by what you’ve heard second- or third-hand. If you haven’t read it, I’d encourage you to. It will reveal a great deal about Lee that doesn’t fit the mythos that’s built up around him all these generations. But I’d rather try to understand the flesh-and-blood man, warts and all, than simply accept the unblemished legend.
Andy Hall-
“I checked, it’s seven — the account of Wesley Norris (one of the men beaten), five other eyewitnesses”
All I know of is the account of Wesley Norris and two anonymous letters. Where are the other three accounts?
AH-
“and Lee’s own account book that records payment to the constable.”
How is this a witness? There is nothing in the account book that says the slaves were whipped.
AH-
“It’s important to remember, as well, that Norris’ account was published a few years after the incident, in 1866, when Lee was in good health and able to defend himself. He never publicly did so.”
He did so privately.
AH-
“From the perspective of the professionally-trained historian, who’s taught to weigh and assess documents — not just what they say but where they come from, when they originate and their intended audience, Pryor’s work on this is solid. It draws from multiple sources including Lee’s own payment book, which is damning.”
Not too solid.
Here is where she lies to lead you to believe the whipping story-
_Reading the Man_, p.270:
“…Lee’s account book for June 1859 carries this item: ‘To Richard Williams, arrest, &c of fugitive slaves–$321.14. The sum, which did not include the transport of the slaves to Hanover County–Lee paid another $50.53 for that–is exceptionally large.
We know that Lee’s standard reward for returning runaways was ten dollars per slave.”
No we don’t.
There is nothing in Lee’s writings that says $10 was the *standard* reward for the recapture of slaves. It’s absurd.
continue p.270:
“The previous year Lee’s acounts show that he paid Williams only $57.25 to arrest and detain three other fugitives, and another $37.12 to transport them to Richmond. The services rendered by Williams in relation to the Norris party must have been extraordinary to command a fee nearly six times as high as those paid the year before.”
And the reason is the distance and time involved in recapturing the slaves. The 1859 runaway slaves were some 50-60 miles away. The 1858 runaways were across the river in Washington, DC (maybe 5 miles?).
…and Lee knew down to the street and house where the runaways were at.
No word yet on whether, after admonishing the constable to “lay it on well,” Lee added sadly, “this hurts me more than it hurts you. . . .”
Andy you and Corey make these outlandish statements because you want to demonize somebody, some prominent Southernor – you and the pryor woman are full of smoke screens to fit your agenda; I am sure you know that lashing according to history and google was the normal punishment in those days. Did either of you prove the lashing was above normal usage or beyond the pale – I don’t think you all proved a thing and you just parrot and piggyback on what she wrote in the book.
Colonial discipline, cat o nine tails & the noose
Nov 11, 2002 … Category: Discipline. … Severe lashing inflicts scars that do not disappear. Savage lashing kills. …
Sea Service Discipline – Flogging.
This punishment was given in twelve lash installments. The attempt to ban flogging … For an in depth discussion on the history of naval discipline see : …
bluejacket.com [Found on Google, Yahoo! Search]
The Lewis and Clark Expedition (U.S. Army) records a number of floggings in the first two years of the journey (1804-1805). One deserter was sentenced to 500 lashes. Another offense was sentenced to run a gauntlet of whips.
I’m honored to be compared to Pryor, even if it is intended as a diss. Thanks.
Hello Josephine,
Read my post #16.
Pryor lies to lead the reader to believe the whipping story.
I spent considerable time at the book site on Amazon and I read both, 5-3 star and 2-1 star, the good and the bad reviews. Yes, Andy Hall you and Elizabeth could be presentism twins!
By Goofus (Brentwood, CA United States) along with many others does say my belief about this book so clearly, I decided to quote him so you would understand what I mean.
“Worse than self-proclaimed objectivity in a historical rendering is a dual proclamation of objectivity and present-centric intent. To my fellow students of history: this ought to serve as a big red flag. As another reviewer pointed out, terms like “cross-cultural communication skills” might be fashionable to some in today’s political climate, but they often serve as poor metrics in evaluating historical figures. Pryor works to condition readers to adopt her conclusions, starting with the observation that the subject of this book is far too lionized and that her goal is to be objective in her evaluation of new evidence. But the main problem here is not with the obvious conclusion that Robert E. Lee has been wrongly elevated, in some circles, to a superman, but with the author’s expounding of her own premise.”
Andy,
I see Josephine “southern” Bass has finally answered your question…well sort of…and what does she give us, some random reviewer from Amazon. Not quite the historical context I was hoping for…but that is old Josephine for you.