Thanks!

Should we allow Rebels of whatever era decide what to make of Ben Butler? It seems they overlook so much, rationalizing everything as bad because they lost the war. (I read something like this somewhere)

Butler wasn't the best at being the general of an occupied territory, but looking back, there weren't a whole lot of people with experience in this line of work to choose from.

Without disagreeing with you Gene, the real problem was less the military experience in civil rule, but the British-American (North and South) legal tradition of a dislike of military supervision of civilians to enforce "proper" civilian behavior.

Some idiot named William L. Richter explores this in his intro to The Army in Texas during Reconstruction (Texas A&M, 1987), 3-8.

Some sources in no special order include: James E Sefton, The Army and Reconstruction (LSU, 1967); John Shy, Toward Lexington: The Role of the British Army in the Coming of the American Revolution Princeton, 1965); Merill Jensen, The New Nation: History of the United States during the Confederation (Knopf, 1950); Jackson Turner Main, The Anti-Federalists” Critics of the Constitution (Quadrangel, 1964); Bernard Bailyn, Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Harvard, 1967); Bailyn, The Ordeal of Thomas Hutchinson (Harvard, 74); David E. Engdahl, “Soldiers, Riots and Revolutions: The Law of Military Troops in Civil Disorders,” Iowa Law Review, 57 (1971), 1-70; George M. Dennison, “Martial Law: The Development of a Theory of Emergency Powers, 1776-1861,” American Journal of Legal History, 18 (1974), 52-58;Dennison, The Dorr War: Republicanism on Trial 1831-1861 (Kentucky, 1976); Ralph A. Wooster, The People in Power: Courthouse and Statehouse in the Lower South (Tennessee, 1969).

That makes sense Bill, which may help explain Lincoln's 10% plan

http://www.american-historama.org/1860-1...t-plan.htm

"Should we allow Rebels of whatever era decide what to make of Ben Butler? It seems they overlook so much, rationalizing everything as bad because they lost the war. (I read something like this somewhere)"

And, we could turn that "truism" around and suggest that the victors (i.e. Northerners) rationalize that their side did everything right and honorable because they won the war. Let's face facts that both sides did bad things and made bad judgments and that there were many generals who should never have even been placed on a battlefield, let alone command other men. Is it our duty to try and sanitize every bad situation that occurred during those four, horrible years?

I'm one who thinks that Herb's great-grandfather's diary reveals exactly what some of Butler's men thought of him. To me, that's called a primary source - something that historians are always shouting about finding to prove a point. Let's not erase Grandpa's thoughts 150 years after he was there and experiencing things first hand.

In a previous post, Bill mentioned Mark Grimsley and his book on The Hard Hand of War. As most of you know, the Surratt conference in March will be our 16th annual one. Our first was in 2000, and we have followed a theme each year, beginning with Conference I, which focused on reasons why Lincoln came to be assassinated. Mr. Grimsley was one of our speakers at that first conference and really helped to set the stage for black flag warfare leading to increased atrocities and increased hatreds. There were some shocked registrants as they listened to what black flag warfare entailed.

I remember Grimsley and his talk. He showed the Federal soldiers applying the "restrained" hand in burning all the outbuildings, which in that day stored all the food, and leaving the big house. I asked him of the slide had a title and suggested, "Look. Ma, we get to starve in style," when he said no.

That kind of thing can happen when you start a war and don't think things through.
Poor political decisions can have unintended and severe consequences.

We have recently seen in the news what can happen when enemy combatants are not as restrained

Thanks Laurie,you can never"trump",a primary source!

Just to add (quoted from this article: http://abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/abra...nd-cotton/ )

"General Benjamin F. Butler and his brother were widely suspected of enriching themselves through the cotton trade in Louisiana. Historian Ludwell H. Johnson wrote that Butler’s “name became almost a synonym for contraband trade, with all its undertones of corruption and treason. Wherever Butler was, whether New Orleans or Norfolk business boomed, and much of it was in the hands of his friends and relatives." Historian Albert Bushnell Hart wrote: “The most profitable trade was in cotton and sugar. Cotton inside the Confederate lines was worth not more than ten cents in specie, but once on its way North or abroad it was worth seventy cents and upward. The temptation was too strong to be resisted. George S. Denison, collector of revenue, Chase’s confidential and upright representative in New Orleans, wrote him letter after letter about the trade across the border, which was going on under his own eyes, but which he could not check because it was authorized by the general in command. General Butler professed indignation, and promised amendment; but Mr. Denison reported — what everybody in New Orleans suspected — that the brother of the general was profiting by this unwarrantable trade, and that the general winked at it." Butler defended his brother but wrote Secretary Chase, who had heard that “Colonel Butler’s gains amount to between one and two million dollars,” that “no appearance of evil shall exist to rob me of the fair earnings of a devotion of life and fortune to the service of my country. I have therefore asked Colonel Butler to close up his business and go away from New Orleans, so as to leave me entirely untrammeled to deal with the infernal brood of slandering speculators who have maligned me because I will not allow them to plunder the government.”

"Butler…ordered his troops to force entry to the Dutch consulate, where they found several hundred thousand dollars worth of Confederate gold. Despite protests from all the foreign consuls in the city, the general refused to allow diplomatic immunity to protect Confederate property from legitimate seizure.”

"General Butler made extensive use of the Confiscation Act of 1861 to seize rebel estates and dun rebel merchants to support charitable funds."

Lincoln himself considered Butler "as full of poison gas as a dead dog."

"In fairness, Butler had some good intentions, noted historian Anthony Santoro, who wrote that Butler “was instrumental in arranging food and trade to feed the starving city. Believing that festering garbage contributed to rampant disease, he directed work crews to keeping the city clean.”

Bless you, m'child, for posting this. I think I'll stick with disliking Mr. Butler for awhile longer.

To take us back to the original question about Butler as Lincoln's VP in 1864: I was reviewing what Michael Burlingame (Abraham Lincoln: A Life) had to say about this and learned that Butler was actually very highly regarded among antislavery Republicans, both for his confiscation order and his recruitment of blacks in La. Butler's name was frequently raised as an alternative to Lincoln as the republican nominee for president in 1864. One Republican admirer said of Butler “he seems to have exhibited from the start more proper sense of the crisis, more genius, more energetic ability, and more determination than any one.”
Lincoln was genuinely worried about the movement to dump him for Butler (or others, such as Grant, Sherman, Fremont), and he had someone sound out Butler in the spring of 1864. Once he learned that Butler was not inclined to challenge the president, there was no need to offer him a place on the ticket, but that was the context of the rumors that an offer was being considered or even extended. (2:632).

I have no argument with this--which overlooks our original discussion of Butler's propriety in Reconstructing the South, particularly Louisiana. Lincoln and Grant were vowed careful about dropping Butler as a general despite his obvious shortcomings until after the 1864 election when the end of the war was in sight and his political pull in Massachusetts and with the Radicals was lessened by the failure of the Radical Democracy to steal the 1864 nomination from Lincoln

Butler's disaster at Fort Fisher in December 1864 put the final nail in the coffin of his military career.
Lincoln and (especially) Grant were finally able to sack him and send him back home to Massachusetts, keeping Ben out of their way

IMO??
Butler = deluxe sleazebag

(12-03-2014 07:01 PM)L Verge Wrote:  "Should we allow Rebels of whatever era decide what to make of Ben Butler? It seems they overlook so much, rationalizing everything as bad because they lost the war. (I read something like this somewhere)"

And, we could turn that "truism" around and suggest that the victors (i.e. Northerners) rationalize that their side did everything right and honorable because they won the war. Let's face facts that both sides did bad things and made bad judgments and that there were many generals who should never have even been placed on a battlefield, let alone command other men. Is it our duty to try and sanitize every bad situation that occurred during those four, horrible years?

I'm one who thinks that Herb's great-grandfather's diary reveals exactly what some of Butler's men thought of him. To me, that's called a primary source - something that historians are always shouting about finding to prove a point. Let's not erase Grandpa's thoughts 150 years after he was there and experiencing things first hand.

In a previous post, Bill mentioned Mark Grimsley and his book on The Hard Hand of War. As most of you know, the Surratt conference in March will be our 16th annual one. Our first was in 2000, and we have followed a theme each year, beginning with Conference I, which focused on reasons why Lincoln came to be assassinated. Mr. Grimsley was one of our speakers at that first conference and really helped to set the stage for black flag warfare leading to increased atrocities and increased hatreds. There were some shocked registrants as they listened to what black flag warfare entailed.

Excellent points Gene and Laurie!

Maybe if Old Ben had his "Fido" with him, he would have been less of controversial figure. He sure looks relaxed in this picture. Hairline pretty much the same as well.

http://www.masshist.org/database/1741

Personally I had never seen that photo before. Thank you for posting it, Dan! (sorry, Dan, but I hope the Cubs sign Lester)