Although Utah, and it's pioneers descendants, have only a somewhat detached and
cursory relationship with the American Civil War, my family is resplendent with
heritage of that great conflict.I have three ancestors who fought
for the Union; all three from the State of Kentucky. They were brave and
honorable men who took up arms for what they believed was right. I also have 28
ancestors who fought for the Stars and Bars of the Confederacy. They joined
their neighbors in fighting to repulse an invader who was actually illegally
invading their home state. (And when the Confederates invaded Maryland and
Pennsylvania, they too were acting illegally.)I'm sure there will be
many who will spout their politically correct mantra that the Confederates were
traitors, and even worse, terrorists. But my ancestors were neither of these.
None of them were slave owners with plantations. They were American Patriots,
and not dupes of an evil cause.They fought in most of the major
actions of the war. Three of my direct-line ancestors were at Gettysburg. I
honor them always, but also especially on this the 150th anniversary of the War
Between the States.
Interesting picture, but why not a picture of Federal troops at Fort Douglas
during the actual civil war. They occupied the territory all during the civil
war to prevent the "supposedly" eminent insurrection. Yes, even when
the Union was desparate for men and failing to meet draft quotas from every
state, they maintained the armed force in the Utah territory.
Confederates weren't American patriots. That's ridiculous to assert that.
Maybe they were Confederate patriots, because America equals Union. I'm tired
of people excusing the lack of moral sensibilities of the people who fought for
the Confederacy. I'm not impressed with their religiosity. I'm descended from
abolitionist Quakers. I'm proud of that. I have an x*great grandfather who
fought for the Confederacy at Gettysburg. I'm not proud of that. The
Confederacy was not a proud heritage. It was an ignominious one.
I recently read _The Real Lincoln_ by Thomas DiLorenzo. A interesting read and a
perspective very different than what you were taught in school about Lincoln and
the War for Southern Independence. Highly recommend it!
The Civil War had a profound impact on Utah: it focused the Republican Party's
attention on the South for over a decade.No mention of the
Republican 1856 "twin relics of barbarism" platform or Lincoln's
response to Brigham Young, which was along the lines of "I'll leave you
alone if you leave me alone"?
A conquered people never forget. It's really time for some people to get over
the civil war. I've actually recently heard one southerner refer to it as
"the war of northern aggression." It was a tragic event and we need
to remember it, But....it had the correct conclusion and we need to acknowledge
that. This is coming from someone who has a degree in history and is a real
Civil war buff. Thank goodness our union was saved and we have become the great
country we are.
Utah considered themselves a "slave state" and agreed with the south.
The Civil War was a terrible tragedy that could have easily been avoided. Every
single civilized country in the world got rid of slavery without having to fight
such a ridiculous war. Lincoln simply didn't want anyone to escape his power and
domination. I agree with the comment above who mentioned _The Real Lincoln_ by
Thomas DiLorenzo. Great read!
Interesting comments. I would suggest also reading "A Team of Rivals"
, D. Goodwin. An excellent read on Lincoln, civil war and the Republican Party.
Darjen's comment that Lincoln "simply didn't want anyone to escape his
power and dominiation," is a little over the top, in my opinion.
Other then DN, does anyone really give a rats-behind about this hogwash?. The
opening salvo of the American Civil War will be recreated in the harbor of
Charleston, S.C., as part of events marking this week's 150th anniversary of the
start of the conflict. The island stronghold Fort Sumter will be the focus.
Part of the National Park Service, events can go ahead there now that a federal
government shutdown was averted. The superintendent of Fort Sumter National
Monument, Tim Stone, says the observance is not a celebration but a somber
commemoration of a war in which 600,000 Americans died Concerts on Monday
evening and before dawn Tuesday will precede a daylong recreation of the canon
bombardment Tuesday. Confederate forces demanded that a Union garrison surrender
the fort and fired on it on April 12, 1861. Union forces surrendered two days
later.The NORTH (Lincoln) set free the slaved, held hostage in the
South (the democrats), and the North won this war. End of report. Have a happy 150th.I got better things to do.
What Brigham Young said by the first telegraph message once the line was
completed to SLC was: "Utah has not seceded but is firm for the
Cionstitution and laws of our once happy country."Governor
Cumming, as nearly as more than ten hyears of research have shown, did not fight
in the war. When he returned to Washington to try to recover his expenses as
governor, he was jailed without habeus corpus and was only released after two
years. He is often confused with his nephew of the same name who was a general
in the CSA. The younger Cumming had a colorful CSA career and was severely
wounded in the Atlanta campaign which ended his fighting.
Having lived in four southern states as a child and an adult it was interesting
to to learn of the feelings about the Civil War from my friends, neighbors and
students. In general the folks of the south felt that the Union soldiers where
butcherous invaders and the Confederate soldiers were cultured gentlemen
fighting for a special way of life. Lincoln is seen as the great butcher.
Sheridan was the bloody hatchet who carried out the butcher's orders. Many
thought J.W. Booth fully justified in what he did. My guess is that many
southerners secretly cheered the symbolic cannon firing on Fort Sumpter.
Ernest T. Bass, please enlighten us as to why you believe Utah (I assume
Deseret) considered itself a "slave state"?One could make
the argument that Deseret was firmly behind the south insofar as they emphasized
states rights, but I believe you've gone too far in portraying Deseret as
pro-slavery. I don't believe history would support you there.But
I'd like to hear your sources.
Oh I could certainly understand how someone could call the state of Utah a
"pro-slavery" state.....when the Mormons were driven from Missouri, a
real slave state, since they opposed slavery. I don't recall any slaves coming
to Utah in the history books, and since most of the members of the Church at
that time were from abolitionist Northern states.........Yep, I can sure see how
Utah could have been called a "pro-slavery" state.....
@ Say No to BO1. The Mormons were essentially seceding from the
Union in 1847 when they left Nauvoo to move west (secession is a very
Confederate friendly idea to say the least). 2. The Republican Party hated
slavery and Polygamy. Utah was guilty of both. Many (perhaps most?) in Utah
would likely NOT have considered themselves Union sympathizers in 1860-1865.3. Volunteers from Utah marched to fight with the Confederacy. Some are buried
at Soldier Summit Wasatch County.4. Union forces occupied Utah because it
was not seen as friendly territory by the Federal Government. 5. I was at
the Museum of the Confederacy in December...when I was asked by a Confederate
re-enactor where I was from and casually said 'Utah' thinking he'd have nothing
to say one way or the other...I was shocked when he said "so you're one of
us." Yes, even the South sees Utah that way.
@ Say No to BOCensus records show 26 African slaves in Salt Lake in
1850 and 29 in 1860.Three of them even have their names carved on
the Brigham Young Monument in downtown SLC. That's pretty
pro-slavery sounding to me...Also...And for whatever
reason, the Mormons (the founders and vast majority of Deseret) did not even let
African Americans into their own church leadership until 1978. This is not
enough to declare them "pro-slavery" but it certainly demonstrates
that for whatever reason they had a significant bias towards people of African
descent. Not unlike much of the South...
I too having lived in 4 Southern States, and Maryland (essentially much the
same) and worked in a 6th, have heard the "war of Northern aggression"
for decades. One also continues to hear others quaintly remark that, "The
South will rise again." (As in rebellion? I have never gotten a straight
answer, or the same one from any two proud Southerners.)With
somewhat tongue-in-cheek humor, I have always responded, "When you are at
the bottom, there is no way but up."Modern verbal fencing
aside, it was a war fraught with terrible suffering and loss of life, fought to
preserve the Union which gives us strength today, and to preserve/dismantle a
cruel, out-moded and dehumanizing way of life. I give pause then to thank God
for Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Phil Sheridan, William Tecumseh Sherman,
General Hancock, Col Chamberlain, and the countless brave and decent men and
women who fought gallantly on both sides for their American-held beliefs, and
who worked to aid the suffering where possible.I am amazed too at
the lack of wider recognition today over the Prophet Joseph's clear statement
about the onset of the war. Clear prophecy.
Dave from Taylorsville The civil was was about SLAVERY you Koch-Party types
always want to downplay that, but that is the FACT. You people want to go back
to how it used to be. When slavery was legal, when women couldnt vote. Heck,
when only landowners could vote. No thanks.