Book report: Jack Hinson a lone Confederate sniper

[WCF3030]

http://www.amazon.com/Jack-Hinsons-One- ... 1589806409

I copied and pasted this from Amazon.
A very good read full of details about the war as well in that area. Most will find the rifle he had built to be very interesting as well as how meticulous he was in the planning and execution of his sniper war with the Union army. Shows what kind of Hell a 57 year old man(which was pretty old for back then) can do when he sets his mind to it.

The true story of one man's reluctant but relentless war against the invaders of his country.A quiet, wealthy plantation owner, Jack Hinson watched the start of the Civil War with disinterest. Opposed to secession and a friend to Union and Confederate commanders alike, he did not want a war. After Union soldiers seized and murdered his sons, placing their decapitated heads on the gateposts of his estate, Hinson could remain indifferent no longer. He commissioned a special rifle for long-range accuracy, he took to the woods, and he set out for revenge. This remarkable biography presents the story of Jack Hinson, a lone Confederate sniper who, at the age of 57, waged a personal war on Grant's army and navy. The result of 15 years of scholarship, this meticulously researched and beautifully written work is the only account of Hinson's life ever recorded and involves an unbelievable cast of characters, including the Earp brothers, Jesse James, and Nathan Bedford Forrest.

[getitdone1]

Sounds like a great book. I read the reviews at Amazon.

When your two sons are shot and then they bring their heads to your house--what else could you do no matter where you lived, north or south?

I read that up until then the father even had Grant at his home as a guest! Don't believe he wanted any part of the war.

I know that today a lot of people don't realize just how terrible that war was. I just found this:

http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm

The above link is a "branch" off of this link: Outstanding!

http://www.civilwarhome.com/index.html

And this:

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

Edit: Came back to add: The civilwarhome website mentioned above is really something very special. I've only read a small part of what's offered there. Truly outstanding. I would guess that Jack Hinson is mentioned there. I'll be finding out.

Don

[DunRanull]

Corroboration. Would need more facts before buyin this one. Sounds like fiction.. granted I havent read the book, just sayin.

[gamekeeper]

Thanks for the heads up, another book for my Christmas list!

[WCF3030]

Don thanks for the links!!

Very interesting!

[WCF3030]

Corroboration. Would need more facts before buyin this one. Sounds like fiction.. granted I havent read the book, just sayin.

Google it.
Just sayin.....

[bdhold]

also couldn't find a better price on abebooks.
I bought that - looks like a great book.

[Bill in Oregon]

Had not heard of Hinson. The author is a retired USMC lieutenant colonel.

[Charles]

The War of Southern Independence, was a hard and bitter time. Fought mostly on Southern soil, there was blood and atrocities aplenty on both sides. The cultural residue of this war, has lasted 150 years thus far, and although diminishing will be with us for more generations to come.

I will order the book.

[tomtex]

I just read the reviews, and I'm ready to shoot some carpetbaggers.

[rjohns94]

I bought it for my kindle, started reading it last night. great read. its a true story and well documented. the rifle still exist and is in the hands of a private collector in Tenn. thanks for the heads up.

[WCF3030]

I bought it for my kindle, started reading it last night. great read. its a true story and well documented. the rifle still exist and is in the hands of a private collector in Tenn. thanks for the heads up.

I'm considering buying a kindle soon, now that they can be had for $79
Let me know what you think of that book when your done.
At first I was put off by all the detail of the fighting and history of that area for some reason wanting instead to read about Jack. Then I found myself re-reading and enjoying all the detail, a book that will certainly have a place in my small library. The meaning and symbolism of the rifle and the materials that it is made from, maskes you connect with Hinson.
As a side note...
Parts of the book make me hungry for bacon, boiled coffee and corn bread with jam, Something that I made a few times outside in the cold morning while reading the book.

[getitdone1]

Way past my bedtime but got to reading the Wikipedia article about the Civil War.

This article said in 1860--just previous to the war which began Apr. 1861:

The North had twice the population
The North produced 90% of manufactured goods
The North had twice the number of soldiers
The North produced 97% of guns
Surprisingly the North had 400,000 slaves. The South had 3,500,000.

While some say the South could have won the war if they'd done such and such, seems to me the above numbers made that impossible.

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

Don

[aussie]

This is supposed to be his rifle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZJMRF9-evI

aussie.

[Charles]

"I just read the reviews, and I'm ready to shoot some carpetbaggers."

The so called Carpetbaggers didn't show up until after the war. They were folks who came down south to pick over the remains of the prostrate South during the Federal military occupation, euphemistically called "The Reconstruction".

[Ray Newman]

“The so called Carpetbaggers didn't show up until after the war. They were folks who came down south to pick over the remains of the prostrate South during the Federal military occupation, euphemistically called ‘The Reconstruction‘ ".
--Charles

Charles, but which came first:

--The Carpetbaggers, an aspect of the so-called Radical Reconstruction or the Radical Reconstruction Era 1866-1871?

Or ,

-- The Black Codes of 1865 enacted by the former Confederate States?

The Black Codes enacted by the former Confederate States were just a re-written version of the pre-Civil War Slave Codes. Some historians claim that the Black Codes politically enraged the North to take a more stringent approach to dealing with the intransigent former Confederate States.

Read all ‘bout it:
http://www.sparknotes.com/history/ameri ... ion3.rhtml
http://countrystudies.us/united-states/history-68.htm
http://home.gwu.edu/~jjhawkin/BlackCodes/BlackCodes.htm
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h411.html

[kevin in nh]

I went on line and read about it and went and bought it.......looks like a good read for winter and I don't know about you but if any army did what was done to his boys I would not be very kind to any such enemy......

[Charles]

Ray..

The entire country did not treat black people well, there were slaves and slave states in the North. Even where there was no legal slavery, black were held as a form of indentured servants for generations after the Civil War. The North does not hold the moral high ground on the issue of mistreatment of blacks. Lets don't forget the hundreds of blacks that were lynched from the lamp posts in NYC during the "Draft Riots". It took the Union Navy shelling the city to restore order.

The South after the war was in a state of chaos and former slaves roamed the land in bands with nowhere to go and no way to earn a living. The so called 40 acres and a mule program, never came to pass. After a time, many returned to their former owners who had provided for them before and work for them for wages again. The social upheaval in the South caused great fear among the whites, many of them were women whose men had been killed or crippled in the war.

My Great Grandmother's father was killed in the war (11 th. Texas Infantry) and her mother was left to look after the farm. The great fear was a "uprising" by the former slaves. A roving band of blacks came down the road and jumped the fence and began to dig potatoes in a field. My Great Grandmother was only 8 at the time, but was filled with the angst of the general population. She saw them and ran back to the house crying.."Moma, Moma, the niggers have rise and are in the tater patch." Of course they were just hungry, but that illustrates the fear and angst that held the South in it's grip for many years.

The so called Black Laws that folks like to point to, were an attempt to restore some kind of understandable order to a society that had been ripped up by the roots and turned upside down. These laws need to be placed in their historical/social context.

So did the Carpetbaggers come down South in moral indignation about the Black Laws, or did they see a chance to grab land, wealth and power from a prostrate South. My knowledge of human nature, tells me it was the latter and not the former.

But the Lincolnites won the war, and the got to write the history books that are used in schools of this great land. They continue to try and trash the South, it's history and culture. I doubt if that will change as long as children are suckled on the Northern version of the war.

[getitdone1]

Charles,

What are your thoughts regarding the northern and southern "versions" of the Civil War?

The North's motivations, the South's motivations?

Don

[getitdone1]

I'm getting duplication of my posts. Bad mouse, I think doing double click when I submit when I only click once.

Sorry. Delete at will.

Don

[Mac in Mo]

Thanks for this post. Had never heard of Hinson, but in watching one of those videos, the one on Kentucky Lake History, learned that this all occurred where I fish with my Uncle's down in Tennessee. Will be reading this book and will sure have a different perspective on the area next time I go down there.
The same video explains the history of an old elevator and railroad bridge that we have fished around and always wondered about.

Thanks, Kevin

[WCF3030]

Thanks for this post. Had never heard of Hinson, but in watching one of those videos, the one on Kentucky Lake History, learned that this all occurred where I fish with my Uncle's down in Tennessee. Will be reading this book and will sure have a different perspective on the area next time I go down there.
The same video explains the history of an old elevator and railroad bridge that we have fished around and always wondered about.

Thanks, Kevin

If I lived or fished that area I'd be looking for the bluff and cave he lived in and shot at the troop transport ships from.
Hope you enjoy the book.

[Mac in Mo]

For sure, he named the bluff and an island where this took place, I will be doing some looking around. Some of my Uncles neighbors have been around down there for a long time. I hope to talk to some of them next trip down. I'll get photo's if I find anything.

Kevin

[Charles]

Charles,

What are your thoughts regarding the northern and southern "versions" of the Civil War?

The North's motivations, the South's motivations?

Don

Don..The South was a rural agricultural society, with a low density population, while the North had more industry, immigrants and a higher density population. Over time, the South lost it's political voice in the United States government. The trigger was the election of Lincoln in 1860 as he was elected without a single Electoral College vote from the South. That meant, the South was shut out from the process of electing national leadership. They no longer had the votes to have a voice.

There was also a cultural difference between the North and South. There were slaves in both the North and the South, and there was an abolitionist movement in both parts of the country. However the Southern economy was based on the Plantation System and abolition in 1860 would have mean economic death for the South. The Industrial Revolution and mechanized farm equipment would have eventually made the change, but in 1860 it wasn't quite there. No doubt slavery was a moral evil, but some types of evil require time to fall of their own weight.

It is highly questionable that a war in 1861 with the death and destruction it produced, did the black much good. It took another hundred year before things really changed for them. It is my opinion, the same result would have been had without that awful war.

Put this all all together along with the Southern belief in a weak Federal governments and a stronger State government, lead to a condition, when the South decided it was best for them to go it alone.

The U.S. Constitution provided a means for states to join the Union, but made no provision for them to leave. However, Jefferson and others held the "Compact Theory" of the Constitution which most folks understood, that is States could join, they could also leave. It was a voluntary association of states who entered into a compact for mutual benefit.

Honest Abe would have none of it and the war was afoot. To the North it was a war to preserve the Union. Later on, Lincoln would say that if he could preserve the Union by freeing none of the slaves, some of the salves or all of the slaves he would do it.

What was his motives in keeping the South in the Union by force of arms? It was most certainly not all about slavery, but that was a hot issue of the day, both in the North and the South. There are some folks who argue than in the end all wars are about economics and the North did have some strong economic reasons to maintain the Union. Goods came down the Northern rivers to the Ohio and then on to the Mississippi and the out via the Port of New Orleans and other Gulf ports. Goods also came up this same system. In a very real way, the rivers were the interstate transportation system of the day. The loss of control of the Mississippi would have placed the North at a big disadvantage. The South could have taxed the good from the North traveling on the Mississippi.

The war did not start well for Lincoln with defeat after defeat on the battle fields. The anti-war sentiment grew very strong in the North with many wanting just to let the South go it's way. After an initial Union victory, Lincoln issued the so called "Emancipation Proclamation" to rally the flagging support in the North around a great moral cause. It should be noted that he did not free the slaves in the North, or the slaves in that part of the South occupied by Federal troops. The proclamation only freed the slaves in the fighting South. Part of this was based on the hope of creating havoc behind Confederate lines with the slaves.

It is hard to get men to fight and die for Mississippi river trade and other economic reasons. so the great moral cause of slavery become the red herring. The North won, the South lost it war of independence, the the victors get to write the history books and here we are today.

The Southern soldier did not fight to keep slaves. They fought to defend what they understood to be their rights as free Americans, in a political system that was stacked against them. They also fought because there was an invading army coming down the pike toward their homes, farms and families.

There would have been no war, if Lincoln soldiers would have gone home peaceable as they did in Texas. There would have been no war, if Lincolns soldier had stayed warm and safe in their homes with their families, but such was not to be. Lincoln for his own reasons would not allow that to happen.

I find it interesting and ironic, that many of the conservatives, libertarians and tea party folks espouse a view of government that is largely Confederate in nature.

Everything this topic comes up, it draws fire. It is not my intention to start a squabble about the war. So in the spirit of friendship and brotherly love, I will not respond the the fire storm which will likely follow. You asked a straight question and I gave a straight answer. I assume you wanted information and was not trying just to stir something up. I certainly hope not.

While my roots lie with the South and my ancestors wore the gray and followed Lee, I know that there was nothing but humans on both side of that conflict. There was nobody with pure altruistic motives. That sort of stuff seems to be beyond the reach of human beings. The causes of the war are steeped in politics and economics, same ol, same ol.

Best Wishes..Charle

[rock-steady]

Talk about a book that should be made into a movie! I'd pay to see this one at the theatre. There are still some folks around like Old Jack. They make the best friend you can have...or the worst enemy you can imagine.

[Ray Newman]

In my original post I wrote: “The Black Codes enacted by the former Confederate States were just a re-written version of the pre-Civil War Slave Codes. Some historians claim that the Black Codes politically enraged the North to take a more stringent approach to dealing with the intransigent former Confederate States.” (emphasis added:RCN)

In his response, Charles asked us to consider the context of the Black Codes:
“The so called Black Laws that folks like to point to, were an attempt to restore some kind of understandable order to a society that had been ripped up by the roots and turned upside down. These laws need to be placed in their historical/social context.

“So did the Carpetbaggers come down South in moral indignation about the Black Laws, or did they see a chance to grab land, wealth and power from a prostrate South. My knowledge of human nature, tells me it was the latter and not the former.”

No doubt that soem carpertbaggers did not go south for good reasons and in some areas of the North, Black were not welcome or popular. However, there also was a very strong anti-slavery and emancipation movement. I do not think that this movement and its aims can be easily dismissed or labeled a red herring:
--The American Anti-Slavery Society:
(1833–1870) was an abolitionist society founded by William Lloyd Garrison and Arthur Tappan. Frederick Douglass was a key leader of this society and often spoke at its meetings. William Wells Brown was another freed slave who often spoke at meetings. By 1838, the society had 1,350 local chapters with around 250,000 members….The society's headquarters was in New York City. From 1840 to 1870 it published a weekly newspaper, the National Anti-Slavery Standard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_A ... ry_Society

-- Uncle Tom’s Cabin was an immensely popular book:
“ 'Uncle Tom's Cabin was the best-selling novel of the 19th century and the second best-selling book of that century, following the Bible. It is credited with helping fuel the Abolitionist cause in the 1850s. In the first year after it was published, 300,000 copies of the book were sold in the United States; one million copies were sold in Great Britain. In 1855, three years after it was published, it was called ’the most popular novel of our day.’ ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom%27s_Cabin
http://www.harrietbeecherstowecenter.org/utc/

--While condemned in the South, John Brown was looked upon as a hero to some in the North:
“ 'On November 2, after a week-long trial and 45 minutes of deliberation, the Charles Town jury found Brown guilty on all three counts. Brown was sentenced to be hanged in public on December 2. In response to the sentence, Ralph Waldo Emerson remarked that ‘[John Brown] will make the gallows glorious like the Cross.’ Cadets from the Virginia Military Institute under the leadership of General Francis H. Smith and Major Thomas J. Jackson (who would earn the nickname "Stonewall" less than two years later) were called into service as a security detail in the event Brown's supporters attempted a rescue.
***
“Many abolitionists in the North viewed John Brown as a martyr who had been sacrificed for the sins of the nation. Immediately after the raid, William Lloyd Garrison published a column in The Liberator, judging Brown's raid as ‘well-intended but sadly misguided’ and ‘an enterprise so wild and futile as this.‘ However, he defended Brown's character from detractors in the Northern and Southern press, and argued that those who supported the principles of the American Revolution could not consistently oppose Brown's raid. (Garrison reiterated the point, adding that ‘whenever commenced, I cannot but wish success to all slave insurrections‘, in a speech in Boston on the day Brown was hanged).
http://www.answers.com/topic/william-lloyd-garrison
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist)

--Influential popular writers, lecturers, essayist, etc., such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Walt Whitman, Henry David Thoreau, John Greenleaf Whittier also felt the same.
http://www.answers.com/topic/william-lloyd-garrison
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Greenleaf_Whittier
http://www.johngreenleafwhittier.com/about_whittier.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_David_Thoreau
http://www.answers.com/topic/henry-david-thoreau
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Plea_for ... John_Brown
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Waldo_Emerson
http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles ... erson.html

Additionally, there was the Radical Republican wing of Congress, esp. the more famous/infamous such as Charles Sumner, Thaddeus Stevens, and Henry Winter Davis.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/republicans.htm
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h127.html

As Charles stated, the Southern economy was based upon an agricultural or plantation economy. One of the more vocal and better known defenders of the system was James H. Hammond, who spoke of the “Mudsill Theory”:

“In all social systems there must be a class to do the menial duties, to perform the drudgery of life. That is, a class requiring but a low order of intellect and but little skill. Its requisites are vigor, docility, fidelity. Such a class you must have, or you would not have that other class which leads progress, civilization, and refinement. It constitutes the very mud-sill of society and of political government; and you might as well attempt to build a house in the air, as to build either the one or the other, except on this mud-sill. Fortunately for the South, she found a race adapted to that purpose to her hand. A race inferior to her own, but eminently qualified in temper, in vigor, in docility, in capacity to stand the climate, to answer all her purposes. We use them for our purpose, and call them slaves.
***
“We do not think that whites should be slaves either by law or necessity. Our slaves are black, of another and inferior race. The status in which we have placed them is an elevation. They are elevated from the condition in which God first created them, by being made our slaves. None of that race on the whole face of the globe can be compared with the slaves of the South. They are happy, content, unaspiring, and utterly incapable, from intellectual weakness, ever to give us any trouble by their aspirations.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h3439t.html

Hammond’s idea was widely accepted in the South and its economy was based upon slavery, could it not be that those espousing such theories would not be amenable to a change in their social or economic status and if given the chance, find a venue to keep the status quo?

Charles: I find your post today interesting and thought provoking. When you mentioned the economics of the Mississippi, late Allen Nevins’ and his books on the Civil War came to mind. Very complex issues, personalities, politics, etc., involved and I really do not think there is one single pat answer as to why it all happened.

As an aside, are you a Free mason? Your use of the phrase “in the spirit of friendship and brotherly love” I have heard many times when I sat in Lodge.

[getitdone1]

Thanks Charles. Nice response.

Who writes the history books DOES make a difference.

Yes, I've read it more than once that Lincoln said he'd keep slavery if it would keep the union together. But, I also know he was against slavery.

Interesting to note that England and France (well..so I read) came close to helping the south with the war. What was their reasoning?

On the other hand, I see it--in part--relatively poor southerners fighting and dying to help the large, rich plantation owners in the deep south keep their slaves. A serious question: Am I right about this?

Be moving in a day or two but I'll get back here in a few days.

Don

[Charles]

Ray... I was "raised" a Master Mason in 1964, but parted company with them in 1977 over the issue of race. As, you know a Mason takes an oath not be a part of making a black man a mason, not sit in lodge with one. I am a Christian, and if I can sit next to a black man in church, I did not want to be a part of an organization that excluded them. I felt leaving to be the only moral choice I could make.

Recently I have learned this has changed and my old lodge (Rio Grande Lodge No 81) was the first lodge in Texas to bring a black man into the organization. I am very proud of those folks for breaking with this centuries old taboo. I am rethinking my estrangement from them.

Folks will argue the reasons and consequences of the Civil War for many generations yet to come. But, I have discovered that most folks come at this from their cultural roots be they North or South. My family came to Virginia in 1622 (Jamestown) and thence to the Carolinas, and Georgia. From Georgia they came to Texas in 1842. I have four lineal ancestors fight for Southern Independence in Texas Units. Two never returned home. So my southern roots will always show.

[Charles]

Don.. I think everybody is against slavery today, but it had become an economic necessity in the South in 1860. To be certain many folks tried to justify slavery as a good thing, but it required some convoluted logic that flew in the face of reality.

Imagine if you will, that Barack Obama was pushing legislation that would make something illegal that had been legal since the founding of the country. If he were successful it would drive your one half of the country into economic collapse and you could not support your family. All that you and your ancestors had worked for would be taken away from you by a man you did not vote for.

Even though slavery was and still is a bad evil thing, the above will give you an idea of the corner the South was shoved into with the election of Lincoln. The South took the only option available to them and so would we today.

Continue to imagine that the Obamites forced you to stay in a war that killed hundreds of thousands of your men and devastated your home and family. An army of Obamites marched all the way through your country burning a swath miles wide as they went cutting your homeland in half. When the war was over, you could no longer vote and a swarm of Friends of Obama descended on your to take what little bit you still hand. They were protected by Obama's army who occupied your home land for many years.

Such a thing takes generations to put behind, but it will never be forgotten. The Irish are still upset at the British for things they did 500 years ago. We are doing allot better than those guys.

Why did the poor whites fight?

1. A sense of Southern Identify
2. Even though they did not own slaves, their economic welfare was tied hand and foot to the general Southern economy.
3 There was an invading army coming down the road toward their homes and families (most important)

France and England wanted cotton and tobacco. The North had precious little of both so the Frogs and Limeys knew which side their bread was buttered on. But who knows what the Frogs really had in mind, they are a murky and multi-adgended bunch of folks.

[Ray Newman]

Getitdone 1: the issue for Great Britain was cotton to keep their mills running. However, the US Navy blockade stopped or severely hampered Southern cotton form being exported and as a result the Egyptian cotton became a viable product for Great Britain and France until the war ended in 1865.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_ ... _Civil_War
http://www.nytimes.com/1862/08/21/news/ ... eracy.html

Despite the Trent Affair, Great Britian did not intervene in the war. However, several Confederate raiders, the most notable was the Alabama, were built and outfitted in Great Britain without interference. However, Great Britain paid some 15 million dollars + in claims in 1871 over this.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/trent.htm
http://britain.library4history.org/Andr ... -Case.html

Another issue for Great Britain was the slavery question. Great Britain outlawed slavery in 1807. The Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 outlawed slavery in the Southern States, the Confederate Constitution which enshrined slavery, and if Great Britain supported the South, it would be placing itself in a moral quagmire concerning the issue:

“The sympathy of the [British] working class with the Northern cause was the more remarkable in that the Northern blockade of Southern ports brought on a cotton famine in Lancashire that caused terrible distress among the employees of the cotton mills, and affected workmen in other trades also. Yet their abhorrence of slavery outweighed their personal discomfort, and their noble self-sacrifice without doubt influenced the government, always susceptible to public opinion, to preserve strict neutrality.”
http://britain.library4history.org/Andr ... -Case.html

http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Slav ... rwood.html
http://cwemancipation.wordpress.com/201 ... stitution/

As for France supporting the Confederacy, I often thought/wondered if that would have been a subtle attempt on the part of France to regain control of Louisiana -- or exert more control over its former territory. About this same time France invaded Mexico
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_int ... _in_Mexico
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_ ... _Civil_War

[Charles]

Ray... The Union tried to broker a separate peace with Texas (via Lew Wallace) in 1865. In exchange for Texas dropping out of the war, the North was to join them in kicking the French out of Mexico when the war was over, However Benito Juarez made that unnecessary. Wallace failed to get the deal done as General Walker (Department of Texas CSA) when he found out about the attempt decried it as treasonous for Confederate soldiers (Col. Ford and General Slaughter) to even consider such a thing, must less talk to Wallace about it.

Texas long had designs on Mexico, in fact Sam Houston, was laying plans to invade Mexico with a force of several thousand Texas Rangers when the war came along and spoiled his plan. So Wallace did lay something on the table as bait that was attractive to the Texans.

[Ray Newman]

Charles that is interesting.

Do you have any on-line information? I would like to read more about it. The links that I found via Google just mentioned the ill-fated attempt in passing.

At various times, "interest" was also observed in dealing with Nicaragua and Cuba. Seem to recall reading somne place that Jeff davis was in favor of annexing Cuba??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wa ... ilibuster)
http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/ForeignIn ... /cuba.html
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/academic/bhs.htm

[edwardyoung]

Ray... I was "raised" a Master Mason in 1964, but parted company with them in 1977 over the issue of race. As, you know a Mason takes an oath not be a part of making a black man a mason, not sit in lodge with one. I am a Christian, and if I can sit next to a black man in church, I did not want to be a part of an organization that excluded them. I felt leaving to be the only moral choice I could make.

Recently I have learned this has changed and my old lodge (Rio Grande Lodge No 81) was the first lodge in Texas to bring a black man into the organization. I am very proud of those folks for breaking with this centuries old taboo. I am rethinking my estrangement from them.

.

Charles, I have several friends who are past Masters and have talked to me for years about the Masons and that they think I am the kind of man they look for. I've never seen it mentioned in all the discussions about Masons on this forum; but that is the same reason I've never petitioned for membership. Even though, officially, that policy has changed, it is still the prevailing attitude among every Mason(white Mason, that is) I've ever talked to about it. I've never been able to get past it. I appreciate you mentioning it, as a former Mason. I figured I would have just been labeled an anti-Mason turd, instead of just a turd. That isn't the case, of course.

[bdhold]

I got my copy in yesterday's mail and couldn't put it down for 120 pages last night - walking about reading when I called in my boxer to feed him, etc.
Well written, extremely well researched, and a story that needed telling.

I'll just say this about slavery. The civil war was God's hand to end slavery no matter what we were fighting over.
But the true family in this story named their youngest daughter after their house mammy.

[Charles]

Edward..Racism toward black folks in the South, as in other parts of the country are rapidly fading. I was raised by my Grandparents where were staunch racists until they died. I had to overcome that in my own life, and that took some real intentional effort. My children had nothing to overcome and they don't understand the whole concept. It is alien to them.

The Masonic lodge is a multi-generational organization, so I suspect that the whole spectrum of views on race are held. The fact that my old Lodge in deep south Texas admitted a black man to membership indicates a sea change in attitude, which is a very good thing.

[WCF3030]

I got my copy in yesterday's mail and couldn't put it down for 120 pages last night - walking about reading when I called in my boxer to feed him, etc.
Well written, extremely well researched, and a story that needed telling.

I'll just say this about slavery. The civil war was God's hand to end slavery no matter what we were fighting over.
But the true family in this story named their youngest daughter after their house mammy.

I agree it is a story that needed telling.

[bdhold]

I'm halfway through the book and already found some rehashed myth regarding 6th Tennessee Cavalry USA. (Fielding Hurst didn't skin people.)
So taking this with salt, but it's still an enthralling book.

My family is from McNairy Co., maybe the bloodiest backwaters of the war (The 6th USA "Hurst Nation"), and I've traced relatives in regulars on both sides, including an officer under Forrest (Gr-Gr-grandfather's 1st cousin), and a Union widow's pension for my Gr-Gr-grandfather's brother (my distant uncle) - we have a family tradition that the brothers fought on opposite sides (at Shiloh), but I've found no unit roster records for my Gr-Gr-grandfather. (I even have a distant Confederate Colony relative)
My grandfather was a blacksmith and used to ride Purdy-Pocahontas road on his horse at night and was always haunted by the milepost tales.
He told a ghost tale of firefox glowing on the decaying rail fences at one of the milepost grave/monuments that spooked and jolted his horse. He said the hair stood up on his neck every night riding that road.

[Rube Burrows]

I passed throught the book store yesterday and picked up this book. I will prob. read it after im finished with Nathan Bedford Forrest: A Biography by Jack Hurst.

[bdhold]

No story as told is ever quite true. The storyteller may even believe it to be, but his perspective - his side, his opinion, his upbringing - makes it imperfect.

My daughter and I were watching Little Big Man the other night. Great movie, but I had to explain to her that the character of Custer was a caricature - a cartoon. There was very likely truth in him being egotistical, stubborn and ambitious, but he could not have been the buffoonish mountebank portrayed in the movie. The Civil War culled incompetent leaders and he rode through it as a hero and a General at 27-y-o. So he was a brave man and a leader.
Though he was a genocidal mountebank, along with Sheridan.

What was his motivation? The same, discussed above, as the carpetbaggers, English, French and, yes, even the southern plantation owners and ultimately the northern politicians - economics - more simply - money, either real or perceived.
In the case of Sheridan/Custer, it was exterminate the natives before they spread to occupy more potentially valuable land. And there was going to be a war of cultures no matter what - then or later. The native bison/horse culture was the victim. If it hadn't been fought then, well, bison and native Americans migrating across Interstate 30 just aren't going to work.