Posted 9 years ago
AmericanSw…
(1 item)
Presented to Heber S. Thompson 7th PA Cavalry. Captain Thompson Captured at the battle of Lovejoy Station when his horse was shot from under him. His diary of his experiences in Confederate captivity has been printed. The diary remains in care of the University of South Carolina. Heber Thompson went on to write his own book "The First Defenders"; headed up the team establishing the memorial to the 7th PA Cavalry at Chikamauga, and is personally mentioned and sited for bravery in numerous accounts given in books. This is one of my favorite swords.
Possibly the finest presentation sword I've seen. Is there a reason we can't see the engraving on the blade?
Blade added....
Beautiful, as expected!
One of the nicest presentation swords for a company grade officer that I have seen-- GO presentation swords are another level!
I hope that you will share more of your collection.
scott
I will add some more swords from time to time...thank you!
Hi AmericanSwords, I don't know anything about swords, but I can see this is quality. I love my history and your write up is very interesting, coming from the other side of the pond I have read very little on the American Civil War. My husband used to say that the American Civil War was the start of how modern warfare started, I would like to know if people on this forum think the same way as him. Thanks for posting this, it's always great to learn about history.
Pease, you're hubby is very correct. The timing was right with steam power, mass production, interchangeable parts, factory rifling, DC electricity etc.. All wars bring out the inventors & they had all those new developments to play with & technology evolves in leaps & bounds as people try to find better ways to kill each other in "civilized" warfare. Can you imagine the ironclads, Virginia & Monitor slugging it out with men on their decks handling sails? The only invention I can think of that didn't use really new technology was the Confederate submarine, Hunley. As said, all wars show leaps in technology but the War of Northern Aggression had loads of new raw technology to be utilized & developed by both sides.
Thanks for your responds blunderbuss, it's all very interesting, I would like to read some books on the American Civil war, can you recommend any.
The idiom, "Winners of wars, write the history books" is very true when discussing the Amer. Civil War. Over more than 150 yrs., the "cause" for the war has been solidly founded in freeing slaves by many writers & that has been instituted into the school history books. That wasn't even 10% of the issue. Unbiased books have been weeded-out by the gov't. & their "truth" has to be accepted. The "South" is basically Scot-Irish & their attitude is about the same as in the "UK" !
This isn't f/b & my address is on my profile.
"That wasn't even 10% of the issue."
Southern Revisionists continue to REWRITE the Civil War as a noble fight against an oppressive US central government.
All of these other causes (economics, states rights, etc...) have slavery at their core.
Don't take my word on it, READ what was written by the Southern States as justification for secession. Here is part of the Mississippi document:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."
scott
Georgia:
"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic."
scott
Pease, this exactly the reason I didn't want to get things started on CW! As shown by Scott, the "Civil War" is not over! At the start of the war, 75-80% of the wealth of the States was in the South. The North had taken to using immigrants as slaves as well as black slaves. Pure hypocrisy! Immigrants were put in the ranks of the Federalist army without having any idea about "Saving the union"!! They were simply trying to survive! Scott, are you simply another brainwashed "sleeper"? I didn't detect that when we talked in Richmond.
Oops sorry, I didn't mean to open up a can of worms. It's really interesting that Britain sided with the confederates, when we our selves had abolished slavery many years before, of course it was all political, from the UK point of view, they wanted to throw a spanner in the works has we say. I'm sure there was many more aspects which also contributed to this terrible war. I was in New Orleans, before Hurricane Katerina, I could see how very proud the people were. Out of all the U S cities I visited, New Orleans is my favourite.
I am not sure how poor labor practices and immigrant soldiers supports the statement "[Slavery] wasn't even 10% of the issue".
I went straight to the seceding states to see WHAT CONSTITUTED THE ISSUE. Seems rather clear in the case of GA and MS.
Don't stir the pot and then act surprised when you get a response.
Again, this is a GREAT SWORD.
scott
This is a wonderfully, awesome sword - regardless of the horror it may have survived. New Orleans is my neighbor, the South is my home. Signs and symbols of the Confederacy are everywhere, and are at risk of being removed. It is my feeling that both Scott and Blunderbuss2 are both correct in what each of them say. Yes, the South was trying to defend their right to own slaves; at the same time the North could have cared less about slaves but saw that as an opportunity to push their agenda, and they did. At any rate, Peasejean I love that you loved your visit to New Orleans - it is a special place!
I loved New Orleans, it was very different from the the other parts of the U.S. I visited. The culture was very different, laid back, and the people were amazing.
It's very interesting has a outsider, to try and understand how people think to this day, what happened a 150 yrs ago.
New Orleans is probably one of the most unique cities in the United States; American actors, John Goodman and Matthew McConaughey, both had very popular statements regarding the ambiance of the city - I can't recall by heart, but you should do a google search and read them. To me, they were each spot on in their descriptions! Sadly though, as time goes on, the city is becoming more and more unsafe -- I guess you'll find that everywhere these days.
I stand corrected! The "Civil" War was strictly over slavery. The federalists didn't want slavery in the private sector, but wanted it put in the government sector so they could enslave everybody via oppressive taxes. LOL!! (Not really funny, since it's true).
"At the start of the war, 75-80% of the wealth of the States was in the South."
Let this one go at first, but find it an interesting statement.
Not sure of the SOURCE?
Here is what I found about the US in 1861 (from US Army Center of Military History, online through UNC- Chapel Hill School of Education):
Union Confederacy
% of nation’s population 71% 29%
% of nation’s railroads 71% 29%
% of nation’s farm acreage 65% 35%
% manufact. workers 92% 8%
% manufacturing output 92% 8%
Number of factories 110,000 18,000
Railroad mileage 22,000 9,000
Also, this quote: "In seapower, railroads, MATERIAL WEALTH (my caps), and industrial capacity to produce iron and munitions the North was vastly superior to the South."
Again not sure where your information came from-- suspect counting 3.5 million Human Beings (Slaves) as property/ wealth may skew the data.
Of course, I am using published information, "produced by the winning side". Here is the full information:
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-civilwar/5463
scott
Scott, also using Univ. of N.C. source: Trends in the Size Distribution of Wealth in the nineteenth Century: Some Speculations. Author Robert E. Gallman states that the average wealth per family in plantation areas was $12K as opposed to $3K for the rest of the country.
The economy of the South was based on international trade which brought foreign wealth in.
"In Plantation areas"-- skewed by some very wealthy individuals. That doesn't change the aggregate wealth for the entire region (North vs. South).
Take a look at Table 4:
http://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php
TOTAL wealth by region in 1860 (in millions of dollars):
North: $9786
South: $6332 (just under Half of that "wealth" represents human beings: SLAVES)
Data doesn't seem to support your statement that "[a]t the start of the war, 75-80% of the wealth of the States was in the South."
scott
Scott, for anybody who takes the time to read all the information you provided, it supports my opinions & observations based on research. This wealth distribution you present is not supported by any research sites (@ least 3) that I covered.
To your snide remark about Southern wealth including slaves. Of course they were part of their wealth, same as records for Northern slaves & indentured slaves ( who were generally treated worse). By the way, when you pay as much as a luxury Mercedes with all options, you don't go out & beat on it as biased history books insist that you believe.
I like the point that your source gave about a slave can't be "abandoned or executed". That means that the owner had to feed, cloth, shelter & generally take care of them after usefulness until death. Better than Medicare today!! Owners of slaves would be charged with murder if he killed one in all states I've ck'd.
Scott, you've been reading too much propaganda history. Thanks for the help making my points.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
I presented two State Secession documents showing that slavery was THE reason for secession within that particular state-- don't see how that supports your statement that "[Slavery] wasn't even 10% of the issue".
I presented a researched document putting the North's wealth at about 50% higher than the South's in 1860 (3 X higher if slaves aren't counted)-- don't see how that supports your other statement that "[a]t the start of the war, 75-80% of the wealth of the States was in the South."
Now we are on that tired revisionist argument that slaves were treated well-- part of the family-- one big happy family. I guess the runaway slaves just didn't know how great they had it!
scott
"I'm saying plainly, the Yankees are better equipped than we.
They've got factories, shipyards, coal mines and a fleet to bottle up our harbors and starve us. All we've got is cotton and slaves and arrogance."
- Rhett Butler
(Sorry, I couldn't resist)
One question Scott. Have you ever known a slave? I have. "Pap" was his name. He told us kids "b'rer rabbit " stories back about 1951-?. He didn't know exactly how old he was, but figured mid-90's. All of us kids loved Pap & a white man built a small cottage for him. He was happy & loved us kids.
One day, while we were alone, I asked about his past & he knew my interest in history. Here is his story that I will never forget.
Pap said that his mother & father worked in the "House" when the Federal raiders came through. (This is the area between Anniston, AL & Atlanta). Pap said that when the Federal cavalry rode into their yard, his older sister hide them under the house. (Pap thinks he was about 5-6 yrs. old). He told me (with tears in his eyes at 90+ yrs.), that he watched as the woman of the house with his mother & father were taken into the front lawn & shot. Pap said that his sister held her hand over his mouth as this murder was done to keep him from crying our & getting them killed as well. He told me that the federals put the torch to the house & they had almost been caught by the flames before the Federals rode away.
Long way to go in experience, Scott, before you catch-up!
ONE anecdotal story makes up for volumes of history?
One slaves apparent happiness as a child and tale of Federal deprivations doesn't rewrite history.
Just as I wouldn't draw the conclusion that all Federal Cavalry were murders, neither would I draw the conclusion that most slaves were happy with their existence.
scott
The war was over hubris and economics. In the South that meant slaves, especially to the wealthy and powerful. Since the average southerner didn't own slaves, and lacked the upward mobility to ever have one, the "State's Rights" became the rallying call. But what other state right was the South willing to fight for? The hated Yankee invaders were enough cause for many young men to take up arms, but they would not be there except for secession. Then there were worries about the Southern way of life. What would happen if all those slaves were to become free - would their homes be safe from rampaging blacks? What about the danger to white women? As the least, would working class whites have to compete for jobs with freedmen? The wealthy then (and now) certainly were not above fear mongering.