There was something The Huntsville Times, Madison County, Alabama news paper that I bet you can read online. Regina -----Original Message----- From: Michael Ruddy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 8:43 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] photographs to be released I was unable to locate any 'new' release beyond the 1997 issue of the Brady collection. Mike Here in case you haven't seen them are some sites: Carlyle Military History Institute Photos: http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usamhi/PhotoDB.html Library of Congress photos: Overall historical photos: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/index.html Civil War photos: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/cwphtml/cwphome.html New York Historical Society Photos: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/ndlpcoop/nhihtml/cwnyhshome.html New York Public Library Photos (amazing collection!): http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/index.cfm Joy Stalnaker wrote: > I saw the headlines in the paper the other day that NARA is to release > previously unpublished CW photographs. I did not get to read it. > What's the scoop? Are these going to be published on the web? ==== CIVIL-WAR Mailing List ==== To unsubscribe from list mode, email [email protected] and in the text area of the message, type only the word unsubscribe

I was unable to locate any 'new' release beyond the 1997 issue of the Brady collection. Mike Here in case you haven't seen them are some sites: Carlyle Military History Institute Photos: http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usamhi/PhotoDB.html Library of Congress photos: Overall historical photos: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/index.html Civil War photos: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/cwphtml/cwphome.html New York Historical Society Photos: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/ndlpcoop/nhihtml/cwnyhshome.html New York Public Library Photos (amazing collection!): http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/index.cfm Joy Stalnaker wrote: > I saw the headlines in the paper the other day that NARA is to release > previously unpublished CW photographs. I did not get to read it. > What's the scoop? Are these going to be published on the web?

Question: Letters written to and from Lieutenant Russell, acting adjutant???, of the several regiments stationed at New Creek, a part of the Railroad Division and dated December 1862 are signed: Lt. MJ. Russell AAAG 2nd Div DWV Questions: AAAG - Acting Adjustant General? Acting Assistant Adjutant General? What? Also, I'm wondering why these official letters (which are on file at NARA and from which I copied the above) are signed 2nd Div DWV - The bill forming West Virginia was signed by Lincoln on December 31, 1862, and the Department of West Virginia was not formed until March 1863 according to Boatner. Ideas, anyone? Thanks for any help?

For the many members who have joined the list in the past few months: The Civil War list started in 1995 for the discussion of the Civil War in its historical context and for helping people to find their ancestors. The guidelines which describe some of the things the list is not used for are posted at: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~mruddy/guidline.htm It is not a monitored list which means someone can post whatever they want to -- once. There are certain forbidden posts which will result in immediate whiffing with no forgiveness: racial or religious slurs and filthy language. The list has many members who are good people with lots of information on the war between the states and sources which can help others in their genealogical or military research. Members whose ancestors fought in the war are justly proud of the roll their ancestors took in laying their lives on the line or, in some cases, laying down their lives, for different causes, but a cause each side believed was just. It is expected respect for both viewpoints will be adhered to when posting. If anyone wishes clarification of the guidelines or wants my opinion, just email me: [email protected] Mike

I got around to looking through this Emancipation Proclamation traffic today and ran across this: "He started that war. He freed no slaves, ever. He hated black people and wanted to send them all back to Africa. He was an atheist and a communist, who threw our Constitution out the window. Since 1860, we the people have been paying the price for his reign of tyranny." and, "...It was simply a last ditch political move to keep England and France out of the war. I'm fairly new to this list. Did I get the lay of the land all wrong here? But with regard to the E.P., to say that Lincoln published the proclamation only to keep England and France out of the war is a narrow view of a much more complex issue. Lincoln was a shrewd politician and made many conflicting statements over his terms of office that, when taken at face value, would appear duplicitous. But, in the long view, lets not forget that Presidents are tugged this way and that by various constituencies, always in conflict with one another, have the luxury, and principled comfort of uncompromising righteousness. So, less he lose broad support, needed to soothe these groups, to keep them in check, at least for a while. If this makes him "ol ly an abe", so be it. I challenge anyone to tell me who would have managed this better than he under those particular circumstances. Certainly not Jeff Davis and the Southern Aristocracy -- no consideration for the "greater good" from them. Its clear, now, that their cookie jar of lies and crimes were pretty full by the end of 1864. The fact is, the Republican Party rose to prominence in the North on the shoulders of abolitionists and antislavery sympathizers. This was the predominant point of view of the region at the time. This was Lincoln's base. That was also his Congress. The very same Congress that enacted the 1st and 2nd Confiscation Act in July, 1862, which provided for the freedom of slaves of states in rebellion. This predated Lincoln's preliminary E.P. by 2 months. He presented his first draft of the document to his cabinet soon after the enactment of the Confiscation Act, but found no enthusiasm for its issuance. He was probably trying to get ahead of Congress on the issue. The timing was all wrong. He needed a victory. Before such victory, the Proclamation would have been seen as a last ditch effort of a losing cause. This is the precise opinion of Lincoln's own Cabinet members, when considered along with Pope's disaster at second Monassas in August, and all the other disasters, defeats, and missed chances, up to that point. Antietam -- 17 Sept. 1862. I am mindful that it can be argued both ways as to who came out ahead at the conclusion of the fighting. McClelland's getting a heads up was mostly responsible for doing as well as they did. But the Federals were in possession of the field and the Confederates were characterized as having to retreat back across the river to safe haven. Considering the state of things, the North considered this a victory. Lincoln presented the preliminary E.P. to the Cabinet on 22 Sept. 1862. The Preliminary E.P. had several functions, none of which served to free any slaves. 1. To keep England and France from mediating the separation of the country. After all, they wanted their precious cotton back. If Lincoln couldn't find it in himself to take a stand on slavery, then he obviously did not feel that strongly about its demise. 2. To run it by the Army and see how it played. 3. To play to his abolitionist base, always a good thing with a looming mid-term election. 4. To link abolition of slavery to the greater goal of maintenance of the Union. 5. To induce, in the minds of southerners, in general, the idea that the Federal Govt. remained preeminent, and that the southerners were insurrectionists -- not revolutionaries. There was not a further E.P. after final publication in Jan. 1863. "Lincoln was a lier? Lincoln was a politician. Remove the log from your own eye before you point out the splinter in mine -- Jesus. "Lincoln was communist" Now, this proposition I have not heard before. True, Lincoln and Marx were contemporaries. Has anyone seen source documents that suggest that Lincoln read Marx & Engels. I doubt the Communist Manifesto was an easy "get" out west in Illinois. "He hated blacks" I don't think "hate" is correct. I believe he told a group of black leaders in the White House (first ever black delegation in history to visit the place) that blacks and whites were too different to live together and it would be best if they all migrated to some colony in South America. Not many takers on that offer. "Lincoln was an atheist" Absolutely untrue. Lincoln addresses were riddled with Biblical References and inferences. Lincoln believed in God without reservation. He didn't much care for communing in Church, however. "Since 1860, we the people have been paying the price for his reign of tyranny." I have absolutely nothing to say about this, because I just don't get it. Now, for the sake of dispassionate discourse among us CW and history hobbyists and scholars I offer the following in conclusion. My family (Hearn, Hearne,) were moderately large slave holders on tobacco plantations on the eastern shore of Maryland from about 1670 to 1774 when my branch moved down to Montgomery Co. N.C. (no slaves) then on to Arkansas River Valley (Pope Co. 1842 and no slaves). James Hearn, who moved from Maryland to N.C. moved on to Ohio river valley about 1807, or so, with second wife and a new set of children leaving the older sons in N.C. So, by 1861 there were Northern cousins and Southern cousins. Some rotted away in Andersonville, I am told. Others, my ancestors, nearly starved to death behind the defenses of Vicksburg, (Sgt. M.G. Hearne, Ist Ark. Cav.).All suffered immeasurably. All for the maintenance of African Slavery. I write this because Sgt. Hearne was clear in his memoirs about what he thought the War was all about. Four generations have passed between he and my generation. I for one will take his lead. He read much on the War in his later years, especially Grant's memoirs, which he took exception to, but he held no malice "to the Federals or Union People". The War being over, he went home, got married, raised a large family, worshipped his God, planted his corn, and lived in peace. M.L. Hearn Merritt Island, fl.

I saw the headlines in the paper the other day that NARA is to release previously unpublished CW photographs. I did not get to read it. What's the scoop? Are these going to be published on the web? Any info appreciated.

>I live in the area where is the boyhood home of Stonewall as well as his >birth place. Every other site (or so it seems), including our huge Corps >of Engineer Flood Control lake is named Stonewall Jackson. Union General >Lightburn who led the charge at Vicksburg and is pictured on the Atlanta >Diorama was born in Pennsylvania but spent his boyhood years in what is >now West Virginia (the only state born out of the Civil War) is from here >too. A few things are named for him.

Let's see...Kansas actually entered the union January 29, 1861 - just a couple of months before the first shots were fired at Sumter. However, South Carolina had already seceded the previous December...So I tend to include Kansas along with West Virginia...lol. Will ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wolfman" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 8:56 PM Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] F.Y.I. Stonewall and J.A.J. Lightburn & a question > Actually, there were two states born out of the Civil War. Kansas was the > other one. > > I'd love to visit where General Jackson was born. I named my youngest son > after him.. > > Will > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joy Stalnaker" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 8:34 PM > Subject: [CIVIL-WAR] F.Y.I. Stonewall and J.A.J. Lightburn & a question > > >> >>>I live in the area where is the boyhood home of Stonewall as well as his >>>birth place. Every other site (or so it seems), including our huge Corps >>>of Engineer Flood Control lake is named Stonewall Jackson. Union General >>>Lightburn who led the charge at Vicksburg and is pictured on the Atlanta >>>Diorama was born in Pennsylvania but spent his boyhood years in what is >>>now West Virginia (the only state born out of the Civil War) is from here >>>too. A few things are named for him. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ==== CIVIL-WAR Mailing List ==== >> To unsubscribe from list mode, email [email protected] >> and in the text area of the message, type only the word >> unsubscribe >> >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.0/346 - Release Date: 5/23/2006 >> >> > > > ==== CIVIL-WAR Mailing List ==== > To search our list archives since 1996, go to > http://searches2.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl > and enter Civil-War in the list name > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.0/346 - Release Date: 5/23/2006 > >

Actually, there were two states born out of the Civil War. Kansas was the other one. I'd love to visit where General Jackson was born. I named my youngest son after him.. Will ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joy Stalnaker" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 8:34 PM Subject: [CIVIL-WAR] F.Y.I. Stonewall and J.A.J. Lightburn & a question > >>I live in the area where is the boyhood home of Stonewall as well as his >>birth place. Every other site (or so it seems), including our huge Corps >>of Engineer Flood Control lake is named Stonewall Jackson. Union General >>Lightburn who led the charge at Vicksburg and is pictured on the Atlanta >>Diorama was born in Pennsylvania but spent his boyhood years in what is >>now West Virginia (the only state born out of the Civil War) is from here >>too. A few things are named for him. > > > > > > > > ==== CIVIL-WAR Mailing List ==== > To unsubscribe from list mode, email [email protected] > and in the text area of the message, type only the word > unsubscribe > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.0/346 - Release Date: 5/23/2006 > >

That is an excellent question. I have never heard of a change in orders issued because of the assassination, which, of course, doesn't mean it didn't happen especially at a regimental level. I will offer conjecture instead of facts: If your ancestor was scheduled for discharge on April 14th 1865 it would be odd that a date change would be made for reason of the assassination which took place at 10:15 PM in the evening of that same day and I would imagine, though I am not sure, that the actual news of his death which occurred the next morning would not have gotten to an Army in the field until the evening of April 15th. The officers would have to be prepared to give explanations of what would happen, and a bureaucratic organization doesn't move very quickly. On the other hand the soldiers were bound to find out soon and it would have been important to address them, my guess the evening of April 15th. You indicated it was a discharge rather than a leave of absence so it could well have been an order to the Ohio troop countermanding a previous discharge, but probably not because of the assassination, since the men would all be gone if the change was made on the 15th. In my opinion, from a military point of view the discharge of any Union forces made just 5 days after of the surrender (April 9th) in the field of Lee's army while CSA General Johnston still in the field in front of Sherman, would be unlikely. I would estimate there is another reason for the change of the discharge date and that the change would have had to have taken place before April 14th if it was to keep the men from disappearing. I re-emphasize that this is just a guess on my part. It would be interesting to see the papers of other men in the unit. Perhaps a regimental history would shed some light on the change. If anyone else knows more jump in. And it would still be interesting to find out if there were any General Orders issued to change discharge plans based on the assassination. Mike S. J. Hartzell wrote: > My gr-grandfather, Harrison Hatzell (Hartzell) was discharged from the > re-organized 4th Ohio Infantry near Appomattox CH. The discharge was > originally made out for April 14, 1865, but was altered in 2 places on the > document to read August 24, 1865. Can I assume that a lot of discharges were > similarly delayed when word reached the troops about Lincoln's death?

My gr-grandfather, Harrison Hatzell (Hartzell) was discharged from the re-organized 4th Ohio Infantry near Appomattox CH. The discharge was originally made out for April 14, 1865, but was altered in 2 places on the document to read August 24, 1865. Can I assume that a lot of discharges were similarly delayed when word reached the troops about Lincoln's death?

http://www.historychannel.com/exhibits/memorial/index.jsp?page=history

I am 66 years of age. When I was 12 (54 years ago) I argued about the War of Northern Aggression. When I was 25 and in the Army (41 years ago) I argued. Alas, nothing changes. Yankees are for the most part single minded and unfortunately correct because they won. Now when I am in the prime of my life I begin to read all that again. Listen, I was born in North Carolina and raised in Virginia. I know we are sensitive, well mannered, caring people. The South also lost and Lee had the smarts to know when he was beat. Enough of this. Get back to genealogy. Bob

"The first law of the historian is that he shall never dare utter an untruth. The second is that he shall suppress nothing that is true. Moreover, there shall be no suspicion of partiality in his writing, or of malice." - Cicero (106-43 B.C.) I, as a descendent of brave Confederate soldiers who shed blood in the defense of their constitutional rights, cannot sit idly by while untruths are told about ol lyin abe's actions during the period. He started that war. He freed no slaves, ever. He hated black people and wanted to send them all back to Africa. He was an atheist and a communist, who threw our Constitution out the window. Since 1860, we the people have been paying the price for his reign of tyranny. Eddie ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Ruddy To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] Emancipation Proclamation The die being cast, the Rubicon was crossed. The battles are over, the flags are furled, the last trumpet has sounded, many men are dead and the those who are left are weary of fighting and are making their way home, returning to the fields of their fathers. Those long-gone-by events have been dissected microscopically by thousands of books and articles written, many done with a wisdom and an objectivity acquired from the study of these events from a distance of 150 years and some are even done with an absence of North-South bias. Any attempt to compare modern circumstances, that are a reflection of our cultures that have been modified over a century and a half of continuing evolution, usually degenerates into a modern political debate for which there exist various Rootsweb Lists for discussing (endlessly some would say) the economic differences which led to the factions whose leaders took our ancestors into the Civil War and that war's influence on modern day politics. A vote was not taken (it never is) to see if our ancestors who fought and died wanted war or not, rather various demagogues (some call them leaders) whipped each side into a frenzy until the inevitable first shot was fired which "let slip the dogs of war." Perhaps not even the demagogues anticipated the fury unleashed by their rhetoric. During the French Revolution a man looked out the window and exclaimed, "there goes the mob, I must join them, I'm their leader!" Our modern cultures, both North and South, East and West, reflect the myriad changes that have taken place in our laws and morés, and the resultant changes to our perspectives -- perspectives which do not reflect the perspectives of those men who fought and died back in 1861-65. On this list let us leave mouldering by the side of the road the modern results of that war and instead help one another across cultural, racial, and political barriers to find our dead ancestors and when we discuss the events that transpired in those times, let us do it in the context of those times. "The good men do is oft interréd with their bones, the evil lives after them, so let it be with Caesar" Mike Ruddy Civil War List ==== CIVIL-WAR Mailing List ==== To search our list archives since 1996, go to http://searches2.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl and enter Civil-War in the list name

The die being cast, the Rubicon was crossed. The battles are over, the flags are furled, the last trumpet has sounded, many men are dead and the those who are left are weary of fighting and are making their way home, returning to the fields of their fathers. Those long-gone-by events have been dissected microscopically by thousands of books and articles written, many done with a wisdom and an objectivity acquired from the study of these events from a distance of 150 years and some are even done with an absence of North-South bias. Any attempt to compare modern circumstances, that are a reflection of our cultures that have been modified over a century and a half of continuing evolution, usually degenerates into a modern political debate for which there exist various Rootsweb Lists for discussing (endlessly some would say) the economic differences which led to the factions whose leaders took our ancestors into the Civil War and that war's influence on modern day politics. A vote was not taken (it never is) to see if our ancestors who fought and died wanted war or not, rather various demagogues (some call them leaders) whipped each side into a frenzy until the inevitable first shot was fired which "let slip the dogs of war." Perhaps not even the demagogues anticipated the fury unleashed by their rhetoric. During the French Revolution a man looked out the window and exclaimed, "there goes the mob, I must join them, I'm their leader!" Our modern cultures, both North and South, East and West, reflect the myriad changes that have taken place in our laws and morés, and the resultant changes to our perspectives -- perspectives which do not reflect the perspectives of those men who fought and died back in 1861-65. On this list let us leave mouldering by the side of the road the modern results of that war and instead help one another across cultural, racial, and political barriers to find our dead ancestors and when we discuss the events that transpired in those times, let us do it in the context of those times. "The good men do is oft interréd with their bones, the evil lives after them, so let it be with Caesar" Mike Ruddy Civil War List

Eliz, So, you're saying that, if, it is the will of the people of North Carolina, they have the right to take the entire state of North Carolina and refuse to participate in this travesty we know as the federal government of the "United States"? ol lyin abe would disagree with you, but the Constitution says you are exactly right. Thank you for your support. Eddie ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] Emancipation Proclamation In a message dated 5/21/2006 8:43:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes: Keeping a union together by force is kinda like slavery, ain't it? Well, the Union can't run away, but any dissenting individual can go where ever they want to, taking all their property with them, so not slavery. I leave the other issues for others. Eliz ==== CIVIL-WAR Mailing List ==== To search our list archives since 1996, go to http://searches2.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl and enter Civil-War in the list name

In a message dated 5/21/2006 8:43:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes: Keeping a union together by force is kinda like slavery, ain't it? Well, the Union can't run away, but any dissenting individual can go where ever they want to, taking all their property with them, so not slavery. I leave the other issues for others. Eliz

At 09:25 PM 5/21/2006, [email protected] wrote: >I do not see it that way. Whatever, I am happy that we are a united nation >under one flag. > >==== CIVIL-WAR Mailing List ==== >To search our list archives since 1996, go to >http://searches2.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl >and enter Civil-War in the list name This discussion seems to be straying from its original intent. Derick S. Hartshorn

I do not see it that way. Whatever, I am happy that we are a united nation under one flag.

Keeping a union together by force is kinda like slavery, ain't it? Eddie ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 4:55 PM Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] Emancipation Proclamation Well! Thank God it worked. It kept the union together. ==== CIVIL-WAR Mailing List ==== To unsubscribe from list mode, email [email protected] and in the text area of the message, type only the word unsubscribe