At 07:19 PM 7/25/03 -0700, Vern Andrews wrote: >How could I go about trying to find Civil War photographs of my >ancestors ? My suggestion would be to ask within the family. It's more likely that a photo was passed down to someone than that you'll find one in an archive somewhere. At least that's been my experience. I don't know how much genealogy research you've done, but if you don't have much, try Rootsweb, or do a Google search on the name. If you can locate some cousins, e-mail them and ask if they have old photographs, and offer to exchange stuff with them (or cover the copying and mailing costs). I've acquired a *lot* of goodies from cousins in the last 10 years or so. Georgia in Alabama

Middling is usually salt cured pork--sow belly or Bacon. Borrowed means just that. It was borrowed from someone else. David ----- Original Message ----- From: akeegan <akeegan@c3net.net> To: <CIVIL-WAR-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 12:29 PM Subject: [CIVIL-WAR] Borried middling > General Lee's camp was usally crude, and even when the ground was unsuitable for his tents, he refuse to distrub nearby residents by > occupying their homes. Vistors were struck by his Spartan fare. > He once entertained quests at a meal of cabbage upon which rested a single small piece of meat, a rarity in the field during the war. Each quest contented himself with cabbage, politely leaving the meat. > The next day, when Lee asked his sevent to use the meat for dinner, he got the reply: > "We have no meat, General, that yesterday was borried middling." > > Could someone please tell me what borried middling was? > I reas this passage in the book "The Civil War" by Burke Davis > Ann > > > ==== CIVIL-WAR Mailing List ==== > To unsubscribe from list mode, email CIVIL-WAR-L-REQUEST@rootsweb.com > and in the text area of the message, type only the word > unsubscribe > >

" The most intense debate has focused on Lincoln, some of whose critics at the time, as well as later, held him responsible for the war and contended that he deliberately provoked the South into firing on Fort Sumter." And that is truly revisionist history, where events and motives are fictionalized to support one view - that the South could do no wrong, and that the war was entirely the fault of the North, particularly of Lincoln. By the time of his first inauguration, March 4, 1861, the southern states were intent on war, and nothing that happened then or later was going to stop it. Lincoln has been made the goat by neo-confederates, but only by them. Lincoln is the great hero of the era. He paid with his life, but his reputation among people of reason remains intact. Sharon In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it." Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1861

The most intense debate has focused on > Lincoln, some of whose critics at the time, as well as later, held him responsible > for the war and contended that he deliberately provoked the South into firing > on Fort Sumter. In their view, Lincoln deliberately and disingenuously fixed > the onus for starting the war on the Confederacy. Oh, I guess since the South was provoked, it was not responsible for its actions. They were forced to fire on Ft. Sumter. That evil Lincoln! Bad Bad Lincoln! It was all his fault! -SW

> It does indeed suite you to be in Confederate History 101, as you seem to not > understand that the United States were NOT UNITED after the secession. Sorry your as wrong as they come. The U.S. did not disappear after the South seceded. All it takes is two States to be in the union for there to be a United States. > The South had taken every legal avenue to act in accordance with the laws > towards the Union, in respect to Fort Sumter. No, they did not have the patience to be effective in their negoiations. Time was on the side of the Confederacy. Anderson was running out of supplies and some advisors were telling Lincoln he should evacuate. After turning back the re-supply ship, there was a good chance surrender without firing on the US flag would have happened. Instead the Confederacy saw the resupply as "War". Washington informed the Confederacy that it wanted peaceful relations but would fight if attacked. This was four days before Ft. Sumter was fired upon. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Firing on Fort Sumter was the last thing the South wanted to do, but Lincoln, > in his cunning to keep a valuable asset, Fort Sumter, broke all the laws of > respect pertaining to a separate Nation. Especially that of respecting the > property that belonged to the South. Lincoln was very restrained before the firing on Ft. Sumter. Federal forts and arsenals were being overun all over the South. The U.S. mint in New Orleans was even taken over. Lincoln made it clear he would not attack unless U.S. forces were attacked. South Carolina should have taken every boat in the harbor and simply landed at Ft. Sumter without firing a shot. Then that fort like all the other installations would have fallen without Lincoln saying "we were attacked". Everything changed after Fort Sumter. The Federal government would no longer sit idle. Arsenals, like that at St. Louis would now be defended. The Federal government would no longer permit State authority to dictate to it. The South gave the North the war and war now it would be. Lincoln was cunning and it is quite likely he hoped the Confederacy would fall for the trap before he would be forced to evacuate Ft. Sumter. > If Lincoln thought that Fort Sumter really belonged to the Union now, why did > he move in secrecy? > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Of course it was secret, military operations are always secret. He even traveled to the White House in secret. Surely you are not asserting that Washington was not part of the Union ? > You wrote: Was Maj. Anderson overstepping his bounds by keeping his forces at > Ft. Sumter ? > Certainly he was! He was on Private Property, property that belonged to South > Carolina, and he was given every chance to vacate the property. He had perfect justification. The military does not take orders from State level politicians. He had his orders to obey and he needed a resupply. If he did not get resupplied he would have surrendered. South Carolina should have been patient and perhaps as cunning as Lincoln. --Scott Williams

Like the Civil War itself, however, Sumter remains the subject of considerable controversy. Contemporary recollections, popular investigations, and historical analyses, have offered different assessments of a variety of issues connected with the outbreak of fighting. The most intense debate has focused on Lincoln, some of whose critics at the time, as well as later, held him responsible for the war and contended that he deliberately provoked the South into firing on Fort Sumter. In their view, Lincoln deliberately and disingenuously fixed the onus for starting the war on the Confederacy. To be sure, scholars have also investigated the Confederate government, and some hold it accountable for the fighting. But it is Lincoln's decisions and motives that have been most closely scrutinized. From: Bibliography: Current, Lincoln and the First Shot, pp. 7-12, 182-208; Stampp, Imperiled Union, pp. 163-88; McWhiney, "Confederacy's First Shot," pp. 5-6; Robertson, American Myth, American Reality, pp. 324-31; Tocqueville, Democracy in America, ed. Bender, p. 541.

In a message dated 07/27/2003 6:56:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, mocsa@earthlink.net writes: > Sorry, but your are wrong here. Even if the southern states seceded > peacefully, > what was left of the old United States would still be the "United States." > The remaining States > would have been the United States. The Confederacy never intended to > overthrow the U.S. government, only separating itself from it. > ( Confederate History 101 ) > It does indeed suite you to be in Confederate History 101, as you seem to not understand that the United States were NOT UNITED after the secession. Like you said there were a lot of legal issues involved in the secession, the United States were not united now, So legally, how could they call the states united? The war was recognized as being between the Union States and the Confederates States, not the United Stated and the Confederates States. The South had taken every legal avenue to act in accordance with the laws towards the Union, in respect to Fort Sumter. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Two days after leaving the Union, on December 22, 1860, South Carolina sent commissioners to Washington, D.C., to negotiate for the delivery of federal property, such as forts, within the state. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Firing on Fort Sumter was the last thing the South wanted to do, but Lincoln, in his cunning to keep a valuable asset, Fort Sumter, broke all the laws of respect pertaining to a separate Nation. Especially that of respecting the property that belonged to the South. xxxxxxxxxxx As matters stood, the three likeliest courses of action available to Lincoln were: to abandon both Sumter and Pickens; to abandon Sumter but hold Pickens; and to set in motion expeditions to relieve both Sumter and Pickens. Lincoln hurriedly signed a series of orders to outfit a SECRET expedition to reinforce Fort Pickens. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX If Lincoln thought that Fort Sumter really belonged to the Union now, why did he move in secrecy? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx You wrote: Was Maj. Anderson overstepping his bounds by keeping his forces at Ft. Sumter ? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Certainly he was! He was on Private Property, property that belonged to South Carolina, and he was given every chance to vacate the property. Carolyn

Family tradition holds that my g-g-grandmother's brother, James BERTHOLF, fought in the Union Army during the Civila War, and more, that he died during his service. I have found a service record for a James H. Bertholf who died of typhoid fever in Falmouth, Virginia in December 1862. He served in the 124th NY Infantry. The service record yielded no information that proves his parentage or other family connections. But I found the pension file for his widow, and from this, have concluded this James Bertholf is not the brother of my g-g-grandmother. I have also found a service record for a James Bertholf who was killed in action in Williamsburg, Virginia in May 1862. He served in Co. H., 8th NJ Infantry. (I understand this was part of Hooker's Division.) Again, the service record yielded no information that proves his parentage or other family connections. He apparently was not married, so no widow (and indeed no other family member) filed for a pension as his survivor. How can I prove or disprove that the James Bertholf who served in Co. H., 8th NJ Infantry, was the son of my g-g-g-grandfather? Thanks! Joe Dooley Falls Church, Virginia

General Lee's camp was usally crude, and even when the ground was unsuitable for his tents, he refuse to distrub nearby residents by occupying their homes. Vistors were struck by his Spartan fare. He once entertained quests at a meal of cabbage upon which rested a single small piece of meat, a rarity in the field during the war. Each quest contented himself with cabbage, politely leaving the meat. The next day, when Lee asked his sevent to use the meat for dinner, he got the reply: "We have no meat, General, that yesterday was borried middling." Could someone please tell me what borried middling was? I reas this passage in the book "The Civil War" by Burke Davis Ann

> There would have been no United States left to retain citizenship to. The US > was made up of the North AND the South. Once the "United States" were no > longer united, it would have been the Confederate States of America, and the > Federal States of America. Sorry, but your are wrong here. Even if the southern states seceded peacefully, what was left of the old United States would still be the "United States". The remaining States would have been the United States. The Confederacy never intended to overthrow the U.S. government, only separating itself from it. ( Confederate History 101 ) > The Federal > Government had overstepped their bounds, passing laws to punish the Southern > States, ignoring the fact that these States had rights as sovereign and > independent States. Clearly you have no intention of seeing both sides of the story. Was Maj. Anderson overstepping his bounds by keeping his forces at Ft. Sumter ? I think firing on Ft. Sumter before making an opportunity for peaceful separation was overstepping the process. Most Confederates themselves recognized this as the one mistake that lost them their cause. Rash behavior alienated the sympathetic majority in the northern States and left Lincoln no alternative but military action. > How can you say that they were "Federal" owned property? They belonged > equally and jointly to the United States, the Southern States being PART OF the > United States. Just goes to show you how we, even now, see the government as being > an entity unto itself, and not belonging to us, the people of these United > States. Yes, they were the joint property of the United States. One State or a group of States can not legally confiscate joint property. Like you said it belongs to the people of the United States, not simply the people of the deep South. There has got to be a legal process here. --Scott Williams

In a message dated 07/26/2003 12:30:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mocsa@earthlink.net writes: > And there was the issue of Southern Unionist who wanted to retain US > citizenship. Hi Scott, There would have been no United States left to retain citizenship to. The US was made up of the North AND the South. Once the "United States" were no longer united, it would have been the Confederate States of America, and the Federal States of America. If these Unionist who lived in the South, wanted to remain under the restraints of Federal control, they could have relocated, or, their other choice, abided by the laws of a new and better nation. The Federal Government had overstepped their bounds, passing laws to punish the Southern States, ignoring the fact that these States had rights as sovereign and independent States. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Message of Jefferson Davis to the Provisional Congress of the Confederate States of America During the war waged against Great Britain by her colonies on this continent a common danger impelled them to a close alliance and to the formation of a Confederation, by the terms of which the colonies, styling themselves States, entered "severally into a firm league of friendship with each other for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever." Strange, indeed, must it appear to the impartial observer, but it is none the less true that all these carefully worded clauses proved unavailing to prevent the rise and growth in the Northern States of a political school which has persistently claimed that the government thus formed was not a compact between States, but was in effect a national government, set up above and over the States. An organization created by the States to secure the blessings of liberty and independence against foreign aggression, has been gradually perverted into a machine for their control in their domestic affairs. The creature has been exalted above its creators; the principals have been made subordinate to the agent appointed by themselves. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx You wrote: There was Federal installations and property that was confiscated. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx How can you say that they were "Federal" owned property? They belonged equally and jointly to the United States, the Southern States being PART OF the United States. Just goes to show you how we, even now, see the government as being an entity unto itself, and not belonging to us, the people of these United States. Carolyn

Francis Coonrod Enlisted on 2/26/1865 as a private On 2/26/1865 he was drafted into "B" Co NJ 8th Infantry He was mustered out on 7/17/1865 at Washington D.C. Source Register of Officers and Men of the New Jersey Civil War Ann ----- Original Message ----- From: <G-leaves@yahoo.com> To: <CIVIL-WAR-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 7:43 AM Subject: [CIVIL-WAR] Lookup Request > Hi all, > > I've been told recently that someone saw one of my ancestors listed as a > soldier in the Civil War but I've been unable to find which > regiment/company on the internet. > > Name: Francis Coonrod > From: New Jersey (I don't know if soldiers ever served in regiments > outside their state though) > > *Any* info at all would be *greatly* appreciated! > Thanks! > > > ==== CIVIL-WAR Mailing List ==== > To unsubscribe from list mode, email CIVIL-WAR-L-REQUEST@rootsweb.com > and in the text area of the message, type only the word > unsubscribe > >

> l don't understand the remark.. "The one with the bigger stick wins." > Perhaps you got your mailing lists mixed up?? Yes, it is a God given right if the established procedures are followed. Obviously the North and South did not agree on the procedures. There was Federal installations and property that was confiscated. There was also legal technicalities over treaties, expenditures from the U.S. treasury. And there was the issue of Southern Unionist who wanted to retain U.S. citizenship. The fact is Congress before and at time of the Secession crisis was disfunctional. The heated debates over slavery made it impossible to fairly discuss procedures of secession. Heck, they were carrying pistols and clubs into Congress. If that is not disfunctional, I don't know what is. Regarding the big stick, I meant military might. I am not saying I agree with Lincoln's way of dealing with the crisis. I think both sides screwed up big time. The Confederates biggest mistake was firing on Ft. Sumter. That confirmed that revolution was under way and ended all hope (if there was any) for peaceful resolution. --Scott Williams

While searching for Camp Patterson, Texas, I came across these links that may be helpful to list members whose ancestors served in Texas units: Confederate Pension Records Search: http://www2.tsl.state.tx.us/trail/PensionsSearch.jsp Texas Adjutant General Service Records 1836-1935: http://www2.tsl.state.tx.us/trail/ServiceSearch.jsp Alice Gayley -- Pennsylvania in the Civil War http://www.pa-roots.com/~pacw/

Group, I too have a lookup request. My gg grandfather was William Goodrich Jordan. was a Major with the 33rd Reg. North Carolina Militia. I have found several pieces of info, but zero,zip nada on his unit. Any help or direction pointing would be greatly appreciated. I believe the unit was from Nash county, and he lived in Northampton county. Also there is a mention in Stephen Bradley's book on the NCM with two letters from Maj Jordan to the CO. Thanks Lon Baker lcb111151@aol.com

Go to www.civilwar.nps.gov You will find 2 soldiers with the name Francis Coonrod, only 1 served from NJ, the other was from Kansas. Someone else on the list may be able to pull something up on his service. Francis Coonrod Private CO B 8th Reg NJ Infantry ...... aka..Francis Coonrad Francis M. Coonrod Private CO D & K 6th Reg KS Cavalry Goodluck

Hi all, I've been told recently that someone saw one of my ancestors listed as a soldier in the Civil War but I've been unable to find which regiment/company on the internet. Name: Francis Coonrod From: New Jersey (I don't know if soldiers ever served in regiments outside their state though) *Any* info at all would be *greatly* appreciated! Thanks!

Vern There are 165 William Andrews listed at CivilWarData.com and they don´t have all the rosters there. There are 19 William Andrews listed from Ohio and 5 listed from Iowa. There are two William G Andrews listed from Iowa one was born in California and the one given was born in Ohio. There are two William G Andrews listed from Ohio. One had pension application from Ohio and the other from Nebraska which didn´t match the marriage in Iowa. The one chosen is the most likely given the data you gave. The next step is to obtain this soldier´s service and pension records from NARA and compare that information to that which you already know to see if you can make a positive match. Comparisons to Census data in Ohio and Iowa for the family for the years 1850, 1860, 1865 etc. could provide clues. The Army did not take pictures of each soldier so that leaves finding a picture to chance. Relatives of the soldier assuming a picture was taken are the best source. U. S. Army Military History Institute (USAMHI) has photos which can be searched (not all are available for online searches) and copies ordered, but again it is chance as to whether he is there or not. http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usamhi/HPOL.html Mike

Vern, For starters; The Library of Congress, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/cwphtml/cwphome.html The National Archives: http://www.archives.gov/research_room/research_topics/civil_war/civil_war_photos.htm The U. S. Military History Institute http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usamhi/ This site discusses the four main photographers of the CW era: http://www.ipeters.de/photography.html CW photos by Gardner, who worked for M. Brady before going on his own: http://www.southernphotos.com/history.html The Civil War Center at Louisiana State University has a page of links to sites with photos: http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/links/photo.htm You might also try the historical society or libary of the county(ies) where the company was recruited. These local sources are probably the best source for finding regimental histories, dairies, photos of individuals, etc. This commercial site has over 1200 civil war photos: http://www.picturehistory.com/find/c/289/p/15/mcms.html Alice Gayley -- Pennsylvania in the Civil War http://www.pa-roots.com/~pacw/

LIsters, One of my relatives enlisted in a New York infantry regiment at the age of 44 and died in battle. He left a widow and seven children under the age of 18. The widow applied for a pension and received $8 a month. How was the amount fixed by the government? What guidelines did the agency use, and is that published on line somewhere? Thanks. Sharon Ancestor Chronicles: Our Kin And Their Times http://groups.msn.com/AncestorChroniclesOurKinAndTheirTimes/ Please visit, join, and share your family stories http://groups.msn.com/OurCivilWarAncestors Ancestors in the Civil War? Come visit and join. Both sites are free.