I provided an ample reading list on the subject. Read on the man and make up your own mind; though it seems to be already made up.

He was not a good American after the war, he never reconciled himself w/ defeat among other things. As tio his creative recollections, read some of his hateful assaults upon Longstreet in particular.

I have enough of the right skin to handle you. But, my friend, you still fail to answer my question.

I am not interested at all about reading about the so called lost cause. I am interested in talking freely about what General Early was wrong ith what he said in his book. Not what someone said about him.

Everyone here is free to voice their opinion and I respect yours as well as anyone else.

It seems as if there are those that just can't seem to get past the the lost cause mind set
well enough to answer one simple little question.

What did General Early write about that was wrong? I have to say he must have been a good General because the men liked him and they fought and marched hard for him.

Well, if you want a provably false direct quote, try this one. Among other statements that 150 years have shown to be false, this one sticks out. "the condition of domestic slavery...furnished a class of laborers as happy and contented as any in the world." Early was an excellent division commander, but he was also a man of his time. I have no doubt he believed this statement, but it is clearly not true. Quote is from Early's "Memoir of the Last Year of the War for Independence" pp. VIII. You can find the full text on Googlebooks if desired.

Mark

PS. Also see his Appendix B for the standard Lost Cause discussion of how the Federal armies were full of immigrants and Southern blacks "forced" into service.

The preceding portion of the passage you quote: “Reason, common sense, true humanity to the black, as well as the safety of the white race, required that the inferior race be kept in a state of subordination. The condition of domestic slavery, as it existed in the South, had not only resulted in a great improvement in the moral and physical condition of the negro race…”

Mark wrote: Well, if you want a provably false direct quote, try this one. Among other statements that 150 years have shown to be false, this one sticks out. "the condition of domestic slavery...furnished a class of laborers as happy and contented as any in the world." Early was an excellent division commander, but he was also a man of his time. I have no doubt he believed this statement, but it is clearly not true. Quote is from Early's "Memoir of the Last Year of the War for Independence" pp. VIII. You can find the full text on Googlebooks if desired.

Mark

PS. Also see his Appendix B for the standard Lost Cause discussion of how the Federal armies were full of immigrants and Southern blacks "forced" into service.
I am glad slavery is gone from the US. But blacks still have a fight on their hands for equality and I am convinced that will go on forever.

When I find the book or info about Union army using forced labor I will post it. It did happen. It may be something about Spoons Butler.

Here it is.

In some ways, the contrabands were no better off than they had been under slavery. They were physically abused, denied food, and often cheated out of the wages for their Union jobs by their supposed protectors, and though many of them may not have realized it at the time, they were excluded from the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, which was directed at slaves in rebel-held territory. Technically, they remained the property of the Union until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865.

JG6789 wrote: The preceding portion of the passage you quote: “Reason, common sense, true humanity to the black, as well as the safety of the white race, required that the inferior race be kept in a state of subordination. The condition of domestic slavery, as it existed in the South, had not only resulted in a great improvement in the moral and physical condition of the negro race…”

That is a clear statement of exactly what happened and is still happening today. Black freedom, yes. Equal opportunity, no.

The last part of your statement, keep in mind that there wasn't but a small percentage of blacks that left the South even being free until roughly 1900. For various reasons they remained to be with family and friends, etc., and attempt to lend into the new world for them. Even at that they were not basically free due to white laws and murderous action
until the 1960s.

Early was a man of the day and he wasn't the only one of his nature concerning blacks.

Yes, the treatment of contrabands left much to be desired, but remember Butler looked at this as a legal matter. He could not free any slaves (nor at that point in the war did he have any desire to do so) because he did not have the legal authority. Later on during the war, Butler created a model community of black soldiers and their families within his lines as the commander of the Army of the James. David Hunter inpressed most of the military age black population into military service around Port Royal in mid-1862 (Lincoln later rescinded the order). BUT, as the war went on and blacks had a chance to prove themselves on the battlefield, conditions improved. It is undeniable that thousands of northern blacks enthusiastically joined the ranks as soon as they were able to do so (percentage wise more joined then their white comrades). Hundred of thousands of slaves fled to Union lines when they had the opportunity. They were NOT a contented and happy labor force. Yes, Early was a man of his time and I am not condemning him for that, but his statement is provably false, which is what I thought you wanted.

Mark, I greatly appreciate your response!! As a man of his times as were other soldiers both North and South, I can't reasonably say from this time period that I don't agree with him either. But I can't agree it was a wrong statement for him based on what others of that time period said. That was his opinion and how he saw it.

Old Blu wrote: Perhaps you know enough about General Early to answer the question, 'What did Early write that was wrong?'?

To be honest, I had been avoiding answering this question because I sensed that it was bait meant to open up a line of argument exactly like the one I see developing here. I’m not interested in tu quoque defenses of slavery, especially ones that rest on ridiculously false equivalencies. I’m not interested in arguing the morality of Early's social theories. You asked for a false statement from Early. Mark provided one, and I added to it:

"The condition of domestic slavery, as it existed in the South, had not only resulted in a great improvement in the moral and physical condition of the negro race, but had furnished a class of laborers as happy and contented as any in the world, if not more so."

We probably should have avoided slavery and stuck to Early’s interpretations of the war, which are full of distortions and lawyerly manipulations that are disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst.

Here’s a question for you: if you do not believe Early’s own stated reasons for why he left the country after the war, why would you believe anything else he wrote?

JG6789 wrote: Old Blu wrote: Perhaps you know enough about General Early to answer the question, 'What did Early write that was wrong?'?

To be honest, I had been avoiding answering this question because I sensed that it was bait meant to open up a line of argument exactly like the one I see developing here. I’m not interested in tu quoque defenses of slavery, especially ones that rest on ridiculously false equivalencies. I’m not interested in arguing the morality of Early's social theories. You asked for a false statement from Early. Mark provided one, and I added to it:

"The condition of domestic slavery, as it existed in the South, had not only resulted in a great improvement in the moral and physical condition of the negro race, but had furnished a class of laborers as happy and contented as any in the world, if not more so."

We probably should have avoided slavery and stuck to Early’s interpretations of the war, which are full of distortions and lawyerly manipulations that are disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst.

Here’s a question for you: if you do not believe Early’s own stated reasons for why he left the country after the war, why would you believe anything else he wrote?

I never said I didn't believe what General Early said. I made the statement that he left, which for one reason, he didn't know whether he was going to hang!! I also agree with any other things that made him run. Which makes one think that would be the smartest thing for anyone. I don't try to trick anyone. I like to be serious and thanks for staying on the topic. Discussing slavery is a lost cause.

In my eyes he was wrong wanting to keep the war going but I certainly don't condemn him for what he did 150 years ago. Keep in mind there were quite a few people from the South did the same thing. He was 1 of many not knowing what the future brings.

While reading various posts, I took a look at the books offered by the LSU Press and one caught my eye:

"God and General Longstreet" by Thomas Connelly and Barbara Bellows. So I ordered it. Very interesting read but very academic. Page 40:

"The wartime and postwar mentality of Virginians reflected the inbred conceit that characterized citizens of the Dominion from colonial times. it was part of Virginia's heritage to believe that his state was the Cradle of Democracy. ...In war and peace, clearly Virginians wanted to be first. They sought the best of both worlds--to be the sorrowful, reluctants lovers of Union who were dragooned into the secessionist camp. At the same time, they claimed to be the leaders of that war against the Old Flag. Eggleston observed that without Virginia's "pluck and pith there could have been no war at all worth writing or talking about."...In fact, one could make a strong argument that the pricipal driving force behind the entire Lost Cause mentality came from Virginia...From Appomattox until well into the twentieth century, Virginia authors fashioned an image of how an unwilling Old Dominion was forced into the Civil War by the hotheads of sister states in Dixie. Paradoxically, however, if one examines the literary and commemorative organization of the Lost Cause mentality, the power structure rested in Virginia."

Most interesting. The book is 149 pages with a controversty per page. Good Book.

Barlow wrote: While reading various posts, I took a look at the books offered by the LSU Press and one caught my eye:

"God and General Longstreet" by Thomas Connelly and Barbara Bellows. So I ordered it. Very interesting read but very academic. Page 40:

"The wartime and postwar mentality of Virginians reflected the inbred conceit that characterized citizens of the Dominion from colonial times. it was part of Virginia's heritage to believe that his state was the Cradle of Democracy. ...In war and peace, clearly Virginians wanted to be first. They sought the best of both worlds--to be the sorrowful, reluctants lovers of Union who were dragooned into the secessionist camp. At the same time, they claimed to be the leaders of that war against the Old Flag. Eggleston observed that without Virginia's "pluck and pith there could have been no war at all worth writing or talking about."...In fact, one could make a strong argument that the pricipal driving force behind the entire Lost Cause mentality came from Virginia...From Appomattox until well into the twentieth century, Virginia authors fashioned an image of how an unwilling Old Dominion was forced into the Civil War by the hotheads of sister states in Dixie. Paradoxically, however, if one examines the literary and commemorative organization of the Lost Cause mentality, the power structure rested in Virginia."

Most interesting. The book is 149 pages with a controversty per page. Good Book.

That is disagreeable all around trying to put a certain blame without studying the results of Virginia secession. This is just revisionist at work.

Barlow wrote:While reading various posts, I took a look at the books offered by the LSU Press and one caught my eye:

"God and General Longstreet" by Thomas Connelly and Barbara Bellows. So I ordered it. Very interesting read but very academic. Page 40:

"The wartime and postwar mentality of Virginians reflected the inbred conceit that characterized citizens of the Dominion from colonial times. it was part of Virginia's heritage to believe that his state was the Cradle of Democracy. ...In war and peace, clearly Virginians wanted to be first. They sought the best of both worlds--to be the sorrowful, reluctants lovers of Union who were dragooned into the secessionist camp. At the same time, they claimed to be the leaders of that war against the Old Flag. Eggleston observed that without Virginia's "pluck and pith there could have been no war at all worth writing or talking about."...In fact, one could make a strong argument that the pricipal driving force behind the entire Lost Cause mentality came from Virginia...From Appomattox until well into the twentieth century, Virginia authors fashioned an image of how an unwilling Old Dominion was forced into the Civil War by the hotheads of sister states in Dixie. Paradoxically, however, if one examines the literary and commemorative organization of the Lost Cause mentality, the power structure rested in Virginia."

Most interesting. The book is 149 pages with a controversty per page. Good Book.

That's a good book, though I haven't read it in years. You might like Connelly's The Marble Man: Robert E. Lee and His Image in Amercan Society if you haven't read it. He does a good job of analyzing the deification of Lee within the Lost Cause mythology. Some of his criticisms of Lee are a bit unfair at times, if I recall correctly, but it's also been years since I read it, as well.

Like Davis post war, Rhett, Yancey, Rutherford... or Early.
Well, good to see you show up once in a while. Without throwing out a bunch of your pet books, I still ask this question of YOU trying to get a specific answer to a specific question.

Like Davis post war, Rhett, Yancey, Rutherford... or Early.
Well, good to see you show up once in a while. Without throwing out a bunch of your pet books, I still ask this question of YOU trying to get a specific answer to a specific question.

"What did General Early say in his book that was wrong?"

Some have already stated somethings. How about you?

I don't spoon feed. I also don't have "pet" books. If you don't like actual history books that's your problem, not mine. I read, a lot. Such reading apparently gives me a different outlook. If you think a reading list is inferior to yours why don't you offer titles that differ? Nothing from Rutherford or DiLorenzo though, I have standards.

As you clearly believe the man never told a falsehood in his life, you've already made up your mind. I provided a list of books, his track record is evident in what is written by and of him. I gave you the works of legitimate historians; I'll take their word over yours thank you very much.