Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Understanding The Civil War More Clearly

In the late 19th century classification was all the rage. Everything from food to dinosaurs had to be classified as a certain something.

With that in mind how would an analyst from that era classify both Birdwatcher and Bristoe?

I used them because they are easily contrasting typologies. its not a swipe at nor an attack on either one.

Mostly I'm mortified to find ME the topic of discussion here, but whatever....

I'm Pro-Life, pro gun and pro-environment, pretty much in that order. Dunno of global warming exists or is human caused.

The War Between the States?

Morality sure as heck was important, those people with moral objections were called "abolitionists", and the South collectively despised 'em, feared they would outlaw slavery once the North got more and more control of the House and Senate. And no, being an abolitionist did not mean you wanted to marry 'em, most folks on both side wanted to send free Blacks to Africa.

In the South, you couldn't separate slavery and the economy, slavery WAS the economy; most of their capital and thought essential for the production of cotton and sugar cane. The politics and policy of the South were in the iron grip of the wealthy planter class, including '61-'65.

Lincoln, I find nothing hypocritical yet re: slavery. He said up front that while he didn't like slavery and wanted to limit its spread, he was in the war to preserve the Union, end of story. Ain't read up enough on him yet to form and opinion of any greater nefarious motives.

Other than that, folks here should know that during those years all of MY ancestors were good looking.

OK, if ya ain't got nothing better to do, fire away. Seems sorta pathetic tho...

Birdwatcher

This would have been absolutely alien to a 19th Century typologist because these concepts/debates did not even exist at that point in time. They are all mid to late 20th century constructs.

Per the question at hand raised by hillbillybear regarding the 19th Century classification by typologists ONLY -

Birdwatcher = Federalist
Bristoe = Anti-Federalist

No slam on that general American history book (got here already) in general but it states up front that Columbus was 'blinded by his greed for gold' and that he was eventually recalled in chains because his greed and brutality (it uses the word greed three separate times re: Columbus)...

"he grew more greedy for gold and more brutal in his treatment of the people he called Indians. His savagery eventually led the monarchy to have him arrested and returned to Spain in chains."

"Greed?" I woulda thought that in the Fifteenth Century one had damn better have a lucrative return on someone else's investment if they actually fronted you three ships and the crews to man 'em as well as thousands of men and more ships your next three go-rounds.

History back then was not at all kind to commoners who rose to enough national prominence to incite jealousy and make enemies. Hard for me to imagine the Spanish crown had him arrested merely for being brutal to Indians, unless they thought that impeded profits.
But, like I said, this is at the opening of the book and may not reflect the whole.

Birdwatcher

Anyways, might be true as written I guess, sure seems like projecting modern day values on 15th Century people.

It was due to his greed and incompetence as a governor of a colony, not as to his merit as an explorer/captain.

7. Columbus returned to Spain in chains in 1500.
Columbus’s governance of Hispaniola could be brutal and tyrannical. Native islanders who didn’t collect enough gold could have their hands cut off, and rebel Spanish colonists were executed at the gallows. Colonists complained to the monarchy about mismanagement, and a royal commissioner dispatched to Hispaniola arrested Columbus in August 1500 and brought him back to Spain in chains. Although Columbus was stripped of his governorship, King Ferdinand not only granted the explorer his freedom but subsidized a fourth voyage.

http://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-christopher-columbus

Tks....

First....

His greed blinded him to the fact that he had arrived not in the Orient, but in a New World..

Setting aside "greed" for a moment, how on earth could he have known he wasn't in some remote part of Asia without finding a Pacific Ocean on the other side?

The book says (after describing the first two voyages)....

"Columbus made two more voyages to the New World. In each instance he grew more greedy for gold and more brutal in his treatment of the people he called Indians. His savagery eventually led the monarchy to have him arrested and returned to Spain in chains. To the end Columbus refused to believe that he had discovered anything other than outlying parts of Asia"

Thats it, then the narrative moves on.

No mention of complaining colonists or the hanging of the same, nor of that fourth voyage being AFTER his arrest and release.

I think we all agree this part could use a re-write (I have the fifth edition).

Birdwatcher

There were three main reasons Europeans went in search of the Americas and all three were intertwined.

1. God: i.e. The missionary zeal to spread the gospel to all corners of the earth.

2. Gold: Gold= Power. Remember Spain, England, and France were three major powers looking for dominance then. Dominance takes a lot of money.

3. Glory: Winning fame as a great explorer was the best way a commoner (i.e. Columbus) or the lesser sons of the nobility could attain lasting wealth and position.

Close but by the late 19th C. Federalist and Anti-Federalist were not being used or favored as much.

Birdwatcher=Republican

Bristoe=Democrat

Sorry Bristoe

The Democrats back then were a LOT different than they are today.

They would likely have classified Birdwatcher as a Statist or Monarchist (this more so in Europe): One who supports the overarching power of a government to maintain order and protect the rights (either actual or perceived) of the people by force of law or martially.


Bristoe would have made the Anarchist/Revolutionary list: One who opposes the power of the state to infringe on personal liberties and in general distrusts the power of the government.

Read an interesting book a while back where the author claimed Columbus was actually a descendant of french Cathar heretics.

So - and this is a very broad shallow brush statement since I haven't read all the stuff listed (yet). The primary driver of the Civil War was Southern States resisting the, in their minds, over controlling nature of the Northern states (states rights versus Fedal rights ((laws, taxes, strong federal power, etc.))?

Did Lincoln (or the US Government) use the 'slavery' platform to incite in the South in to a war they couldn't win (I'm sure the North realized the resource advantage) to settle who was "in charge" once and for all - and unify (in a strange way) the country?

The states rights arguments were there from the outset. Slavery came into the fore for the North later as the war ground on.

I have read that and also that he was Jewish.

Don't remember this author hitting on him being Jewish, but that he was allied with them because of the inquisition.

The main reason the European Age of Discovery got kicked off was the fall of Constantinople in 1453. With that, what tenuous European access that still remained to the Orient through Asia was cut off, for good more or less.

While Portugal had blazed paths around the Horn of Africa and established colonies and outposts all the way down Africa and in India, the trip around the Horn was perilous to the extreme. Common understanding of the size of the world at that time had it being much smaller than it actually was and Columbus thought it would actually be shorter to sail across the Atlantic to the Orient. He found North American right about where his calculations told him the Indies would be.

As for cruelty to the Indians, yes, the Spaniards were very concerned about it. The first stated purpose of their exploration was to bring Christ to the world. So, if their people were too cruel, then it was frowned upon. Granted, their standards of what was cruel and not cruel differed from ours today, but once one understands the logic of the time, you discover that there very definitely were rules. For instance, for all the wealth he brought to Spain, Cortez could never quite make it to respectability back home because of his humble origins and the brutality with which he dealt with the Mexicans.

The Royal Spanish regulations on caste and class were extreme to say the least.

I wonder how the Spanish court of that time would deal with us here at the Campfire?

I am thinking exile to a life at hard labor in a penal colony.