Comments on: Black Jack John Logan Goes to War http://www.historynet.com/black-jack-john-logan-goes-to-war.htm From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Tue, 21 May 2013 05:57:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Harper Harris http://www.historynet.com/black-jack-john-logan-goes-to-war.htm#comment-589884 Harper Harris Mon, 06 Jun 2011 18:39:51 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683264#comment-589884 I enjoyed Paul F. Bradleys' Black Jack At War. but thought it was a shame the most viewed likeness of Logan was not used in the article. I am speaking of the Atlanta Cyclorama. It is billed as the world's largest hanging oil painting and the longest continuously running show in the United States. In 1883 U.S.Major General and Senator John A. Logan commissioned a panorama painting to depict the Battle of Atlanta from the American Panorama Studio in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He paid the enormous sum of $53,000,a huge amount in the 1880's! Originally called "Logan's Great Battle", the painting was intended to promote Logan's campaign for Vice Presidency in 1884. The General never saw the completed work, he died December 26,1886. Ralling the Union troops on a black charger he is the largest and most prominent figure in the enormous painting and has been viewed by millions of people over the years. The Cyclorama was painted by 11 German.Austrian and Polish artists taking 22 mouths to complete. One of the many large painting touring the country as a kind of 19th -century Imax, it is considerd to be the best of the 27 Cyclorama's left in the world. I enjoyed Paul F. Bradleys' Black Jack At War. but thought it was a shame the most viewed likeness of Logan was not used in the article. I am speaking of the Atlanta Cyclorama. It is billed as the world's largest hanging oil painting and the longest continuously running show in the United States. In 1883 U.S.Major General and Senator John A. Logan commissioned a panorama painting to depict the Battle of Atlanta from the American Panorama Studio in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He paid the enormous sum of $53,000,a huge amount in the 1880's! Originally called "Logan's Great Battle", the painting was intended to promote Logan's campaign for Vice Presidency in 1884. The General never saw the completed work, he died December 26,1886. Ralling the Union troops on a black charger he is the largest and most prominent figure in the enormous painting and has been viewed by millions of people over the years. The Cyclorama was painted by 11 German.Austrian and Polish artists taking 22 mouths to complete. One of the many large painting touring the country as a kind of 19th -century Imax, it is considerd to be the best of the 27 Cyclorama's left in the world.

]]> By: E http://www.historynet.com/black-jack-john-logan-goes-to-war.htm#comment-496841 E Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:39:29 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683264#comment-496841 Pete, I have no idea what you are trying to say...so I'll try to dissect: How do you pin 620K deaths on just the North? If Southern political leaders wanted to peacefully secede, why did they prompt the first shots on Federal property? What the heck was so important about the fort, with its giant garrison of 70 or so people? Seems to me Lincoln, even if he was a war monger, would have had no pretence to build an army if they didn't fire on it. How did the war set us back 40 years? Where does 40 years come from? 40 years after the civil war, those elitist Southerners that supposedly would have phased slavery out all by themselves were viciously discriminating against Black Americans. Frankly, Northerners were just as bad, but not to the violent levels of the South. So you think they really had the mindset to let them be free? What does Jefferson have to do with this? What does child labor have to do with this? There are many more historians who suggest far worse theories for what would have happened if the South was allowed to secede, but the ones you suggest are right? Even if they came back within a year, you are saying it is OK for states to leave and come back whenever it suits them?? And that's good for the nation??? Southern states gave their land to the Federal government, so that means they can take it back, regardless of federal mission or investment to that land, whenever they want? Are you serious???? I am also a veteran, but only of "conflicts", I suppose we call our first encounter with Saddam the Gulf War, but that's only because people think we won something I'm sure. I know well of death and destruction, and war does not bring glory--we do agree on something! But it does, in the hands of intelligent statesmen, bring an end to unjust behavior. Too bad we've been lacking in the intelligent statesment department for so long, I've seen too many men & women in uniform (and their families) suffer as a result. And the fact the South killed more than the North means what??? over to you... Pete, I have no idea what you are trying to say…so I'll try to dissect:

How do you pin 620K deaths on just the North? If Southern political leaders wanted to peacefully secede, why did they prompt the first shots on Federal property? What the heck was so important about the fort, with its giant garrison of 70 or so people? Seems to me Lincoln, even if he was a war monger, would have had no pretence to build an army if they didn't fire on it.

How did the war set us back 40 years? Where does 40 years come from? 40 years after the civil war, those elitist Southerners that supposedly would have phased slavery out all by themselves were viciously discriminating against Black Americans. Frankly, Northerners were just as bad, but not to the violent levels of the South. So you think they really had the mindset to let them be free?

What does Jefferson have to do with this?

What does child labor have to do with this?

There are many more historians who suggest far worse theories for what would have happened if the South was allowed to secede, but the ones you suggest are right? Even if they came back within a year, you are saying it is OK for states to leave and come back whenever it suits them?? And that's good for the nation???

Southern states gave their land to the Federal government, so that means they can take it back, regardless of federal mission or investment to that land, whenever they want? Are you serious????

I am also a veteran, but only of "conflicts", I suppose we call our first encounter with Saddam the Gulf War, but that's only because people think we won something I'm sure. I know well of death and destruction, and war does not bring glory–we do agree on something! But it does, in the hands of intelligent statesmen, bring an end to unjust behavior. Too bad we've been lacking in the intelligent statesment department for so long, I've seen too many men & women in uniform (and their families) suffer as a result.

And the fact the South killed more than the North means what???

over to you…

]]> By: Pete Piotrowski http://www.historynet.com/black-jack-john-logan-goes-to-war.htm#comment-494320 Pete Piotrowski Wed, 16 Mar 2011 01:24:48 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683264#comment-494320 "The victors write the history, the lossers write the songs". If the great oritor Mr Lincoln would have not rushed into war against his own people, and killed 620,000 citizens, black and white, and set this country back 40 years, and got us an income tax that we are still paying. Slavery has been around for a long time and is still going today. There is plenty of blame to go around for slavery, which started in 1619 in this country. Their own people sold them into slavery, The north had slaves, they sold them to the south. The war was not about slavery, it was about states rights to govern themselves, it was about economics and politics. Thomas Jefferson said "We have a Wolf by the ears and can't let go" when he was talking about slavery. The northern factories worked women and children in factories for long hours unttil child labor laws had to be passed. Some Historians said if the North would have left the South alone, they would have been back in the union within a year. I am a vetern of two wars myself, and there is no glory in war only death and destruction. As far as the south seizure of Federal land, the south gave the land to the federal govenment to start with. Virginia turned over her lands to them and some of the others. The south was out numbered 2 to 1, even at that they killed 100,000 more men then the north, defending their homes. There is much more but I will close for now. "The victors write the history, the lossers write the songs". If the great oritor Mr Lincoln would have not rushed into war against his own people, and killed 620,000 citizens, black and white, and set this country back 40 years, and got us an income tax that we are still paying. Slavery has been around for a long time and is still going today. There is plenty of blame to go around for slavery, which started in 1619 in this country. Their own people sold them into slavery, The north had slaves, they sold them to the south. The war was not about slavery, it was about states rights to govern themselves, it was about economics and politics. Thomas Jefferson said "We have a Wolf by the ears and can't let go" when he was talking about slavery. The northern factories worked women and children in factories for long hours unttil child labor laws had to be passed. Some Historians said if the North would have left the South alone, they would have been back in the union within a year. I am a vetern of two wars myself, and there is no glory in war only death and destruction. As far as the south seizure of Federal land, the south gave the land to the federal govenment to start with. Virginia turned over her lands to them and some of the others. The south was out numbered 2 to 1, even at that they killed 100,000 more men then the north, defending their homes. There is much more but I will close for now.

]]> By: natalie http://www.historynet.com/black-jack-john-logan-goes-to-war.htm#comment-493988 natalie Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:26:37 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683264#comment-493988 you r right Pete about the the north generals !! right now they are concentrating on the south !! that is not bad but we need more areas focus on !!!! all of the minor soldiers who did go home and who didnt with papers and documents 2 show the history AND what was later n their lifes! always very interesting !! you r right Pete about the the north generals !! right now they are concentrating on the south !! that is not bad but we need more areas focus on !!!! all of the minor soldiers who did go home and who didnt with papers and documents 2 show the history AND what was later n their lifes! always very interesting !!

]]> By: E http://www.historynet.com/black-jack-john-logan-goes-to-war.htm#comment-487789 E Wed, 09 Mar 2011 19:39:22 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683264#comment-487789 So Pete, if those negotiations were going so well, why would Southerners object to supplies being delivered to the fort? (under Lincoln's order, no reinforcements/weapons were being sent--just provisions) Or, perhaps the North should just let the garrison starve/die of disease, and then the Confederates would take the fort? Or, should the siezure of Ft Sumter have been allowed when it still belonged to the Federal government, was paid for by the Federal government, and was built to protect the NATION from attack by foreign nations? Near as I can tell from your somewhat literate rant, you believe slavery should have been allowed to disappear slowly, under the watchful eyes of people who somehow found the practice to be perfectly normal and just under God's law. North and South would have been just fine with the South's unlawful siezure of Federal lands and material, and the current greatness of our nation could have been achieved by both?? The South left Lincoln little option but to enact the restrictions he did, and frankly, total war, where every citizen has a part and sacrifice in conducting it, is the only way nations win wars--an ugly, but true thing. Our own history has proven this. Our failure to conduct total war has resulted in losing or stalemate in every war, or to be politically correct, "conflict", we have engaged in since World War II. During WWII, I think you'd find FDR enacted many of the same tramplings of our Constitution so we could win that war. Thanks to our buddy Stalin, a shame it was largely for naught in the end. OK, somehow I've got myself into the Cold War, so I'll stop now. Just try to recognize that regardless of who was right in starting the war, what is and should be glorified is the abolishment of slavery, and it was the North's victory, the saving of the Union, that enabled the ending of this abhorent practice! Glory, Glory Hallelujah! So Pete, if those negotiations were going so well, why would Southerners object to supplies being delivered to the fort? (under Lincoln's order, no reinforcements/weapons were being sent–just provisions)

Or, perhaps the North should just let the garrison starve/die of disease, and then the Confederates would take the fort?

Or, should the siezure of Ft Sumter have been allowed when it still belonged to the Federal government, was paid for by the Federal government, and was built to protect the NATION from attack by foreign nations?

Near as I can tell from your somewhat literate rant, you believe slavery should have been allowed to disappear slowly, under the watchful eyes of people who somehow found the practice to be perfectly normal and just under God's law. North and South would have been just fine with the South's unlawful siezure of Federal lands and material, and the current greatness of our nation could have been achieved by both??

The South left Lincoln little option but to enact the restrictions he did, and frankly, total war, where every citizen has a part and sacrifice in conducting it, is the only way nations win wars–an ugly, but true thing. Our own history has proven this. Our failure to conduct total war has resulted in losing or stalemate in every war, or to be politically correct, "conflict", we have engaged in since World War II. During WWII, I think you'd find FDR enacted many of the same tramplings of our Constitution so we could win that war. Thanks to our buddy Stalin, a shame it was largely for naught in the end.

OK, somehow I've got myself into the Cold War, so I'll stop now. Just try to recognize that regardless of who was right in starting the war, what is and should be glorified is the abolishment of slavery, and it was the North's victory, the saving of the Union, that enabled the ending of this abhorent practice! Glory, Glory Hallelujah!

]]> By: Pete Piotrowski http://www.historynet.com/black-jack-john-logan-goes-to-war.htm#comment-479721 Pete Piotrowski Wed, 02 Mar 2011 18:14:25 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683264#comment-479721 Why do we not here about the other General from Southern Illinois? John B. Turchin who allowed the Rape of Athens Alabama and preached Total War on the south, before Generals Sheridan, Sherman and Grant. There was two sides to the War for Southern Independance. I have heard so many times that Fort Sumpter was fired upon and the Civil War started. They never talk about the 4 months of negoations before the fireing on fort Sumpter, or that Lincoln had sent reinforcements against the Govenor's Order that it not be reinforced or that Mafor Robert Anderson moved his troops by cover of night from the main land to the island on which Fort Sumpter is located. The North invaded the South, with armed aggression. Lincoln declared war on the south without the consent of congress, and trampled all over Constitutional Rights. Freedom of Speech was denied, news papers North & South were shut down if they spoke out, citizens were banished form ther homes. I see no glory in the north winning the war, the southern's were defending their homes. Not all southern's were slave owners. The North didn't want the Slaves, they had laws prohibiting them in there towns. Illinois had over 500 Sundown towns. After the war many former slaves stayed on the farms working for their former masters as share croppers. Slavery was on the way out, Eli Whitney invented the Cotton Gin which before was very labor intensive and the seeds had to be seperated by hand. There were many countries that had slavery and ended it without going to war. History books are written by the winners but, now, more and more of the truth about the war is being told, there are two sides to any argument. Why do we not here about the other General from Southern Illinois? John B. Turchin who allowed the Rape of Athens Alabama and preached Total War on the south, before Generals Sheridan, Sherman and Grant. There was two sides to the War for Southern Independance. I have heard so many times that Fort Sumpter was fired upon and the Civil War started. They never talk about the 4 months of negoations before the fireing on fort Sumpter, or that Lincoln had sent reinforcements against the Govenor's Order that it not be reinforced or that Mafor Robert Anderson moved his troops by cover of night from the main land to the island on which Fort Sumpter is located. The North invaded the South, with armed aggression. Lincoln declared war on the south without the consent of congress, and trampled all over Constitutional Rights. Freedom of Speech was denied, news papers North & South were shut down if they spoke out, citizens were banished form ther homes. I see no glory in the north winning the war, the southern's were defending their homes. Not all southern's were slave owners. The North didn't want the Slaves, they had laws prohibiting them in there towns. Illinois had over 500 Sundown towns. After the war many former slaves stayed on the farms working for their former masters as share croppers. Slavery was on the way out, Eli Whitney invented the Cotton Gin which before was very labor intensive and the seeds had to be seperated by hand. There were many countries that had slavery and ended it without going to war. History books are written by the winners but, now, more and more of the truth about the war is being told, there are two sides to any argument.

]]> By: Chris Yoars http://www.historynet.com/black-jack-john-logan-goes-to-war.htm#comment-466919 Chris Yoars Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:55:21 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683264#comment-466919 Paul, You may be interested in this documentary I produced a couple years back about John A. Logan. I have it uploaded here: http://vimeo.com/7910178 Hope you enjoy it! Chris Paul,

You may be interested in this documentary I produced a couple years back about John A. Logan. I have it uploaded here:

http://vimeo.com/7910178

Hope you enjoy it!

Chris

]]>