Last Civil War Pensioner Dies, but Tyler’s Grandsons Still Presumed Living
[guest post by JVW]
From Fox News:
The last person to receive a Civil War-era pension died in North Carolina last week, according to reports.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Irene Triplett died at a nursing home in Wilkesboro on May 31. She was 90.
Triplett’s father, Moses “Mose” Triplett, was a confederate soldier who deserted in 1863 and joined Union forces the following year, according to The Journal. The Wilkes-Journal Patriot reports that he married Irene’s mother Elida Hall in 1924 when he was 78 and she was 28. Mose Triplett was 83 when his daughter was born.
[. . .]
Mose Triplett’s first wife had died a few years before his marriage to Hall, according to the Wilkes-Journal Patriot, which notes that he began receiving a pension for his service in the Union Army in 1890. He died in 1938 at age 92, just a few days after attending a reunion in Gettysburg marking the 75th anniversary of the battle there.
Irene Triplett had been receiving a monthly pension of $73.13 from the Department of Veterans Affairs, according to The Journal.
The Civil War seems to us so far away, yet there you go. This is also a prime moment to reflect on the fact that two grandsons of our tenth President are believed to still be living. John Tyler was born in 1790, in the second year of George Washington’s first term as President. Mr. Tyler himself served in that office from 1841-45, moving up from Vice-President upon the death of William Henry Harrison. His first wife, with whom he had eight children, died in 1842 after suffering a stroke. Two years later, President Tyler married twenty-four year old Julia Gardiner, with whom he would issue an additional seven children.
One of those children by his second wife, a son named Lyon Gardiner Tyler, future president of the College of William and Mary, was born in 1853. After the death of his first wife, Lyon Tyler would marry a woman 35 years his junior and father three sons, one of whom died in infancy. The surviving two sons, Lyon Gardiner Tyler Jr. (born 1924) and Harrison Ruffin Tyler (born 1928), are both apparently still with us today.
In many ways we are still something of a young country.
– JVW
I remember reading that the late Senator Strom Thurmond (born 1902) told of growing up in rural South Carolina and as a boy being regaled with stories from old men in the community of the time they say Andrew Jackson parade through their town in their own boyhoods.
JVW (ee64e4) — 6/10/2020 @ 9:42 amJohn Tyler (“His Accidency”) was a pretty terrible president, in an era with several pretty terrible presidents. He is rated slightly better than contemporaries Pierce and Buchanan and about tied with Millard Fillmore. Of that era, only James Polk cracks the top quartile. Richard Nixon beats him handily.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/10/2020 @ 9:48 amRE; Strom Thurmond:
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/reverend-al-sharpton-george-floyd-funeral-eulogy-transcript-june-9
By the way, this is his speech at the previous memorial service for George Floyd held on June 4:
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/reverend-al-sharpton-eulogy-transcript-at-george-floyd-memorial-service
Sammy Finkelman (fe9fb2) — 6/10/2020 @ 10:09 amThe Army Will Consider Renaming Bases that Honor Confederate Leaders
“The Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Army are open to a bi-partisan discussion on the topic,” Army spokesperson Col. Sunset Belinsky said in a statement Monday.
The recent uproar over the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police drove McCarthy’s reversal, one Army official said.
……
As recently as February, the Army said the service had no plans to rename the facilities, following the Marine Corps’ announcement that it would ban images of Confederate flags from its installations.
……
Prior to Floyd’s death, the service was already under pressure to rename some of its best-known installations, including Fort Bragg, N.C., after a New York Times editorial accused the military of “celebrating White supremacists.” For example, Confederate general Braxton Bragg was a major slave-owner and is largely considered to be one of the most incompetent generals of the Civil War.
The Army faces an uphill battle in renaming some or all of its 10 installations that honor Confederate military commanders…….
…..
The nine other Army bases in question, all in southern states, are: Forts Benning and Gordon in Georgia; Forts Pickett, A.P. Hill and Lee in Va.; Fort Polk and Camp Beauregard in Louisiana; Fort Hood, Texas; and Fort Rucker, Ala.
…….
Also: U.S. Navy to ban all public displays of the Confederate flag
…..
“The Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Mike Gilday, has directed his staff to begin crafting an order that would prohibit the Confederate battle flag from all public spaces and work areas aboard Navy installations, ships, aircraft and submarines,” spokesman Commander Nate Christensen said in a statement. “The order is meant to ensure unit cohesion, preserve good order and discipline, and uphold the Navy’s core values of honor, courage and commitment.”
……
The Army faces an uphill battle in renaming some or all of its 10 installations that honor Confederate military
commanderstraitors.Fixed it.
Rip Murdock (80e6b4) — 6/10/2020 @ 10:31 amMose Triplett and his kid probably both wore diapers at the same time.
Hoi Polloi (7cefeb) — 6/10/2020 @ 10:37 amI like it.
nk (1d9030) — 6/10/2020 @ 10:44 amStep 1: Erase the Civil War from American history.
Step 2: Erase the reason for the Civil War from American history. “Slavery? What slavery?”
Mr Murdock wrote:
In the mid-19th century, one’s loyalty was mostly to one’s state, not the federal government. The formulation was more “the United States are” than what is more common now, “the United States is.”
While I am glad that we are still one country, it is my position that the states had the right to secede. How interesting it is that the United States recognized Texas’ right to secede from Mexico, but not Texas’ right to secede from the United States. The US recognized West Virginia’s right to secede from Virginia.
The US has recognized many other nations’ right to secede; Bangladesh from Pakistan, Israel from British Mandatory Palestine, Eritrea from Ethiopia being examples, but for a state to try to secede from the United States, why that’s treason!
The Dana in Kentucky (6a5316) — 6/10/2020 @ 10:46 amConfederate military
commanderstraitors.Was their oath to their state, or to the federal government? Before the Civil War people said “these United States”, after the War “the Untied States.” Historically, people did not view themselves as Americans, but as Georgians or Virginians or Vermonters first and “Americans” by reason of association.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/10/2020 @ 11:09 amBut I guess as we rewrite history for our present benefit, whatever.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/10/2020 @ 11:10 amHBO has pulled Gone With the Wind from its playlist. Not that I care about the film — it’s pretty much trash — but can book purges be far behind. Huckleberry Finn has slavery and bad words in it, and Finn himself has no real beef with slavery.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/10/2020 @ 11:12 amThe US has recognized many other nations’ right to secede; Bangladesh from Pakistan, Israel from British Mandatory Palestine, Eritrea from Ethiopia being examples, but for a state to try to secede from the United States, why that’s treason!
At the time of the Banglideshi, Israeli, and Eritrean secessions, had any of those countries spent the last seventy years within a constitutional compact into which they had readily entered as independent states, or had outside forces largely created the boundary lines that they were subjected to?
JVW (ee64e4) — 6/10/2020 @ 11:14 am“Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.”
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/10/2020 @ 11:14 amIf California voted to secede following a Trump re-election, would the US use force, up to and including scorched Earth tactics, to keep CA in the Union?
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/10/2020 @ 11:17 am“But I guess as we rewrite history for our present benefit, whatever.”
Got my irony dose for the day.
Davethulhu (b9acf0) — 6/10/2020 @ 11:17 amThe US recognized West Virginia’s right to secede from Virginia.
Even though the US Constitution expressly forbade such a secession. (Art III, Section 1)
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/10/2020 @ 11:20 amGot my irony dose for the day.
I forgot. You on the far left just think that history has been a pack of lies all along, so new lies are no problem.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/10/2020 @ 11:22 am“Even though the US Constitution expressly forbade such a secession. (Art III, Section 1)”
???
Davethulhu (b9acf0) — 6/10/2020 @ 11:23 am“I forgot. You on the far left just think that history has been a pack of lies all along, so new lies are no problem.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy
Davethulhu (b9acf0) — 6/10/2020 @ 11:24 am\
There were three main changes that the south made to the US constitution
-Slavery was explicitly enforced and all new states to the confederacy would be slave states.
-The Confederacy had the right to tax goods shipped on the Mississippi.
-No State was allowed to leave the confederacy.
From this we can conclude that the confederacy didn’t agree with you about that right to succeed.
Time123 (d1bf33) — 6/10/2020 @ 11:25 amKevin M,
they’ve been banning Huck Finn for years and “editing” it for bad words. 1984, Brave New World and Fahrenheit 451 are all tutorials for a certain group.
NJRob (4d595c) — 6/10/2020 @ 11:26 am“……..can book purges be far behind. Huckleberry Finn has slavery and bad words in it, and Finn himself has no real beef with slavery.”
Huckleberry Finn has already been purged from some schools and libraries.
The nerve of some people, wanting access to books that actually portray the context of the times.
One of greatest works of fiction is the Flashman series; the protagonist is a racist, coward, cad, liar and cheat. But the stories and the footnotes convey so much historical info and zeitgeist for the period they take place in that they’re truly enlightening.
harkin (9c4571) — 6/10/2020 @ 11:29 am_
In the mid-19th century, one’s loyalty was mostly to one’s state, not the federal government.
Was their oath to their state, or to the federal government?
If they were commissioned officers in the United States Army at time the Civil War began, their oath was “to support and defend the United States” not Kentucky or Virginia. They may have felt more loyalty to their states, but it was misplaced.
They were not defending their states, they were protecting the institution of slavery. The only state’s rights they were protecting was the right of states to allow the buying and selling of human beings. From the Georgia secession resolution:
For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.
Rip Murdock (80e6b4) — 6/10/2020 @ 11:30 amMY bad. Article IV.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/10/2020 @ 11:34 amTarzan is pretty racist, if you look at it “right.” Never mind that ERB turned all the racial tables in the Mars books, making the Martian “whites” the ultimate evil.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/10/2020 @ 11:36 am#23, but you knew that and were just having a go.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/10/2020 @ 11:37 amI had these same feelings when my father died. His grandfather fought in the Civil War and had two wives/families as well. The second wife was also much younger and my father’s mother was from the second group of children. Growing up, my father met many of his grandfather’s fellow soldiers and his grandfather often took in needy and/or injured survivors into his home. One lived with my father’s family after his grandfather died, living well into the 1930’s. As a result, the Civil War was as “real” to my father as Pearl Harbor was to me. We weren’t alive for them but we knew people who were.
DRJ (15874d) — 6/10/2020 @ 11:43 am“thulhu,
You really don’t have to agree with someone to understand their motives, or even to respect them. The most perfect example of this was Eastwood’s counterpoint masterpiece (“Flags of Our Fathers” and “Letters from Iwo Jima”).
Do you think that Eastwood was being pro-Imperial Japan here?
It is impossible to understand the Civil War (past US GOOD, THEM BAD) without understanding what motivated people. Most southern soldiers had slaves, and many did not like slavery for economic reasons.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/10/2020 @ 11:43 am*Most southern soldiers had NO slaves
(I hate this kind of editing error)
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/10/2020 @ 11:44 amI even, at times, try to understand what motivates Marxists, other than wanting to take what I have for themselves.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/10/2020 @ 11:46 amAt one point we wanted to honor men who lead troops for the Confederacy and use that symbolism to re-affirm that the white man was superior to the black. Now we don’t. I don’t see that choosing not to honor men that took up arms primarily to preserve the institution of slavery is a re-writing of history. We still know they did it. We’re just not treating their memories as heroic anymore. We’re not denying that it happened or trying to pretend it happened in a different way.
Time123 (457a1d) — 6/10/2020 @ 11:54 am“Most southern soldiers had NO slaves, and many did not like slavery for economic reasons.”
https://acwm.org/blog/myths-and-misunderstandings-slaveholding-and-confederate-soldier/
Davethulhu (b9acf0) — 6/10/2020 @ 11:56 amKevin M@15-
The State of Virginia actually agreed to the separation of the counties that became WVA in 1862:
On May 13, 1862 the state legislature of the reorganized government approved the formation of the new state. An application for admission to the Union was made to Congress, introduced by Senator Waitman Willey of the Restored Government of Virginia. ……On December 31, 1862, an enabling act was approved by President Abraham Lincoln admitting West Virginia, on the condition that a provision for the gradual abolition of slavery be inserted in its constitution (as Rev. Battelle had urged in the Wheeling Intelligencer and also written to Lincoln). While many felt West Virginia’s admission as a state was both illegal and unconstitutional, Lincoln issued his Opinion on the Admission of West Virginia finding that “the body which consents to the admission of West Virginia is the Legislature of Virginia”, and that its admission was therefore both constitutional and expedient.
The only controversy was over the addition of two counties to WVA. Virginia sued, but lost in the Supreme Court (Virginia v. West Virginia, 78 U.S. 39 (1870).
Rip Murdock (80e6b4) — 6/10/2020 @ 11:57 am…..The statutes of the Virginia Legislature having authorized the governor of that state to certify the result of the voting on that proposition to the State of West Virginia if, in his opinion, the vote was favorable, and he having certified the fact that it was so, under the seal of the state to the Governor of West Virginia, and the latter state having accepted and exercised jurisdiction over those counties for several years, the State of Virginia is bound by her acts in the premises.
And I could call my cat “the legislature of Virginia” and it would still be a lie.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/10/2020 @ 12:26 pm‘thulhu,
Even a socialist would understand that the labor value of poor whites was undermined by the existence of slaves. That the poor whites had racial prejudices and someone to look down on does not mean that slavery was in their interests. Later they kept their prejudices but few wanted slavery back.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/10/2020 @ 12:28 pmtheorists consistently and loudly proclaimed that abolition of slavery would unleash a cataclysm of rape and murder.
And without the Army of the Potomac occupying the South, that probably would have come true. Some ex-slaves didn’t have the white folks interests firmly at heart. See D’jango.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/10/2020 @ 12:31 pm#35, Can you blame them?
Time123 (d1bf33) — 6/10/2020 @ 12:32 pmI don’t see that choosing not to honor men that took up arms primarily to preserve the institution of slavery is a re-writing of history.
They took up arms to preserve their states, for whatever reasons. I don’t suggest that they should be thought heroes, as such, but “traitor” was never true.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/10/2020 @ 12:34 pm“Even a socialist would understand that the labor value of poor whites was undermined by the existence of slaves. That the poor whites had racial prejudices and someone to look down on does not mean that slavery was in their interests. Later they kept their prejudices but few wanted slavery back.”
The fact that people were happy to act against their best self interests should hardly be a surprise to anyone.
My point is that, for all your complaining about revisionist history, most of the arguments you’re putting forward are themselves revisionist.
Davethulhu (b9acf0) — 6/10/2020 @ 12:40 pmI don’t argue against “revisionist history”, I argue against propaganda masquerading as history.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/10/2020 @ 12:42 pm“They took up arms to preserve their states, for whatever reasons. I don’t suggest that they should be thought heroes, as such, but “traitor” was never true.”
Counterpoint: The entire political and military leadership of the south were traitors, and should have been hanged at the end of the war. This was Lincoln’s biggest mistake.
Davethulhu (b9acf0) — 6/10/2020 @ 12:42 pm“I don’t argue against “revisionist history”, I argue against propaganda masquerading as history.”
All of the “lost cause” arguments you’re making are propaganda.
Davethulhu (b9acf0) — 6/10/2020 @ 12:43 pmhttps://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Virginia_Soldiers_Confederate_During_the_Civil_War
Davethulhu (b9acf0) — 6/10/2020 @ 12:51 pmOne lived with my father’s family after his grandfather died, living well into the 1930’s. As a result, the Civil War was as “real” to my father as Pearl Harbor was to me. We weren’t alive for them but we knew people who were..
Wow. My father, born in 1935, lived in a time when there was a still one last Civil War veteran in his hometown during his boyhood who would wear his medals and march in the Memorial Day parade. It’s so wild to think that we aren’t that far removed from that conflict.
JVW (ee64e4) — 6/10/2020 @ 12:57 pmI think ‘for whatever reasons’ is a dodge. We can’t know what’s in the heart of another. But the actions they took were to perpetuate slavery. Further the statues weren’t to the common soldier, they were of the leaders. I’ll quote Confederate VP Stephens because he spells is out pretty well.
This is what the solders were fighting to create. I assume they knew this. But maybe they didn’t. Either way, i don’t have a problem with taking down statues and memorials of the people that lead the confederacy.
It’s an even easier call when so many of the memorials were set up after the way specifically and explicitly to support 20th century white supremacy. Many of them weren’t historical markers, but part of a propaganda campaign of oppressing black people.
Time123 (d1bf33) — 6/10/2020 @ 1:05 pmIt’s so wild to think that we aren’t that far removed from that conflict.
It’s not that wild. I was named after a great grandfather who died in 1944, 15 years before I was born. He was born in 1854, so his lifespan spanned the Crimean War through World War Two. (He emigrated to the U.S. approximately 1900.)
Kishnevi (e82f46) — 6/10/2020 @ 2:06 pmCounterpoint: The entire political and military leadership of the south were traitors, and should have been hanged at the end of the war. This was Lincoln’s biggest mistake.
Nah. There was plenty of time afterward for others to charge treason. Davis was not charged because they believed he would be acquitted and that acquittal would have validated secession:
https://www.law.virginia.edu/news/201710/was-secession-legal
They were not traitors. Lee and the others resigned their commissions and returned to their States to defend. Secession was legal because it was not a power prohibited to the States by the Constitution. They left, as it was their right to do. Lincoln invaded and conquered a sovereign nation, not a band of insurrectionists trying to overthrow his government.
Matador (0284e8) — 6/10/2020 @ 3:07 pm“They were not traitors. Lee and the others resigned their commissions and returned to their States to defend. Secession was legal because it was not a power prohibited to the States by the Constitution. They left, as it was their right to do. Lincoln invaded and conquered a sovereign nation, not a band of insurrectionists trying to overthrow his government.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
Davethulhu (b9acf0) — 6/10/2020 @ 3:13 pmAh yes. The Salmon P. Chase SC.
Did you think they were going to come back with a decision that essentially said:
Oooops! Sorry about those 650,000 dead, we were wrong about secession.
Matador (0284e8) — 6/10/2020 @ 3:17 pm“the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States”
“The Constitution did not permit” Makes Roe v Wade look reasonable.
The States ratified the Constitution to enumerate and delegate specific powers to the Federal government, reserving all others for themselves.
Permit?
Matador (0284e8) — 6/10/2020 @ 3:26 pmTo unilaterally secede would be to set the supreme law of the land to nought within the borders of the state in question. And it is expressly forbidden.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” That obviously would include secession ordinances or any other “Thing” a state might attempt to unilaterally evade or violate the supreme law. It really couldn’t be more explicit, or categorical.
All state legislators and judges must swear to support the constitution. Violating that oath would vacate the offices in question, making it impossible for a legitimate state government to secede.
A seceding state would be usurping many enumerated powers of the federal government. States are prohibited from entering into treaties and confederations, coining their own money, setting their own trade policy, collecting tariffs, and keeping troops. The federal government is also obligated to guarantee them a republican form of government and defend them from invasion. All of these mandates are incompatible with unilateral secession.
Bottom line: secession is for losers.
Dave (1bb933) — 6/11/2020 @ 3:29 amIf there a Constitutional prohibition id secession, yes.
But there was no such prohibition.
“States are prohibited from entering into treaties and confederations”,
Once they’ve seceded, they are not “States” subject to the enumerated powers.
Matador (0284e8) — 6/11/2020 @ 4:02 amSorry.
If there was a Constitutional prohibition of secession
Matador (0284e8) — 6/11/2020 @ 4:07 amIf the South had a right to secede, it would have won the war, because rights are not man-made, they are natural laws, and natural laws by definition always prevail.
nk (1d9030) — 6/11/2020 @ 4:31 amWhat part of “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding” do you not understand?
The constitution does not allow states, or individuals either, to unilaterally declare that the laws do not apply to them. That is precisely what secession purports to do, and it is expressly prohibited by the supremacy clause.
Dave (1bb933) — 6/11/2020 @ 4:36 am