"about slavery"

[Hugh Lawson]

When people insist that the war was "about slavery", what do they mean?

When people insist that the war was "about states' rights", what do they
mean?

Does anybody think the war was "about both states rights and slavery".

hl

[Wiregrass Willie]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 10:27:50 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>When people insist that the war was "about slavery", what do they mean?

When I first got interested in this subject about six years ago -- it
seemed to me that everybody who made this argument implied that the
average Southerner supported secession and slavery because (1) they
were too lazy to work or (2) they enjoyed seeing the black folks
forced to labor in the hot sun.

I did not accept that thought -- so I decided to read up on the
subject to prove that the only reason my ancestors supported secession
was because they loved and -- deeply believed -- in "states rights".

>When people insist that the war was "about states' rights", what do they
>mean?

After reading the periodicals of the late 1850s, I finally became
convinced that the Southern leaders only supported secession --
because they believed in states rights.

They believed in (1) the states rights to own slaves. (2) the
states right to re-open the African slave trade (3) the states right
to expand slavery to all new territories and (4) the states right make
treaties with foreign slave nations.

>Does anybody think the war was "about both states rights and slavery".

That is a possibility. A state has the right to permit legal
slavery.

[Hugh Lawson]

Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:

> I did not accept that thought -- so I decided to read up on the
> subject to prove that the only reason my ancestors supported secession
> was because they loved and -- deeply believed -- in "states rights".

Have you considered this: That somebody believes in a right does not
explain why he exercised that right. For example, we have a right to
sell our property and give the proceeds to charity. But few of us
exercise that right.

In the same way, a philosophical belief in a state right of secession
does not explain why in fact a particular ordinance of secession was
passed.

In fact, the states that passed secession ordinances also approved
documents explaining why they took this step. This page will point you
toward some of them.

http://civilwarcauses.org/plat.htm

[Hugh Lawson]

Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:


> I did not accept that thought -- so I decided to read up on the
> subject to prove that the only reason my ancestors supported secession
> was because they loved and -- deeply believed -- in "states rights".

I hope you won't be offended WW, but I want to ask you about this. Why
are you so concerned about what your ancestors thought?

My own ancestors, obscure farming folk, must have been strong supporters
of the CSA. There are rebel privates on every known line of my family
tree; there are two directs, and many collaterals. Two of them were
sent home to recover from wounds, and went back to Virginia after
recovery.

The thought that they probably favored retaining slavery, or at least
favored local control over its future, doesn't trouble me. We are not
endowed at birth with a guarantee that our ancestors will never have
violated standards held today.

hl

[Wiregrass Willie]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 19:33:35 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>> I did not accept that thought -- so I decided to read up on the
>> subject to prove that the only reason my ancestors supported secession
>> was because they loved and -- deeply believed -- in "states rights".
>
>I hope you won't be offended WW, but I want to ask you about this. Why
>are you so concerned about what your ancestors thought?

I'm not so much "concerned" as I am just plain curious. I had
always thought they fought for a "cause". I know now they did not.
So I'm wondering why they -- or anybody else -- answered the call to
aid in the secession.

If ever there was a "rich man's war and a poor man's fight", it was
the Civil War.

>My own ancestors, obscure farming folk, must have been strong supporters
>of the CSA. There are rebel privates on every known line of my family
>tree; there are two directs, and many collaterals. Two of them were
>sent home to recover from wounds, and went back to Virginia after
>recovery.

I know how that is. Mine is about the same way. One of my
great-grandfathers was a prisoner of war in a Yankee prison somewhere
in Illinois, I think. He came from a modest farm family in Al.
He was my grandfather's father. Grandpa was my -- and most of my
cousins -- hero. An obscure farmer -- but a great man. So by
extension -- his father was always a favorite.

I suppose what really got me interested was when I did some genealogy
research a few years back. I discovered a G-G-G-grandfather that I
was unaware of. He was a fairly wealthy farmer in South GA with 30
slaves when the war started. He had one son. (I'm descended from
his daughter). That son was enrolled at (THE) West Point when the
war broke out. So I would have assumed the boy would have taken a
command and rushed off to join Master Robert Lee. Wrong ! The
family plantation was near Ft Gaines Ga. There was an old fort in
the river there. Great-great uncle took command of that fort.
And he stayed there for the duration of the war. Thanks to his
vigilance, Ft. Gaines never saw a Yankee.

His brother-in-law (my g-g-grandpa) was almost as bad. He served in
the GA Guard for four years. These were my rich ancestors. (Who
ended up broke in 1865) While several other of my poorer ancestors
were killed or crippled. One died at Vicksburg. One in Tennessee.

I honestly don't know what my problem is, Hugh. I was raised a
conservative (later) Republican. But in my old age -- maybe I've
become one of those darn class conscious socialists :-)

>The thought that they probably favored retaining slavery, or at least
>favored local control over its future, doesn't trouble me. We are not
>endowed at birth with a guarantee that our ancestors will never have
>violated standards held today.

BTW, the grandpa I thought so much of. For some reason I once
asked him what caused the Civil War. (I was in high school). All
I recall him saying was "tariffs". He would never have
intentionally lied to me. So I assume that is the tale he had
heard all his life (from 1883). I never thought much about it until
I recently started reading on the subject.

Oh, well. I enjoy hearing what people with intelligence think of
this subject. Which is why I keep up with this group. Which
reminds me -- I've been wanting to ask your opinion of the forum
called http://civilwartalk.com/. I've been reading it, but I'm
not sure I can participate. It is very busy. Any thoughts ?

[Hugh Lawson]

Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:


> If ever there was a "rich man's war and a poor man's fight", it was
> the Civil War.

This is a point on which you and I disagree. IMO the poor whites had a
stake in slavery, just as they had a stake later in
disfranchisement. They knew the slaves when freed would seek equality,
something abhorrent nearly all American whites. These are facts IMO,
facts that make me sad to think about, but still facts.

> I honestly don't know what my problem is, Hugh. I was raised a
> conservative (later) Republican. But in my old age -- maybe I've
> become one of those darn class conscious socialists :-)

Go for it. Start reading Nation and the New Republic, Talking Points
Memo, and Daily Kos.

> All
> I recall him saying was "tariffs". He would never have
> intentionally lied to me.

He was wrong, but he may have believed it. People sincerely believe
things that are wrong--happens all the time.

> I've been wanting to ask your opinion of the forum
> called http://civilwartalk.com/. I've been reading it, but I'm
> not sure I can participate. It is very busy. Any thoughts ?

This is the only civil war forum I participate in. So I have no opinions
on that. On the whole, I think the Civil War should be less studied,
less memorialized. I can't think of anybody who became smarter, more
virtuous, or more beautiful by studying the Civil War. I only do it,
becaue I gave up cigarettes, and a civilized man needs some vices.

;-)



hl

[copperhead]

There were definitely people here in Arkansas who saw occupation of the state by Federal troops as an, "invasion," and an attempt by the government to force their will on the people of the state in defiance of those people's rights as voters in the state.

Slavery was an evil institution, and of that there is no doubt, but at the time it was legal in certain states by the will of the majority of the voters in those states. I think today that the same sort of case could be made about abortion. Some people think it's evil beyond belief, and others think it's a matter of choice. What if it were legal or illegal at a state level and you lived in a state that said it was legal, but the federal government declared it illegal and sent troops in to enforce that law? And what if those troops, in order to survive, started procuring your crops and animals to sustain themselves on? Would you stand by and say, "Well, that's the law". I have to doubt it.

People see the Civil War as this great moral battle between the "good" North and the "evil" South, and that's a load of crap. When Abraham Lincoln went to Washington to serve in Congress prior to the war, the city was crawling with slaves. They just did away with the institution sooner than the rest of the South. It didn't make most Blacks voters, or give them any sort of equal footing. They were just no longer the legal property of someone eles.

[Wiregrass Willie]

On Fri, 3 May 2013 07:27:29 -0700 (PDT), copperhead
<copper...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>There were definitely people here in Arkansas who saw occupation
>of the state by Federal troops as an, "invasion," and an attempt by
>the government to force their will on the people of the state in
>defiance of those people's rights as voters in the state.

Did Arkansas secede before or after the occupation ?

>Slavery was an evil institution, and of that there is no doubt,
>but at the time it was legal in certain states by the will of the
>majority of the voters in those states.

I cannot recall a single Southern state where the people were ever
allowed to vote on the issue of slavery. The Planters in South
Carolina would not even permit the commoners to vote for president.
Much less anything as important to their bank account as slavery.

[Wiregrass Willie]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 22:13:09 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>> If ever there was a "rich man's war and a poor man's fight", it was
>> the Civil War.
>
>This is a point on which you and I disagree. IMO the poor whites had a
>stake in slavery, just as they had a stake later in
>disfranchisement. They knew the slaves when freed would seek equality,
>something abhorrent nearly all American whites. These are facts IMO,
>facts that make me sad to think about, but still facts.

It took me a while to understand this. If they had just come out
and said the Plain Folk hated blacks -- it would have spared me a lot
of reading. I knew that, and it's true. It was their story that
the poor white folks loved slavery -- that got me side tracked.

They did not love slavery. It's a shame there were no socialist
(Marxist) leaders in the South in the early 1700s. They would have
organized a mob and burned old masters house down and hanged him.
THAT might have had a cooling effect of slavery.

>> I honestly don't know what my problem is, Hugh. I was raised a
>> conservative (later) Republican. But in my old age -- maybe I've
>> become one of those darn class conscious socialists :-)
>
>Go for it. Start reading Nation and the New Republic, Talking Points
>Memo, and Daily Kos.

Will do.

Reading about what our ancestors had to endure under British feudalism
is what got me started to think about the subject. For some reason I
had been under the impression Englishmen had been "free" since Roman
days. I missed it by 1,000 years :-)

>> All
>> I recall him saying was "tariffs". He would never have
>> intentionally lied to me.
>
>He was wrong, but he may have believed it. People sincerely believe
>things that are wrong--happens all the time.

If you recall, Governor Brown's open letter after the Lincoln
election warned the people of GA that if slavery was abolished -- and
slave owners were compensated -- it would, cost the poor man 30 times
what he usually pays in taxes. For ten years. Just to reimburse
the slave owners. I could understand that scaring some folks.

"....- The poor man, who now pays one dollar, would then have to pay
$30.00...."

If my grandfather's family considered taxes to be "tariffs", maybe
that is where they got the idea.

>> I've been wanting to ask your opinion of the forum
>> called http://civilwartalk.com/. I've been reading it, but I'm
>> not sure I can participate. It is very busy. Any thoughts ?
>
>This is the only civil war forum I participate in. So I have no opinions
>on that. On the whole, I think the Civil War should be less studied,
>less memorialized.

I agree. It's importance in todays culture is vastly over rated.

> I can't think of anybody who became smarter, more
>virtuous, or more beautiful by studying the Civil War.

I'm beginning to agree.

>I only do it,
>becaue I gave up cigarettes, and a civilized man needs some vices.
>
>;-)

I know the feeling. I quit smoking 25 years ago. I even
discontinued an evening bourbon a few years ago.

[Hugh Lawson]

copperhead <copper...@hotmail.com> writes:

> People see the Civil War as this great moral battle between the "good"
> North and the "evil" South, and that's a load of crap.

Maybe it makes them feel good to see it this way.

hl

[copperhead]

On Friday, May 3, 2013 10:39:18 AM UTC-5, Wiregrass Willie wrote:

>
>
> Did Arkansas secede before or after the occupation ?
>
>

They seceded in May or 1861 and Little Rock didn't actually fall to Union forces until 1863. There was a lot of conflict internally about secession. Lots of loyalists all over the state. Some very adamant Confederates though.
There were rumors abounding as early as 1860 that Federal troops were on the way, and being little more than a wilderness back in the day, accurate news was not readily available. It was as easy to get people riled up with a rumor as it was with fect.

>
> I cannot recall a single Southern state where the people were ever
>
> allowed to vote on the issue of slavery. The Planters in South
>
> Carolina would not even permit the commoners to vote for president.
>
> Much less anything as important to their bank account as slavery.

Yeah, I was thinking more along the lines of them NOT voting slavery out, but you are correct about that.

[Wiregrass Willie]

Thanks for your comments. CH.

I don't like to sound argumentative, but I suppose I sometimes come
across that way. As I've told Hugh Lawson, my interests are not
the Civil War itself. But the culture and attitudes of the common
people in the South leading up to that conflict. As a seventh
generation Georgian, I wonder what formed the opinions of my
antebellum ancestors

So why did I join a CW group ? Because the folks here are the only
people who know about the period of history I'm interested in :-)

[Hugh Lawson]

Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:


[ snip ]

I shall be fair inactive for a while, due to some health issues.

hl

[Wiregrass Willie]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 20:56:03 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Good luck, Hugh. I look forward to seeing you return.

[slotrot]

Take care, Hugh. Hope it's not too serious an issue for you.

[Hugh Lawson]

I'm now recovering, after two required surgical procedures, I haven't
been in a bookstore or library, and haven't driven a car, since Palm
Sunday. I hope to be walking a mile each day by early in August. I've
also missed church services and choir practice. ;-)

I did finish Cicero's de Senectute (on Old Age) and de Amicitia (on
Friendship), and am working now on de Divinatione (on Divination,
i.e. fortuntelling).

I've tried to read Tracy Thompson's "The New Mind of the South",
mentioned here by Wiregrass Willie, but I find it annoying and have to
work on it in little bites. My feeling is that Thompson should just
give up being a southerner. Many ex-southerners living in the North
(i.e. non-South) have done that, and found comfort. A good example
familiar to students of the acw was David Potter, but I know of others.

There has been from the 19th century onward a huge migration of *white*
southerners to the North, and I would guess that most of these did what
the Okies did in California: assimilated. They have British surnames, and
mostly Protestant backgrounds; they can pick up the local accent and the
thing is done.

HL

[Wiregrass Willie]

On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 14:29:47 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Hello, Hugh. It is so good to see you back. I've recently been
involved in things other than the Old South, myself.

Re, your last paragraph. I would hope that when people relocate
to a new place -- they try to assimilate. If I moved to France --
I'd want to become a Frenchman. I would not want to be the only
redneck in the village :-)

I cannot understand the people who come to this country -- and then
want to keep their old culture.

[Hugh Lawson]

I'm too old to become a Frenchman, even though I believe I could enjoy
living in France as a resident alien--but I'd try to understand
spoken French better.

Resident aliens go all the way back; there are even references to them
in the Old Testament, to the effect that the government should not
mistreat them.

Let me put on my teacher hat for a moment. Generally in the US
immigrants assimilate most readily when they migrate as individuals, for
example the French Huguenots. But when they migrate in large numbers
and form communities in specific locales, they preserve more of their
traits for a while. B. Franklin worried about the Pennsylvania Germans.

There were still I have read some Dutch speakers in New York state in
the early 19th century.

I don't worry about this so much. As long as the US is economically
successful for most people there will be tremendous rewards for fitting
in.

[Wiregrass Willie]

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 22:03:23 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> I cannot understand the people who come to this country -- and then
>> want to keep their old culture.
>
>I'm too old to become a Frenchman, even though I believe I could enjoy
>living in France as a resident alien--but I'd try to understand
>spoken French better.
>
>Resident aliens go all the way back; there are even references to them
>in the Old Testament, to the effect that the government should not
>mistreat them.
>
>Let me put on my teacher hat for a moment. Generally in the US
>immigrants assimilate most readily when they migrate as individuals, for
>example the French Huguenots. But when they migrate in large numbers
>and form communities in specific locales, they preserve more of their
>traits for a while. B. Franklin worried about the Pennsylvania Germans.
>
>There were still I have read some Dutch speakers in New York state in
>the early 19th century.
>
>I don't worry about this so much. As long as the US is economically
>successful for most people there will be tremendous rewards for fitting
>in.

BTW, Hugh. I ran across something that makes me think my idea about
the origins of Southerners tendency to "defer to rich people" may
have been right all along. You recall I attributed it to the fact
the Plain Folk of the South were mostly Scotch-Irish. And that the
Celtic tribes tended to be deferential to their tribal leaders -- who
tended to be wealthy.

I was reading a book the other day called "Ancient Mysteries" by
Rupert Furneaux (1977). In one chapter the author was discussing
Stone Henge.

The author was talking about the people who built Stone Henge about
2500 BC. Then he referred to the people who came after them about
500 years later.

Quote ----

"...They were succeeded by or supplanted by the Iron Age Beaker
People, so called from their characteristic pottery. ....... The
contents of their graves show deference for wealth and status, and
suggest that they were ruled by a warrior aristocracy...."

"Deference for wealth ? Aristocrats ?" So there are our
ancient Southern ancestors, Hugh. The Beaker People of
England. Circa 2000 BC :-)

[Hugh Lawson]

Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:


>
> BTW, Hugh. I ran across something that makes me think my idea about
> the origins of Southerners tendency to "defer to rich people" may
> have been right all along. You recall I attributed it to the fact
> the Plain Folk of the South were mostly Scotch-Irish. And that the
> Celtic tribes tended to be deferential to their tribal leaders -- who
> tended to be wealthy.

Willie, you like this idea more than I do, but I guess I can put up with
your expression of it. ;-)

hl

[Wiregrass Willie]

On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:32:38 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I have appreciated your patience over the years. A few years ago,
I noticed that you -- and several other posters to this group -- had
very good knowledge of the antebellum South. Problem was ....
the primary interest here was the Civil War. Of which I had little
--- or no interest. (I know who won)

The social, cultural and economic issues of the decade of the 1850s is
what caused the calamity visited on the South in the following sixteen
years.

A few years ago I asked myself -- "who influenced my life most" ?
That would be my mothers parents. They were born in Alabama in
the 1880s. I did look up to them when I was growing up. Their
parents had lived during -- and participated in the Civil War. So I
wanted to know what it was that influenced the parents of my
grandparents. Hence my search for the daily life of the Plain Folk
in the 1850s South.

Imagine how smart we would be if we could have thought to ask our
elders some questions when we were young :-)

As I said, Hugh. I have apprecaited your patience and the many
insights you have given me. I'll keep watching this group in case a
subject of mutual interest comes up.

[Hugh Lawson]

Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:


> As I said, Hugh. I have apprecaited your patience

HL: Life has given me much to be patient about, especially the frequent
failures of my efforts to persuade others. ;-)

I'm reading Caroline Janney's book _Rememering the Civil War_(1913)

You can see a brief synopsis on Amazon.

http://tinyurl.com/plmjeob

hl

[Hugh Lawson]

Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com> writes:

> Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>> As I said, Hugh. I have apprecaited your patience
>
> HL: Life has given me much to be patient about, especially the frequent
> failures of my efforts to persuade others. ;-)
>
> I'm reading Caroline Janney's book _Rememering the Civil War_(1913)

Oops! that should be 2013! I never was good at dates. LOL

hl