A Defense of the Confederacy
Mike Griffith
1. By the latter part of 1864 the Confederate States of
America (CSA) was clearly moving toward ending slavery.
In fact, there are indications that the Confederacy would
have ended slavery even if it survived the war, as
pro-Northern historians like J. G. Randall and David
Donald have acknowledged (see Randall and Donald, THE
CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION, D.C. Heath and Company,
1969, p. 522).
Critics will reply that the CSA only began to move
toward emancipation as an act of desperation in the face
of eminent defeat. If so, this only proves that
Southern independence was more important to the South
than the continuation of slavery, that when push came to
shove the South was willing to abandon slavery in order
to be independent.
However, this being duly noted, it should be pointed out
that it was by no means clear in late 1864 that Southern
defeat was eminent. One of the arguments of some of the
Southern leaders who opposed using slaves as soldiers in
exchange for emancipation was that the South's situation
did not yet require such a measure. Historians Herman
Hattaway and Richard Beringer note that even in February
1865 "a considerable degree of determination and high
morale did still persist" in the South (JEFFERSON DAVIS,
CONFEDERATE PRESIDENT, University Press of Kansas, 2002,
p. 357). George Rable noted that even after the fall of
Richmond "a belief that somehow independence could yet
be won persisted" (in Ibid.). Militarily speaking, the
situation was far from hopeless in late 1864, and it was
not hopeless even when the Army of Northern Virginia
surrendered in April 1865.
One could quite correctly say that the only reason the
Union started using black troops was that Union
casualties were mounting and that Northern resistance to
the draft was increasing. One could quite correctly
point out that Lincoln strongly resisted using black
troops until pressured to do so by Radical Republicans,
and that even then he didn't want to give them equal pay
(Congress had to force him to do this as well).
Indeed, in his book FORCED INTO GLORY, African-American
author Lerone Bennett presents considerable evidence
that Lincoln only issued the Emancipation Proclamation
because of intense pressure from the Radicals and
in order to blunt the effect of a more drastic confiscation
measure that Congress had already passed. Bennett
also shows that Lincoln worked to minimize the
effects of the proclamation almost as soon as he issued
it.
For that matter, in the American Revolution, the
Continental Army only began to use black troops as an
act of desperation because of a growing manpower
shortage and because the British had offered freedom to
American slaves who would fight in the British army.
George Washington initially barred blacks from enlisting
in the army. He only relented because he was desperate
for more soldiers, because white enlistment was falling
dramatically, and because thousands of American slaves
were flocking to British lines. Even then, some New
England militias continued to bar blacks from
enlistment. It took the Continental Congress two to
three years to formally agree to black enlistment.
These facts are discussed in detail in James and Lois
Horton's book IN HOPE OF LIBERTY: CULTURE,
COMMUNITY AND PROTEST AMONG NORTHERN
FREE BLACKS, 1700-1860 (Oxford University Press,
1997), pp. 55-71, and in Henry Wiencick's book AN
IMPERFECT GOD: GEORGE WASHINGTON, HIS
SLAVES, AND THE CREATION OF AMERICA (Farrar,
Straus, and Giroux, 2003), pp. 196-227.
I might just add that after the Revolutionary War,
American negotiators insisted on a provision in the
peace treaty that formally ended the war, the Treaty of
Paris, that required the British to return any American
slaves who had fled to British lines during the war.
One of those negotiators was none other than John Adams,
and he warmly endorsed the provision (Wiencick, AN
IMPERFECT GOD, p. 254). To their credit, the British
later violated this provision and evacuated thousands of
slaves with them when they left America.
I might also add that when it began to appear that the
British weren't going to return the runaway American
slaves, George Washington demanded a meeting with the
British general who was in charge of enforcing the
Treaty of Paris during the evacuation from New York,
General Guy Carleton. Washington tried to persuade
Carleton to honor the treaty provision on the return of
runaway slaves. To his everlasting credit, Carleton
stood his ground and refused to hand over the slaves.
Carleton said the Americans could apply for compensation
for the slaves, but that he would not return the slaves
themselves. Carleton insisted the slaves were now free
and that it would bring dishonor on England to return
them after promising them safe refuge. Lord North, the
British prime minister, called Carleton's stand "an act
of justice." King George III himself voiced support for
Carleton's action "in the fullest and most ample
manner." One very rarely finds any mention of these
facts in American history books.
2. The CSA president himself, Jefferson Davis, came to
strongly support ending slavery. So did CSA Secretary
of State Judah Benjamin and leading CSA Congressman
Duncan Kenner (who was one of the largest slaveholders
in the South, incidentally).
3. The CSA's two highest ranking generals, Robert E. Lee
and Joseph E. Johnston, both disliked slavery and
supported emancipation in various forms. Lee called
slavery "a moral and political evil." Johnston called
it "a curse." (Johnston initially opposed using slaves
as soldiers only because he feared it would be
disruptive and ineffective, not because he had any
sympathy for slavery, and he eventually supported the
enlistment of slaves into the army in exchange for their
freedom after the war.)
4. The majority of Confederate generals did not own
slaves and did not come from slaveholding families.
5. Thousands of African Americans, Hispanics, and
Indians fought for the Confederacy. Many of the blacks
who served in the Confederate army did so because they
hoped that by so doing they would be granted freedom
after the war or because they were specifically promised
freedom if they would serve. The same was true of most
of the blacks who fought for the Continental Army during
the Revolutionary War.
6. The Confederate Constitution allowed for the
admission of free states to the Confederacy, banned the
overseas slave trade, and permitted Confederate states
to abolish slavery within their borders if they chose to
do so.
7. The Confederate Constitution protected every right
for its citizens that the U.S. Constitution protected
for U.S. citizens, if not more. Even during the war, the
Confederacy held free elections and enjoyed a vibrant
free press (some of which on many occasions printed
scathing attacks on the Confederate president and on
certain CSA policies).
8. The Confederate Constitution contained added
protections against runaway government spending,
excessive taxation, and harmful protective tariffs.
9. Unlike the federal government, the Confederate
government did not imprison well over 10,000 of its own
citizens without due process in order to suppress
internal dissent, did not shut down two of its states'
legislatures because the citizens in those states had
elected anti-war majorities, did not shut down over 100
newspapers for expressing "unpatriotic views" (some
scholars put the number at over 300), did not jail
dozens of newspaper editors for expressing "unpatriotic
views," and did not impose military rule on areas that
were far removed from combat in order to suppress
internal dissent. The federal government did all these
things and more.
The Confederacy showed an amazing degree of respect for
civil rights and dissent during the war. None other
than leading Civil War scholar and pro-Lincoln
biographer David Donald has observed that the
Confederacy was "astonishingly libertarian" and that
"disloyal elements throughout the South had almost
unrestrained freedom" (Donald, "Died of Democracy," in
Donald, editor, WHY THE NORTH WON THE CIVIL WAR, Collier
Books, 1962, reprint, pp. 84-90). Indeed, Donald says
that the real "weakness" of the Confederacy was that
"the Southern people insisted upon retaining their
democratic liberties in wartime" (Ibid.).
10. According to the 1860 census, only 31 percent of
Southern families owned slaves. Three-fourths of the
families that did own slaves, owned less than ten and
often worked side by side with them in the fields.
11. Even though it was being invaded and ravaged, the
Confederacy showed more respect for private property and
limited government than did the federal government.
Critics unfairly claim that the CSA became a highly
centralized, micromanaging state, contrary to the
doctrines of states' rights and limited government. For
one thing, this is hardly a fair argument to begin with,
since the Confederacy wouldn't have had to take any
centralizing measures if it hadn't been invaded and
ravaged. Furthermore, the federal government became
more centralized and engaged in more micromanaging than
did the Confederate government.
Moreover, the degree of CSA centralization has been
overstated by critics. For example, the Confederate
government did not establish strict wartime, emergency
control over the railroads, telegraph lines, and water
transportation until February 1865 (Hattaway and
Beringer, JEFFERSON DAVIS, CONFEDERATE
PRESIDENT, p. 355).
Critics point out that the Confederate government
resorted to impressment to support the war effort. But
so did the federal government. When Confederate
officials impressed goods, each impressing agent had to
show written authority and had to issue the owner of the
goods a certificate indicating the value of the goods
that were being impressed. In addition, when the
Georgia supreme court ruled that major sections of the
1863 Act to Regulate Impressments were invalid within
that state, the Confederate government respected the
decision. Marshall DeRosa, a professor of political
science, observes that the Confederate government's
response to the Georgia supreme court's ruling was
"conciliatory" and that there was no support in the
Confederate Congress for any legislation that would
force the state to comply with the entire impressment
act (THE CONFEDERATE CONSTITUTION OF 1861:
AN INQUIRY INTO AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM,
University of Missouri Press, 1991, pp. 117-119).
When judged fairly and objectively, it must be admitted
that the Confederacy was one of the most democratic
countries of its day, even not the most democratic
country. The Confederacy was more democratic than many
countries in our day.
Mike Griffith
Civil War website
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id163.htm
http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/griffitharticles2.htm
rdu...@pdq.net
Mike Griffith wrote:
> I'd like to point out some facts in defense of the Confederacy:
>
> 1. By the latter part of 1864 the Confederate States of
> America (CSA) was clearly moving toward ending slavery.
> In fact, there are indications that the Confederacy would
> have ended slavery even if it survived the war, as
> pro-Northern historians like J. G. Randall and David
> Donald have acknowledged (see Randall and Donald, THE
> CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION, D.C. Heath and Company,
> 1969, p. 522).
>
> Critics will reply that the CSA only began to move
> toward emancipation as an act of desperation in the face
> of eminent defeat. If so, this only proves that
> Southern independence was more important to the South
> than the continuation of slavery, that when push came to
> shove the South was willing to abandon slavery in order
> to be independent.
Insisting on independence was per se the root cause of the war.
Nothing was going to change that; freeing the slaves, whatever.
Southern Independence was seen as dagger aimed at American
Independence.
A subtle reading of American history reveals a tendency on our part
to do what has to be done when the time comes. After all, you have to
win in order to exert all those nice ideals.
There is a surviving copy of a speech G. Washington ordered to be
read before the troops before a major battle. It was full of honestly
felt patriotic sentiment. At the bottom was a short note reminding the
sergeant majors to shoot any soldier who tried to step out of the line.
Mike Griffith
Then the colonies' "insisting on independence" was the root cause of
the Revolutionary War.
<<< Nothing was going to change that, freeing the slaves, whatever.
>>>
True, which refutes the myth that the war was "fought over slavery."
The South was willing to end slavery and was clearly moving in that
direction by late 1864.
<<< Southern Independence was seen as dagger aimed at American
Independence. >>>
Yes, only because those who held this view rejected the core principles
of the American Revolution. How odd and how sadly ironic that men
calling themselves Americans would have seen the South's desire for
independence as "a dagger aimed at American Independence." The
founding fathers' central arguments in defense of American independence
were that the colonies had the natural right to be independent if they
so desired and that England should respect that right.
But most British leaders did not respect the colonies' natural right to
be independent. Some British statesmen did argue against imposing
British rule by violence, and even said that to do so would violate the
principles of the British constitution, but they were in the minority.
British coercionists used the same arguments against American
independence that Northern coercionists used against Southern
independence--that allowing the colonies to be independent would invite
foreign meddling and ultimately lead to disaster, that the desire for
independence was "treason," that the colonies' seeking to release
themselves from British control was "rebellion" and "insurrection,"
that the colonies' complaints hardly justified separation (and here the
British had some valid points), etc., etc.
Huddle...@comcast.net
was clearly moving toward ending slavery.
Have you ever read the Confederate Constitution? It made it all but
impossible for the Confederate national government to abolish slavery.
(See your number 11 - how can a weak national government abolish a
state protected institution like slavery?)
6. . The Confederate Constitution allowed for the admission of free
states to the Confederacy, banned the overseas slave trade, and
permitted Confederate states to abolish slavery within their borders if
they chose to do so
No, not really and no.
Article I, Sec. 9 (1) does prohibit the importation of foreign slaves
- although the Confederate Constitutional Convention did debate
reopening the international slave trade. It was voted down by the need
to convince the slave breeding states like Virginia that the CSA would
be a good thing.
BTW, re No. 2, the Confederate Congress did pass a law prohibiting the
importation of Africans, but Pres. Davis vetoed it.
And you will note that, in case any of the US slave states refused to
bail and join the CS, why then the importation of THEIR slaves was
expressly permitted.
No. 5, re the infamous Black Confederates is humorous. In Civil War
News a couple of months ago, Dr. Lowry offered to pay $50 for any
authentic BC whom it could be proved from documentary evidence to have
"fought" for the Confederacy. I seriously thought that surely some
of the BC supporters would serve up several - of the 7 or 800,000 men
who were in the PACS, there must have been at least a handful who were
African-Americans. To my amazement, no one came up with a single
example, let alone thousands!
As for No. 7, there was a limited Free Press, free to criticize as long
as the criticism was not about slavery. In the slave states, it was a
felony to print or even suggest that slavery was other than a positive
good. Yes there were elections in the CSA - but Jeff ran unopposed.
No. 8 is a matter of opinion but it is certain that the Confederacy was
bankrupt by 1865 and their currency valuless.
No 9?- 40% of the people who lived in the CSA were living in a police
state with no civil rights that a white man had to respect - indeed
any one of this 40% found away from home had to produce an internal
passport upon the demand of any white man and failure to do so would
lead to immediate jail. Your jail figures are way off. You need to read
Mark Neeley's two books, Southern Rights: Political Prisoners and the
Myth of Confederate Constitutionalism and Fate of Liberty: Abraham
Lincoln and Civil Liberties for the correct information on civil rights
in the two countries. Neither has much to brag about but the numbers of
people arrested by the Lincoln administration for civil rights
violations is minute and ditto for the number of newspaper men
arrested.
No. 10 - yes a minority of southern families owned slaves. But how
many modern American families own stock? The number finally reached 50%
in 2000 and has dropped since. Yet socialism has never been popular.
And 75% of the slaves were on large plantations.
More later! :>)
Take care,
Bob
Judy and Bob Huddleston
10643 Sperry Street
Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
303.451.6376 huddle...@comcast.net
Alan Meyer
Bob Huddleston.
See interspersed comments.
Alan
"Mike Griffith" <mikegri...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1131283391.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I'd like to point out some facts in defense of the Confederacy:
>
> 1. By the latter part of 1864 the Confederate States of
> America (CSA) was clearly moving toward ending slavery.
> In fact, there are indications that the Confederacy would
> have ended slavery even if it survived the war, as
> pro-Northern historians like J. G. Randall and David
> Donald have acknowledged (see Randall and Donald, THE
> CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION, D.C. Heath and Company,
> 1969, p. 522).
Only if one ignores all of the overwhelming preponderance of
evidence to the contrary, and focuses exclusively on the handful
of sources supporting this view is it possible to come to this
conclusion.
If there are "indications" that the Confederacy would have ended
slavery, there is hard evidence that they would not.
It is true that much of the pro-southern polemics of that day and
afterward emphasized other points than preservation of slavery.
They did this for the exact same reason that an employer paying
minimum wage today will argue against an increase in the minimum
wage so that "people will not lose their jobs", or that the
pharmaceutical industry will argue for 1000% profits so that
"beneficial research can continue", etc. Even in those days,
slavery was difficult to defend and those who were committed to
it preferred to find some other moral high ground for their arguments
if they could do it. Hypocritical moralisms abound in the southern
literature (and I will agree - in the northern literature too.) But we
would be fooling ourselves if we took it seriously.
But we should have no doubt that the purpose of the secession
was to preserve slavery, and that if the slave owners and their
many political and journalistic dependents did not fear the growing
capacity of the northerners to end slavery, they would not have
seceeded from the Union.
The United States was coming to a crisis in the mid-19th
century. The only way that the slave holders could defend
slavery was to try to extend it (hence "bloody Kansas", the
growing violence along the frontier, the pursuit of blacks into
the north, the Dred Scott decision and its aftermath, and so on)
The only way that the free states could defend their anti-slavery
position was to become more aggressive too. The Missouri
Compromise and the other attempts to solve the crisis could
only patch it over.
Slavery was the source of this instability. Slavery was the
engine driving the country into crisis. I believe that there is
no doubt but that slavery was far and away the central cause
of the crisis and it's only possible resolution - Civil War.
> Critics will reply that the CSA only began to move
> toward emancipation as an act of desperation in the face
> of eminent defeat. If so, this only proves that
> Southern independence was more important to the South
> than the continuation of slavery, that when push came to
> shove the South was willing to abandon slavery in order
> to be independent.
I completely disagree that the CSA moved towards emancipation.
Offering freedom to slaves who fight is not the same thing as
general emancipation or the abolition of slavery. It was
desparation pure and simple - notwithstanding your claim that
it was not.
> However, this being duly noted, it should be pointed out
> that it was by no means clear in late 1864 that Southern
> defeat was eminent.
I think it was absolutely clear in late 1864 that Southern defeat
was imminent. The armies were starving. Troops were melting
away by desertion. Arms and ammunition were in desperately
short supply. The country had been cut in half by Union victories
in 1863 along the Mississippi, and was being cut again by
Sherman's march through Georgia. Lee was pinned down in
Petersburg with no hope of doing anything other than hanging
on - and succeeding at that only because of the desperate courage
and remarkable fortitude of his army. The coast was sealed.
The railroads were in shambles. Losses in the army could no
longer be replaced by volunteers or draftees.
The only hope left was that Lincoln would lose the 1864 election.
When that hope failed, anyone could see, on either side, that
the cause was lost.
> One of the arguments of some of the
> Southern leaders who opposed using slaves as soldiers in
> exchange for emancipation was that the South's situation
> did not yet require such a measure. Historians Herman
> Hattaway and Richard Beringer note that even in February
> 1865 "a considerable degree of determination and high
> morale did still persist" in the South (JEFFERSON DAVIS,
> CONFEDERATE PRESIDENT, University Press of Kansas, 2002,
> p. 357). George Rable noted that even after the fall of
> Richmond "a belief that somehow independence could yet
> be won persisted" (in Ibid.). Militarily speaking, the
> situation was far from hopeless in late 1864, and it was
> not hopeless even when the Army of Northern Virginia
> surrendered in April 1865.
You're dreaming Mike. The situation was completely hopeless
long before the Army of Northern Virginia surrendered.
After the surrender, continuing to fight would have been sheer
suicide.
> One could quite correctly say that the only reason the
> Union started using black troops was that Union
> casualties were mounting and that Northern resistance to
> the draft was increasing. One could quite correctly
> point out that Lincoln strongly resisted using black
> troops until pressured to do so by Radical Republicans,
> and that even then he didn't want to give them equal pay
> (Congress had to force him to do this as well).
I think you are right to say this was _a_ reason, but surely
it was not the _only_ reason.
...
Mike, you are an enigma to me. You read some document
somewhere that says something that supports your point of
view, and then you imagine somehow that you're reading the
real truth and that the overwhelming evidence to the contrary
is some sort of conspiracy to hide the truth.
Think about what you are saying! The leadership of the south
was dominated by the slave holding class. There isn't any doubt
of that. It is true that they had employees, contractors, and
hangers on who depended upon them for their livelihood and
supported their point of view without themselves being slave
holders. But it was the "slavocracy" as the abolitionists liked
to put it, that ran the south.
Furthermore, racism was one of the principal political weapons
that the slave holders used both to keep the blacks in their
place, and to keep the support of the poor whites in the south.
Racism was as important to the slave holders as anti-semitism
was to the Nazis, and for exactly the same reason. It was what
allowed them to mobilize millions of people whose real interest
had nothing to do with oppressing blacks (or oppressing Jews
in Germany) and get them behind the class that otherwise
treated them with contempt as "white trash."
Slavery was in the DNA of the southern economy, and racism
was in the DNA of southern politics and remained so for
another hundred years.
Crushing defeat in a brutal, protracted, total war was not enough
to eliminate racism. It took another hundred years of economic
and political change, and a great national civil rights movement
operating over many, many years, to re-educate many southerners.
Whitewashing all of that is truly nothing but sheer fantasy.
The glorious, democratic, forward looking Confederacy existed
only in the minds of its latter day supporters. The real
Confederacy was nothing like that.
Alan
j...@ams.org
Mike Griffith wrote:
> I'd like to point out some facts in defense of the Confederacy:
>
> 1. By the latter part of 1864 the Confederate States of
> America (CSA) was clearly moving toward ending slavery.
I don't see that this is true at all. The move to enlist black
soldiers in exchange for emancipation was still considered
controversial. What evidence do you have that the CSA as
a whole was moving in this direction? There's a Charleston
Mercury editorial from this time frame which deplores Virginia's
enthusiasm for emancipation. I'd say that editorial undercuts
your statement severely.
> 3. The CSA's two highest ranking generals, Robert E. Lee
> and Joseph E. Johnston, both disliked slavery and
> supported emancipation in various forms. Lee called
> slavery "a moral and political evil."
Lee also called it the best way to order relations between blacks
and whites (OWTTE). See his letter to Andrew Hunter.
> 4. The majority of Confederate generals did not own
> slaves and did not come from slaveholding families.
Can you verify this? Have you gone through all of Warner's
Generals in Gray? Certainly some CS generals did not own
slaves (i.e., the Northerners like Bushrod Johnson, John Pemberton,
and Samuel Cooper) but many others --- RE Lee, his two sons,
his nephew, NB Forrest --- did.
JFE
yaakov_...@hotmail.com
Mike Griffith wrote:
> I'd like to point out some facts in defense of the Confederacy:
>
> 1. By the latter part of 1864 the Confederate States of
> America (CSA) was clearly moving toward ending slavery.
> In fact, there are indications that the Confederacy would
> have ended slavery even if it survived the war, as
> pro-Northern historians like J. G. Randall and David
> Donald have acknowledged (see Randall and Donald, THE
> CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION, D.C. Heath and Company,
> 1969, p. 522).
>
that on the level of the average citizen, in both the free
and slave states, slavery was the issue that inflamed
public opinion, on both sides. The John Brown raid
made it seem that abolitionists wanted a slave uprising
that would lead to southern whites "being murdered in
their beds". According to one of the historians on
Ken Burn's "Civil War" TV series, the John Brown
raid mobilized the southerners to organize an
efficient militia system that didn't exist prior to that
incident. Similarly, the publication of "Uncle Tom's
Cabin" aroused anti-slavery opinion in the free
states. There is no question that slavery was an
existential issue, even if Lincoln and the Confederate
leaders at first claimed other issues were driving
the conflict in its first stages.
Marcaurelius
== toward emancipation as an act of desperation in the face
== of eminent defeat.
Well, isnt that the case?
Why else was the Confederacy formed?
scribe7716
> I'd like to point out some facts in defense of the Confederacy:
Where to start, where to start?
> Critics will reply that the CSA only began to move
> toward emancipation as an act of desperation in the face
> of eminent defeat.
Critics such as Robert E. Lee who in his January 1865 somewhat tepid
endorsement of enlisting slave soldiers, "We must decide whether
slavery shall be extinguished by our enemies and the slave be used
against us, or use them ourselves at the risk of the effects which may
be produced upom our social institutions."
Critics such as the _Jackson, Miss., Mississippian_, which
editorialized, "We are forced by the necessity of our condition to take
a step [using slave soldiers] which is revolting to every sentiment of
pride, and to every principle that governened our institutions before
the war."
Or maybe critics such as Jefferson Davis while pushing for the slave
soldier legislation in February 1865 allowed as how "We are reduced to
choosing whether the negroes shall fight for or againt us."
> If so, this only proves that
> Southern independence was more important to the South
> than the continuation of slavery, that when push came to
> shove the South was willing to abandon slavery in order
> to be independent.
No, it proves that much of the slave south, like Lee, saw that Union
victory would bring an unconditional end to slavery.
>
> However, this being duly noted, it should be pointed out
> that it was by no means clear in late 1864 that Southern
> defeat was eminent.
Balderdash. By the time the CSA got around to seriously considering
enlisting slave soldiers Grant had cut the south in half at Vickburg,
Sherman had halved it once again with his march to the sea. Grant had
Lee in a firm grip at Petersburg, and Sherman was moving north to link
with the AotP. By the time the CSA seriously considered using slaves
as cannon fodder the Confederacy only consisted of the 100 plus miles
between Grant and Sherman.
One of the arguments of some of the
> Southern leaders who opposed using slaves as soldiers in
> exchange for emancipation was that the South's situation
> did not yet require such a measure.
But they had other arguments.
Howell Cobb of Georgia: "The day you make soldiers of them [slaves] is
the
beginning of the end of the revolution. If slaves will make good
soldiers our
whole theory of slavery is wrong."
Senator R.M.T. Hunter of Virginia : "If we are right in passing this
measure [the proposed legislation to enlist slaves into the CSA
armies], we were
wrong in denying the old government the right to interfere with the
institution
of slavery and to emancipate slaves.... Why did we secede if not to
protect our property?"
Brig. Gen. Clement H. Stevens: "Our justification is the inferiority of
the negro...." Give that up and "I take no more interest in the
fight."
Senator William Graham of North Carolina said enlisting slaves as
soldiers would be "inexpedient and dangerous," not to mention being a
violation of the Dred Scott decision.
Congressman Henry C. Chambers of Mississippi: "Even victory itself
would be robbed of its glory if shared with slaves."
One-time CSA Secretary of State Robert Toombs of Georgia: "In my
opinion the worst calamity that could befall us would be to gain our
independence by the valor of our slaves."
>Militarily speaking, the
> situation was far from hopeless in late 1864, and it was
> not hopeless even when the Army of Northern Virginia
> surrendered in April 1865.
Hopeless enough that Lee's surrender was quickly followed by the
surrenders of Joe Johnston, Dick Taylor, Bedford Forrest, and Kirby
Smith.
>
> 3. The CSA's two highest ranking generals, Robert E. Lee
> and Joseph E. Johnston, both disliked slavery and
> supported emancipation in various forms.
Lee's dislike was not enough to prevent him from owning slaves for much
of his life and profiting from the labor of slaves for even more of his
life.
> Lee called
> slavery "a moral and political evil."
He also said that blacks were better off as slaves in the south than
they would be as free men in Africa, and that he was willing to wait
2,000 years or so until the slaves had been through enough of "the
painful disciplie they are undergoing [that] is necessary for their
instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better
things."
> ... Many of the blacks
> who served in the Confederate army...
"Many" ain't many at all if you mean blacks who served as combat
soldiers as opposed to black cooks and musicians brought into CSA
armies, and the slaves used as slaves digging entrenchments. And
"many" ain't hardly any if you mean blacks who served voluntarily.
> .... hoped that by so doing they would be granted freedom
> after the war or because they were specifically promised
> freedom if they would serve.
Hope was about all they had when the CSA Congress finally got around to
passing the slave enlistment bill. It provided that serice in the army
would mean no change in the slave's stautus except with consent of both
the slave owner and the state in which he resided. And there were
those in the slavee south who agreed with Brig. Gen. Francis Shoup that
slaves could be and should be enlisted to fight without any thought to
emancipation. "It is not true that to make good soldiers of these
people, we must either give or promise them freedom," Shoup said. "As
well might one might promise to free one's cook... with the expectation
of thereby securing good dinners."
Dave Smith
Mike Griffith wrote:
> I'd like to point out some facts in defense of the Confederacy:
>
> 1. By the latter part of 1864 the Confederate States of
> America (CSA) was clearly moving toward ending slavery.
> In fact, there are indications that the Confederacy would
> have ended slavery even if it survived the war, as
> pro-Northern historians like J. G. Randall and David
> Donald have acknowledged (see Randall and Donald, THE
> CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION, D.C. Heath and Company,
> 1969, p. 522).
>
> Critics will reply that the CSA only began to move
> toward emancipation as an act of desperation in the face
> of eminent defeat. If so, this only proves that
> Southern independence was more important to the South
> than the continuation of slavery, that when push came to
> shove the South was willing to abandon slavery in order
> to be independent.
snips aft
The desperate movement (such as it was, and vehemently opposed by
president Jefferson Davis) was not a movement out of humanitarian
motives, but one of military motives. The general thinking (as Pat
Cleburne explained) was that a free slave could have a gun placed in
his hands to fire bullets at Yankee soldiers.
I'd be interested whether you have any evidence of Southerners who
suggested in 1864 that they had been wrong all of those years in
keeping blacks enslaved, and that the mistake had to be rectified
pronto.
I suspect there's not much, if any.
Dave
Dave Smith
Crestview Hills, KY
Mike Griffith
> 1. By the latter part of 1864 the Confederate States of America (CSA)
> was clearly moving toward ending slavery.
>
> Have you ever read the Confederate Constitution? It made it all but
> impossible for the Confederate national government to abolish slavery.
> (See your number 11 - how can a weak national government abolish a
> state protected institution like slavery?)
But the CSA Constitution did allow the individual states to end slavery
if they chose to do so. The only qualification on this was that they
had to allow the right of sojourn for slaveholders traveling through
the state.
> 6. . The Confederate Constitution allowed for the admission of free
> states to the Confederacy, banned the overseas slave trade, and
> permitted Confederate states to abolish slavery within their borders if
> they chose to do so
>
> No, not really and no.
Yes, and several scholars have pointed this out, including Robert
Divine, T. H. Bren, George Fredrickson, R. Hal Williams, Forrest
McDonald, and Marshall DeRosa.
> Article I, Sec. 9 (1) does prohibit the importation of foreign slaves
> - although the Confederate Constitutional Convention did debate
> reopening the international slave trade. It was voted down by the need
> to convince the slave breeding states like Virginia that the CSA would
> be a good thing.
I disagree.
> BTW, re No. 2, the Confederate Congress did pass a law prohibiting the
> importation of Africans, but Pres. Davis vetoed it.
No, they didn't. They passed a law that said the opposite, and Davis
vetoed it, citing the CSA Constitution.
> No. 5, re the infamous Black Confederates is humorous. . . . [SNIP]
You might take a look at my section on black Confederates in "The
Southern Side of the Civil War" at:
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/southernside.htm
> As for No. 7, there was a limited Free Press, free to criticize as long
> as the criticism was not about slavery.
"Limited" free press? No, the South had a "vibrant free press," as
even Ken Burns admits in his famous PBS documentary "The Civil War."
One of the scholars whom Burns interviews acknowledges that the South
had "a vibrant free press."
The CSA, unlike the federal government under GOP control, did not shut
down hundreds of newspapers.
> In the slave states, it was a
> felony to print or even suggest that slavery was other than a positive
> good.
I know it's a common myth that no one in the South dared publicly
question slavery, but you might take a look at Stanley Harrold's book
THE ABOLITIONISTS AND THE SOUTH, 1831-1861 (University Press of
Kentucky, 1995).
> Yes there were elections in the CSA - but Jeff ran unopposed.
But many other candidates did not run unopposed. And Davis ran
unopposed because he was still very popular and because no one chose to
run against him. If a candidate had wanted to run against Davis, he
could have done so.
> No. 8 is a matter of opinion but it is certain that the Confederacy was
> bankrupt by 1865 and their currency valuless.
Well, yeah, after four years of being invaded and brutalized and
blockaded. The Union was in pretty bad financial shape as well.
> No 9?- 40% of the people who lived in the CSA were living in a police
> state with no civil rights that a white man had to respect. . . . [SNIP]
And hundreds of thousands of slaves were held in the U.S. during the
war. Nearly 10 percent of NORTHERN families owned slaves during the
war. For that matter, one could point out that 11 percent of the U.S.
population in 1860 was held in bondage.
This is not to make any light of the wrongness of slavery, but only to
point out that the same argument that you make agains the CSA can be
made against the North and against the entire U.S. prior to the war.
> Your jail figures are way off. You need to read
> Mark Neeley's two books, Southern Rights: Political Prisoners and the
> Myth of Confederate Constitutionalism and Fate of Liberty: Abraham
> Lincoln and Civil Liberties for the correct information on civil rights
> in the two countries.
I've read Neely's book SOUTHERN RIGHTS, and it's one of the most
misleading works I've ever read. If anything, despite Neely's best
efforts to the contrary, tbe book proves that the Confederate
government did in fact respect civil rights. Over and over again Neely
cites cases of civil rights violatrions, only to blandly admit in the
middle of an ending paragraph that, umm, Jefferson Davis didn't
authorize the violations and that he sought to correct them when he
learned of them. And, unlike the North, in many, many cases, civil
rights were curbed in the South *at the request of the local
citizenry.*
> Neither has much to brag about but the numbers of
> people arrested by the Lincoln administration for civil rights
> violations is minute and ditto for the number of newspaper men
> arrested.
No, the CSA showed much more respect for civil rights than did the
federal government. This isn't even a close call.
According to a tally done by the federal government itself in 1925,
there were at least 13,535 Northern citizens jailed from early 1862
till the end of the war, and this number did *not* include local
military arrests that weren't reported to the commissary general of
prisons (see, for example, Webb Garrison, LINCOLN'S LITTLE WAR,
Nashville, TN: Rutledge Hill Press, 1997, pp. 134-146).
As for the number of newspapers the GOP/military officials shut down,
the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist put it at around 100. Other
scholars have put the number at over 300.
The CSA did not find it necessary to shut down two state legislatures
because the citizens in those states, heaven forbid, had elected
anti-war majorities.
It says a great deal that in late 1864, 41 percent of Northern citizens
voted for a presidential ticket, McClellan/Pendleton, that ran on a
platform that condemned the war and called for a peaceful resolution.
As even James McPherson admits, "if McClellan won, most observers
expected a peace short of Union victory" (FOR CAUSE AND COMRADES,
Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 176).
This means that even in late 1864 a majority of Americans, Union and
Confederate, supported the party that called for halting the war and
that wanted to find a peaceful resolution, even one that, heaven
forbid, would have ended the war by establishing peaceful ties between
the U.S. and the Confederacy.
And the widescale election fraud that Republicans committed in the
elections during the war is a story that would require many pages.
Mike Griffith
> Mike, you are an enigma to me. You read some document
> somewhere that says something that supports your point of
> view, and then you imagine somehow that you're reading the
> real truth and that the overwhelming evidence to the contrary
> is some sort of conspiracy to hide the truth.
And I would say that you're seeing the Emperor's New Clothes and that
you're ignoring evidence that plainly refutes your view of the war,
its causes, and the CSA.
The "some document" that I read regarding the CSA's move toward ending
slavery was a book by two eminent historians, both of whom are
staunchly pro-Lincoln, namely, J. G. Randall and David Donald. Other
scholars have also discussed the CSA's very real move toward
emancipation, including Jeff Hummel, Herman Hattaway, Richard Beringer,
and William Cooper.
> Furthermore, racism was one of the principal political weapons
> that the slave holders used both to keep the blacks in their
> place, and to keep the support of the poor whites in the south.
Racism was just as strong, if not actually stronger, in the North.
Your picture of an undemocratic South where poor whites and slaves were
oppressed by some "slave power" is simply false.
For that matter, many wealthy slaveholders OPPOSED secession and were
some of the CSA's most vehement critics.
> Racism was as important to the slave holders as anti-semitism
> was to the Nazis, and for exactly the same reason.
I think this is a gross distortion of the facts.
And, incidentally, anti-Semtism was more common in the North than it
was in the South.
> It was what
> allowed them to mobilize millions of people whose real interest
> had nothing to do with oppressing blacks (or oppressing Jews
> in Germany) and get them behind the class that otherwise
> treated them with contempt as "white trash."
I regard comparisons of the CSA with Nazi Germany as utterly unfounded
and unfair. The CSA was a democratic nation whose citizens enjoyed
every right guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, if not more rights.
> Slavery was in the DNA of the southern economy, . . .
Actually, the percentage of slaveholding families was *shrinking* on
the eve of the war. In fact, that percentage dropped by 5 percent just
from 1850 to 1860. Slavery was in the process of evolving into a form
of free, compensated labor anyway. With the passage of time and the
advent of new technology, it would have faded away in much more
natural, beneficial manner than how it was ended.
> and racism
> was in the DNA of southern politics and remained so for
> another hundred years.
Again, racism was just as strong in the North, if not stronger. You
might read my section on this in "The Southern Side of the Civil War":
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/southernside.htm
A few other points in reply to your comments:
* The military situation was not hopeless in late 1864, if Davis had
adopted the strategy that Johnston and others had urged him to follow.
* Slavery was by no means the only reason for secession. Long-standing
economic complaints were also reasons the Deep South seceded.
Furthermore, four of the Southern states (VA, AR, TN, NC) did not
secede because of slavery. They were quite willing to remain in the
Union, and Lincoln was glad to have them. Those four states initially
voted by strong majorities to *reject* secession. It was only when
Lincoln made it clear he was going to invade that those four states
decided to leave the Union.
> Crushing defeat in a brutal, protracted, total war was not enough
> to eliminate racism. It took another hundred years of economic
> and political change, and a great national civil rights movement
> operating over many, many years, to re-educate many southerners.
I guess that's why ALL of the worst race riots for the last twenty
years have occurred in NORTHERN cities. I guess that's why most
incidents of police shooting unarmed African-Americans have occurred in
NORTHERN cities, especially in Boston and New York. I guess that's why
a majority of the most segregated cities in our day are NORTHERN
cities.
Racism has been a problem in ALL parts of our country, not just in the
South.
> Whitewashing all of that is truly nothing but sheer fantasy.
What is sheer fantasy is to pretend that only the South has had
problems with racism and white supremacy.
> The glorious, democratic, forward looking Confederacy existed
> only in the minds of its latter day supporters. The real
> Confederacy was nothing like that. Alan
The real Confederacy was nothing like the despotic state that you
describe. The CSA was in fact democratic, forward-looking, and
pluralistic. Even a pro-Lincoln scholar like David Donald has had the
candor to admit that the Confederacy showed a remarkable tolerance for
internal dissent even while being invaded and facing destruction.
One gets the feeling that some critics insist on abjectly demonizing
the Confederacy because they don't want to admit that a despotic
federal government destroyed a democratic government that was based on
noble principles of Americanism, including limited government, free
trade, low taxation, local control, states' rights, freedom of the
press, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and faith in God.
Yes, the CSA permitted slavery, but it did not mandate it, and its
Constitution allowed for the admission of free states, banned the
overseas slave trade, and permitted Confederate states to abolish
slavery within their borders. If left alone and allowed to live in
peace, I believe the Confederacy would have ended slavery in twenty to
thirty years, if not sooner. Let's remember that it took the North
several decades to end slavery, and that it did so gradually and with
various forms of compensation to slaveholders.
Mike Griffith
>He [Lee] also said that blacks were better off as slaves in the south than
>they would be as free men in Africa."
And I would say that in most cases that was certainly true. This is
not to in the least degree excuse slavery, but there can be no doubt
that the vast majority of slaves were materially better off than most
free men in Africa at the time, especially in the areas from which they
came.
Of course, nearly everyone would rather be worse off materially and
free than better off materially and enslaved.
I'm curious if those who insist on demonizing even an anti-slavery
Southerner like Robert E. Lee are willing to use the same unfair,
hyper-critical approach in judging George Washington. Among other
things, Washington sometimes separated slave families when he engaged
in the slave trade (i.e., he sold members of slave families to
different buyers), he had some of his slaves whipped on many occasions,
he used slave catchers to apprehend runaways, and he attempted to trick
one runaway into returning with the intent of reenslaving her if she
did so even though she was married to a Northern free black at the
time. Washington also attempted to get the British to return thousands
of American slaves who had fled to British lines during the
Revolutionary War (thankfully, the British refused).
In spite of these serious faults, most scholars conclude that, on
balance, Washington was a noble man, and they point out that his views
on blacks and slavery grew to the point that he came to dislike
slavery, that he sought to prevent more slave families from being
separated, that he came to oppose the slave trade, and that he decided
to free his slaves in his will. I agree with this assessment.
Why can't the same tolerance, fairness, and balance be shown to Robert
E. Lee? Lee certainly didn't think he was fighting to preserve
slavery. He wanted to see slavery abolished. He urged Jefferson Davis
"early and often" to begin a gradual emancipation program. When asked
to publicly comment on using slaves as soldiers, Lee took the
opportunity to advocate gradual emancipation. He also issued orders
that slave enlistees were to be treated with kindness and respect and
not reminded of their former station.
Jefferson Davis is another Confederate leader who deserves a better,
fairer judgment than he's received from most scholars. Davis treated
his slaves with kindness and respect. At one point he armed his slaves
to help him fight off white thugs who were seeking to encroach on his
land. Davis taught his slaves how to read, allowed them to earn money,
forbade his overseers from whipping them, and established a system of
jury by peers among his slaves for those who were suspected of
wrongdoing. As a U.S. senator, Davis admitted that slavery had its
"evils and abuses" and said he hoped slavery would prepare the slaves
for eventual freedom. Years later, with the war in its third year,
Davis began to strongly support gradual emancipation. In fact, he
pushed fiercely for it. At one point he became so exasperated with a
fire-eating opponent of emancipation that he suggested that if the
Confederacy died it would be because of a fanatical devotion to the
idea of slavery. During the war, Davis and his wife informally adopted
a young mulatto boy named Jim Limber and raised him as one of their own
children. Davis personally saw to it that the paperwork was filed to
ensure the young boy would be free. After the war, Davis supported
allowing blacks to testify in court, at a time when many Northern
states still banned blacks from doing so.
Mike Griffith
>> and Joseph E. Johnston, both disliked slavery and
>> supported emancipation in various forms. Lee called
>> slavery "a moral and political evil."
>
>Lee also called it the best way to order relations between blacks
>and whites (OWTTE). See his letter to Andrew Hunter.
This is a distortion of what Lee said. Anyone who reads his letter can
see that he was simply saying that slavery needed to be abolished
gradually and carefully.
>> 4. The majority of Confederate generals did not own
>> slaves and did not come from slaveholding families.
>
>Can you verify this?
Hattaway and Beringer, JEFFERSON DAVIS, CONFEDERATE PRESIDENT, p. 37.
>Certainly some CS generals did not own slaves (i.e., the Northerners like Bushrod
>Johnson, John Pemberton, and Samuel Cooper) but many others --- RE Lee, his two
>sons, his nephew, NB Forrest --- did.
This is an unfair, inaccurate characterization of Lee's status. I am
indebted to D. J. White for providing the following information on this
issue:
Lee's mother owned an old slave named Nat. Lee took Nat with him to
Georgia when he moved there in 1829. Lee did not own Nat, but he took
the old man to the warm climate of Georgia for Nat's comfort. (Emory
Thomas, ROBERT E. LEE, p. 57)
Lee inherited four female slaves from his mother when she died. (Robert
E. Lee letter to Mary Lee, April 24, 1832)
By 1835, Lee had sold all the slaves he had inherited from his mother,
except one: Nancy Ruffin, whom he rented to his father-in-law in New
Kent County, Virginia. (Letter to Carter Lee, February 24, 1835)
In 1852, Lee still owned one servant, Philip Meriday, whom he hired
out. (Robert E. Lee contract with James Eveloth, August 1, 1852).
When Lee's father-in-law, G. W. P. Custis, died in October 1857, he
made Lee his executor, and directed that the slaves be freed once all
the legacies had been paid, and the properties cleared of debt, but no
later than five years. (Will of G. W. P. Custis, Records of Alexandria
County, Virginia, probated Dec. 7, 1857). Lee was not the owner of the
Custis slaves, Custis' daughters were. Lee was the executor.
In accordance with the will, the last of the Custis slaves should have
been given their papers by October 1862. Lee gave the last of the
Custis slaves their papers in December 1862. On December 7 1862, Lee
wrote his wife that he wished to "liberate all the Custis slaves on
December 31st." (Wartime Papers of Robert E. Lee, Dowdey and Manarin,
eds., pg. 354) Lee was a little late in freeing the slaves. Of course,
this is understandable, since Lee was commanding a large army in the
middle of a war at the time.
On December 21st 1862, Lee wrote to his wife: "As regards the servants.
Those on the farms (i.e. the former Custis plantations at White House
on the Pamunkey and at Romancock) I will issue free papers to as soon
as I can see that they can get support. As long as they remain on the
farms they must remain as they are. ANY WHO WISH TO LEAVE CAN DO SO.
The men could no doubt find homes, but what are the women & children to
do? As regards Mr. Collins he must remain & take care of the people
(i.e. the slaves) till I can dispose of them some way. I desire to do
what is right & best for the people. The estate is only indebted to me
now. The legacies and debts are paid & I wish to close the whole
affair. ... Those at Arlington & Alexandria I cannot now reach. They
are already free & when I can reach get to them I will give them their
papers." (Wartime Papers of Robert E. Lee, pg. 378-79.)
On February 8 1862, Lee wrote to his wife again, telling her, "I have
George as cook now. I give him & Perry (former Custis slaves) each
$8.20 per month. I hope they will be able to lay up something for
themselves." (WARTIME PAPERS OF ROBERT E. LEE, p. 402.)
In contrast, Ulysses Grant and his wife held and used slaves during and
after the war.
soc.history.war
"Mike Griffith" <mikegri...@cs.com> wrote:
> And, incidentally, anti-Semtism was more common in the North than it
> was in the South.
>
> > It was what
> > allowed them to mobilize millions of people whose real interest
> > had nothing to do with oppressing blacks (or oppressing Jews
> > in Germany) and get them behind the class that otherwise
> > treated them with contempt as "white trash."
>
> I regard comparisons of the CSA with Nazi Germany as utterly unfounded
> and unfair. The CSA was a democratic nation whose citizens enjoyed
> every right guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, if not more rights.
Yes, the slaves enjoyed the same rights as the jews
S Witmer
Mike Griffith wrote:
> Huddle...@comcast.net wrote:
> > 1. By the latter part of 1864 the Confederate States of America (CSA)
> > was clearly moving toward ending slavery.
> >
> > Have you ever read the Confederate Constitution? It made it all but
> > impossible for the Confederate national government to abolish slavery.
> > (See your number 11 - how can a weak national government abolish a
> > state protected institution like slavery?)
>
> But the CSA Constitution did allow the individual states to end slavery
> if they chose to do so. The only qualification on this was that they
> had to allow the right of sojourn for slaveholders traveling through
> the state.
Which in the end does little to bolster your claim that the CSA
leadership was moving to end slavery, which was Bob's point. If the
CSA government has no power whatsoever to abolish slavery, why should
any state in the CSA give two figs if Jeff Davis or even the entire CSA
Congress was ready to abolish slavery (not that they were)?
A free press - provided that absolutely, positively nothing touching on
abolition is mentioned.
>
> The CSA, unlike the federal government under GOP control, did not shut
> down hundreds of newspapers.
>
> > In the slave states, it was a
> > felony to print or even suggest that slavery was other than a positive
> > good.
>
> I know it's a common myth that no one in the South dared publicly
> question slavery, but you might take a look at Stanley Harrold's book
> THE ABOLITIONISTS AND THE SOUTH, 1831-1861 (University Press of
> Kentucky, 1995).
>
> > Yes there were elections in the CSA - but Jeff ran unopposed.
>
> But many other candidates did not run unopposed. And Davis ran
> unopposed because he was still very popular and because no one chose to
> run against him. If a candidate had wanted to run against Davis, he
> could have done so.
You are perhaps unaware of the existence of Robert Toombs, who was also
nominated for President of the CSA, but lost out to Davis? You are
also perhaps unaware that Davis was not popularly elected by the
population of the CSA, but instead by only the CSA Congress? You are
unaware that Davis ever had the chance to run for re-election?
I find it mind boggling that you can make that claim, given that more
than a 1/3 of the CSA population were slaves with few or no civil
rights that any white man had to consider. And I'm sure that more than
one West Virginian or East Tennessean that danced at the end of a rope
or was thrown in prison would disagree with you as well.
>
> According to a tally done by the federal government itself in 1925,
> there were at least 13,535 Northern citizens jailed from early 1862
> till the end of the war, and this number did *not* include local
> military arrests that weren't reported to the commissary general of
> prisons (see, for example, Webb Garrison, LINCOLN'S LITTLE WAR,
> Nashville, TN: Rutledge Hill Press, 1997, pp. 134-146).
>
> As for the number of newspapers the GOP/military officials shut down,
> the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist put it at around 100. Other
> scholars have put the number at over 300.
Two follow up questions - 1. As a percentage of total newspapers, how
does this tally up? 2. What were the reasons for the shutdowns and
how long did they last?
>
> The CSA did not find it necessary to shut down two state legislatures
> because the citizens in those states, heaven forbid, had elected
> anti-war majorities.
>
> It says a great deal that in late 1864, 41 percent of Northern citizens
> voted for a presidential ticket, McClellan/Pendleton, that ran on a
> platform that condemned the war and called for a peaceful resolution.
> As even James McPherson admits, "if McClellan won, most observers
> expected a peace short of Union victory" (FOR CAUSE AND COMRADES,
> Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 176).
1st of all, not every citizen eligible voted, so your statement needs
to be clarified to reflect that.
2nd of all, McClellan himself had repudiated the Democratic platform by
stating that there could be no peace without restoration of the Union,
so the rest of your statement above is also inaccurate. These twin
inaccuracies negate your statement below.
>
> This means that even in late 1864 a majority of Americans, Union and
> Confederate, supported the party that called for halting the war and
> that wanted to find a peaceful resolution, even one that, heaven
> forbid, would have ended the war by establishing peaceful ties between
> the U.S. and the Confederacy.
>
> And the widescale election fraud that Republicans committed in the
> elections during the war is a story that would require many pages.
You mean like allowing soldiers fighting in the war to vote, as was
their constitutional right as citizens?
Brad Meyer
<mikegri...@cs.com> wrote:
>>scribe7716 wrote:
>>He [Lee] also said that blacks were better off as slaves in the south than
>>they would be as free men in Africa."
>
>And I would say that in most cases that was certainly true. This is
>not to in the least degree excuse slavery, but there can be no doubt
>that the vast majority of slaves were materially better off than most
>free men in Africa at the time, especially in the areas from which they
>came.
When Ali fought Foreman in Africa he made a point of visiting the
slave ports. He stood looking out to sea for a long time and one of
his companions asked him what he was thinking. His reply was "Whoever
he was, I sure am glad he caught the boat".
>Of course, nearly everyone would rather be worse off materially and
>free than better off materially and enslaved.
Sure 'bout that? Recent events have revealed (at least to me) a
disturbing tendancy for the public to cheerfully surrender any amount
of freedom for a feeling of security against terrorists.
rdu...@pdq.net
Mike Griffith wrote:
> Alan Meyer wrote:
> > Mike, you are an enigma to me. You read some document
> > somewhere that says something that supports your point of
> > view, and then you imagine somehow that you're reading the
> > real truth and that the overwhelming evidence to the contrary
> > is some sort of conspiracy to hide the truth.
>
> And I would say that you're seeing the Emperor's New Clothes and that
> you're ignoring evidence that plainly refutes your view of the war,
> its causes, and the CSA.
Even if one grants that the people of the South were well
intentioned, treated their slaves like family, and were moving towards
full emancipation, the notion of a fully independent spinter of a
country within the old borders of the US would have been a disaster.
First of all, there is the problem of precedent. You never
answered my point about other states, or cities, or even groups of
individuals within the US who might find the constraints of the Federal
Union inconvenient and choose to secede. I really cannot see how you
could object to this unless you rediscover the common good that comes
from working within a once freely chosen system.
Nor do I think you are on good ground to downplay the problem of
European meddling in N. American affairs. The two principal doctrines
of American foreign policy in that era were Manifest Destiny and the
Monroe doctrine; they both proclaimed that, above all else, the US
would not tolerate any fully independent, soveriegn entities operating
in our space. We were NOT going to be permanently crippled by this sort
of play one side of us against the other game. Keep in mind that the
Republic of Texas and various Indian Nations were constructs temporaily
tolerated. All of these sort of enterprises were destined for
incorporation or war with the US. This was no secret at the time.
(Except, perhaps, to the Indians.) By the way, check out how quickly
and avidly the British got in bed with the Republic of Texas. That is
just how the game is played.
Lincolns over-riding concern was that our cherished notions of a
liberal, broad based democratic political system absolutely needed a
strong nation-state to survive in the real world. We did not have
many friends in the mid 19th century and everyone wanted to steal N.
American assets. Southern secession would have wrecked our chances.
I am very aware of the romantic ideal of Southern/Celtic
libertarianism. My family of origen is massively represented in
Southern Civil War history. My G.grandfathers sister was married to
Robert Toombs, for a start. I definitely grew up around this sort of
thing. But the real history of the success of the American experiment
in the world is not a story about libertarian concepts of government. A
big reason that this country has made some headway in the world is
that, exactly like our British cousins, we have generally understood
that only the winners get to paint the future.
The Old South was doomed to fail, on many levels. Why romanticize
suicide missions??
Marcaurelius
were
== oppressed by some "slave power" is simply false.
moonlight and mint julips?
Marcaurelius
== disturbing tendancy for the public to cheerfully surrender any
amount
== of freedom for a feeling of security against terrorists.
Are you saying that prospective slaves in western AFrica had a
"choice"
as to whether or not they could get on the boat?
j...@ams.org
Mike Griffith wrote:
> >> 3. The CSA's two highest ranking generals, Robert E. Lee
> >> and Joseph E. Johnston, both disliked slavery and
> >> supported emancipation in various forms. Lee called
> >> slavery "a moral and political evil."
> >
> >Lee also called it the best way to order relations between blacks
> >and whites (OWTTE). See his letter to Andrew Hunter.
>
> This is a distortion of what Lee said. Anyone who reads his letter can
> see that he was simply saying that slavery needed to be abolished
> gradually and carefully.
I don't think so. Here's the letter, in its entirety.
----------------------------------------
HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA,
January 11, 1865.
Hon. ANDREW HUNTER,
Richmond, Va.:
DEAR SIR: I have received your letter of the 7th instant, and without
confining myself to the order of your interrogatories, will endeavor to
answer them by a statement of my views on the subject. I shall be most
happy if I can contribute to the solution of a question in which I feel
an interest commensurate with my desire for the welfare and happiness
of our people.
Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws
and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as
the best that can exist between the white and black races while
intermingled as at present in this country, I would deprecate any
sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to avert a
greater calamity to both. I should therefore prefer to rely upon our
white population to preserve the ratio between our forces and those of
the enemy, which experience has shown to be safe. But in view of the
preparations of our enemies, it is our duty to provide for continued
war and not for a battle or a campaign, and I fear that we cannot
accomplish this without overtaxing the capacity of our white
population.
Should the war continue under existing circumstances, the enemy may in
course of time penetrate our country and get access to a large part of
our negro population. It is his avowed policy to convert the
able-bodied men among them into soldiers, and to emancipate all. The
success of the Federal arms in the South was followed by a proclamation
of President Lincoln for 280,000 men, the effect of which will be to
stimulate the Northern States to procure as substitutes for their own
people the negroes thus brought within their reach. Many have already
been obtained in Virginia, and should the fortune of war expose more of
her territory, the enemy would gain a large accession to his strength.
His progress will thus add to his numbers, and at the same time destroy
slavery in a manner most pernicious to the welfare of our people. Their
negroes will be used to hold them in subjection, leaving the remaining
force of the enemy free to extend his conquest. Whatever may be the
effect of our employing negro troops, it cannot be as mischievous as
this. If it end in subverting slavery it will be accomplished by
ourselves, and we can devise the means of alleviating the evil
consequences to both races. I think, therefore, we must decide whether
slavery shall be extinguished by our enemies and the slaves be used
against us, or use them ourselves at the risk of the effects which may
be produced upon our social institutions. My own opinion is that we
should employ them without delay. I believe that with proper
regulations they can be made efficient soldiers. They possess the
physical qualifications in an eminent degree. Long habits of obedience
and subordination, coupled with the moral influence which in our
country the white man possesses over the black, furnish an excellent
foundation for that discipline which is the best guaranty of military
efficiency. Our chief aim should be to secure their fidelity.
There have been formidable armies composed of men having no interest in
the cause for which they fought beyond their pay or the hope of
plunder. But it is certain that the surest foundation upon which the
fidelity of an army can rest, especially in a service which imposes
peculiar hardships and privations, is the personal interest of the
soldier in the issue of the contest. Such an interest we can give our
negroes by giving immediate freedom to all who enlist, and freedom at
the end of the war to the families of those who discharge their duties
faithfully (whether they survive or not), together with the privilege
of residing at the South. To this might be added a bounty for faithful
service.
We should not expect slaves to fight for prospective freedom when they
can secure it at once by going to the enemy, in whose service they will
incur no greater risk than in ours. The reasons that induce me to
recommend the employment of negro troops at all render the effect of
the measures I have suggested upon slavery immaterial, and in my
opinion the best means of securing the efficiency and fidelity of this
auxiliary force would be to accompany the measure with a well-digested
plan of gradual and general emancipation. As that will be the result of
the continuance of the war, and will certainly occur if the enemy
succeed, it seems to me most advisable to adopt it at once, and thereby
obtain all the benefits that will accrue to our cause.
The employment of negro troops under regulations similar in principle
to those above indicated would, in my opinion, greatly increase our
military strength and enable us to relieve our white population to some
extent. I think we could dispense with the reserve forces except in
cases of necessity.
It would disappoint the hopes which our enemies base upon our
exhaustion, deprive them in a great measure of the aid they now derive
from black troops, and thus throw the burden of the war upon their own
people. In addition to the great political advantages that would result
to our cause from the adoption of a system of emancipation, it would
exercise a salutary influence upon our whole negro population, by
rendering more secure the fidelity of those who become soldiers, and
diminishing the inducements to the rest to abscond.
I can only say in conclusion that whatever measures are to be adopted
should be adopted at once. Every day's delay increases the difficulty.
Much time will be required to organize and discipline the men, and
action may be deferred until it is too late.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
R. E. LEE,
General.
------------------------------------------
Feel free to show us where this says slavery should be abolished at
all.
JFE
scribe7716
Brad Meyer wrote:
> When Ali fought Foreman in Africa he made a point of visiting the
> slave ports. He stood looking out to sea for a long time and one of
> his companions asked him what he was thinking. His reply was "Whoever
> he was, I sure am glad he caught the boat".
Ali also said, "I have said I am the greatest. Ain't nobody ever
heard me say I was the smartest."
Brad Meyer
No, but come to think of it they did have such a choice. Just like
everyone else, they can refuse to participate. If they felt that being
free and dead was preferable to being alive and a slave, they almost
always had that choice. There are even accounts of people taking that
choice.
Brad Meyer
>Feel free to show us where this says slavery should be abolished at
>all.
>We should not expect slaves to fight for prospective freedom when they
>can secure it at once by going to the enemy, in whose service they will
>incur no greater risk than in ours. The reasons that induce me to
>recommend the employment of negro troops at all render the effect of
>the measures I have suggested upon slavery immaterial, and in my
>opinion the best means of securing the efficiency and fidelity of this
>auxiliary force would be to accompany the measure with a well-digested
>plan of gradual and general emancipation.
Note: "a well-digested plan of gradual and general emancipation"
Consider who Lee was writing to and what the purpose of the letter
was. Lee isn't likely to accomplish his mission of persuading Hunter
to support "a well-digested plan of gradual and general emancipation"
by sounding an abolitionist note no matter how he personally felt. IMO
Lee's first paragraph makes it clear that he does not want to even
enter into that debate. Instead, he is start from a point that Hunter
woud agree with, and reasons along the lines in the letter to the
point of a "a well-digested plan of gradual and general emancipation".
Lee is not going to persuade Hunter by attacking his belief structure.
He is turning a position he knows he cannot succesfully storm.
Certainly Lee was no abolitionist. He wanted a planned and managed
emancipation, not quite the same thing.
j...@ams.org
Brad Meyer wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 10:18:53 CST, j...@ams.org wrote:
>
>
> >Feel free to show us where this says slavery should be abolished at
> >all.
>
> >We should not expect slaves to fight for prospective freedom when they
> >can secure it at once by going to the enemy, in whose service they will
> >incur no greater risk than in ours. The reasons that induce me to
> >recommend the employment of negro troops at all render the effect of
> >the measures I have suggested upon slavery immaterial, and in my
> >opinion the best means of securing the efficiency and fidelity of this
> >auxiliary force would be to accompany the measure with a well-digested
> >plan of gradual and general emancipation.
>
> Note: "a well-digested plan of gradual and general emancipation"
But that is only in connection with the plan to enlist blacks, it is
not
something he is suggesting as any kind of "stand alone" plan. In fact,
the only reason he makes the suggestion is to secure the "efficiency
and
fidelity" of the black troops.
JFE
scribe7716
Mike Griffith wrote:
> >He [Lee] also said that blacks were better off as slaves in the south than
> >they would be as free men in Africa."
>
> And I would say that in most cases that was certainly true.
Patrick Henry would disagree with you.
snip
> He [Lee] wanted to see slavery abolished.
In 2,000 years or so.
He urged Jefferson Davis
> "early and often" to begin a gradual emancipation program.
Define "early and often" for me. When did Lee first start urging
gradual emancipation to Davis? How often did he repeat that urging?
snip
>As a U.S. senator, Davis admitted that slavery had its
> "evils and abuses" and said he hoped slavery would prepare the slaves
> for eventual freedom.
And in March 1861 Davis said, "We recognize the negro as God and God's
Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him -- our
inferior fitted expressly for servitude.... You cannot transform the
negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery
enables him to be."
Davis, like Lee, was in no particular hurry for emancipation, and Davis
made it clear that should the slaves be freed that it would be no more
than an elevation from slavery to serfdom.
> Years later, with the war in its third year,
> Davis began to strongly support gradual emancipation.
Could you document Davis' strong support for gradual emancipation? Do
you mean support as part of the package for enlisting slave soldiers in
the CSA armies? That was clearly a deathbed conversion for a man who
in November 1862 approved the summary execution of four blacks captured
wearing Union uniforms in South Carolina. A man who on Christmas Eve,
December 24, 1862, issued a proclamation that said, in part, "That all
negro slaves captured in arms be at once delivered over to the
executive authorities of the respective States to which they belong to
be dealt with according to the laws of said States." Since the former
slaves in the USCT would have been considered as in servile
insurrection, those laws called for the death penalty.
Rich Rostrom
>
>I don't think so. Here's the letter, in its entirety.
>
>----------------------------------------
>
>HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA,
>January 11, 1865.
>Hon. ANDREW HUNTER,
>Richmond, Va.:
[snip]
>Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
> R. E. LEE,
>General.
>
>------------------------------------------
>
>Feel free to show us where this says slavery should be abolished at
>all.
>...the reasons that induce me to
>recommend the employment of negro troops at all render the effect of
>the measures I have suggested upon slavery immaterial, and in my
>opinion the best means of securing the efficiency and fidelity of this
>auxiliary force would be to accompany the measure with a well-digested
>plan of gradual and general emancipation. As that will be the result of
>the continuance of the war, and will certainly occur if the enemy
>succeed, it seems to me most advisable to adopt it at once, and thereby
>obtain all the benefits that will accrue to our cause.
In this passage, Lee does state that the Confederacy
should abolish slavery - or more precisely, should
begin a "plan of gradual and general emancipation."
Of course, he also states very clearly that he makes
this suggestion only because without it, there is no
hope of recruiting useful negro troops. And without
negro troops, the Confederacy is doomed. And if the
Confederacy falls, slavery ends anyway.
Lee also states clearly that he makes this suggestion
only because of extreme military necessity, and that
otherwise he would be opposed to any change in slavery.
In short, this letter (and the entire project) is the
equivalent of a thief or pirate casting away a weighty
piece of loot to outrun pursuit or avoid sinking. When
criminal does so, that is no evidence that he didn't
want the loot at all.
--
| The shocking lack of a fleet of modern luxury |
| dirigibles is only one of a great many things that |
| are seriously wrong with this here world. |
| -- blogger "Coop" at Positive Ape Index |
Mike Griffith
Mississippian_, which
editorialized, "We are forced by the necessity of our condition to take
a step [using slave soldiers] which is revolting to every sentiment of
pride, and to every principle that governened our institutions before
the war."
Or maybe critics such as Jefferson Davis while pushing for the slave
soldier legislation in February 1865 allowed as how "We are reduced to
choosing whether the negroes shall fight for or againt us." >>>
No one is denying that the press of circumstances prompted many
Southern leaders to change their minds about arming slaves and
emancipation. Similarly, no credible student would deny that most
Northern leaders didn't support arming slaves until Union casualties
continued to mount, until opposition to the draft increased, and until
white enlistment declined.
In addition, some Southern leaders, like Lee and Kenner, supported
emancipation and using slave soldiers in 1862, though they voiced their
views to Davis and others privately. Alcorn began to talk publicly
about emancipation well before Davis started to support it. Several
Southern governors signed a resolution calling for arming slaves and
offering them freedom before Davis said a word publicly about his
support for such a measure. Federal envoys in England reported with
concern in 1862 that CSA delegates in the country were suggesting the
Confederacy would be willing to end slavery in exchange for diplomatic
recognition.
The two comments you quote do not say "we must arm slaves and offer
them freedom because defeat is imminent." What they were saying was
that with the North arming an increasing number of slaves, eventually
the numbers would be overwhelming, and therefore the CSA should arm
slaves for freedom as well. Davis certainly did not believe defeat was
right around the corner if the South didn't arm slaves for freedom. He
did believe that eventually, as slaves continued to swell Union ranks,
their numbers would be decisive and that therefore the Confederacy
likewise had to arm slaves in exchange for freedom after the war.
Mike Griffith
claim, given that more
than a 1/3 of the CSA population were slaves with few or no civil
rights that any white man had to consider. >>>
Then do you wish the British had won the Revolutionary War, since
slavery would have come under much stronger attack and undoubtedly
ended sooner if the British had retained control of the colonies? Do
you believe that the American colonies were despotic states that didn't
deserve independence because they permitted slavery and (in the case of
the New England states) made huge profits from the slave trade?
If the CSA was a despotic state, a tyranny, because it permitted
slavery, then the American colonies and then the 1781-1860 United
States were likewise despotic states that didn't deserve independence.
There are liberals who actually view America (ALL of America, not just
the South) in this way because of slavery and the slave trade. At
least their consistent in their hyper-critical approach.
And this is not to mention the awful, inhumane way that tens of
thousands of Northern factory workers were treated before, during, and
long after the war.
The Confederate Constitution provided a marvelously democratic system
for its citizens. Yet, it also permitted its citizens to own slaves,
though most chose not to do so. Similarly, the U.S. Constitution
provided a marvelously democratic system for its citizens. Yet, it
also permitted its citizens to own slaves, it protected the slave trade
for twenty years, and mandated the return of runaway slaves. New
England states cruelly discriminated against blacks and other
minorities, protected and profited from the slave trade for decades,
and was home to some of the worst wage-slavery in the country. Some
Northern states, including Illinois, had repressive black codes and
even barred free blacks from entering their borders.
I suspect you're willing to acknolwedge that, on balance and for all
their faults, America as a whole and/or New England as a region were,
by the standards of their day, enlightened and democratic. In other
words, you're willing to use balance and context when judging America
as a whole or New England as a region. But, I suspect you're unwilling
to do so in any degree when judging the Confederacy.
<<< And I'm sure that more than one West Virginian or East Tennessean
that danced at the end of a rope or was thrown in prison would disagree
with you as well. >>>
And I'm sure that the 50,000-some Southern civilians who died as a
result of the brutal federal invasion would say that the misdeeds of a
relatively small number of Southern citizens against Southern Unionists
paled in comparison to the systematic, widespread brutality and war
crimes of many federal forces in the South.
Mike Griffith
says slavery should be abolished at all. >>>
Gladly. I don't know how you missed it. I quote from the letter, the
same letter which you quoted:
"The reasons that induce me to recommend the employment of negro
troops at all render the effect of the measures I have suggested upon
slavery immaterial, and in my
opinion the best means of securing the efficiency and fidelity of this
auxiliary force would be to accompany the measure with a well-digested
plan of gradual and general emancipation."
So Lee advocated a "well-digested plan of GRADUAL AND GENERAL
EMANCIPATION." How did you miss this? In any case, let's continue:
"In addition to the great political advantages that would result
to our cause from the adoption of a system of emancipation, it would
exercise a salutary influence upon our whole negro population, by
rendering more secure the fidelity of those who become soldiers, and
diminishing the inducements to the rest to abscond."
It's not surprising that Lee would recommend general emancipation,
since he had long since said he regarded slavery as "a moral and
political evil" and had also long since expressed his hope that it
would end.
Mike Griffith
emancipation.
Offering freedom to slaves who fight is not the same thing as general
emancipation or the abolition of slavery. It was desparation pure and
simple - notwithstanding your claim that
it was not. >>>
Even some pro-Lincoln scholars have been willing to acknowledge what
was obvious at the time, namely, that offering freedom to slaves in
exchange for military service would have spelled the end of slavery.
That's why some diehard fire-eaters opposed it: they realized that it
would undoubtedly lead to general emancipation.
Furthermore, some key Southern leaders who supported emancipation for
slave soldiers, including Robert E. Lee, also supported general
emancipation and said general emancipation should follow emancipation
for slave soldiers.
Historians J. G. Randall and David Donald, whom no one would accuse of
being "neo-Confederates" (whatever exactly that means), have said the
following on this issue:
On November 7, 1864, President Davis went so far as to approve the
employment of slave-soldiers as preferable to subjugation, and on
February 11, 1865, the Confederate House of Representatives voted that
if the President should not be able to raise sufficient troops
otherwise, he was authorized to call for additional levies "from such
classes . . . irrespective of color . . . as the . . . authorities . .
. may determine". . . . There was no mistaking the meaning of this
action. The fundamental social concept of slavery was slipping; an
opening wedge for emancipation had been inserted. Lee's opinion
agreed with that of the President and Congress. On January 11, 1865,
he wrote advising the enlistment of slaves as soldiers and the granting
of "immediate freedom to all who enlist, and freedom at the end of
the war to the families of those who discharge their duties faithfully.
. . ." This fact, together with other indications, suggests that,
even if the Confederacy had survived the war, there was a strong
possibility that slavery would be voluntarily abandoned in the South.
(THE CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION, D. C. Heath & Company, 1969, p. 522)
Mike Griffith
late 1864. The point is that by and large *the Southern people and
most Southern leaders* did not believe defeat was imminent. So one
can't say that they only considered arming slaves and emancipation in
the face of certain defeat.
I again point out that historians Herman Hattaway and Richard Beringer
observe that even in February 1865 "a considerable degree of
determination and high morale did still persist" in the South
(JEFFERSON DAVIS, CONFEDERATE PRESIDENT, University Press of Kansas,
2002, p. 357), and that George Rable noted that even after the fall of
Richmond "a belief that somehow independence could yet be won
persisted" (in Ibid.).
A more accurate assessment is that Southern leaders began to support
arming slaves and emancipation because they believed that if they
didn't do so then they would eventually face certain defeat as the
Union army added more and more slaves to its ranks. Even then, some
Southern leaders did not think the Confederacy's situation was bad
enough to warrant arming slaves.
However one wants to spin it, the bottom line is that an increasing
majority of Southern leaders were prepared to abandon slavery in order
to secure Southern independence because independence was more important
to them than the continuation of slavery. They would rather have freed
the slaves and remain independent than hold the slaves and lose their
independence.
If the North had demanded that the Confederacy hand over to the Union
army half its women from the ages of 15-45 in exchange of independence,
the Confederates would have fought to the death rather than take such a
step, even if they thought that the Union was going to win anyway and
would take their women anyway. They simply would not have done this.
Such was not the case when it came to ending slavery in the hope of
securing independence.
Brad Meyer
Do you suppose many, if any, of the slaves would have cared why? Do
you really care why? Do you doubt that, had such a plan been in effect
in 1860, there would have been no war? Do you doubt that, had such a
plan been put into effect by the CS in 1861, it might have provided
the margin between victory and defeat? A plan of general emancipation
is a plan of general emancipation no matter what the motivation is.
Mike Griffith
This is a sick comparison. The Nazis sought to exterminate the Jews.
A more credible comparison would be the Nazis' treatment of the Jews
with the federal government's treatment of the American Indians under
the "leadership" of Ulysses S. Grant, first as commanding general of
the army and then as president.
And do you equally condemn New England for permitting and protecting
slavery for decades? Do you equally condemn New England because
several New England states made huge fortunes from the slave trade?
You're aware, I take it, that nearly all American slave ships were
owned in and operated from the North. You might want to read James and
Lois Horton's book IN HOPE OF LIBERTY to see how slaves were treated in
the North when that region embraced slavery for several decades, and
also to see how jealously some New England states protected the slave
trade because they were reaping huge fortunes from it..
I guess it just doesn't matter to you that the Confederacy was moving
toward ending slavery by late 1864, and that the Confederate
Constitution banned the overseas slave trade, allowed the entrance of
free states to the CSA, and permitted Confederate states to abolish
slavery within their borders if they wanted to do so. Even historians
like Randall and Donald could concede that there were indications the
South was going to end slavery even if it survived the war.
Nor do I guess it matters to you that 75-80 percent of Southern
citizens did not own slaves, and that most of those who did owned less
than ten, often worked with them in the fields, and regarded them as
part of the family.
Nor do I guess it matters to you that Southern slavery was the most
humane form of slavery on the earth, as even neo-abolitionist historian
James McPherson adcknowledges. (Perhaps that's why Southern slaves had
a life expectancy that was comparable to urban populations and actually
higher than in some European nations. Perhaps this explains why the
diet and housing of slaves were comparable to, and sometimes better
than, the diet and housing of Northern factory workers. Perhaps this
explains why in many cases slaves actually received a greater share of
the product of their labor than did many Northern factory workers.)
Nor do I guess it matters to you that far, far more slaves died of
mistreatment on Northern slave ships than died of abuse on Southern
plantations. The numbers aren't even remotely close.
Nor do I guess it matters that some two-thirds of the slaves who were
later interviewed about their experiences said they were treated well
and spoke fondly of their former masters.
Of course, this is not to defend the institution of slavery, and it's
certainly not to say that slavery didn't need to be abolished as soon
as possible. It is to say, however, that if one insists on demonizing
the entire South over slavery, then one should be consistent and
likewise demonize 1626-1789 New England for the same reason.
Mike Griffith
defeat."
S Witmer
Mike Griffith wrote:
> <<< S Witmer wrote: I find it mind boggling that you can make that
> claim, given that more
> than a 1/3 of the CSA population were slaves with few or no civil
> rights that any white man had to consider. >>>
>
> Then do you wish the British had won the Revolutionary War, since
> slavery would have come under much stronger attack and undoubtedly
> ended sooner if the British had retained control of the colonies? Do
> you believe that the American colonies were despotic states that didn't
> deserve independence because they permitted slavery and (in the case of
> the New England states) made huge profits from the slave trade?
Nice attempt at a strawman, Mike. Let's actually look at what was
said...
You said that the CSA had more respect for civil liberties than the
federal government. My reply is shown above - that it's hard to see
how the south had more respect for civil liberties than the north, when
1/3 of southern population was in bondage. In contrast, only a very
small percentage of the northern population were slaves, and those were
only in the border states.
>
> If the CSA was a despotic state, a tyranny, because it permitted
> slavery, then the American colonies and then the 1781-1860 United
> States were likewise despotic states that didn't deserve independence.
> There are liberals who actually view America (ALL of America, not just
> the South) in this way because of slavery and the slave trade. At
> least their consistent in their hyper-critical approach.
I fail to see the relevance, except as building material for the
strawman you started above.
>
> And this is not to mention the awful, inhumane way that tens of
> thousands of Northern factory workers were treated before, during, and
> long after the war.
How many 1850's factory workers headed south to become slaves so they
could improve their lot in life, Mike? And those factory workers did
not have to carry papers with them to move about freely, and they could
seek other employment, send their children to public schools, vote in
elections, etc.
>
> The Confederate Constitution provided a marvelously democratic system
> for its citizens. Yet, it also permitted its citizens to own slaves,
> though most chose not to do so.
Chose not to, or could not afford to? Slaves were expensive. You
might as well argue that people in the US today choose not to own
private jets.
Similarly, the U.S. Constitution
> provided a marvelously democratic system for its citizens. Yet, it
> also permitted its citizens to own slaves, it protected the slave trade
> for twenty years, and mandated the return of runaway slaves. New
> England states cruelly discriminated against blacks and other
> minorities, protected and profited from the slave trade for decades,
> and was home to some of the worst wage-slavery in the country. Some
> Northern states, including Illinois, had repressive black codes and
> even barred free blacks from entering their borders.
>
> I suspect you're willing to acknolwedge that, on balance and for all
> their faults, America as a whole and/or New England as a region were,
> by the standards of their day, enlightened and democratic. In other
> words, you're willing to use balance and context when judging America
> as a whole or New England as a region. But, I suspect you're unwilling
> to do so in any degree when judging the Confederacy.
Lincoln himself admitted that most southerners were no worse than
northerners, but were caught in a system that was in place before they
were born.
>
> <<< And I'm sure that more than one West Virginian or East Tennessean
> that danced at the end of a rope or was thrown in prison would disagree
> with you as well. >>>
>
> And I'm sure that the 50,000-some Southern civilians who died as a
> result of the brutal federal invasion would say that the misdeeds of a
> relatively small number of Southern citizens against Southern Unionists
> paled in comparison to the systematic, widespread brutality and war
> crimes of many federal forces in the South.
How do you arrive at a figure of 50,000 civilian casualties in the
south, Mike?
rdu...@pdq.net
So what. The reason for the war, the necessity for the war, was
that the southern states were attempting to destroy the integrity and
the safety of the Federal Union. The institution of slavery was the
cause of the war only insofar as it was the driving force behind
souther seperatism. But that was enough.
You still have not explained why a group of wealthy suburbanites
should not be allowed to "secede" from the federal union of the USA and
form their own nation with its own taxes and foreign policy.(After
paying their share of the national debt) I mean, if the southern
states, in your view, should of had such a right in 1860, why not
today???
Just think of the great opportunities that would arise: Special
deals with China. They would jump at the chance - A counter-balance to
Taiwanese Indendence. A mutual defense pact with military aid from
Russia and France. Your own nuclear weapons even, from your new friends
.Why not, if you are an independent, sovreign state? . And best of all,
no paying of federal taxes. Plus, you could re-write the constitution
you lived under to be just the way you wanted it to be. Eliminate those
pesky supreme court rulings that you never liked anyway. The mind
boggles. Who could resist such an option?
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Of course, this is not to defend the institution of slavery, and it's
> certainly not to say that slavery didn't need to be abolished as soon
> as possible. It is to say, however, that if one insists on demonizing
> the entire South over slavery, then one should be consistent and
> likewise demonize 1626-1789 New England for the same reason.
Lets see now. From 1789 to 1861 is 72 years or over two generations.
That is how long New England was out of the slave trade. The New
Englanders stopped doing evil and the Southrons kept it up.
Bob Kolker
Marcaurelius
the slaves and remain independent than hold the slaves and lose their
independence.
Anything to justify the useless slaughter of the previous four years.
soc.history.war
"Mike Griffith" <mikegri...@cs.com> wrote:
> <<< Yes, the slaves enjoyed the same rights as the jews >>>
>
> This is a sick comparison. The Nazis sought to exterminate the Jews.
let's back up a bit to the time when the nazis just took away all of the
jews civil rights, before the killing got serious.
> A more credible comparison would be the Nazis' treatment of the Jews
> with the federal government's treatment of the American Indians under
> the "leadership" of Ulysses S. Grant, first as commanding general of
> the army and then as president.
so no southerners were involved in the federal govt's treatment of the
indians?
>
> And do you equally condemn New England for permitting and protecting
> slavery for decades? Do you equally condemn New England because
> several New England states made huge fortunes from the slave trade?
> You're aware, I take it, that nearly all American slave ships were
> owned in and operated from the North. You might want to read James and
> Lois Horton's book IN HOPE OF LIBERTY to see how slaves were treated in
> the North when that region embraced slavery for several decades, and
> also to see how jealously some New England states protected the slave
> trade because they were reaping huge fortunes from it..
as were the eventual owners of the slaves
>
> I guess it just doesn't matter to you that the Confederacy was moving
> toward ending slavery by late 1864,
Nope. That movement if any would have been based on slaves fighting for
the CSA and was not in anyway a "general emancipation". In other words
ending slavery would have been at the cost of the slaves to save the
slavocracy.
and that the Confederate
> Constitution banned the overseas slave trade,
As did the Constitution
allowed the entrance of
> free states to the CSA, and permitted Confederate states to abolish
> slavery within their borders if they wanted to do so. Even historians
> like Randall and Donald could concede that there were indications the
> South was going to end slavery even if it survived the war.
Brought about by the war, not because the slave owners were tired of
being slave owners
>
> Nor do I guess it matters to you that 75-80 percent of Southern
> citizens did not own slaves, and that most of those who did owned less
> than ten, often worked with them in the fields, and regarded them as
> part of the family.
Mostly due to the fact that they could not afford them
>
> Nor do I guess it matters to you that Southern slavery was the most
> humane form of slavery on the earth,
humane slavery...what an interesting oxymoron
as even neo-abolitionist historian
> James McPherson adcknowledges. (Perhaps that's why Southern slaves had
> a life expectancy that was comparable to urban populations and actually
> higher than in some European nations. Perhaps this explains why the
> diet and housing of slaves were comparable to, and sometimes better
> than,
sometimes?
> the diet and housing of Northern factory workers. Perhaps this
> explains why in many cases slaves actually received a greater share of
> the product of their labor than did many Northern factory workers.)
>
> Nor do I guess it matters to you that far, far more slaves died of
> mistreatment on Northern slave ships than died of abuse on Southern
> plantations. The numbers aren't even remotely close.
Seems funny that if slavery as practiced in the south was so humane, we
didn't see more northern slaves escaping to the south...instead of all
those well treated southern slaves trying to escape to the north.
In fact if southern slavery was so humane, why was the south moving
towards emancipation?
>
> Nor do I guess it matters that some two-thirds of the slaves who were
> later interviewed about their experiences said they were treated well
> and spoke fondly of their former masters.
I sure would like to see the survey and the statistical sample
>
> Of course, this is not to defend the institution of slavery, and it's
> certainly not to say that slavery didn't need to be abolished as soon
> as possible. It is to say, however, that if one insists on demonizing
> the entire South over slavery, then one should be consistent and
> likewise demonize 1626-1789 New England for the same reason.
1789 -1865 was at least two generations that New England was out of the
slave trade...and the south wasn't
j...@ams.org
Brad Meyer wrote:
> Do you suppose many, if any, of the slaves would have cared why?
That's not the point, IMO. The original poster said the Hunter
letter showed Lee in favor of gradual emancipation. IMO, the
text shows that his support of gradual emancipation is only in
connection with the plan to recruit black troops. That (IMO)
undermines the claim that the Hunter letter shows Lee in
favor of gradual emancipation.
JFE
Cash
"Mike Griffith" <mikegri...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1131810902....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>> 3. The CSA's two highest ranking generals, Robert E. Lee
>>> and Joseph E. Johnston, both disliked slavery and
>>> supported emancipation in various forms. Lee called
>>> slavery "a moral and political evil."
>>
>>Lee also called it the best way to order relations between blacks
>>and whites (OWTTE). See his letter to Andrew Hunter.
>
> This is a distortion of what Lee said. Anyone who reads his letter can
> see that he was simply saying that slavery needed to be abolished
> gradually and carefully.
>
>>> slaves and did not come from slaveholding families.
>>
>>Can you verify this?
>
> Hattaway and Beringer, JEFFERSON DAVIS, CONFEDERATE PRESIDENT, p. 37.
>
>>Certainly some CS generals did not own slaves (i.e., the Northerners like
>>Bushrod
>>Johnson, John Pemberton, and Samuel Cooper) but many others --- RE Lee,
>>his two
>>sons, his nephew, NB Forrest --- did.
>
> This is an unfair, inaccurate characterization of Lee's status.
-----------------------------
It is a fair and accurate characterization.
> Lee inherited four female slaves from his mother when she died. (Robert
> E. Lee letter to Mary Lee, April 24, 1832)
>
> By 1835, Lee had sold all the slaves he had inherited from his mother,
> except one: Nancy Ruffin, whom he rented to his father-in-law in New
> Kent County, Virginia. (Letter to Carter Lee, February 24, 1835)
---------------------------
No, this is not true. Lee owned Billy Gardner, whom he rented to Hill
Carter. The receipts for the rental, signed by Lee, are in the Shirley
Plantation Papers.
If one is to believe William Mack Lee, then William Mack Lee was R. E. Lee's
slave throughout the war.
> In contrast, Ulysses Grant and his wife held and used slaves during and
> after the war.
----------------------------
This is also not true. There is no evidence Julia had ownership of the four
slaves she had use of through her father. By 1863 they had all run off and
freed themselves. The Grants hired one of the former slaves, also named
Julia, as a paid nurse in 1864.
Regards,
Cash
Cash
> <<< S Witmer wrote: I find it mind boggling that you can make that
> claim, given that more
> than a 1/3 of the CSA population were slaves with few or no civil
> rights that any white man had to consider. >>>
>
> Then do you wish the British had won the Revolutionary War,
This is nothing but a distraction and an unsrupulous attempt to smear his
opponent. The two have nothing to do with each other.
since
> slavery would have come under much stronger attack and undoubtedly
> ended sooner if the British had retained control of the colonies?
----------------------
Not something that could be known at the time. The British did not seek to
end slavery in the colonies, and the Americans did not name preservation of
slavery as one of their aims in the Revolutionary War.
Regards,
Cash
Cash
"Mike Griffith" <mikegri...@cs.com> wrote
> "The reasons that induce me to recommend the employment of negro
> troops at all render the effect of the measures I have suggested upon
> slavery immaterial, and in my
> opinion the best means of securing the efficiency and fidelity of this
> auxiliary force would be to accompany the measure with a well-digested
> plan of gradual and general emancipation."
>
> So Lee advocated a "well-digested plan of GRADUAL AND GENERAL
> EMANCIPATION."
--------------------------------
Only because slavery was dead anyway. Absent slavery's death from the war,
Lee said very clearly he would not abolish slavery.
"Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and
influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best
that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at
present in this country, I would deprecate any sudden disturbance of that
relation unless it be necessary to avert a greater calamity to both."
Regards,
Cash
j...@ams.org
Mike Griffith wrote:
> <<< JFE wrote: Feel free to show us where this [Lee's letter to Hunter]
> says slavery should be abolished at all. >>>
>
> Gladly. I don't know how you missed it. I quote from the letter, the
> same letter which you quoted:
>
> "The reasons that induce me to recommend the employment of negro
> troops at all render the effect of the measures I have suggested upon
> slavery immaterial, and in my
> opinion the best means of securing the efficiency and fidelity of this
> auxiliary force would be to accompany the measure with a well-digested
> plan of gradual and general emancipation."
>
> So Lee advocated a "well-digested plan of GRADUAL AND GENERAL
> EMANCIPATION."
But this is not advocated by Lee except in connection with the
plan to recruit black troops. Lee isn't saying here that he thinks
gradual emancipation is a good idea; he is saying that if we
are going to use slave troops, we need to have a plan of
emancipation in order to ensure their loyalty.
JFE
S Witmer
soc.history.war wrote:
> In article <1132402324.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Mike Griffith" <mikegri...@cs.com> wrote:
>
> > <<< Yes, the slaves enjoyed the same rights as the jews >>>
> >
> > This is a sick comparison. The Nazis sought to exterminate the Jews.
>
> let's back up a bit to the time when the nazis just took away all of the
> jews civil rights, before the killing got serious.
>
>
> > A more credible comparison would be the Nazis' treatment of the Jews
> > with the federal government's treatment of the American Indians under
> > the "leadership" of Ulysses S. Grant, first as commanding general of
> > the army and then as president.
>
> so no southerners were involved in the federal govt's treatment of the
> indians?
Not only that, but Mike seems to forget, oh, the Trail of Tears, the
Seminole Wars, etc, and all the repressions that happened pre-Civil
War. Quite often under the administration of southern presidents, btw,
so the Native American repression thing was hardly restricted to
northern Republicans as Mike would have us believe above.
>
>
> >
> > And do you equally condemn New England for permitting and protecting
> > slavery for decades? Do you equally condemn New England because
> > several New England states made huge fortunes from the slave trade?
> > You're aware, I take it, that nearly all American slave ships were
> > owned in and operated from the North. You might want to read James and
> > Lois Horton's book IN HOPE OF LIBERTY to see how slaves were treated in
> > the North when that region embraced slavery for several decades, and
> > also to see how jealously some New England states protected the slave
> > trade because they were reaping huge fortunes from it..
And yet...the northern states voluntarily ended slavery within their
borders.
>
>
> as were the eventual owners of the slaves
>
> >
> > I guess it just doesn't matter to you that the Confederacy was moving
> > toward ending slavery by late 1864,
>
>
> Nope. That movement if any would have been based on slaves fighting for
> the CSA and was not in anyway a "general emancipation". In other words
> ending slavery would have been at the cost of the slaves to save the
> slavocracy.
That's part of what Mike doesn't get. It wasn't as if the CSA was
voluntarily contemplating freeing slaves for philanthropic humanitarian
reasons. It was to give slaves an incentive to turn themselves into
cannon fodder in a last ditch effort by the Confederate leadership to
save their own skins - a sort of "If we're going to lose our slaves no
matter what we do, at least let's sacrifice them to our own cause
rather than lose them to our enemy's cause."
>
> and that the Confederate
> > Constitution banned the overseas slave trade,
>
> As did the Constitution
>
>
> allowed the entrance of
> > free states to the CSA, and permitted Confederate states to abolish
> > slavery within their borders if they wanted to do so. Even historians
> > like Randall and Donald could concede that there were indications the
> > South was going to end slavery even if it survived the war.
>
>
> Brought about by the war, not because the slave owners were tired of
> being slave owners
>
>
> >
> > Nor do I guess it matters to you that 75-80 percent of Southern
> > citizens did not own slaves, and that most of those who did owned less
> > than ten, often worked with them in the fields, and regarded them as
> > part of the family.
>
>
> Mostly due to the fact that they could not afford them
>
> >
> > Nor do I guess it matters to you that Southern slavery was the most
> > humane form of slavery on the earth,
There were lots of forms of slavery more humane than what was being
practiced in the antebellum south. A Roman slave could aspire to one
day become a Roman citizen, could be educated, etc.
>
> humane slavery...what an interesting oxymoron
>
>
> as even neo-abolitionist historian
> > James McPherson adcknowledges. (Perhaps that's why Southern slaves had
> > a life expectancy that was comparable to urban populations and actually
> > higher than in some European nations. Perhaps this explains why the
> > diet and housing of slaves were comparable to, and sometimes better
> > than,
>
> sometimes?
>
> > the diet and housing of Northern factory workers. Perhaps this
> > explains why in many cases slaves actually received a greater share of
> > the product of their labor than did many Northern factory workers.)
> >
> > Nor do I guess it matters to you that far, far more slaves died of
> > mistreatment on Northern slave ships than died of abuse on Southern
> > plantations. The numbers aren't even remotely close.
>
> Seems funny that if slavery as practiced in the south was so humane, we
> didn't see more northern slaves escaping to the south...instead of all
> those well treated southern slaves trying to escape to the north.
Not to mention that we don't see all these starving factory workers and
immigrants flocking to the south to sign up to become slaves.
>
> In fact if southern slavery was so humane, why was the south moving
> towards emancipation?
>
>
> >
> > Nor do I guess it matters that some two-thirds of the slaves who were
> > later interviewed about their experiences said they were treated well
> > and spoke fondly of their former masters.
>
> I sure would like to see the survey and the statistical sample
>
>
> >
> > Of course, this is not to defend the institution of slavery, and it's
> > certainly not to say that slavery didn't need to be abolished as soon
> > as possible. It is to say, however, that if one insists on demonizing
> > the entire South over slavery, then one should be consistent and
> > likewise demonize 1626-1789 New England for the same reason.
>
> 1789 -1865 was at least two generations that New England was out of the
> slave trade...and the south wasn't
And that blows much of Mike's whole argument out of the water - he
keeps wanting to make comparisons between the south of 1861-1865 to the
rest of the nation in 1800. By that logic, we may as well compare
Charleston in 2000 to, say, Detroit in 1930. I suppose while we're at
it we may as well bring up the Norman Conquest, the Peloppenesian Wars
and the Minoan civilization. They're just about as relevant.
Brad Meyer
>
>"Mike Griffith" <mikegri...@cs.com> wrote in message
>news:1131810902....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>> 3. The CSA's two highest ranking generals, Robert E. Lee
>>>> and Joseph E. Johnston, both disliked slavery and
>>>> supported emancipation in various forms. Lee called
>>>> slavery "a moral and political evil."
>>>
>>>Lee also called it the best way to order relations between blacks
>>>and whites (OWTTE). See his letter to Andrew Hunter.
>>
>> This is a distortion of what Lee said. Anyone who reads his letter can
>> see that he was simply saying that slavery needed to be abolished
>> gradually and carefully.
>>
>>>> 4. The majority of Confederate generals did not own
>>>> slaves and did not come from slaveholding families.
>>>
>>>Can you verify this?
>>
>> Hattaway and Beringer, JEFFERSON DAVIS, CONFEDERATE PRESIDENT, p. 37.
>>
>>>Certainly some CS generals did not own slaves (i.e., the Northerners like
>>>Bushrod
>>>Johnson, John Pemberton, and Samuel Cooper) but many others --- RE Lee,
>>>his two
>>>sons, his nephew, NB Forrest --- did.
>>
>> This is an unfair, inaccurate characterization of Lee's status.
>-----------------------------
>It is a fair and accurate characterization.
No, it is not.
>
>> Lee inherited four female slaves from his mother when she died. (Robert
>> E. Lee letter to Mary Lee, April 24, 1832)
>>
>> By 1835, Lee had sold all the slaves he had inherited from his mother,
>> except one: Nancy Ruffin, whom he rented to his father-in-law in New
>> Kent County, Virginia. (Letter to Carter Lee, February 24, 1835)
>---------------------------
>No, this is not true. Lee owned Billy Gardner, whom he rented to Hill
>Carter. The receipts for the rental, signed by Lee, are in the Shirley
>Plantation Papers.
Funny the reciepts are, but there is no other record of ownership. Do
we know that Lee in fact owned Gardener or could he have been acting
as an agent for another family member?
>If one is to believe William Mack Lee, then William Mack Lee was R. E. Lee's
>slave throughout the war.
If one were to believe that. Again, there is no evidence of ownership
from a man who was damn near anal about record keeping. ISTM that had
he acquired slaves after the Mexican War there would have been some
record of it, and it seems most unlikely the he would only claim a
portion of his slaves on his Mexican War will. Therefore it seems most
unlikely he had any slaves but those mentioned in the will of 1846.
after that date.
scribe7716
Mike Griffith wrote:
> No one is denying that the press of circumstances prompted many
> Southern leaders to change their minds about arming slaves and
> emancipation.
Not a total denial perhaps, but you seemed to casr doubt on the idea
when you wrote:
> Critics will reply that the CSA only began to move
> toward emancipation as an act of desperation in the face
> of eminent defeat.
> In addition, some Southern leaders, like Lee and Kenner, supported
> emancipation and using slave soldiers in 1862, though they voiced their
> views to Davis and others privately....
Please point me to some documentary evidence of Lee calling for slave
soldiers and emancipation in 1862. Kenner called for emancipation as a
means of gaining diplomatic recognition in 1864 when, according to the
_Encyclopedia of the American Civil War__, "Kenner returned to Richmond
in the fall of 1864 to a rapidly deteriorating military situation, and
he resolved that the South's only possible salvation lay in gaining the
Confederate government diplomatic recognition by European powers."
> The two comments you quote do not say "we must arm slaves and offer
> them freedom because defeat is imminent."
There was a third comment that you seem to have passed over.
"Critics such as Robert E. Lee who in his January 1865 somewhat tepid
endorsement of enlisting slave soldiers, 'We must decide whether
slavery shall be extinguished by our enemies and the slave be used
against us, or use them ourselves at the risk of the effects which may
be produced upom our social institutions.'"
>... Davis certainly did not believe defeat was
> right around the corner if the South didn't arm slaves for freedom.
Davis didn't believe defeat was possible under any circumstances.
That's why VP Alexander Stephens said that Davis' late 1864 optimism
was "the emanation of a demented brain." But as to the necessity of
arming the slaves, when the Confederate Congress balked Davis moaned,
""If the Confederacy falls, there should be written on its tombstone:
DIED OF A THEORY."
Cash
"Brad Meyer" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>Certainly some CS generals did not own slaves (i.e., the Northerners
>>>>like
>>>>Bushrod
>>>>Johnson, John Pemberton, and Samuel Cooper) but many others --- RE
>>>>Lee,
>>>>his two
>>>>sons, his nephew, NB Forrest --- did.
>>>
>>> This is an unfair, inaccurate characterization of Lee's status.
>>-----------------------------
>>It is a fair and accurate characterization.
>
> No, it is not.
-----------
Yes, it is. Lee did own slaves. It's unclear whether he personally owned
slaves at the time of the Civil War, but his sons and nephew had slaves.
>>
>>> Lee inherited four female slaves from his mother when she died. (Robert
>>> E. Lee letter to Mary Lee, April 24, 1832)
>>>
>>> By 1835, Lee had sold all the slaves he had inherited from his mother,
>>> except one: Nancy Ruffin, whom he rented to his father-in-law in New
>>> Kent County, Virginia. (Letter to Carter Lee, February 24, 1835)
>>---------------------------
>>No, this is not true. Lee owned Billy Gardner, whom he rented to Hill
>>Carter. The receipts for the rental, signed by Lee, are in the Shirley
>>Plantation Papers.
>
> Funny the reciepts are, but there is no other record of ownership. Do
> we know that Lee in fact owned Gardener or could he have been acting
> as an agent for another family member?
--------------------
As I detailed to you before, Lee specifically refers to Gardener as "my
man." Gardener was a slave Lee inherited from his mother.
>
>>If one is to believe William Mack Lee, then William Mack Lee was R. E.
>>Lee's
>>slave throughout the war.
>
> If one were to believe that.
---------------------------
And I'm not saying I do, just pointing out WML's assertion.
Again, there is no evidence of ownership
> from a man who was damn near anal about record keeping. ISTM that had
> he acquired slaves after the Mexican War there would have been some
> record of it, and it seems most unlikely the he would only claim a
> portion of his slaves on his Mexican War will. Therefore it seems most
> unlikely he had any slaves but those mentioned in the will of 1846.
> after that date.
------------------------------
Who knows what records were lost or burned by family members, especially
after 1870 when the deification began.
Regards,
Cash
David Goldberg
Mike Griffith wrote:
> I'd like to point out some facts in defense of the Confederacy:
>
Good post, but you're emphasizing slavery too much.
Lincoln invaded the South because he wanted to keep the Union together.
Losing the South would have an economic disaster for the Union, and it
needed to be held together at all costs.
Only later did slavery become an issue. Go read what Lincoln had to say
about slavery during the first Lincoln-Douglas debate.
--
"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free."
~P.J. O'Rourke
R. Taubman
news:43861B55...@yahoo.com...
>
>
> Mike Griffith wrote:
>
>> I'd like to point out some facts in defense of the Confederacy:
>>
>
> Good post, but you're emphasizing slavery too much.
>
> Lincoln invaded the South because he wanted to keep the Union together.
> Losing the South would have an economic disaster for the Union, and it
> needed to be held together at all costs.
Please explain how and why it would have been an "economic disaster".
Thanx.
S Witmer
"Economic disaster?" The north had most of the industrial capacity in
the country. Just because the southern planters had the ego to believe
that Cotton was King didn't make it so.
"Only later did slavery become an issue?" I'd suggest that you go and
read what Alexander Stephens had to say about slavery in his
Cornerstone speech.
R. Taubman
news:1132897436.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> David Goldberg wrote:
>> Mike Griffith wrote:
>>
>> > I'd like to point out some facts in defense of the Confederacy:
>> >
>>
>> Good post, but you're emphasizing slavery too much.
>>
>> Lincoln invaded the South because he wanted to keep the Union together.
>> Losing the South would have an economic disaster for the Union, and it
>> needed to be held together at all costs.
>>
>> Only later did slavery become an issue. Go read what Lincoln had to say
>> about slavery during the first Lincoln-Douglas debate.
>>
>> --
>> "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free."
>> ~P.J. O'Rourke
>
> "Economic disaster?" The north had most of the industrial capacity in
> the country. Just because the southern planters had the ego to believe
> that Cotton was King didn't make it so.
It amazes me that the Union/North was able to sustain itself economically as
well as militarily for four years without the South's supposed financial
pillars. Based on the economy argument as put forward by Southern
advocates, the North should have been bankrupt and in ruins at some point
during the war.
Huddle...@comcast.net
Lincoln did not "invade" the South. He attempted, as it turned out,
successfully, to reclaim states in rebellion.
He was very clear that he had no intention of doing anything to the
states in rebellion unless they forced him. "To invade" implies
that the North started the war. Lincoln and the North responded to the
Confederate attack on the American flag.
And, yes, slavery was not just "an" issue, it was the ONLY issue.
By trying to cite Lincoln in 1858, you are twisting the causes to blame
the North for secession and war.
Instead, look to those who started it all: look at the various reasons
given by the rebelling states for their attempt at secession: all fear
about what would happen to the Peculiar Institution with an
anti-slavery party in the White House.
"On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts
were anxiously directed to an impending civil-war. All dreaded it-all
sought to avert it. While the inaugeral address was being delivered
from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war,
insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without
war-seeking to dissol[v]e the Union, and divide effects, by
negotiation. Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make
war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war
rather than let it perish. And the war came.
"One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not
distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern
part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest.
All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To
strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for
which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the
government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial
enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude,
or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated
that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the
conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a
result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and
pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It
may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's
assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces;
but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could
not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty
has His own purposes. 'Woe unto the world because of offences! for it
must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the
offence cometh!' If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of
those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but
which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to
remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war,
as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern
therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers
in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope-fervently do
we pray-that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet,
if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the
bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be
sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid
by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago,
so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord, are true and
righteous altogether.'"
Take care,
Bob
Judy and Bob Huddleston
10643 Sperry Street
Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
303.451.6376 Huddle...@comcast.net
"Don't argue with someone who claims the earth is flat. You haven't
given it a second thought, whereas he has spent 20 years thinking about
and obsessing over why it is flat."
David Goldberg
"R. Taubman" wrote:
> "David Goldberg" <david_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:43861B55...@yahoo.com...
> >
> >
> > Mike Griffith wrote:
> >
> >> I'd like to point out some facts in defense of the Confederacy:
> >>
> >
> > Good post, but you're emphasizing slavery too much.
> >
> > Lincoln invaded the South because he wanted to keep the Union together.
> > Losing the South would have an economic disaster for the Union, and it
> > needed to be held together at all costs.
>
> Please explain how and why it would have been an "economic disaster".
>
> Thanx.
>
Cotton made up 50% of all American exports in 1860. You think the Union
wanted to lose that?
The primary source of federal revenue came from the tariff on imported goods
to the South. You think the Union wanted to lose that?
Losing half of the economy, and most federal government revenue would have
been a disaster. Lincoln knew this, so he invaded.
David Goldberg
Huddle...@comcast.net wrote:
> And, yes, slavery was not just "an" issue, it was the ONLY issue.
> By trying to cite Lincoln in 1858, you are twisting the causes to blame
> the North for secession and war.
>
"I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or
indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where
it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no
inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social
equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference
between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their
living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it
becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge
Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior
position."
Abraham Lincoln
August 21, 1858
Of course, like a good politician, he later changed his mind and championed an
end to slavery as justification for his invasion of the South.
David Goldberg
S Witmer wrote:
> David Goldberg wrote:
> > Mike Griffith wrote:
> >
> > > I'd like to point out some facts in defense of the Confederacy:
> > >
> >
> > Good post, but you're emphasizing slavery too much.
> >
> > Lincoln invaded the South because he wanted to keep the Union together.
> > Losing the South would have an economic disaster for the Union, and it
> > needed to be held together at all costs.
> >
> > Only later did slavery become an issue. Go read what Lincoln had to say
> > about slavery during the first Lincoln-Douglas debate.
> >
> > --
> > "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free."
> > ~P.J. O'Rourke
>
> "Economic disaster?" The north had most of the industrial capacity in
> the country. Just because the southern planters had the ego to believe
> that Cotton was King didn't make it so.
Industrial capacity, yes. Cotton accounted for 50% of all exports, so it not
an insignificant issue.
>
>
> "Only later did slavery become an issue?"
For Lincoln. His primary goal was keeping the Union together.
Al Montestruc
R. Taubman wrote:
> "David Goldberg" <david_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:43861B55...@yahoo.com...
> >
> >
> > Mike Griffith wrote:
> >
> >> I'd like to point out some facts in defense of the Confederacy:
> >>
> >
> > Good post, but you're emphasizing slavery too much.
> >
> > Lincoln invaded the South because he wanted to keep the Union together.
> > Losing the South would have an economic disaster for the Union, and it
> > needed to be held together at all costs.
>
>
> Please explain how and why it would have been an "economic disaster".
Slave grown cash crops (cotton, tobbacco, rice, sugar) made up much
more than half the dollar volume of US exports till the war. IIRC
cotton alone made up more than half. Those same crops made up more
than half of US exports (in dollars) till sometime in the early 20th
century. If the south could buy industrial products from Europe w/o
having to pay significant protectionist tarrifs (15% before the war)
this would seriously damage the northern industrial economy as a huge
fraction of northern industrial producton went to the south in part
becuase of the protectionist tarriff. Add to that the possibility of a
southern boycott of northern products (over non-return of escaped
slaves say), and you can see how damaging the south's secession could
be.
R. Taubman
>
>
> "R. Taubman" wrote:
>
>> "David Goldberg" <david_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:43861B55...@yahoo.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > Mike Griffith wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'd like to point out some facts in defense of the Confederacy:
>> >>
>> >
>> > Good post, but you're emphasizing slavery too much.
>> >
>> > Lincoln invaded the South because he wanted to keep the Union together.
>> > Losing the South would have an economic disaster for the Union, and it
>> > needed to be held together at all costs.
>>
>> Please explain how and why it would have been an "economic disaster".
>>
>> Thanx.
>>
>
> Cotton made up 50% of all American exports in 1860. You think the Union
> wanted to lose that?
>
> The primary source of federal revenue came from the tariff on imported
> goods
> to the South. You think the Union wanted to lose that?
Your source for this is??
Cash
"David Goldberg" <david_...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Cotton made up 50% of all American exports in 1860. You think the Union
> wanted to lose that?
-----------------------------
They did, for four years, and survived.
> The primary source of federal revenue came from the tariff on imported
> goods
> to the South. You think the Union wanted to lose that?
------------------------------
That's completely false. Well over 90% of the tariff revenue was collected
in Northern ports, not southern ports. The south at that time was 29% of
the population, and it is ludicrous to think they used far more imported
items than any other region.
Regards,
Cash
Cash
"David Goldberg" <david_...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Lincoln invaded the South because he wanted to keep the Union together.
------------------------
And because the confederates fired on Fort Sumter; however, that has nothing
to do with why the confederates started the war. They started the war to
win their independence in order to perpetuate the institution of slavery.
> Losing the South would have an economic disaster for the Union, and it
> needed to be held together at all costs.
--------------------------
And yet the Union was able to survive through four years of a highly
expensive war without the south.
> Only later did slavery become an issue.
----------------------------
This statement is completely inaccurate. Slavery was always an issue for
the confederates.
Go read what Lincoln had to say
> about slavery during the first Lincoln-Douglas debate.
------------------------------
That has nothing to do with why the confederates seceded or why they started
the war.
Regards,
Cash
Cash
"David Goldberg" <david_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> "Economic disaster?" The north had most of the industrial capacity in
>> the country. Just because the southern planters had the ego to believe
>> that Cotton was King didn't make it so.
>
> Industrial capacity, yes. Cotton accounted for 50% of all exports, so it
> not
> an insignificant issue.
---------------------------
How then did they survive through four years of a very expensive war without
those exports?
>> "Only later did slavery become an issue?"
>
> For Lincoln. His primary goal was keeping the Union together.
---------------------------------
But it was the confederates who seceded and started the war.
Regards,
Cash
Cash
This is the logical fallacy known as Ignoratio Elenchi, also known as the
"red herring."
Lincoln in 1858 has nothing to do with why the confederates seceded or why
they started the war.
Regards,
Cash
David Goldberg
"R. Taubman" wrote:
> "David Goldberg" <david_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4387886A...@yahoo.com...
> >
> >
> > "R. Taubman" wrote:
> >
> >> "David Goldberg" <david_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:43861B55...@yahoo.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Mike Griffith wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I'd like to point out some facts in defense of the Confederacy:
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Good post, but you're emphasizing slavery too much.
> >> >
> >> > Lincoln invaded the South because he wanted to keep the Union together.
> >> > Losing the South would have an economic disaster for the Union, and it
> >> > needed to be held together at all costs.
> >>
> >> Please explain how and why it would have been an "economic disaster".
> >>
> >> Thanx.
> >>
> >
> > Cotton made up 50% of all American exports in 1860. You think the Union
> > wanted to lose that?
> >
> > The primary source of federal revenue came from the tariff on imported
> > goods
> > to the South. You think the Union wanted to lose that?
>
> Your source for this is??
>
You can start by reading this:
http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/article/ransom.civil.war.us
David Goldberg
Cash wrote:
> "David Goldberg" <david_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> >> "Economic disaster?" The north had most of the industrial capacity in
> >> the country. Just because the southern planters had the ego to believe
> >> that Cotton was King didn't make it so.
> >
> > Industrial capacity, yes. Cotton accounted for 50% of all exports, so it
> > not
> > an insignificant issue.
> ---------------------------
> How then did they survive through four years of a very expensive war without
> those exports?
>
As you probably learned in 4th grade, the north was an industrial nation and the
south relied on agriculture.
Industrial nations are better suited to fighting wars.
Rich Rostrom
>> > The primary source of federal revenue came from the tariff on imported
>> > goods to the South. You think the Union wanted to lose that?
>>
>> Your source for this is??
>You can start by reading this:
>http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/article/ransom.civil.war.us
I did. Nowhere in this essay is there any claim that
"The primary source of federal revenue came from
the tariff on imported goods to the South."
There is a statement that tariff revenues were the main
source of federal revenue, which has never been disputed.
But there is no claim, and nor any evidence that could
be construed to show, that this revenue was primarily
collected on goods imported for Southern consumers.
This claim is a popular myth among Confederate apologists.
But no one has ever produced actual evidence to support it.
The bulk of tariff revenue collected in the pre-war
period was collected at ports in the free states.
Since the vast majority of Americans lived in the free
states, there is no reason to believe that the minority
living in the slave states were the consumers of _most_
imported goods, especially since only a small portion of
imported goods were shipped to Southern ports.
--
| The shocking lack of a fleet of modern luxury |
| dirigibles is only one of a great many things that |
| are seriously wrong with this here world. |
| -- blogger "Coop" at Positive Ape Index |
Cash
"David Goldberg" <david_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> > Industrial capacity, yes. Cotton accounted for 50% of all exports, so
>> > it
>> > not
>> > an insignificant issue.
>> ---------------------------
>> How then did they survive through four years of a very expensive war
>> without
>> those exports?
>>
>
> As you probably learned in 4th grade, the north was an industrial nation
> and the
> south relied on agriculture.
>
> Industrial nations are better suited to fighting wars.
-----------------------------
That's an ahistorical response. It ignores the fact that wars are extremely
expensive. Money has to be spent and people have to be paid. Soldiers have
to be equipped and fed. You don't feed an army with industry. The army had
to be supplied with horses and mules. These aren't built by industry. Arms
have to be produced, workers paid and fed. If the loss of the southern
states were going to lead to economic disaster, the United States would have
suffered that disaster during the war. It didn't, therefore your premise is
false.
And the truth is "the North" was not industrial. It was more industrial
than the confederacy, but it was primarily agricultural, as a look at the
1860 Census will tell you.
Regards,
Cash
Cash
"David Goldberg" <david_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> > The primary source of federal revenue came from the tariff on imported
>> > goods
>> > to the South. You think the Union wanted to lose that?
>>
>> Your source for this is??
>>
>
> You can start by reading this:
> http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/article/ransom.civil.war.us
-----------------
Maybe you should read it. It does not support your claim.
Regards,
Cash
R. Taubman
>
>
> Cash wrote:
>
>> "David Goldberg" <david_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>> >> "Economic disaster?" The north had most of the industrial capacity in
>> >> the country. Just because the southern planters had the ego to
>> >> believe
>> >> that Cotton was King didn't make it so.
>> >
>> > Industrial capacity, yes. Cotton accounted for 50% of all exports, so
>> > it
>> > not
>> > an insignificant issue.
>> ---------------------------
>> How then did they survive through four years of a very expensive war
>> without
>> those exports?
>>
>
> As you probably learned in 4th grade, the north was an industrial nation
> and the
> south relied on agriculture.
>
> Industrial nations are better suited to fighting wars.
Better suited how? Economically? You still failed to answer Cash's
question though.
"How then did they survive through four years of a very expensive war
without
those exports?" How did the North maintain its economic advantage without
those Southern tariffs?
Robert J. Kolker
>
> As you probably learned in 4th grade, the north was an industrial nation and the
> south relied on agriculture.
In 1860 over half the population of the Union states were engaged in
agriculture.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> false.
>
> And the truth is "the North" was not industrial. It was more industrial
> than the confederacy, but it was primarily agricultural, as a look at the
> 1860 Census will tell you.
The Union States -became- industrial as a result of the Civil War. There
was a very steep rise in capital investments for steel production as a
result of the war. Cleveland and Pittsburge became big steel producing
towns as a result.
Bob Kolker
j...@ams.org
S Witmer wrote:
> "Only later did slavery become an issue?" I'd suggest that you go and
> read what Alexander Stephens had to say about slavery in his
> Cornerstone speech.
Or, go and read about the secession commissioners.
JFE
S Witmer
Lincoln never used ending slavery as his justification for fighting the
war. He made quite clear to the South prior to the war that he felt he
had no power as President to end slavery where it existed. The *only*
way he was able to justify the Emancipation Proclamation was via his
presidential war powers. He was anti-slavery and wanted to see an end
to slavery - but he also understood the constitutional limits of his
presidential authority.
That being said, he was not about to allow the flouting of his
constitutional authority to enforce the constitution and federal laws
made in pursuance thereof. Secession was the ultimate abrogation of
the Supremacy Clause, in that it if a state could unilaterally secede
at will for any reason, then obviously the Constitution was not the
"Supreme Law of the Land".
What I get tired of is the old "Lincoln was frothing at the mouth to
invade the south" argument when in fact Lincoln and Buchanan showed an
incredible amount of patience and restraint, given that well before
Sumter cannons had been fired at the Star of the West, a US Schooner
had been seized while in port at New Orleans, other federal forts,
arsenals, even a hospital had been seized, sometimes at gunpoint and
often prior to any secession vote within the state these facilities
were located in - any one of which actions could have been a
justification for mobilizing military force to reclaim the taken
properties and enforce federal laws. But somehow this all gets
conveniently forgotten, and somehow calling up the militia in response
to a "last straw" assault on a poorly supplied 74-man garrison trapped
in a harbor surrounded on all sides by hostile rebel forces becomes a
megomaniacal push for war.
scott s.
news:coadnfppZon...@comcast.com:
Of course, as has been debated ad nauseum here, collecting a tariff
does not equate to placing the economic burden of that tariff. My
understanding of the political need for tariff was for protection
of manufacturing in certain states, rather than federal revenue.
Another factor was that cotton export was an important souce of
specie. However, the discovery of gold in California greatly
increased the domestic supply of specie, reducing the dependency
of the US economy on foreign specie.
scott s.
Al Montestruc
R. Taubman wrote:
> "David Goldberg" <david_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4387886A...@yahoo.com...
> >
> >
> > "R. Taubman" wrote:
> >
> >> "David Goldberg" <david_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:43861B55...@yahoo.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Mike Griffith wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I'd like to point out some facts in defense of the Confederacy:
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Good post, but you're emphasizing slavery too much.
> >> >
> >> > Lincoln invaded the South because he wanted to keep the Union together.
> >> > Losing the South would have an economic disaster for the Union, and it
> >> > needed to be held together at all costs.
> >>
> >> Please explain how and why it would have been an "economic disaster".
> >>
> >> Thanx.
> >>
> >
> > Cotton made up 50% of all American exports in 1860. You think the Union
> > wanted to lose that?
> >
> > The primary source of federal revenue came from the tariff on imported
> > goods
> > to the South. You think the Union wanted to lose that?
>
> Your source for this is??
While the tarrifs on goods *directly* imported to the south may not
have been the bulk of such income, when all was said and done, if the
south was sucessful in secession, then for balance of trade reasons the
terriff income would drop like a stone. You cannot lose more than half
your export income and expect to have no effect on long term imports.
Gregory E. Garland
"Al Montestruc" <monte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132963170.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> If the south could buy industrial products from Europe w/o
> having to pay significant protectionist tarrifs (15% before the war)
> this would seriously damage the northern industrial economy as a huge
> fraction of northern industrial producton went to the south in part
> becuase of the protectionist tarriff.
(1) The CSA adopted the existing tariffs in toto; probably because it
was expected to be the primary source of revenue for the CSA
government just like it was for the antebellum US. (2) Considering
that 40% of the slave states' population was being maintained in a
state of abject poverty and dependence as unskilled laborers, it is
extremely surprising that anyone would believe that the southern
market constituted a 'huge' fraction of the customers for northern
industrialists.
Marcaurelius
championed an
end to slavery as justification for his invasion of the South.
I don't believe Lincoln ever 'changed his mind' about slavery.
He was a smart
politician who waited for the right moment.
Scott M. Kozel
> >
> > For Lincoln. His primary goal was keeping the Union together.
>
Secession does not start a war. The war started when the unionists
invaded the South, and when South tried to defend itself from the
invading unionist armies.
S Witmer
Funny way of defending themselves, firing on an unarmed steamer (The
Star of the West), and seizing such militarily vital installations as
hospitals. Not to mention the little procedural problem that a lot of
the seized facilities were in states that hadn't even voted on
secession yet. And of course firing on a garrison of 70-odd men with
no avenue of escape who are surrounded by several thousand armed
opponents, especially when that garrison is within a fort for which the
state of South Carolina had extinguished all claim of ownership (yes,
it's true - there was even a resolution of the SC legislature doing so).
Cash
"scott s." <75270...@csi.xcom> wrote
>>> The primary source of federal revenue came from the tariff on
>>> imported goods
>>> to the South. You think the Union wanted to lose that?
>> ------------------------------
>> That's completely false. Well over 90% of the tariff revenue was
>> collected in Northern ports, not southern ports. The south at that
>> time was 29% of the population, and it is ludicrous to think they used
>> far more imported items than any other region.
>
> Of course, as has been debated ad nauseum here, collecting a tariff
> does not equate to placing the economic burden of that tariff.
----------------------------------
Which is why we have to look at the population figures too, among other
factors. In order for the south to pay the majority of the tariff, 29% of
the population have to consume an overwhelming amount of foreign goods.
"There were difficulties to be overcome before direct importations could be
established other than deficiency of capital and credit, the long credit
system, or the absence of a thoroughly Southern mercantile class. One lay in
the comparatively small amounts of foreign goods consumed in the South.
There is no way of calculating accurately the value of the foreign imports
consumed in territory naturally tributary to Southern seaports; but the
probabilities are that it did not so greatly exceed the direct importations
as Southerners generally supposed. Some Southern writers made the palpably
untenable assumption that the Southern population consumed foreign goods
equal in value to their exports to foreign countries, that is about
two-thirds or three-fourths of the nation's exports or imports. More
reasonable was the assumption that the per capita consumption of imported
goods in the South was equal to that of the North; but even that would seem
to have been too liberal. A much higher percentage of the Northern
population was urban; and the per capita consumption of articles of commerce
by an urban population is greater than the per capita consumption by a rural
population. Southern writers made much of the number of rich families in the
South who bought articles of luxury imported from abroad; but there is no
doubt that the number of families who lived in luxury was exaggerated. That
the slaves consumed comparatively small quantities of foreign goods requires
no demonstration. Their clothing and rough shoes were manufactured either in
the North or at home. Their chief articles of food (corn and bacon) were
produced at home or in the West. The large poor white element in the
population consumed few articles of commerce, either domestic or foreign.
The same is true of the rather large mountaineer element, because if for no
other reason, they lived beyond the routes of trade. Olmstead had these
classes in mind when he wrote: 'I have never seen reason to believe that
with absolute free trade the cotton States would take a tenth part of the
value of our present importations.' One of the fairest of the many English
travelers wrote: 'But the truth is, there are few imports required, for
every Southern town tells the same tale.' " [_Robert R. Russel, _Economic
Aspects of Southern Sectionalism, 1840-1861,_ pp. 107-108]
Note the higher percentage of urban population in the North means that
Northerners would tend to use more manufactured products.
My
> understanding of the political need for tariff was for protection
> of manufacturing in certain states, rather than federal revenue.
---------------------------
Most for manufacturing, some for raw materials produced in the south, such
as sugar.
And we have to remember the tariff at the time of secession was the lowest
it had been in fifty years.
Regards,
Cash
Cash
"Al Montestruc" <monte...@gmail.com> wrote
> While the tarrifs on goods *directly* imported to the south may not
> have been the bulk of such income, when all was said and done, if the
> south was sucessful in secession, then for balance of trade reasons the
> terriff income would drop like a stone.
--------------------------
No, it wouldn't.
The market for imported goods was primarily in the North, where the more
urban population was. Even if goods were shipped to the confederacy after a
successful secession, they would still have to come through US Customs
Houses and have a duty paid on them when they entered the reduced United
States. The United States would have lost some of the revenue due to
tariffs, but it would also have lost the need to spend in the southern
states.
Regards,
Cash
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>
> > Secession does not start a war. The war started when the unionists
> > invaded the South, and when South tried to defend itself from the
> > invading unionist armies.
>
> Funny way of defending themselves, firing on an unarmed steamer (The
> Star of the West), and seizing such militarily vital installations as
> hospitals. Not to mention the little procedural problem that a lot of
> the seized facilities were in states that hadn't even voted on
> secession yet.
Incorrect. They staffed facilities that were within their own country.
> And of course firing on a garrison of 70-odd men with
> no avenue of escape who are surrounded by several thousand armed
> opponents, especially when that garrison is within a fort for which the
> state of South Carolina had extinguished all claim of ownership (yes,
> it's true - there was even a resolution of the SC legislature doing so).
Incorrect. After secession the fort belonged to South Carolina, and the
unionists had no business in the fort other than to maintain a
stronghold that they planned to reinforce and use in their invasion of
South Carolina.
Cash
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:438948A2...@comcast.net...
> Cash <cas...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> "David Goldberg" <david_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>> >> "Only later did slavery become an issue?"
>> >
>> > For Lincoln. His primary goal was keeping the Union together.
>>
>> But it was the confederates who seceded and started the war.
>
> Secession does not start a war.
Firing on Fort Sumter started the war, and the confederates did that. They
were the ones who seceded and they were the ones who started the war.
The war started when the unionists
> invaded the South, and when South tried to defend itself from the
> invading unionist armies.
>
----------------------
Poppycock. The war started when the confederates, on the orders of
Jefferson Davis, fired on Fort Sumter.
"Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every
friend at the North. The firing upon that fort will inaugurate a civil war
greater than any the world has yet seen." [Robert Toombs to Jefferson
Davis, quoted in W. A. Swanberg, _First Blood: The Story of Fort Sumter,_
p. 286]
Regards,
Cash
R. Taubman
Committee on Federal
Relations
In the House of
Representatives,
December 31st, 1836
"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's
message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston,
and
the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same
subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right,
title
and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite
quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and
criminal
issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and
may
be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be
implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated,
shall
be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid
claim
there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land
hereby ceded.
"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the
claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land
contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties
have a
legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L.
Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners
on
behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General
should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he
proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same
avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to
the
Legislature at its next session.
"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate
for
concurrence. By order of the House:
"T. W. Glover,
C. H.
>
Al Montestruc
Gregory E. Garland wrote:
> "Al Montestruc" <monte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1132963170.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > If the south could buy industrial products from Europe w/o
> > having to pay significant protectionist tarrifs (15% before the war)
> > this would seriously damage the northern industrial economy as a huge
> > fraction of northern industrial producton went to the south in part
> > becuase of the protectionist tarriff.
>
> (1) The CSA adopted the existing tariffs in toto; probably because it
> was expected to be the primary source of revenue for the CSA
> government just like it was for the antebellum US.
But the north was agitating for higher tarriffs and enacted a 45%
tarriff almost as soon as southern legislators went home. We can
expect that if the lower south had been allowed to go in peace that
they might have a 15% CSA tarriff, and the USA (including the upper
south (VA, NC, TN, AK) would have a 45% tarriff, but that the CSA
tarriff would apply to USA goods as well. This puts US goods on even
footing with European goods and that screws over northern
manufacturers. (If you think a 15% tax is not a big deal you have not
been in business.)
>(2) Considering
> that 40% of the slave states' population was being maintained in a
> state of abject poverty
As opposed to the northern working class? That is utter crap. The evil
of slavery had nothing to do with poverty. It was that the slave could
not quit his job. A slave who lives in a luxury mansion with servants,
has slave women bought for his entertainment, has all his meals
prepaired for him, has fine clothing bought for him, is still a slave.
Such slaves existed in the Roman Empire, and I see no reason to envy a
gladiator.
It is a reasonably well established fact that typical slaves on
southern plantations had economic compensation that was in most ways
superior to most factory and mine workers in the north. They were
better fed, better clothed, and had much, much better medical care
(especially pregnant women), all of which was due to the fact that
dead slaves are worth nothing and sick, starved slaves are worth
little.
The northern mine owner or factory owner had no incentive to pay more
than the minimum wage that would get the labor he needed to work his
shop. The southern planter owned his labor force and had to plan on
using them for his lifetime and that of his children and any deaths or
illness of slave labor was very expensive to his income, and hard to
replace (buy a new slave at high cost) while the northern factory or
mine owner could replace a hand with almost no cost (put a sign on the
factory gate) as he rented his labor.
If you are going to go off on a tear about the evils of slavery (of
which their were many) get your facts straight. Slaves on average were
better fed, better clothed, and had better medical care than northern
equivelent skill level workers. They were not however free to leave,
or pursue independent economic opportunities, or practice a religion of
their own choosing, or educate themselves, and could be legally beaten
at the whim of the owner. Defacto they could be killed at the whim of
the owner, but in most states it was illegal and murder, but very hard
to prove, and few would care. The fact that slaves were very expensive
was the best and only protection a slave had against abuse of his
owner, which often was not enough.
The extreame poverty of blacks post war was due to the war and the US
government having broken their employers, and so their primary source
of income.
> and dependence as unskilled laborers, it is
> extremely surprising that anyone would believe that the southern
> market constituted a 'huge' fraction of the customers for northern
> industrialists.
Like the planters bought nothing!!! Or even bought nothing for their
slaves (clothes, shoes, and suchlike)
FYI one thing that made slavery in the south very hard to end was that
it was very broadly spread over the white population. IIRC about 25%
of all southern whites were members of slave owning families. As in
the immediate family, parent child sister brother of the slave owner.
The south as a seperate nation was far from poor, see "Time on the
Cross" by Fogle and Engerman, IIRC the south was only poorer than the
northern states and UK, but richer than many European powers of that
era.
Al Montestruc
Cash wrote:
> "Al Montestruc" <monte...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > While the tarrifs on goods *directly* imported to the south may not
> > have been the bulk of such income, when all was said and done, if the
> > south was sucessful in secession, then for balance of trade reasons the
> > terriff income would drop like a stone.
> --------------------------
> No, it wouldn't.
>
> The market for imported goods was primarily in the North, where the more
> urban population was. Even if goods were shipped to the confederacy after a
> successful secession, they would still have to come through US Customs
Poppycock!! Ever hear of the ports of New Orleans, Savanna,
Charleston, Mobile? If secession happend, then the US government gets
nada for tarriffs of direct imports to the CSA, and then the CSA would
impose a *uniform* tarriff of 15% on both the USA and the rest of the
world. That would make US factories compete on equal footing for the
same business.
Scott M. Kozel
> were the ones who seceded and they were the ones who started the war.
Wrong. The fort belonged to South Carolina, and the unionist squatters
refused to leave, and the unionists were preparing to reinforce the fort
and attack Charleston.
The war started when the unionists invaded the South.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > After secession the fort belonged to South Carolina, and the
> > unionists had no business in the fort other than to maintain a
> > stronghold that they planned to reinforce and use in their invasion of
> > South Carolina.
> Committee on Federal
> Relations
> In the House of
> Representatives,
> December 31st, 1836
>
> "The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's
> message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and
> the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same
> subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
That was when South Carolina was part of the U.S.
After South Carolina became part of the CSA, the U.S. had no earthly
non-invasive use for Fort Sumter, so that resolution was negated.
R. Taubman
news:438A24F0...@comcast.net...
The legislation is quite clear. Fort Sumter became property of the United
States of America. Nowhere does it say that in the event of secession, the
legislation is nul and void. You are making up rules of legislation as you
go along. Fort Sumter was not a part of South Carolina at the time it
attempted to secede from the Union. Nice try, no cigar.
>
S Witmer
Wrong.
And even if you were right, it still doesn't explain the seizures of
forts and other installations in states that hadn't seceded yet - and
please don't give me your lame "they were seizing property in their
country" explanation - even the most pie-in-the-sky libertarians admit
that the Supremacy Clause applies to states within the Union, which
means those seizures clearly were in contradiction to such Supreme
Court decisions as McCulloch v. Maryland.
Of course, I expect such arguments won't make much difference to you.
Have you ever come up with a satisfactory excuse for how firing heated
shot at the wooden barracks in Sumter, and lobbing exploding shells via
indirect fire into the inner part of the fort fits in with your theory
that the Confederates were merely firing warning shots at Sumter?
Scott M. Kozel
> >
> > After South Carolina became part of the CSA, the U.S. had no earthly
> > non-invasive use for Fort Sumter, so that resolution was negated.
>
> Wrong.
>
> And even if you were right, it still doesn't explain the seizures of
> forts and other installations in states that hadn't seceded yet - and
Didn't happen.
> please don't give me your lame "they were seizing property in their
> country" explanation - even the most pie-in-the-sky libertarians admit
> that the Supremacy Clause applies to states within the Union, which
> means those seizures clearly were in contradiction to such Supreme
> Court decisions as McCulloch v. Maryland.
Many people disagree with that interpretation of the Supremacy Clause.
> Of course, I expect such arguments won't make much difference to you.
> Have you ever come up with a satisfactory excuse for how firing heated
> shot at the wooden barracks in Sumter, and lobbing exploding shells via
> indirect fire into the inner part of the fort fits in with your theory
> that the Confederates were merely firing warning shots at Sumter?
I never made any such theory. I merely pointed out that the Fort Sumter
incident was bloodless, and that the unionists were the fundamental
aggressors there, and that the unionists and Lincoln the Tyrant blew the
whole incident way, way out of proportion.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > "R. Taubman" <rtau...@rogers.com> wrote:
> >> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > After secession the fort belonged to South Carolina, and the
> >> > unionists had no business in the fort other than to maintain a
> >> > stronghold that they planned to reinforce and use in their invasion of
> >> > South Carolina.
> >>
> >> Committee on Federal Relations
> >> In the House of Representatives,
> >> December 31st, 1836
> >>
> >> "The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's
> >> message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of
> >> Charleston, and
> >> the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same
> >> subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
> >
> > That was when South Carolina was part of the U.S.
> >
> > After South Carolina became part of the CSA, the U.S. had no earthly
> > non-invasive use for Fort Sumter, so that resolution was negated.
>
> The legislation is quite clear. Fort Sumter became property of the United
> States of America. Nowhere does it say that in the event of secession, the
> legislation is nul and void. You are making up rules of legislation as you
> go along.
It was not -legislation-, it was a mere resolution from one
Congressional committee. It was not passed into law by both houses of
Congress, so it was not a law of the U.S. Nice try, but no cigar.
> Fort Sumter was not a part of South Carolina at the time it
> attempted to secede from the Union.
It didn't belong to the unionists, and they had no use for it except for
assisting in an attack on the city of Charleston.
j...@ams.org
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> Cash <cas...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Secession does not start a war.
> >
> > Firing on Fort Sumter started the war, and the confederates did that. They
> > were the ones who seceded and they were the ones who started the war.
>
> Wrong. The fort belonged to South Carolina, and the unionist squatters
> refused to leave, and the unionists were preparing to reinforce the fort
> and attack Charleston.
On what basis did the fort belong to South Carolina? Can you cite
any legislation by which ownership was conveyed to South
Carolina?
BTW, there was absolutely no plan or intent to attack Charleston.
None.
JFE
S Witmer
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> S Witmer <witme...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> >
> > > That was when South Carolina was part of the U.S.
> > >
> > > After South Carolina became part of the CSA, the U.S. had no earthly
> > > non-invasive use for Fort Sumter, so that resolution was negated.
> >
> > Wrong.
> >
> > And even if you were right, it still doesn't explain the seizures of
> > forts and other installations in states that hadn't seceded yet - and
>
> Didn't happen.
Sigh... time to haul out an old post again - I posted this a couple of
years back (and most of this is from yet another poster from before
that)...
Jan 2, 1861 Fort Johnson, in Charleston harbor is occupied by
S.C.troops.
Jan 3, 1861 Fort Pulaski is seized by Georgia troops.
Jan 4, 1861 Arsenal at Mt. Vernon, Alabama, seized by Alabama troops.
Jan 5, 1861 Fort Morgan and Fort Gaines seized by Alabama troops
Jan 5, 1861 "Star of the West" sails for Fort Sumter. Ordered by
Pres.Buchanan.
Jan 6, 1861 U. S. Arsenal at Apalachicola seized by Florida troops.
Jan 7, 1861 Fort Marion, St Augustine, Seized by Florida troops.
Jan 8, 1861 U. S. troops at Ft. Barrancas Fla. fire on rebels trying to
take
the fort.
Jan 9, 1861 Fort Johnson, North Carolina, seized by N.C. troops.
Jan 9, 1861 "Star of the West" fired upon by S.C. troops.
Jan 10,1861 U. S. troops withdrawn from Ft. Barrancas.
Jan 12,1861 Fort McRae and navy yard at Pensacola seized by Florida
troops.
Jan 14,1861 Fort Pike seized by Louisiana troops.
Jan 20,1861 Fort Massachusetts seized by Mississippi troops.
Jan 24,1861 Arsenal at Augusta seized by Georgia troops.
Jan 24,1861 Reinforcements for Fort Pickens sail
Jan 26,1861 Fort Jackson, Georgia seized.
Jan 28,1861 Fort Macomb, Louisiana seized.
Jan 30,1861 U. S. cutter "Robert McClellan" seized.
Jan 31,1861 U. S. mint, customs house, and schooner "Washington" seized
in
Louisiana.
Remember, Lincoln is NOT the president.
Feb 4, 1861 Peace Convention, headed by former Preisdent Tyler, a
southerner,
opens with 20 northern states represented, southern states do not
attend.
I would point out that Florida seceded on January 10th, Alabama on
January
11th, Georgia on January 19th, and Louisiana on January 26th. If you
check
these dates against those shown above, you will see that a considerable
number
of the siezures occurred _PRIOR_ to the secession of the state the
siezure
occured in. Also note that a month before Lincoln was inaugurated, the
southern states refused to send representatives to the Feb 4 Peace
Convention
despite the fact that the northen states did do so. And even if one
were to
argue that physical buildings themselves somehow revert to state
ownership, one
cannot explain away the forceable siezure of many of these
installations prior
to an effective secession. This would be equivalent to committing a
theft and
then crossing the border to Mexico or Canada, and then claiming that US
law
cannot affect you because you are no longer in the US - it's an effort
to avoid
the consequences of a crime. Also, there is no conceivable reason why
US
cutters and Schooners would be legitimate property for seizure, either.
>
> > please don't give me your lame "they were seizing property in their
> > country" explanation - even the most pie-in-the-sky libertarians admit
> > that the Supremacy Clause applies to states within the Union, which
> > means those seizures clearly were in contradiction to such Supreme
> > Court decisions as McCulloch v. Maryland.
>
> Many people disagree with that interpretation of the Supremacy Clause.
And yet the Supreme Court has decided on more than one occasion that
that is exactly what it means. I suggest you read McCulloch v Maryland
and see what the Supremes had to say.
>
> > Of course, I expect such arguments won't make much difference to you.
> > Have you ever come up with a satisfactory excuse for how firing heated
> > shot at the wooden barracks in Sumter, and lobbing exploding shells via
> > indirect fire into the inner part of the fort fits in with your theory
> > that the Confederates were merely firing warning shots at Sumter?
>
> I never made any such theory. I merely pointed out that the Fort Sumter
> incident was bloodless, and that the unionists were the fundamental
> aggressors there, and that the unionists and Lincoln the Tyrant blew the
> whole incident way, way out of proportion.
I quote you:
>From the thread "How Might the Civil War Have Been Avoided?", from a
post by you on January 18, 2004:
"You have no evidence that they tried to kill anyone. They could
easily
have killed everyone in the fort if that was their intent, through
bombardment and invasion; but they did not do that. The shots were
merely meant to cause discomfort, and not deaths."
>From the thread "Misreading the Supremacy Clause", from a post by you
on October 18, 2004:
"There was no attempt to kill the squatters in the fort."
You persisted in similar statements even in the face of evidence that
explosive shells and heated shot were being fired into the fort.
Firing heated shot into a fort filled with wooden structures is a clear
attempt to start those structures on fire, and firing explosive shells
into the interior of the fort is a clear attempt to cause injury or
death (a nice choice for the garrison - stay inside the burning
buildings and die, or run out into the courtyard and risk being
peppered with shrapnel from exploding shells). That rises considerably
above your claim that the Confederates intended to cause mere
"discomfort".
Al Montestruc
Huddle...@comcast.net wrote:
> David,
>
> Lincoln did not "invade" the South. He attempted, as it turned out,
> successfully, to reclaim states in rebellion.
Where in the US constitution does it say that the document is
perpetual, or that states could not unratify it?
The only party in rebellion was Lincoln, against the constitution.
>
> He was very clear that he had no intention of doing anything to the
> states in rebellion unless they forced him. "To invade" implies
> that the North started the war. Lincoln and the North responded to the
> Confederate attack on the American flag.
So if I shoot a slingshot at say a chinese communist flag and do not
kill or injure anyone I am starting a war with China?
So if I bite the flag is that enough?
> And, yes, slavery was not just "an" issue, it was the ONLY issue.
> By trying to cite Lincoln in 1858, you are twisting the causes to blame
> the North for secession and war.
I guess the convention in New England where they threatened secession
during the war of 1812 sets no precident as to the proper way to deal
with secession? Southern states told them to go if that was what they
wanted, and they changed their minds after being embarrased by the fact
of the victory at New Orleans.
Secession was over issues around slavery, but secession by the
precident to date should not have resulted in a war.
> Instead, look to those who started it all: look at the various reasons
> given by the rebelling states for their attempt at secession: all fear
> about what would happen to the Peculiar Institution with an
> anti-slavery party in the White House.
Don't forget an anti-slavery party that labled people like John Brown
as heros. I wonder if New Yorkers might be inclined to secession if a
US political party that held a terrorist that murdered large numbers of
New Yorkers to be a hero had their candidate elected president and to a
majority of seats in congress.
>
> "On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts
> were anxiously directed to an impending civil-war. All dreaded it-all
> sought to avert it. While the inaugeral address was being delivered
> from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war,
> insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without
> war-seeking to dissol[v]e the Union, and divide effects, by
> negotiation. Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make
> war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war
> rather than let it perish. And the war came.
Forcing people to stay in political bonds with you is not a reasonable
position for a people that held that consent of the governed was
essential to legitimate government.
> "One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not
> distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern
> part of it.
In part because slaves that had been in the north were sold south when
slavery was ended in various northern states at various times, which
shows the lack of moral basis for the end of slavery. If you have a
moral problem with slavery, you free the slave, you do not allow the
owner to sell him to a place where it is still legal.
> These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest.
> All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war.
Many, many people dissagree on that point. Some people hold that
Lincoln was the principle cause of the war.
I point out that slavery ended in the British West Indies with no war
in the 1830s, that it ended in Brazil with no war after 1860, and that
many nations have split via secession with no war both before and after
the war between the states.
I think that had the lower south been allowed to seceed in peace, that
the upper south would have stayed with the USA and slavery would end in
those states very soon, and that slavery would have ended in the CSA in
a reasonable amount of time with no bloodshed via economic embargos and
boycotts and international treaties such as ended the slave trade and
apartide in South Africa. Furthermore I point to the fact of the 100
years of second class citizenship of blacks in the USA and the much
better deal that former slaves in the British West Indies and Brazil
got. That you can lay at Lincoln's doorstep as well.
The loss of life of that war was pointless and a total waste, and
glorification of Lincoln is along the lines of glorification of Stalin,
Hitler, Pol Pot, or Lenin.
-----------------------------snip
Scott M. Kozel
So you are claiming that the unionists in the fort had only two choices,
1) die in burning buildings, or 2) go outside and be "peppered with
shrapnel".
And yet there was no bloodshed.
The unionists ridiculously blew the whole incident way, way out of
proportion.
Al Montestruc
j...@ams.org wrote:
> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> > Cash <cas...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Secession does not start a war.
> > >
> > > Firing on Fort Sumter started the war, and the confederates did that. They
> > > were the ones who seceded and they were the ones who started the war.
> >
> > Wrong. The fort belonged to South Carolina, and the unionist squatters
> > refused to leave, and the unionists were preparing to reinforce the fort
> > and attack Charleston.
>
> On what basis did the fort belong to South Carolina? Can you cite
> any legislation by which ownership was conveyed to South
> Carolina?
You both may be confusing ownership with sovereign jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction over the land goes back to South Carolina via the
Constitution of the USA, articles of ratification of that document by
the state of south carolina, and the act of secession by South
Carolina.
All real property in the state of South Carolina was subject to the
jurisdiction of South Carolina before ratification would have to be
returned to the jurisdiction of South Carolina on secession, as all
lawful jurisdiction of the USA over South Carolina was deligated to the
USA by the act of ratification of the US constitution.
If the act of secession is lawful, then the fort is under the
jurisdiction of South Carolina even if it is the property of the USA,
as the USA only has lawful jurisdiction in South Carolina via the
deligation of that power to it by the state and/or people of South
Carolina.
You do not have to accept that secession was legal, but it necessaraly
follows that if it was, then jurisdiction over the fort goes back to
South Carolina as it was originally part of the State. Possibly
physical ownership of the land might not, but the State could use
eminent domain to take it at will and had the legal right to order
persons off of that land at will, and pay the USA for the nominal value
of the real estate along with a general settlement of property issues
associated with secession.
>
> BTW, there was absolutely no plan or intent to attack Charleston.
Perhaps not, but Lincoln was not doing anything to reduce fears of
that, and much to make them worse.
j...@ams.org
> You both may be confusing ownership with sovereign jurisdiction.
Perhaps; I don't think it much matters.
> Jurisdiction over the land goes back to South Carolina via the
> Constitution of the USA, articles of ratification of that document by
> the state of south carolina, and the act of secession by South
> Carolina.
But this assumes the act of secession had some validity, and the
Federal government took a decidedly different view.
JFE
Huddle...@comcast.net
majority of the people in the North and even strong majorities in the
Border states and minorities in the Southern states took the position
that secession was illegal.
And where in the Constitution does it say that sovereignty over Sumter
reverts to South Carolina if the latter secedes?
Bob Huddleston
Huddle...@comcast.net
the conclusion that Secession -- unilateral secession -- was ipso facto
legal.
While we can argue that point until we are all blue in the face, there
is no universal conclusion that this is an accurate statement.
In 1860-61, many made the same argument. Others, a majority of the
citizens of the Untied States, disagreed.
However, a number of people in the North, while disagreeing with
unilateral secession, were willing to let time take its course.
Until the Confederate government made the stupidest decision of its
short history: to fire on the United States Flag. It does not matter if
zero or 70 men were killed. Firing on Fort Sumter united the northern
and border states to prevent the secessionists from seceding.
Bob Huddleston