Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
Let's have cash defend himself.
Let him post the document that supports his original statement-
"By 1865, Lee was saying that the master-slave relationship was the best that could exist between the white and black races."
It's the 11 Jan 1865 letter from Lee to Andrew Hunter discussing the proposal to arm some slaves. Lee says they're at the point where if the Union wins, slavery will be destroyed, but if the confederates can win they have a chance to save it. He's willing to free some slaves to fight in order to keep the rest in bondage. And he says that if their actions do happen to result in slavery's end, then they can still control the blacks and maintain supremacy over them.
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 the 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 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 must be produced upon our social institutions. My 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
[OR Series IV, Vol 3, pp. 1012-1013]
But an example for what? Some would like to claim it is Lee as an example of racial tolerance and equality. It's not. It's an example of ignoring black equality and proceeding on as though nothing had changed.
In his letter to Andrew Hunter Jan. 11, 1865, Lee admits slavery was the best solution of racial problem in the South; only conceding, that military necessity compelled its abandonment.
So it looks like you're coming over to Freehling's viewpoint that slavery lasts in the border states for another 50 years. If Delaware keeps it for 20-30 years, that leaves another 20-30 years for other border states, where slavery was far more widespread than in Delaware, to hold onto slavery.
No, not me. Perhaps it would, but I think it unlikely -- and I see no reason why other states have to wait on the Border States to be free states before starting as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
Where's the evidence they were willing to give up their slaves in a decade or even two decades?
After a little research:
For seventy years, slavery had consistently declined in DE in the US Census. Where there were close to 9000 slaves in 1790, there are now less than 1800 in 1860 -- while the number of free colored people has grown to almost 20,000. At some point, the population of slaves and masters (under 600 in 1860) becomes so small that the issue can be simply voted through without a great struggle. I don't think it was far from it in 1860, and I think the growing world-wide peer pressure (heck, even the Czar of all the Russias was freeing the serfs then) will likely hasten the matter in DE.
Delaware tried to emancipate the slaves in the state constitution of 1776 and again in the new state constitution of 1792. Both failed, but the importation of new slaves to the state was banned in 1776. By 1789, slave ships were banned from DE ports.
Other attempts were made through the legislature in 1796 and 1797. A bill for gradual emancipation failed in the lower house by a single vote in 1803. Repeated efforts were made over the next forty years, but usually killed in committee. In 1847, a gradual emancipation bill made it out of committee (from the committee report: "... "the carelessness, slovenly and unproductive husbandry visible in some parts of our state, undoubtedly result mainly from the habit of depending on slave labor. It is no longer a disputable question that slave labor impoverishes, while free labor enriches people.") That bill passed in the state House 12-8, but was tabled in the state Senate by a single vote.
Delaware's congressional delegation, on instruction from the General Assembly, opposed the extension of slavery in 1819 during the crisis that led up to the Missouri Compromise. The General Assembly passed resolutions against the annexation of Texas and the spread of slavery into territories conquered from Mexico.
Generally speaking, the northern county of DE was anti-slavery, and the southern one, particularly down in the Nanticoke River basin to the SW, was pro-slavery. That's not surprising, since the northern county included industrial Wilmington and most of the slaves were in the southern county. Wilmington was an important part of the Underground RR, and Thomas Garrett, the leading Abolitionist there, is often said to be the model for Quaker Simeon Holliday in "Uncle Tom's Cabin."
The leading slaveowner in DE, BTW, was Benjamin Burton of Indian River Hundred in Sussex County with 28 slaves. He was a Republican, favored the President's emancipation offer, and worked to make it a success.
The $500 offer, BTW, turns out to be fairly generous. Slave prices in DE were far below those in the South before the war, and Delaware had passed a law declaring any slave sold out of state automatically free in 1797. A "prime field hand" in DE fetched less than $500 before the war, and the average price seems to have been about $100 for slaves overall. So it doesn't look like they were holding out for cash. It seems the problem was what to do with the free blacks afterwards.
An attempt was made during the war to emancipate the slaves and then colonize them out of the country (apparently intended to include the free blacks as well as the slaves). This got as far as counting noses for votes in the legislature, and it was decided that it would pass in the state Senate, but fail by a vote in the state House.
So actually, we have a lot of evidence that Delaware had been flirting with emancipation constantly since the American Revolution, or for some 75 years. The stumbling block seems to have been the same worrisome issue seen in some Southern states, what to do with all those free blacks, and not money. Inertia took them, and they were like a deer in the headlights when the slaves were freed anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
I don't think you can show that through a mathematical progression, but a generation is on the order of 25 years.
Probably more like 20 in mid-19th century America, IMHO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
If Delaware gets rid of slavery in 25 years, it will take even longer for Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland. So Freehling's estimate of 50 years for the border states looks more like what you're talking about.
I think Freehling's estimate too pessimistic. I think the pace of change would accelerate after 1850, as the flood of immigrants and the growth of the technological revolution continued. It did for other social issues after 1860; I don't see why it would not for freeing the slaves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
Uh, I think you mean "Confederacy," not "Union" here.
Yes, there is a typo here on my part, and the change from "weak" to "strong" is shown in blue as follows. It should read "Support for the Confederacy is strong where slavery is strong; support for the Union strong where slavery is weak;"
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
Which culminates in 1910, putting you firmly in Freehling's camp of 50 years to eradicate slavery in the border states.
Well, to me 1880-1900 seems to say 20-40 years, not 50, from 1860. Depends what we are counting, though. I'd be satisfied with the law being passed, and maybe you are looking for the last slave freed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
And Kentucky refused to ratify the 13th Amendment, which to me indicates that by 1865 they were opposed to freeing their slaves.
In 1865, there seem to have been about 40,000 slaves in KY, and a great many of the people voting (the state legislators) owned some of them. As with Delaware, they had other reasons to oppose this than the most obvious one. Just as in 1849 at least half of the 150 delegates to the Frankfort emancipation convention were slaveowners, putting many practical roadblocks in a swift movement to emancipation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
Not so much a disappointment that Lee divested himself of his slaves, though. Up to the 1830s, there were more antislavery societies in the south than in the North. By 1840 they had disappeared from the south. The attitudes that existed in the 1830s were gone.
Lee was human and suffered from the same frailties as Jefferson. As the bible says, the spirit may be willing, but the flesh is weak. Lee's wife was against slavery, and Lee shared at least some of that feeling, expressing it often enough to be recognizable as a part of his make-up.
The great surge into the Deep South circa 1820-1860 and the growth of King Cotton submerged a lot of that feeling; the reaction to Denmark Vessey, Nat Turner, and John Brown swamped some more. But history swings sideways like a pendulum as it moves forward, and changing times and conditions would have changed attitudes yet again. Perhaps into the hard line you see. Perhaps closer to what I would guess at.
In the late 1850s, the Fire-Eaters were actually afraid the rising gap between rich and poor in the South would cause a rich-poor class war among whites, and might bring prohibitive sanctions and taxes against slaveowners. Helper's book is the work of the other side, arguing that slavery was hurting the average white Southerner -- which was why his work was banned in his home South and published widely in the North. Emancipation could come from many motives
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
My contention is that if it would not be in blood we'd still have slavery today, though in reduced numbers. That is based on Freehling's projections of 50 years for the border states, 50 years for the upper south, and 50 years for the deep south.
Might be. I just don't think it would take that long, and see no reason the Upper South has to wait for the Border States, etc. If they'd managed to avoid secession and war in 1860, I think it would have come in much less time than that, and the process would accelerate like a snowball rolling downhill when the number of slave states dropped below some critical point.
It's the 11 Jan 1865 letter from Lee to Andrew Hunter discussing the proposal to arm some slaves. Lee says they're at the point where if the Union wins, slavery will be destroyed, but if the confederates can win they have a chance to save it. He's willing to free some slaves to fight in order to keep the rest in bondage. And he says that if their actions do happen to result in slavery's end, then they can still control the blacks and maintain supremacy over them.
I have seen and liked that letter, but I think we should shade it at least a little towards "political correctness" when we read it. At the point in time it was written, Lee desperately needed troops, and was part of the effort to get the Negro soldier bill through the Confederate Congress. This letter is part of the effort, and I think Lee was maneuvering a little for votes. A man like Lee would not flat lie to do that, but he might present his own opinion in a way that the recipient would like a bit better.
Your letter is in 1865. Here's a letter to his wife Lee wrote December 27, 1856. I present it only to further develop Lee's position on the condition of slavery. The italics were added by me to show the start of what I think gives a greater depth to what Lee refers to in 1865:
=====
The steamer also brought the President's message to Cong; & the reports of the various heads of Depts; the proceedings of Cong: &c &c. So that we are now assured, that the Govt: is in operation, & the Union in existence, not that we had any fears to the Contrary, but it is Satisfactory always to have facts to go on. They restrain Supposition & Conjecture, Confirm faith, & bring Contentment: I was much pleased with the President's message & the report of the Secy of War, the only two documents that have reached us entire. Of the others synopsis [sic] have only arrived. The views of the Pres: of the Systematic & progressive efforts of certain people of the North, to interfere with & change the domestic institutions of the South, are truthfully & faithfully expressed. The Consequences of their plans & purposes are also clearly set forth, & they must also be aware, that their object is both unlawful & entirely foreign to them & their duty; for which they are irresponsible & unaccountable; & Can only be accomplished by them through the agency of a Civil & Servile war. In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy. This influence though slow, is sure. The doctrines & miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years, to Convert but a small part of the human race, & even among Christian nations, what gross errors still exist! While we see the Course of the final abolition of human Slavery is onward, & we give it the aid of our prayers & all justifiable means in our power, we must leave the progress as well as the result in his hands who sees the end; who Chooses to work by slow influences; & with whom two thousand years are but as a Single day. Although the Abolitionist must know this, & must See that he has neither the right or power of operating except by moral means & suasion, & if he means well to the slave, he must not Create angry feelings in the Master; that although he may not approve the mode which it pleases Providence to accomplish its purposes, the result will nevertheless be the same; that the reasons he gives for interference in what he has no Concern, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbors when we disapprove their Conduct; Still I fear he will persevere in his evil Course. Is it not strange that the descendants of those pilgrim fathers who Crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom of opinion, have always proved themselves intolerant of the Spiritual liberty of others?
=====
It's the 11 Jan 1865 letter from Lee to Andrew Hunter discussing the proposal to arm some slaves. Lee says they're at the point where if the Union wins, slavery will be destroyed, but if the confederates can win they have a chance to save it. He's willing tofree some slaves to fight in order to keep the rest in bondage.
Did you actually read the letter?!
He makes no such proposal.
Lee:
"...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...
...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."
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
And he says that if their actions do happen to result in slavery's end, then they can still control the blacks and maintain supremacy over them.
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 the 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 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 must be produced upon our social institutions. My 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
[OR Series IV, Vol 3, pp. 1012-1013]
Regards,
Cash
Your statement-
"By 1865, Lee was saying that the master-slave relationship was the best that could exist between the white and black races."
...and what Lee actually wrote-
"...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."
...are significantly different.
Your statement gives the impression that Lee is for slavery now and forever with no reservations.
That is not what he wrote.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
Yes, he does. "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."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
Your statement-
"By 1865, Lee was saying that the master-slave relationship was the best that could exist between the white and black races."
...and what Lee actually wrote-
"...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."
...are significantly different.
No, they aren't. You can't have a master-slave relationship unless the two races are intermingled in the same country. You're attempting to misrepresent Lee's meaning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
Your statement gives the impression that Lee is for slavery now and forever with no reservations.
That is not what he wrote.
As long as blacks and whites are in the same country, he's for slavery now and forever. That's what he wrote, that's what he meant.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
