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.
It does seem that Lee assumes that God will arrange emancipation in a thousand years..... or so.
Like most 'moderate' slave owners Lee, seems to prefer it to outlast his generation, as did most 'moderates' of all the previous generations.
I figure they were normal people growing up in a situation where slavery was an integrated part of their social fabric. Unless we wish to view them as completely unsalvageable, they would have needed a reason to give themselves as to why they should have slavery if their general principles held it was wrong. So they came up with the "we-have-to-suffer-this-burden-to-raise up-the-poor-benighted-primitive-black-race" one. We might not think it holds water, but it seems very human to me. Since they would not want to believe they/their family/their friends were evil, this gives them an acceptable moral argument for slavery -- so I am sure they wanted to believe it, and that few of them looked at it closely.
There was actually a major dividing point over slavery in what we would call the "Southern Methodist" church in 1844. John Wesley was very much anti-slavery, but a lot of his converts and followers owned slaves. They'd decided on a belief much like this, so members of the church could own slaves, but decided it was wrong for clergymen to own slaves (talk about your double-standards ). Then in the 1840s a bishop acquired a slave and the arguments began. In 1844, the schism began. What we now see as "Southern Methodist" became the "Episcopal Methodist Church, South" as a result.
The convoluted reasoning processes involved in justifying slavery in the south, is not particularly important from this day and age, Except as to how such reasoning impacted directly on the Civil War.
Even though immoral (although sanctioned by God, apparently) slavery was the cornerstone of southern society, which the leaders of the south represented themselves to be defending. This applies equally to those, like Lee, who really only considered their state worth defending, because the cornerstone of all the southern states societies were slave based.
Lee and Davis were being irrational to assume, that the leadership of the south, would sacrifice slavery for their independence, when, in fact, Independence through secession was being attempted, precisely to protect slavery.
When the question of enlisting slaves as soldiers came before the Confederate Congress and Va. Legislature, those leaders of the state and confederacy remained true (by rejecting emancipation of even those slaves who volunteered) to the principal upon which they tried the experiment of war to preserve, Slavery.
The society of Va. that Lee revered and cherished, was slave based.
The convoluted reasoning processes involved in justifying slavery in the south, is not particularly important from this day and age, Except as to how such reasoning impacted directly on the Civil War.
Even though immoral (although sanctioned by God, apparently) slavery was the cornerstone of southern society, which the leaders of the south represented themselves to be defending. This applies equally to those, like Lee, who really only considered their state worth defending, because the cornerstone of all the southern states societies were slave based.
Lee and Davis were being irrational to assume, that the leadership of the south, would sacrifice slavery for their independence, when, in fact, Independence through secession was being attempted, precisely to protect slavery.
When the question of enlisting slaves as soldiers came before the Confederate Congress and Va. Legislature, those leaders of the state and confederacy remained true (by rejecting emancipation of even those slaves who volunteered) to the principal upon which they tried the experiment of war to preserve, Slavery.
The society of Va. that Lee revered and cherished, was slave based.
In my opinion, this ain't exactly correct! First off, ain't nobody ever tried in modern times to justify slavery and certainly not recently. Somehow I doubt there was ever any mention anywhere of God sanctioning slavery. Hogwash? Slavery was NEVER the cornerstone of southern society, but more so a businesss enterprise, perfectly legal in most of the United States at the time, though certainly not "sanctioned". Lee considered Virginia his home. He also was also fond enough of North Carolina to defend it when attacked. As we have discussed too many times perhaps, slavery was not the only force behind the war, like it or not. The society of Virginia was tobacco based. Slaves just happened to have done the majority of the work. You seem to have an unsubstantiated bias against both Lee and the South. Many folks were guilty of the slavery craze. Two biggest slave markets in the country were New York and Washington, D.C. Give us a break down here! Ain't nobody said slavery was good. Quit trying to dump your mess south of the Mason Dixon line without enjoying the aroma that was too widely dispersed. Thanks.
__________________ Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
Are you implying that because I see things differently than you do that somehow I can't be using the information already posted?
My point is that the discussion about Lee and how he felt has moved into the climate of those times. Some here have stated that he was with the majority of his men his age...I say he did not agree with the majority.
Others say he was trying to justify slavery - I don't think he was justifying anything. He was a practical, well thought of, thinking man of his times. He wrote what he meant and meant what he wrote.
I'm looking at the religious, state, and economic history available to us in context with Lee's beliefs.
I believe that in order to see the whole picture, you have to look at the whole picture.
Robert E. Lee was and is considered the "noblest Roman of them all" Washington in a gray coat. Even I think that way. We(21st century, and earlier folks) want to fit him into what we think is admirable and gloss over what we don't think is OK(Lee is hardly the only historical figure to get this treatment). Therefore we pick up on Lee's statements and actions showing a lukewarm appreciation of the blessings of slavery, and de emphasize the 90% of the time he acted as the other slaveowners.
But he was lukewarm. While of the planter aristocracy, he was a professional army officer his whole adult life, not a plantation owner. His foray into large scale slave run farming, Arlington, was a temporary gig, scheduled to terminate with the freeing of the slave workforce, according to his father in law's will.
Posters here have debated exactly how general, his scheme for general emancipation was. But certainly he had one of the most expansive conceptions of emancipation of those floated and debated during the Confederate emancipation period.
I believe that while he was looking northward for inspiration on this, he also harked back to his model Washington, who exchanged freedom for military service with blacks during the Revolution.
Lee's primary identity(IMO)is that of military leader, and his primary interest was victory. He would risk Arlington, his sons' lives, his own life, see his beloved Virginia laid waste, see thousands of his men killed following his tactics and commands, and the thousands of deaths his army inflicted on the United States forces. He was willing to sacrifice slavery to achieve victory.
In my opinion, this ain't exactly correct! First off, ain't nobody ever tried in modern times to justify slavery and certainly not recently.
I see it all the time on various internet groups.
Quote:
Originally Posted by larry_cockerham
Somehow I doubt there was ever any mention anywhere of God sanctioning slavery.
"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States." [Texas Declaration of Causes]
"What Southern man, be he slave-holder or non-slave-holder, can without indignation and horror contemplate the triumph of negro equality, and see his own sons and daughters, in the not distant future, associating with free negroes upon terms of political and social equality, and the white man stripped, by the Heaven-daring hand of fanaticism of that title to superiority over the black race which God himself has bestowed?" [Stephen Hale to Gov. Magoffin of Kentucky, 27 Dec 1860]
"It is the fanatics of the North, who are warring against the decrees of God Almighty, in their attempts to make things equal which he made unequal." [Alexander H. Stephens to Virginia Secession Convention, 23 Apr 1861]
"May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system." [Alexander H. Stephens, Savannah, Georgia, 21 Mar 1861]
Quote:
Originally Posted by larry_cockerham
Slavery was NEVER the cornerstone of southern society,
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition." [Alexander H. Stephens, Savannah, Georgia, 21 Mar 1861]
Quote:
Originally Posted by larry_cockerham
but more so a businesss enterprise, perfectly legal in most of the United States at the time,
Depends on what time frame you're talking about. By the 1850s, most of the United States had outlawed slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by larry_cockerham
though certainly not "sanctioned".
Slavery could only exist through positive law, so it had to be "sanctioned" in the states that had it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by larry_cockerham
Lee considered Virginia his home. He also was also fond enough of North Carolina to defend it when attacked.
Lee was ordered there by the confederate government. He didn't go on his own, so his "fondness" for North Carolina can't be assumed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by larry_cockerham
As we have discussed too many times perhaps, slavery was not the only force behind the war, like it or not.
In fact, slavery was the only factor that had the power to force a war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by larry_cockerham
The society of Virginia was tobacco based. Slaves just happened to have done the majority of the work.
So are you claiming tobacco caused the war?
No slavery, no secession. No secession, no war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by larry_cockerham
You seem to have an unsubstantiated bias against both Lee and the South. Many folks were guilty of the slavery craze. Two biggest slave markets in the country were New York and Washington, D.C.
You should try to find actual history to read rather than proconfederate websites.
New Orleans had the largest slave market in the nation, followed by Charleston. 40% of pre-Revolutionary War slave arivals in mainland North America came through Charleston. [Ira Berlin, _Generations of Captivity: A History of African-American Slaves,_ p. 70] Washington, DC was and still is a SOUTHERN city. And New York freed its slaves without starting a war to keep them in slavery.
Are you implying that because I see things differently than you do that somehow I can't be using the information already posted?
I'm asking for the evidence you have that hasn't already been discussed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
My point is that the discussion about Lee and how he felt has moved into the climate of those times. Some here have stated that he was with the majority of his men his age...I say he did not agree with the majority.
The majority of the men of his age were proslavery. So are you saying he was antislavery?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
Others say he was trying to justify slavery - I don't think he was justifying anything. He was a practical, well thought of, thinking man of his times. He wrote what he meant and meant what he wrote.
It's been awhile since this thread started, but I don't recall saying Lee was trying to justify slavery, but now that you mention it, what do you suppose he's doing when he says, "The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race."
In the words of Sir. Walter Raleigh who referred to North Carolina as 'the goodliest land neigh the cloak of heaven', how could Lee not have been fond of such a place and people?
Your references to the opinions related to the bible or the church are impressive, but I didn't actually see one there from God?
__________________ Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
). Then in the 1840s a bishop acquired a slave and the arguments began. In 1844, the schism began. What we now see as "Southern Methodist" became the "Episcopal Methodist Church, South" as a result.
Linear Mode
