A Challenge

[tulip]

Thank you Tom. I appreciate your comments, but would make the following points in response.

<u>"Putting people from cultures other then your own, into servitude was very common through history prior to the 19th Century. </u>True to a point. However, the slavery you speak of was not race based, but a way of dealing with conquered populations. In addition, doesn't it follow that once we became Christian, slavery was no longer a valid way of treating a conquered people? No where (at least that I know of) does the New Testament justify or advocate enslavement. In fact, Jesus taught another doctrine completely in opposition to such an act for whatever reason. Seems to me your statement, <u>"As we progressed from Middle Ages to Enlightenment we began to understand that individual had certain rights." </u> solidifies this point. Yet still slavery happened and slipped into the modern/industrial age.

<u>"Even in the days prior to the CW, many Republicians like Lincoln agreed only with the restriction of slavery to certain States and Territories. It was not the abolition of slavery but the mere restriction of where slavery would take place that start Secession."</u> According to my research and the statements made by the secessionists themselves, slavery was the issue. Local officials, editors and statemen repeated in speeches and in the press -- first we cannot take our property to the territories, next they will take slavery where it exists.

<u>"The sad part is that when most you hear of Black Groups is slavery reparations and tearing down the Confederate battleflag they should be looking at slavery from all aspects even in cases the fair treatment of slaves by their owners." </u> This is unfortunately for us true. We have silenced their voices and denied their heritage for so long, they are flexing their muscles and getting in their licks. My theory is that we need to resolve the issues first and get it right before blacks will give CW discussion the time of day. Hell we whites can't even talk about it sanely among ourselves, why would any self-respecting black want to take it on and get insulted? That's my theory.

<u>"Bill's FYI is more confirmation to this observation, his decision to join was based on the fact that he couldn't serve against his native Virginia more then anything else." </u> According to my research Bill is incorrect. See my sources above.

<u>"but by moderates like Jeff Davis. In recent years it had come to my attention that few people today completely understand what those both North and South thought about slavery." </u>Jeff Davis may have been a moderate, but he firmly and completely believed in slavery as a viable "good" to sustain the superior southern culture. Lee was against it in the abstract, but continued to personally own slaves and use the labor of the Custis slaves to first solidify the Custis inheritance and then to honor all of the bequests of the will prior to freeing the slaves. Bottom rung once again. He too believed that the south had a superior culture and that slavery while odious was necessary to maintain and grow that culture.

The opinions on slavery did indeed vary all over the country. Yet to palliate those who lived in the antebellum and CW era with the excuse of "time and place" is the same as saying that morality is subject to a majority vote within each culture. Then it follows that if the "norm" was: slavery was okay, where does that leave the Grimkes, Garrison, Kemble, Adams, Weld, Shaw to name a few? Does that make them abnormal or does it make them heroic?

It seems to me that in order to make slavery "okay" in their consciences, our great white ancestors jumped through some pretty weird rationalization hoops. Why did they decree in law that the child belonged to the father (Fannie Kemble comes to mind in this scenario) except in slavery?

In addition, I am not even certain that southerners believed in their hearts that the black men and women in bondage were intrinsically inferior. Toombs announced that if the slaves were free the next step would be they would soon be the masters. He feared this inferior race so much that he could envision a ragtag group of illiterate black folk without the proverbial pot to **** in or gun to shoot were so clever and ingenious that they could and would take over the country and enslave him. Odd attitude toward an inferior race in my book.

[unionblue]

Connie, I think you have hit a real nerve with this thread, but I agree it needs to be discussed and debated. The war was about slavery, not tarriffs, nor any other issue. Slavery was the bottom line.

While I agree with a lot of my friends that not every Southern family or man owned a slave or even fought for slavery, slavery was THE issue that brought about the war.

Now, what I would like to see addressed is the Northern attitude towards slavery during that time. I know there were those who considered it wrong to own a human being, but the 'silent majority', how did they feel?

From what I gather in skimming the subject is, most thought blacks were inferior and as long as slaves did not threaten their lively hood, fine, the South could have it. My own home state of Ohio had it's Black Codes making it illegal for a black to reside in the state for some time before the Civil War.

And who are these persons you refer to, the Grimkes, Kemble, Adams and Weld? I recognize Shaw and Garrison, but could you enlighten us a bit on the others?

And Connie, do you feel there was a strong sense against slavery during the 1860's? Did the average white man in the North care one way or another? I would like to hear your opinion on that one.

All in all, a worthy subject and one that has been needed to be raised here on this board for some time. Let's see where this thread takes us.

YMOS,
Unionblue

[tulip]

Good questions Neil and very applicable. Since I am tired I will defer the questions on northern attitudes until tomorrow when I can dig out a few sources and remain coherent as I write.

I apologize for assuming that names familiar to me are just as familiar to others. Shame on me for that old assume habit.

Fannie Kemble was a famous English actress who was well known in America. She met and married Piece Butler, a Philadelphian and Georgia slaveholder. The marriage did not go well. Fanny was independent, highly intelligent and willing to express her opinion. Butler, however, expected a docile, submissive wife who would dutifully close her eyes to his affairs. The marriage completely broke down in Georgia on Butler's plantation where the institution of slavery and the abuse of the men, women and children in bondage appalled Fanny.

Fanny interferred with the system in many small and large ways earning for her the censorship of neighbors who considered her crass. They did not appreciate being shown the mirror of slavery. Her biggest mistake, however, was that she wrote about it not only then in her diary and in letters but later as well. Her book <u>Journal of a Residence on a Georgia Plantation</u> was published in 1863 and caused a sensation. She was never forgiven by Georgians.

Fanny left Butler in the mid 40s and returned to England. The courts, following the accepted protocol, awarded her two daughters to Butler although Fanny fought long and hard to regain custody or at least reasonable visitation. In this she was doomed by the prevailing attitudes. In England, Fanny's recollections were printed in the dailies and added much to the British attitude against slavery that effected the CSA's foreign diplomacy efforts during the war.

Neil I strongly urge you to find out about Angelina and Sarah Grimke. Fascinating pair. Born into a wealthy slaveholding family in the Carolina low country, the sisters became Quakers and avid abolitionists. They joined Garrison's society and dedicated their lives to freeing the men, women and children of the south.

Angelina wrote <u>An Appeal to the Christian Women of the South.</u> and Sarah wrote <u>An Epistle to the Clergy of the Southern States.</u> The pamphlets were burned in the south and both were warned that if they returned home they would be arrested. They also received a variety of death threats.

Their dedication was more than abstract. They truly believed in the equality of blacks. Learning about black siblings, they rescued their brothers from chains and brought them north. Although by then quite poor, they supported them and saw them educated. The details are exciting and fun to read ending with a profound admiration for their brilliance, humanity and commitment.

After moving north Angelina soon met and married Theodore Weld, a minister who had already made his mark in anti-slavery circles by writing <u>The Bible Against Slavery</u> (1837) and <u>Slavery As It Is </u>(1839). Weld never lost his zeal and like his wife truly believed in the equality of the races.

I really apolize for just saying "Adams." I was speaking of the Adamses, John, Abigail, John Quincy and Charles Francis. The Adams family along with Benjamin Franklin were fiercely anti-slavery. Abigail made a famous prediction about God punishing the nation for the sin of slavery and envisioned the punishment as bathed in blood. her letters are filled with astute observations about the treatment and inhumanity of slavery. her son John Quincy of course successfully defended the Amistad mutineers and his son Charles Francis was the very competent and savvy northern ambassador to England during the war. He is credited with denying the south both recognition and intervention.

Elizabeth Van Lew or Crazybet is another CW contemporary who was offended by the peculiar institution she grew up with and deserves mention. Miss Van Lew, a life long resident of Richmond hated slavery and was actively involved in the underground railroad before the war.

During the war Crazybet rescued many prisoners at Libby, hiding them in slave holes built into her mansion. She actively spied against the CSA by running an effective spy network. During the Petersburg siege she managed to direct many messages to Grant that gave him an edge against Lee. Miss Van Lew got away with her activities because she wandered about the city acting deranged - hence the sobriquet Crazybet. Supposedly, Miss Van Lew arranged for Mary Bowser a free black woman to work in the Confederate White House and spy on the Davis family. Mary Bowser's existence, however, has been challenged by some while accepted as fact by others. After the war Crazybet continued to live in Richmond, refusing to give up her home and was rescued from abject poverty by Grant who had her appointed postmistress.

Tomorrow I will dedicate time and energy to addressing your other questions which I think are dynamic and right on point.


(Message edited by tulip on September 25, 2002)

Connie, Having been the recipient of an English education and not subject to an American one I do not feel the need to footnote every statement I make when discoursing on general philosophical questions; I am assuming that the person I am in dialogue with is as well read about these subjects as myself and therefore their is no need to present my arguements in the form of a high school dissertation.

I suggest you read the works of Richard M.Weaver, E.Genovese, Douglas Southall Freeman, and M E L Bradford(lists can be supplied)

Reading the correspondence of Robert E Lee will give you an insight in the character of the Great Man. Despite the attempts of recent biographers to de-bunk his generalship and character, with Lee, 'what you see is what you get', honesty, piety and kindliness.

Connie, Kindly Master is not an oxymoron it is a description of a social arrangement found in many societies throughout history from Greece, Rome, Britain. See Cicero, Tacitus, Plutarch, and more recently the relationship between Jefferson Davis and his slaves. I am sorry you do not like my little flags and pictures. Icons of hope?

[tulip]

Steve:

Yes I agree reading Lee's correspondence is an interesting wade through a muddled conscience. His letters are littered with his love of union. As late as Jan. 22, 1861 he was writing to his beloved Markie: "What will be the result I cannot conjecture. I only see that a fearful calamity is upon us, &amp; fear that the country will have to pass through for its sins a fiery ordeal. I am unable to realize that our people will destroy a government inaugerated [sic] by the blood &amp; wisdom of our patriot fathers, that has given us peace &amp; prosperity at home, power &amp; security abroad, &amp; under which we have acquired a colossal strength unequalled in the history of mankind."

Douglas Southall Freeman's bio is a well written trip through hagiography where Lee is the personification of perfection. He certainly did an excellent job applying the gilding and trashing such men as Longstreet.

As to Jeff Davis and his kindly mastering, I find it the quintessential oxymoron. Again, I ask you - how would you feel calling anyone master?

Let me give you William B. Cooper's take on Jeff's kindly mastering. Cooper by the way is "the" Davis expert in the country and his biography is one of the best I've read. It belongs with Robertson's Stonewall as a classic in the literary art of extensive and complete biography -- without either bashing or stooping to hagiography.

As an absentee landlord Jeff was unable to find an acceptable overseer after the death of the efficient James Pemberton in 1852. Throughout the 50s Jeff fired overseer after overseer for mismanagement and cruelty. "Cruelty" Steve. So much for the "happy darkie" image and kindly "master" system either working or being productive for the "people."

"Self interest taught that decent care of valuable property resulted in healthier and more productive laborerers, . . ." Davis did provide decent care for his people, but was it what the people wanted? That is the big question. "Davis of course, owned slaves chiefly for labor -- and labor they did. As on all large plantations, the work seemed unending."

Cooper goes on to explain the conditions as well as the Davis brothers' relationship with both Ben Montgomery and James Pemberton as well as to outline the family lore that provides the kindly master image. Well worth reading I might add for a complete profile of slavery at Brierfield.

"This view of slavery under the Davis brothers originated with Varina in her Memoir, published in 1890, and in her subsequent correspondence . . . The testimony of Jefferson Davis's slaves generally affirms the family tradition, albeit with a few details and some caveats."

Cooper's analysis, however, also includes the absentee landlord reality. "Jefferson Davis' almost continuous absene from Brierfield between 1853 and 1861, along with complaints about conditions, do not correlate with the traditional view of Brierfield as a plantation paradise. His hiring of overseers whom he subsequently dismissed for misconduct meant that at times his own actions resulted in the mistreatment of his slaves."

The point is the slaves, the human beings were at the mercy of whatever white man was in charge. None had any security of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Death of "kindly master" often left them subject to the greatest horror. They had no protection, no course, but docile submission to the whip, to being sold down river, to toiling wherever and whenever some white man told them.

"In sum, judging by both the standards of his time and the findings of modern scholarship on slavery, Jefferson Davis was a reasonably humane master, but no evidence presents Brierfield as unique or as some idyllic garden for its enslaved inhabitants. Brierfield slaves worked very hard, and they felt the arbitrary and, at times, intemperate authority of ever-changing overseers. Morever, the reported activities and punishments clearly demonstrate that the restrictions and rigors of bondage chafed at least some of them."

No, Steve you cannot ameliorate slavery with "kindly master." It was a brutal, hidden, despotic system that was equally unchristian and inhuman.

By the way, unlike you, my educational system never gave me permission upon 8th grade graduation to eliminate sourcing and references in support of my opinion. I was taught debating techniques that demand evidential support in order to persuade and convince. To each his own I guess.

Source: Jefferson Davis, American pages 253-256
Lee letter: Emory Thomas page 318

(Message edited by tulip on September 25, 2002)

[tulip]

Neil:

You asked about the northern opinion on slavery. I think it is impossible to arrive at an absolute consensus. For one thing, many living in the north had economic and family connections to the south and were very guarded on the issue. Plus racism was alive and well up in Yankeeland.

I do believe that if you had asked the common person on a northern street during the antebellum period, you would have gotten a mild rebuke against slavery coupled with “it isn’t worth getting my undies in a bundle.” Still there was a burgeoning belief that slavery was barbaric and unsustainable under our democratic principles. This awakening consciousness was fed by the abolitionists, such books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the preachers in their pulpit and loud speeches from politicians. It was growing and spreading into the hinterlands, the parlors of ordinary people and along the byways of commerce.

It would be easy to say that Wisconsin shared this attitude since it was intrinsically involved in the underground railroad, had quite a few freedmen living comfortably within its boundaries and a grass roots group had defied the Supreme Court when ordered to return a runaway man. Yet after the EP was issued many soldier letters from Wisconsin screeched loudly against the change in war goals. So even up here, the consensus was divided and ran the gamut.

There were also the various gradations of abolitionists. Jesse Grant, Ulysses’ father for instance had lived for time in his youth with the Owen Brown family and knew John rather well. Jesse was an outspoken and determined abolitionist. He didn’t much like the black person, however. His complaint against slavery was that it produced a nation of lazy white folk. Naturally, he put Julia’s family in this category and refused to attend the wedding or be anywhere near the “Dent clan.”

Ulysses Grant was neutral on abolition and tolerated the peculiar institution for Julia’s sake. We know little about Grant’s ownership of William Jones. Speculation is that old man Dent deeded the papers to Grant in early 1859. We do know that Grant paid the few slaves who worked his land as hires and he also paid Jones prior to freeing him after the harvest in 1859. This upset the neighbors who believed that Grant was too befuddled to properly work slaves. Grant’s presidency, of course, demonstrated how far he would come in his attitudes towards black people.

Lincoln was always against slavery although he was an admitted racist. McClellan while determined to retain the Union considered the EP horrific. While he would have readily negotiated away emancipation for peace, he would never have given up reunification even if he had won the presidency in 1864. Sherman, Sheridan and Custer fought for Union rather than against slavery and were also avowed racists. The enlisted men themselves were as varied in their attitudes as the country on the whole. Northern women were not quite as divided on the issue, maybe because women felt the yoke of domination and had a sensitivity to what that yoke felt like. Many women volunteered to educate and care for the freedmen, their letters revealing a sensitivity to the plight of both freedmen and slaves.

Up north, I think, the citizenry in 1860 was in the same confused and bifurcated state regarding slavery as we experienced in the 1970s when the war on smoking began. Still I think that if you had taken a vote in 1860, the majority of Yankees would have voted for abolition and the same vote taken in 1864, would have been overwhelming in favor of complete and immediate emancipation. Throughout the war, northerners were more and more exposed to the stories of black soldiers, the gratitude of the freedmen, the honor paid by white officers, and the slave as a prop for keeping the southern military alive. In other words, for many the black person ceased being an abstract and become a fully dimensional human.

Naturally this is only my opinion, but I think it is pretty much in alignment with modern scholarship.

Sources:
1. Grant: The Papers of Lloyd Lewis and Hamlin Garland bio
2. McCellan - Sear's biography and <u>Reelecting Lincoln</u> by Waugh
3. <u>Lincoln</u> - David Herbert Donald
4. Sherman/Sheridan - Lloyd Lewis, <u>Fighting Prophet</u>
5. <u>Custer</u> - Jeffry Wert
6. <u>Race and Reunion - The Civil War in Memory by David Blight</u>
7. <u>Battle Cry of Freedom</u> James McPherson
5. <u>Yankee Women</u> Elizabeth Leonard
6. <u>Women in the Civil War</u> Shirley Massey

[sean_harris]

Slavery has and always will (For Some Races/Nations) be an acceptable form of life, within our world. Even today there is a booming European, Asian, and African sex slave trade. This is not to mention slavery within Nations we call allies. Africa and Europe are the hub of a slave trade that is just as lucrative today as it was hundreds of years ago. The majority of individuals involved are, as then, of African decent and heritage. Europe simply refined the process.

However, we also need to look to our own Federal Government which allowed it since the founding of our Nation and its acceptance before. Washington allowed it to prosper. New York and the other Eastern cities were trade hubs for the distribution of human flesh. Look to the factories who held there own form of slavery over immigrants from Europe. Was this the American dream?

Our Government has a unique way of dealing with numerous International and Regional situations. We allow a problem such as slavery, terror, or "Rogue Nations" to fester and grow all the while watching. We allow or aid them if it will enhance our power within a region or sphere of influence. Our Nation (Government) has always allowed things to fester and rot until it's schedule is open to take action.

We have allowed slavery, terror, torture, and a band of other horrors within our and other lands to take place. We are a Nation that slaughtered the American Indian while fighting a war to supposedly free the Black? We are a Nation that now talks of War with Iraq yet, allowed the slaughter to happen for years? Funny, Saddam wasn't that bad when we supplied him with gas and imagery to fight Iran. Or was it we needed him for regional stability so we turned a "blind eye."

The fact is no matter how great a Nation we are we still are more like our "Founding Fathers" than we want to believe. We are great Nation however, the same ignorance we displayed in the past we display today only in a different form. By most aspects the human factor has not changed one **** bit.

Sorry for the Soap Box and sloppy writing i'm trying to due several things at once!

[sean_harris]

One other thing! We due great things for people all over the World however, Some of our greatest acts have been due to others involving us rather than doing it of our own accord!

[tulip]

Sean, I agree. Slavery and other barbarous activities has been tolerated for a millennium by us and others. It still doesn't make it right or acceptable. We have to keep trying.

America is not a finished tapestry, but a work in progress. We took a weird idea - government by the people - and threw it at the world. It worked, well except for black people. This idea has undergone its baptism of fire through several wars including our defining moment, the Civil War. That said, it doesn't make our national sin any less grievous.

Just read your "one other thing" and that deserves a word from my favorite punster Sir Winston Churchill: The Americans will always do the right thing... after they've exhausted all the alternatives.