Secession

[bill_torrens]

Dear Georgiana & Katherine,

Thank you both for joining in our conversation on this thread.

Georgiana, I was particularly interested in one or two of the things you mentioned in your posts. As you must know by now, one of the many things over which Neil & I have amiable disagreements is the significance of Garrisonian abolitionism: I think it was all-important, while Neil appears to view it as a mere sideshow. Abolitionism was, of course, shaped by the evangelical Christianity of the period. So - from my perspective - religion was an extraordinarily important element amongst the forces which brought on the war. So I would be very interested to hear whatever else you have to say on the subject.

Bill

[unionblue]

Dear Bill and Katherine,

I will give you excerpts from letters & speeches from a few Confederate soldiers and politicians who knew they were fighting for slavery.

Captain Charles K. Maddox of the 7th Georgia stated in a speech given at a Confederate Soldier reunion held in Decatur in 1890 that secession had not been "a question of the union" but "simply fought about '<font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font>'/slaves."

"...we fought for the supremacy of the white race in America; for civilization against the abolition theories; the cause of truth against abolition prejudice; and the cause of common sense against the foulest errors that will ever astonish posterity." From the Atlanta Constitution, July 7, 1900.

"I am a Southern man, born and raised beneath the sunny sky of the South. Not a drop of blood in my veins ever flowed in the veins north of Mason's and Dixon's line. My ancestors for 300 years sleep beneath the turf that shelters the bones of Washington, and I thank God that they rest in the graves of honest slaveholders." N.C. Claiborne, June 22, 1860, delegate from Missouri during the Democratic convention in Baltimore.

"We should re-open the African slave trade that every white man might have a chance to make himself owner of one or more negroes." From the newspaper, the New Orleans Delta, 1858.

"Talk about Northern oppression, talk about our rights being stolen from us by the North--it's all stuff, and dwindles into nothing when compared, to our situation in western Virginia. The truth is the slavery oligarchy, are impudent boastfull and tyrannical, it is the nature of the institution to make men so--and tho I am far, from being an abolitionist, yet if they persist, in their course, the day may come, when all Western Virginia will rise up, in her might and throw off the Shackles, which thro this very Divine institution, as they call it, has been pressing us down." From a letter by one Henry Dering of Morgantown, western Virginia, to Waitman Willey, March 19, 1861.

"...this country without slave labor would be completely worthless...If the negroes are freed the country...is not worth fighting for...We can only live &amp; exist by that species of labor; and hence I am willing to continue the fight to the last." From the letters of Lt. William L. Nugent, 28th MS, to his wife, Nellie Nugent, Sept. 7, 1864.

A Georgia officer, owner of forty slaves, reassured his wife, who in 1863 expressed doubts about the future of slavery, that if the Confederacy won the war, "...it is established for centuries." Edgeworth Bird to Sallie Bird, August 28, 1863.

A Captain in the 8th Alabama vowed to, "...fight forever, rather than submit to freeing the Negroes among us...We are fighting for rights and property bequeathed to us by our ancestors." Capt. Elias Davis in a letter to Mrs. R.L. Latham, Dec. 10, 1863.

"The South went to war on account of slavery...South Carolina went to war as she said in her secession proclamation, because slavery would not be secure under Lincoln...don't you think South Carolina ought to know why it went to war?" John Singleton Mosby.

"We went to war on account of the thing we quarrelled with the North about. I never heard of any other cause of quarrel than slavery. Men fight from sentiment. After the fight is over they invent some fanciful theory on which they imagine that they fought." John Singleton Mosby, 1887.

As a young Kentuckian told him, "You might have any amount of land; money in your pocket or bank stock and while traveling around no body would be any wiser, but if you had a darkey trudging at your heels every body would see him and know you owned slaves." Abraham Lincoln, 1849.

These are just what I could lay my hands on tonight. I will add to this post when I find more.

Sincerely,
Unionblue



(Message edited by Unionblue on August 14, 2004)

(Message edited by Unionblue on August 14, 2004)

[bill_torrens]

Dear Neil,

Well done – you’ve scored some direct hits in that list of quotes. I’m afraid I discount the pre-war newspaper article, the pre-war speech, the letter from the west Virginian and the post-war newspaper article as being off the point. I also discount what Mosby had to say, since he became a Republican after the war in order to earn a living.

But you have successfully made your point with the other quotes, and I will be incorporating those by Charles K. Maddox &amp; Elias Davis in my entries for those men in my ANV officers project.

I found one other officer who articulated his desire to fight for slavery in his wartime correspondence: Clement Anselm Evans, of Georgia. But otherwise my trawl through my own library produced the following:

“I never entertained a doubt as to the South having the best of the Constitutional argument; and yet, so strong was my love for the Union and my affection for my friends, at least nine-tenths of whom were on the Northern side, that I often felt, and more than once said, I could never strike a blow or fire a shot…[later I discovered] that I had passed to another and distinct stage of feeling and of purpose. I believed firmly my people in the South were right; I knew well they were weak; I saw clearly they were about to be invaded…..Right, weakness, invasion! – how could there be any save one inference from such a trinity of propositions.”

Robert Stiles

[Four Years Under Marse Robert, pp. 35-37.]

“With the greatest regard for truthfulness, I can say that never for one moment did the question of slavery or the perpetuation of that institution enter into the decision of my course. When the first blow was struck at Sumter, and men were forced to take sides in the approaching conflict, that which impelled [me] to decision was the love of freedom, and the constitution of my country, as I understood it, as opposed to the vindictiveness of the northern politician and his hatred of our southern brethren…”

George Wilson Booth

[Personal Reminiscences Of A Maryland Soldier In The War Between The States, p.6.]


“I told McPherson we were going to fight for our ‘liberty’. That was the view the whole South took of it. It was not for slavery but the sovereignty of the states, which is practically the right to resume self government or to secede…We had the right therefore to secede whenever we saw fit, &amp; it was truly for our liberty that we fought.”

Edward Porter Alexander

[Fighting For The Confederacy, p.25.]


“The biographies of Mr. Lincoln are wide of the mark in saying that the masses of the Southern people were forced into the war by the secession leaders. It was the act of Mr. Lincoln and his party that precipitated the conflict which many think was inevitable. Had he not made war upon the South, Virginia would not have left the Union. He and his advisers managed affairs so as to compel South Carolina to fire the first gun. The North was the aggressor. The South resisted her invaders. History will vindicate her course.”

William Thomas Poague

[Gunner With Stonewall, pp.3-4.]

“Neither Joe nor I believed in the institution of slavery…we both declared that we would never own slaves, yet at the same time, we denounced the fanatical ideas of the North as unjust and unfair. The abolitionists never showed a way to get rid of slavery, nor a way to provide for the negroes after they were free. Under a false idea of Christianity, and with envy, hatred, and malice, they shook the red flag of war in the face of the Southerner. We argued that when war did come, we would give the North a good fight and we did.”

David Holt

[A Mississippi Rebel In The Army Of Northern Virginia, p.62.]


“Personally I had no feeling of resentment against the people of the North because of their desire for the emancipation of the slave, for I believed Negro slavery was a curse to the people of the Middle States. As a boy I had determined never to own one. Whether I would have followed the example of shrewd New Englanders in compromising with philanthropy by selling my slaves for a valuable consideration before becoming an abolitionist, I will not pretend to say….I had no more doubt of the right of a state to secede than I had of the truth of the catechism. Yet I could not make myself believe that there could be a dissolution of the Union; perhaps because I was so much opposed to it…[but when] Virginia passed the Ordinance of Secession, I had no doubt of my duty.”

Henry Kyd Douglas

[I Rode With Stonewall, pp.15 &amp; 17.]

“I was opposed to secession and voted against the secession candidate to the convention, Ex-Gov. John B. Floyd. I thought that Lincoln, though a sectional candidate, was constitutionally elected and that we ought to have waited to see what he would do. But when he called for troops from Virginia and we had to take one side or the other, then of course I was for going with the South in her mad scheme, right or wrong.”

William Willis Blackford

[War Years With J.E.B. Stuart, pp.13-14.]


“I believed, whilst I felt our rights were guaranteed under the Constitution, my duty lay with my own state and I was amongst the first to volunteer.”

Alfred H. Belo

[Memoirs Of Alfred Horatio Belo, p.5.]


“He [the Confederate soldier] did not fight in defense of slavery, never fired a gun to perpetuate slavery; indeed the freedom of the negro was scarcely thought of and never discussed. He volunteered to fight in defense of his country, to drive back the invaders…”

W.A. Smith, Co.C, 14th N.C. Inf.

[The Anson Guards, p.2.]

[unionblue]

Bill,

Thanks for the replies, but I too wonder when most of these statements were written. I would like to compare their feelings before the war, rather than their writings after it.

I find it a bit dismaying that you can discount Mosby's words, even if he did become a Republican and the pre-war newspaper article. That means every Southerner that is a Democrat cannot be trusted when he says slavery was NOT an issue after the war? And what post-war article?

I appreciate you searching and trying to find comments from men of the South who stated they supported slavery as the cause of the war. Again, I base must of my belief in this reasoning from comments up to and during the war. Again, the twenty-slave rule comes to mind and Sam Watkins mention of the great dissatisfaction it called in the Army of the Tennessee. 'A rich man's war and a poor man's fight' I believe was the comment going around after that little jem passed the Confederate Congress.

I will try to lay in more, but I think I see the pattern here, don't you? Always a pleasure, dear sir, and thank you for the lessons you help me learn.

Until that time,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on August 14, 2004)

[georgiana]

I would not go as far as to say that abolitionism was “all-important”, but I certainly agree that it was critical in terms of increasing awareness of the evils of slavery. Abolitionists were small in numbers, but disproportionate in terms of their voice – at least in the North. The same can be said for the southern slaveholding elite – small in numbers, but disproportionately large in terms of political power and influence in the south.

Although I might label the Republican Party “anti-slavery” in orientation, I disagree with the notion that they were “abolitionist” in nature. The Republican Party was an amalgamation of so many diverse groups with different agendas – free-soilers, old Whigs, anti-Nebraska Democrats. The abolitionists were republicans for lack of anywhere else to go. Most republicans were anti-slavery because it conflicted with their economic ideals with respect to free labor, not because they held abolitionist views.

I do believe the church played a far greater role in shaping the response of the 70-80 percent of the nation that were neither slaveholders or abolitionists (the silent majority, if you will) than most historians have given them credit for. I tend to see this population as being rather skeptical of both political extremes and, as a result, increasingly turning to their faith and the church for guidance. Bill, you speak of the influence of the church with respect to abolitionism – and I tend to agree with you, but I often wonder if the abolitionists didn’t influence the church in some significant ways as well.

That being said, I think the abolitionists actually lost a great deal of support in the North when they began their ..”let the southern states go…” mantra during the secession crisis. Had they stuck with their original message…that slavery was morally wrong and incompatible with the democratic ideals that formed the basis of our republican form of government, they would have said nothing more than most citizens (both North and South, IMO) believed. But when they began to endorse the notion of secession as a possible remedy for our sectional differences, they alienated a good many people in the North and ruined any chance of real political power within the Republican Party.

[bill_torrens]

Dear Neil,

An interesting couple of exchanges of views, but once again we are slightly at cross purposes.

You say that you want to examine the feelings of Confederate soldiers before the war. Nothing wrong with that, but I thought we were talking about what they actually fought for. If you look at pre-war political sympathies, you would surely conclude that Southern Whigs/Unionists would espouse the Federal cause, whereas most of them ultimately defended the South. Similarly, if you looked at States Rights Democrats from the North you might be tempted to think that they would don the gray – which they almost never did. We really are talking about two quite different things: peace time political allegiances are not at all the same things as wartime allegiances.

I do take your point about post-war writing being an unreliable indicator of what people felt during the war. Did some Southerners conveniently forget that they had been enthusiasts for slavery? Very probably. But my stance remains that the passages you quoted, of Confederates explicitly saying that they were fighting for slavery, are so interesting precisely because they are relatively unusual. In my experience (and Confederate memoirs/letters/diaries are very much my stock in trade) the vast majority of memoirs blandly state that the writer’s state seceded and so he enlisted. He followed his country out of the Union and then joined the army when it was threatened with invasion. And I believe that most of these memoirs are reliable on this point. As far as contemporary Confederate letters and diaries are concerned, in my experience most of them offer no explanation for enlistment in the Southern cause because the writer clearly thought that no such explanation was necessary.

I sense that you are not convinced. Look at it another way: the majority of Confederate soldiers, like their Union counterparts, would have been agricultural labourers of average to below-average intelligence. The memoirs that you &amp; I read, the wartime letters and diaries which are deemed interesting enough to publish, would all have been written by intelligent and reflective people who must have been unrepresentative of the average soldier. Did you notice that the pro-slavery passages you cited in your post were all written by officers? It may sit comfortably with your ideological take on the war to believe that the typical rebel soldier was a political activist who was consciously fighting to defend slavery, but I confess that I remain sceptical.

“And what post-war article?”

The one from the Atlanta Constitution of July 1900. You did not attribute these words to a veteran, and so I have to assume they were written by a journalist.

“I find it a bit dismaying that you can discount Mosby's words, even if he did become a Republican.”

I have no problem at all with Southerners who supported the Union before, during and after the war. I have particular respect for those who enlisted in the Union armies – much as I deplore their politics. But when it comes to Confederate veterans who turned Republican it is a different matter. I do not believe in Damascene conversions, and so I’m afraid I regard such people as Quislings, collaborators…mere political whores.

Cheers,

Bill


(Message edited by Bill_torrens on August 15, 2004)

[thea_447]

I agree with Bill Torrens about the Confederate soldiers writing that they were fighting to preserve slavery. I'm not from Missouri, but on this point, I go along with their maxim: "Show me". I want someone to show me letters from these soldiers saying that they were there fighting to preserve slavery. Frankly, I've yet to see such a letter.

But I'm sure if we went back through the archives of "Soldiers Stories" or the original Quotes page there would be more than an ample supply of letters such as I have described repeatedly: letters from young men and old alike who say they are fighting for the South's independence, or say something about the North having invaded the South. The latter, about being invaded, I believe, was a BIG point in the minds of Southerners. Mainly however, the letters were of their love of family, missing family members, etc. and those poignant letters, such as ones in my family's history of socks: how they loved the new socks, how the socks were thread-bare now and finally, that they had no socks at all and were getting frost-bite.

Forgive me here if I repeat myself, although I will try hard not to, but I give you just two examples that come to mind:

"The rank and file were chiefly farmers and small merchants, comparatively very few were owners of slaves, but they were all descended from ancestors whose fortunes and blood had been freely spent in the war of the revolution; they volunteered in obedience to the call of their state to resist invasion (my italics); they came with a firm determination to do their full duty." --Capt. Wm. H.S. Burgwyn, CSA

"I enlisted with the hope and desire of rendering aid to the great and glorious cause of Southern independence, prompted by principle, religiously believing that the time had arrived when we were justifiable in resisting Northern aggression, and even at the expense of this once unparalleled Republic. As for my part I don't want to survive a subjugation of my country." --Col. J. Goodner


Also, Neil, for your benefit, and I'm quite sure you know this but intentionally overlook it, many of the leaders of the South did NOT want slavery to continue.
There were Confederate leaders that believed slavery was wrong. However few people know that key Confederate leaders were prepared to abolish slavery. General Robert E. Lee, early on, urged the abolition of slavery and said slavery was a moral and political evil years before the war. Stonewall Jackson, wanted to see all the slaves freed. Confederate general Patrick Cleburne advocated emancipation for all slaves who would enlist in the Confederate army, and twelve Confederate brigade and regimental commanders supported this proposal, including General Daniel Govan, General John H. Kelly, and General Marc Lowrey. So did Governor William Smith of Virginia. Duncan Kenner, a prominent member of the Confederate congress and one of the South's largest slaveowners, supported abolition very early in the war. Also, as early as 1862, the Confederate secretary of state, Judah Benjamin, proposed abolishing slavery in exchange for European diplomatic recognition. Two years later, in 1864, President Jefferson Davis and other Confederate leaders were prepared to abolish slavery to gain European diplomatic recognition in order to save the Confederacy, and they made this known to England and France. These facts are important because they show that independence was more important to top Confederate leaders than the continuation of slavery.

Lastly, I would add this, and again, I apologize for repeating myself on some of these items: it needs to be observed that the Confederacy did NOT engage in rebellion or insurrection against the federal government. Secession is not the same thing as rebellion or insurrection, and it's certainly not treason. Thomas Jefferson recognized the right of a state to leave the Union in peace, even if he didn't agree with the state's reason for leaving. The state of Massachusetts threatened to secede in the early 1800s, and its leaders obviously believed they had the right to do so. President John Quincy Adams likewise believed a state had the right to secede. So did President John Tyler. So did the great constitutional scholar William Rawle, who was appointed as U.S. Attorney for Pennsylvania by George Washington, and whose book A View of the Constitution was on the shelves at military institutions,and was taught briefly, at West Point. When the U.S. Constitution was ratified, three of the states specified in their ratification ordinances that their citizens retained the right to resume the powers of government if they felt the need to do so. Virginia cited this fact in its ordinance of secession. The Southern states attempted to leave the Union peacefully. In fact, before the war began, most Southerners believed secession would be a peaceful process. The Southern states seceded in a peaceful, democratic manner, with the overwhelming support of their citizens. One of the first acts of the Confederate government was to send commissioners to Washington, D.C., in an effort to establish peaceful relations with the North but Lincoln would not meet with them. The Confederacy was prepared to pay compensation for all federal installations within its borders, to pay for the Southern states' fair share of the national debt, and to allow Northern ships to continue to use the Mississippi River. The Confederacy neither attempted nor desired to overthrow the federal government. It wanted to be left alone and to live in peace with the North. When this was not allowed them, war came instead.

Finally, I leave you with a quote that sums up the way I believe the South felt about the United States at this crucial time:

“Patriotism means supporting your country always, and your government when it deserves it.” --MARK TWAIN (Samuel Clemens)

The government of the United States was no longer the government of All the people; so the people of the South formed their own government which was much more to their liking, as the original Republic of the United States had been upon its adoption. Having done that, they now had their own country, the Confederate States of America.



(Message edited by thea_447 on August 15, 2004)

(Message edited by thea_447 on August 15, 2004)

If I recall correctly here were plenty of songs in the north that lamented the existence of slavery and it's demise being the focus of a crusade yet I do not seem to recall any popular songs in the South that glorified slavery and promoted the idea that secession was because of the preservation of slavery. Songs were great indicators of public opinion. Especially popular ones.

Just an idle and errant thought. A bit to ponder upon. For those who are great admirers of a centralist government dominating over states rights. Have you ever considered without states rights existing at the formation of the nation, slavery would very well have been in every state and no single state would have been able to get rid of it? Now, today, without state’s rights, the Feds can do Anything they please. Looks like we are kissin' the constitution good-bye.

YMOS
tommy

[johan_steele]

Thea, I take exeption to your accussation that Neil intentionally overlooks facts. In my own belief he may occasionally overlook blatant propoganda, the accusation of intentionally overlooking facts...

There are several such letters defending slavery in Wiley's <u>Johhny Reb</u> though they are by no means the dominant theme. Bill is correct, the rank and file didn't give a hoot and a holler about slavery they were more concerned about their family friends and day to day survival. Now the politicos that sent them off to war are another matter entirely. I would strongly suggest you take a gander at Wiley's excellent works. It will go a long way in educating anyone interested in the men who did the fighting and dieing.

You mention intentionally overlooking items... It's an interesting fact that during the nullification crisis the sitting US President, a Southerner, viewed SC actions as treasonous. You keep using 1864 as a date Jeff Davis planned to abolish slavery... do you recall how much resistance he faced to that intention or perhaps his VP's official stance? Jeff Davis was a stubborn man and a man who was not willing to admit he may have een wrong... note his stubborn support of a patently incompetant Gen Bragg.

I will again mention the first Invasion, Indian Territory by Texas troops prior to Bull Run and the first violence was NOT perpetrated by US troops.

There are better than 600,000 dead from the War who would contest the fact that the South left the Union in peace. If most Southerners believe theat Secession would be such a peaceful process how was the CSA able to so raise 100,000 men so quickly... prior to the bombardment of Ft Sumter and Lincoln's call for 75,000 troops?

Overwhelming support of it's citizens? Is that why large chunks of NC, West Virginia, Eastern TN, Northern Georgia, and North Alabama to name just a few were so pro Union?

IIRC every state that would join the CSA mentioned Slavery as a root cause of their discomfort w/ the US. Slavery was an integral part of the Southern economy, it's what provided the labor to make landowners wealthy by harvesting the crops etc... The South felt threatened by Lincoln and by hook or crook did everything they could to get away from a legal election.

The US was no longer a govt of all the people... you're right. The majority legally elected a man the South didn't like and the rest is history.

[thea_447]

Dear Jenna,

As you suggested, I have taken our discussion to the Secession thread. And I can appreciate that you don't want a debate, but truly, this is just a friendly discussion. At least it is on my part, and I sense, on yours. As has been stated before, we don't want to draw blood here, just have a few chuckles and make everyone go running for their books! It's just the joy and love of history that keeps this war alive in ALL of us on these boards.

Just a few quick points before I have to teach.

As President Buchanan, Lincoln's predecessor, believed member States of the American union had a right to secede, he allowed Southern state troops to seize federal forts in Confederate territory. And the Southern states felt that this was on their property and offered to pay for all of it. All of this had been done without any loss of life as far as I know.

Lincoln's Inauguration (1861): At Lincoln's inauguration on March 4, the new president said he had no plans to end slavery in those states where it already existed, but he also said he would not accept secession and he WOULD collect his revenues. There is an implied threat in this inaugural address and the South took it as such.

At Fort Sumter, South Carolina troops denied a supply ship trying to reach federal forces based in the fort access to the fort. The ship was forced to return to New York, its supplies undelivered.

Also see Lincoln/Fox letter in which he, Lincoln, alludes to the fact that no matter how it came about at Fort Sumter, the end result was what he had wished: the South fired the first shot. (Keep in mind, those so-called needed provisions he sent were accompanied by WAR ships.) But all of these points have been covered ad infinitum in previous threads.

Lincoln called up 75,000 troops after Fort Sumter, without the permission of Congress. He kept Congress at bay for months while he drew the Union deeper and deeper into the conflict so that there would be no way out. It would be interesting to know how that vote would have gone, considering that public opinion was in favor of allowing the South to leave peaceably. The newspapers didn't change their tune until they realized how MUCH they depended upon the South's wealth to finance their commercialism. (But the bankers knew, and so did Lincoln.)

The Fugitive Slave Act analogy that you've drawn is new to me. I can see boy soldiers exchanging tobacco and singing songs across the river, but I cannot see them stopping a war long enough to make a little profit by returning runaway slaves. Are you saying that Union troops were doing this DURING the war or are you saying that this was still happening immediately after the South seceded? I would like for you to give me names of reference books on this so that I can read about this, please.

As for the other territories and states, the South wanted to keep the balance of free/slave so the North wouldn't overwhelm them and outvote them on every issue. (I admit I have not delved into the issue of the territories too much because that is not where my interests lie.) But I have always felt that the South more than anything else wanted to keep the balance of power even, not to go in and develop these into slave territories. On the other hand, Lincoln is on record as saying he wants these territories for WHITE people. The juxtaposition of Lincoln wanting only white people in these areas just as Northern states didn't want the blacks THERE because they might take away white people's factory jobs makes their wanting to free the blacks (who might just possibly want to move to another location) sort of weird. The irony of it all is not lost on me. It's as if they thought perhaps all these black people would prefer to stay in the South or they'd just disappear, like magic. Or maybe they all had Lincoln's pipe dream to ship them all out of the country!

The EP was a political ploy in my opinion and was used strictly as a war measure. Lincoln didn't employ it at this time because he'd won a battle. He used it because the North was upset and feared they were losing the war and it served two purposes: to put more bodies on the front lines and to give the abolitionists a bone. (The blacks were notoriously put in the worst fighting positions during the war.)

Thank you for your courteous attitude towards me and I hope that I have reciprocated in kind. I don't think I've covered everything you brought up but I've got to work now. But I'll be back.

I know I have welcomed you to these boards before but this is our first encounter so again I say welcome. I'm enjoying reading your Zouve thread too, it's something I know zilch about!

Till we meet again, I remain YMOS,




(Message edited by thea_447 on August 16, 2004)