Secession

[bill_torrens]

Neil,


We’ve recently discussed the degree to which the common soldiers of the Confederacy consciously fought for slavery. I’ve just started reading “Letters To Amanda: The Civil War Letters of Marion Hill Fitzpatrick”, who was a Sergeant in the 45th Georgia, A.N.V. The introduction contains a passage which I thought might prove of interest to you:

The letters also challenge the notion that rank-and-file Confederates considered this a ‘rich man’s war and poor man’s fight’. Indeed, they are notable for their lack of cynicism, and for their impatience with anyone who isn’t conforming in the interest of victory.

Fitzpatrick’s letters suggest that for the common soldier the Confederate cause embraced, but was not confined to, preservation of slavery. Fitzpatrick came from a small slave-holding family and from a region where slavery undergirded the agricultural economy. If slavery troubled his very large Christian conscience, the evidence is not in these letters. They include numerous references to race relations, all either taking for granted or defending Old South ways, occasionally in language even his most favorably-disposed reader will find harsh.

But the letters also are insistent on the Southern states’ right to control their destiny. This theme – complete with the use of the word ‘liberty’ – comes up time and again. It could be argued that this is just a covering rhetoric, but a common soldier like Fitzpatrick, writing uncensored to an intimate like Amanda, would have had no need for propaganda. He seems truly to have believed that military action to prevent secession was a monstrous Northern wrong.

It is worth noting that Fitzpatrick joins the debate about whether slaves should be armed and enlisted in his army. In a late letter to Amanda, he agrees they should be. Presumably he knew that the deal, at least as conceived by Robert E. Lee, was freedom in exchange for military service. Fitzpatrick would have accepted that. Southern independence was a large and controlling goal for him and many thousands like him. ‘I have no distant dream of ever giving up,’ he wrote Amanda on January 1, 1865, ‘Yankees may kill me, but will never subjugate me.’

Kill him they did, as he received a mortal wound on 2nd April, 1865. By coincidence, there is also a revealing passage about the recruitment of slaves in the book I have just finished: “Lee’s Adjutant: The Wartime Letters Of Colonel Walter Herron Taylor, 1862-1865.” On 16th February 1865 Taylor wrote to his fiancee:

What do you think of the question of negro soldiers now? No doubt the experiment will be tried. My notions are still the same, but I cannot presume to place them in opposition to the well considered and matured views of so many of my wise superiors. It makes me sad however to reflect that the time honoured institution will be no more, that the whole social organization of the South is to be revolutionized. But I suppose it is all right and we will have to be reconciled.

Taylor is clearly opposed to the idea, but his words are not those of someone who has just realised that he has fought for four years for precisely nothing – which is what the situation would have been if, as you suggest, he and his comrades were fighting purely to preserve slavery. The phlegmatic “I suppose it is all right” tells us that the issue of slavery was clearly subordinate in his mind to that of securing national independence.

Bill

[georgiana]

Bill and Hal –

I could be misinterpreting your posts, but it seems as if you’re advancing the notion that support for “Manifest Destiny” was in some way confined to the North? Have I misinterpreted? The phrase may have been coined in the 40s, but the concept was born long before. Similarly, the belief that “Providence” was at work in the new nation was widely held, both North and South, and not confined to the antebellum period. Take a look at the first Charter of Virginia, issued in 1606 by none other than King James I. Look at the writings of William Bradford in the 1620s - our Declaration, which reads, in part: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our fortunes and our sacred Honor." The notion of God’s Pre-Ordained Providence permeates all of American history.

Washington certainly did his part to promote the “special place” of America in world history, but of course, Washington was a more rabid Unionist than old Abe himself, if you can imagine. He had born the brunt of a war that was needlessly prolonged because of the weakness of the central government, watched the nation approach the point of dissolution in the 1780s and, as a result, became the first of many childish, silly, half-baked, die-hard Unionists. Check out the “Divining America” website developed by the National Humanities Center.

http://www.nhc.rtp.nc.us/tserve/divam.htm

"Yes, the concept of self-government is entirely a selfish one. But why should one have the right to decide who gets to enjoy that selfish right, and who should be denied it? Preserving self-government and liberty by taking it from others -- that is very creative justification for coercing others, but it comes up well short on logic, I'm afraid."

When did the slaves surrender this right? “Self-determination” can be made a creative justification for many things.

"Ah, yes. The idols of Law, Order and Peace. It appears self-determination and liberty should be sacrificed at those altars as determined necessary by those holding power over others."

Talk about screaming contradictions. I’m quite confident, however, that the slaves would agree that this was how things appeared prior to the war.

"Throwing in Manifest Destiny and the notion that God wanted the Union to stretch from Maine to Florida to California to Washington (and beyond to the western Pacific and the Caribbean, and parts of what is now Canada if we'd only performed better) at least makes it understandable, if not defensible."

Agreed, unjustifiable... but not sectional. Albert Gallatin Brown, Senator from Mississippi, spoke after several filibuster expeditions to Central America:

"I want Cuba . . . I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States; and I want them all for the same reason -- for the planting and spreading of slavery."

[georgiana]

Hal –

I just wanted to mention that the last time I recall participating in discussions with you was a couple of years ago, I believe, on the Grant board. I was probably one of very few people who actually saw your post announcing a new addition to your family..….before it was yanked.

I’m assuming you have a toddler competing for your time these days.

Belated Congratulations….

[unionblue]

Bill,

Thank you for your reply about the Falklands War. Yes, I knew that Great Britain fought for the principle of self-determination of the islanders and sacrificed both blood and treasure for that right. Not for Empire or wealth or for Imperial domination or because God told them to. For a principle.

But why did they do that, Bill? You are puzzled by the North not letting go of the South and thereby saving lives and preventing bloodshed. Argentina wanted what they thought was theirs to claim. Why enter into war over that? Is not the saving of life and the prevention of war a greater goal than protecting a few thousand souls 'rights?' Isn't this what you would have the North do with the South? Why is there a difference in your opinion in these two areas?

So why is it so easy to believe that Great Britain fought for a principle of democracy for a set of tiny islands at the bottom of the world of no earthly value and then say it is so hard to believe that the men of the North fought for principles also? That a notion of 'Manifest Destiny' a kind of simplistic brain-washing with a pinch of God inspired madness is what explains the North's aggression?

I again feel you miss my point, both you and Hal, when I speak of 'the last, best hope of earth.' This is not about the size of the nation, square footage or comparisons of the area of the other countries of Europe or Asia. It is not about how prosperous the USA would be without a third of its present, physical mass. It is about the principles of representative democracy in a world where this form of government was not the norm, not even in England with it's restrictive representation in Parliament.

If the South had succeeded in its rebellion, it would prove to the world that a minority could still impose its will on a majority for reasons entirely of their own choosing, be they minor or major reasons, the proof would be that the people could not rule themselves, that they were incapable of maintaining ANY government on their own. Representative democracy would go down as a silly idea or be delayed for many, many years. America was the experiment at which ordinary people could decide their destiny and their future. It is my own firm belief that England was forced into changing its own rules of representation in Parliament as a direct result of the Civil War, enlarging the voting population as that result.

Now Hal will say to destroy one segment of the countries desire for 'independence and change' or to determine one's own destiny from the majority is a contradiction. I guess it really depends on what the South was leaving for and what type of society or government it was trying to set up. Were these reasons noble and important enough to destroy a concept of government? Was this a fight over who pays the bills or against an oppressive Federal government who threatened to enforce its will on a people with 16,000 scattered troops, a handful of Federal Marshals and a part-time Attorney General?

Or was this minority trying to impose something that the majority did not want or did not approve of and was it within their rights to reject it? Did this majority of people, who had decided their course through a peaceful election, had to suffer the consequences and outrage of a defeated minority? A people who had abided by the rules set down by themselves and their government since the founding of their new nation. Who said rule of law, the law that was supposed to keep the playing field level with all of the countries citizens, should be the final judge of their actions, not the mob or disaffected gentry. And yes, Bill, slaveholders DO have a diminished right to self-determination when they claim their self-determination is ALL that matters and to hell with the majority. And are you saying the American colonists of 1776 were slaves of the Crown? Surely you did not imply that with that statement. I hope you indeed are not going to claim that the Revolution of 1776 is in any way like the Rebellion of 1861. The colonists knew they were committing treason, no matter how justified the reasons.

Bill, you have been so careful to read the letters of Confederate soldiers and to try and understand why THEY were fighting for. Can you not read the letters of Union soldiers and tell us what they thought THEY were fighting for? The tariff? Spoils of war? Crushing the independence of a people bent on having freedom? To expand the power of the Federal government? Why did those eager volunteers stay after all the blood and terror of the battlefield? What kept that army of volunteers in the field? Don't say the draft, Bill, we both know if the initial enlistment of volunteers had NOT stayed in the army, there would be a CSA today and that map you speak of would be real.

Those men in blue did not serve for the money, the loot, the killing and the loss that they had to endure. What reasons can you give me that they did suffer loss after loss and yet stayed the course to reunify their country?

I am curious,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on August 20, 2004)

Neil,

I hesitate to enter into this arena but the Falklands had far more than "no earthly value." To the contrary, to those living there it had extreme value. I may be incorrect but as I recall they asked for help. And of course, to British naval authorities it was of massive strategic value as well. To dismiss the Falklands war as "two bald men fighting over a hair brush" is selling it all short.

Besides, the Falklands do not really compare to our War for Southern Independence. There was only one nation involved from your perspective if I am not mistaken? A war between two nations that already existed nullifies the comparison. For any and all reasoning, objectives and ramifications are judged by different measures. Now had British naval ship broken the blockade...This line of debate might be more fitting.

As to the colonies being slaves to the British. Excuse me...it was called the British Empire. After Lincoln was finished. So is the US.

As to Georgiana’s referencing the South’s idea of manifest destiny in comparison to the North’s, I would say the difference is the South had no aims to take over the north. The north cannot say the reverse can they?

The experiment failed Neil. Force of arms proved that. They disagree and wish to leave? Kill them, burn and destroy them. Pile iniquity upon iniquity upon them. And upon their children for years to come. Let them live in enforced poverty for over a century to teach em a lesson. Let them be a source of ridicule for their enforced poverty. Let them suffer until we need them for a war. Then be sure they have the highest casualties. After that, let's use their poverty to buy the land for a song. Lets go down there where it is warm to let them benefit from our superior persons. That a success does not make. But ya’ll being on top might disagree. See? I was born in Kansas. My grandfather fought for the Union. But I live here. I might see it different. Not a sucess. To speak of prosperity?

YMOS
tommy



Thank God for Mike having an edit feature!!!!

(Message edited by aphillbilly on August 20, 2004)

[thea_447]

Tommy: "Pile iniquity
upon iniquity upon them. And upon their children for years to come.
Let them live in enforced poverty for over a century to teach em a
lesson. Let them be a source of ridicule for their enforced poverty.
Let them suffer until we need them for a war. Then be sure they have
the highest casualties. After that, let's use their poverty to buy the
land for a song. Lets go down there where it is warm to let them
benefit from our superior persons. That a success does not make."

All true, Tommy. The basic difference in our opinions lies in the fact that we Southerners truly believe we had formed a separate nation.

The Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court privately delivered this opinion on charging captured Confederate officers with treason.
"If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion."

We should have been allowed to leave peaceably. We wanted no part of the North, we sought not to conquer her.


As for the "the last best hope on Earth", that is gone forever. It died at Appomattox. And the South has been relentlessly crushed under the boot ever since.

[unionblue]

Tommy,

The comparison is apt when it is said that why not simply let the area go? The North can let the South go, but England can not let a set of islands go with a few thousand people? Because of a principle? Why is it all right to let the South go in 1860 but fight like crazy for the Falklands? And as to what strategic navel value? Do you remember how many British ships were stationed there before that war? I can, because our intelligence unit monitored the situation at the time. Some ice cutters and a company of Royal Marines and that was it. I am sure the population considered their island an extreme value. Would not Americans of the 1860's consider 1/3 of their nation had just as much extreme value? (Besides, Tommy, I thought you have said that the Civil War WAS between two nations or have you changed your thoughts on that also?)

Bill has explained it was for a principle, self-determination and the expressed desire of those islanders to remain under British rule. I just object to the notion that there were no principles involved when it came to the North and its reasons for not letting the South go, that somehow, it was a simple, barbaric, base impulse that led the North to go to war with the South leaving in rebellion.

I also disagree with your notion that the South did not want to take over the North thereby rendering the concept of Manifest Destiny a purely Northern trait. The South wanted to impose its will on the North, as it had for decades, by the forcing of Federal protection of slavery in EVERY state, to include those states in the North who did not want the institution, who did not want their government to impose such protection and control to such an extent unknown in American memory. So, yes, Tommy, the reverse is true, its just that the representatives of slavery tried to ram it down the people's throat at the Democratic convention and failed to do it legally, so they rebelled when they didn't get their big stick to hold over the rest of the country.

The experiment almost failed because of the selfish and unlawful acts of a few, who said to hell with the many and their desires and wishes. They said to all 'I care not how many of my fellows are killed or burned or destroyed as long as I have my way and my vision.' These are the ones who decided that their fellows could live in poverty and be a source of ridicule.

But again, the idea that 'ya'll being on top' has any kind of merit with your vision of today's events is truly hard for me to take. That because the North won the war somehow gives me some kind of 'up' on anyone in the South is tragic. That somehow from my double-wide trailer and my '94 Ford Ranger here in Ohio gives me a superior person benefit or permits me to look down on anyone with Southern heritage, roots or residence, in your opinion smacks to me of cultivated pity.

The war is over Tommy and the past is past. Do you really want to know why most people do not care about Southern Heritage or preserving the memory of the South? Remember that article you posted that said less people consider themselves Southerners than in the past? Some feel that they don't know their own past or maybe, just maybe, the majority of them just refuse to live in it and are moving towards their future, taking their lives and their hopes with them. It is one thing to study the past, to preserve it and remember it, but there is no chance going back to it, to change it or relive it. We start with our lives at the moment we are born and the effect we have on it and others and our countries is by OUR actions and inactions, here in the present, based upon what the past has taught each of us.

I cannot look upon my country, as young and as vital as it is, and despair. I cannot look at my grandchildren and tell them, 'Give up! The country you live in is a lie and will crush your spirits and your lives at the first chance it gets!' I live here, work here, hope here and aspire to more here than in any other place or country or culture. There are problems, big ones, but I cannot bring myself to admit its too late to do anything about them. I refuse and I will not permit myself to go down in depression and indifference to its faults. We are a young country and we have much to learn and much work to do. And where this speech came from is beyond me.

Sorry Tommy, there are buttons I have that are only too easy to push. You live here and you see it different and not a success. I live here and I do.

YMOS,
Unionblue

Well Neil, when you espouse that the nation’s prosperity is what it is about and not size. You kinda push a button or ten here too. Quid Pro Quo. Whose prosperity? At whose expense? At what cost?
And you speak of ‘cultivated pity’ while in my lifetime alone I have seen that the north has masterfully cultivated self righteousness and self adorned superiority. Heap that on top of what the South has suffered is a hard pill to swallow. And the South HAS suffered for the last 140 years. Regardless of what you might think. Not mentally but physically. It has been a hard pill to swallow but we have swallowed it. And not choked on it. Could the north say the same? Or is that why the northerners are fleeing the north in record numbers?

Which, is the major reason that less people considered themselves Southern from the article if you will recall.


I said in regards to the article
"As I have said before. We are almost all gone. Being homogenized beyond recognition and browbeat into a tasteless soulless area that is not Southern except for a compass direction. Finally reconstructed. Hallelujah. Of course, after us it will be anyone else that does not have a racial organization that represents them and demands the right to have their culture respected. Shrug....of course after we are gone....who really thinks America will be a better place? Must be most everyone since they are either trying so hard or worse, keeping silent. "

From Thea’s post on that thread, from an editorial upon that topic:

“I have watched with interest the discussion regarding the decline in numbers of those who retain their identities as Southern. The study period most often quoted for the 'polling data' is the decade from 1991 to 2001. During this period, a tremendous influx of Yankees befell the deep South. The Yankees spent 20 plus years working in the land of snow and ice and then felt compelled to move to the land of sun and warmth. American is a free country and there are no physical barriers between states thus facilitating the migration from
North to South.

To look at this geographical migration by itself would cloud the true picture. The snow birds have moved in a Southern direction throughout this vast land to include areas not considered the South. Areas such as New Mexico, Arizona, Southern California and even some portions of Colorado and Utah. This migration is universal throughout the entire country. There are colonies of snow birds that come South in the winter and go North in the summer. These are usually the well heeled as they can afford to maintain two residences. My own brother-in-law does it as he moves to upstate NY during the summer and moves
back to SC in the winter.”

I also posted an article once that showed there were more northerners moving to the South than ever before. More moving South that were moving north. That also fell during the time frame as this polling data did. You might remember that those who were black moving South moved because there were better race relations in the South.


Regarding the Falklands comparison. Had the South been invaded and occupied by a foreign power and requested aid from the other states in the Union then it would have been an appropriate comparison. Or even if they had beseeched Argentina to help them remove themselves from the British yolk I might see a parallel. Or if the Falklands had seceded. Did the Falklands secede on their own?

Yes. I feel the South was a nation. What I said was ‘ There was only one nation involved from your perspective if I am not mistaken?”....not mine.....my point being if you thought we were one nation then you surely can see the lack of comparison. Only if the Falklands had seceded and formed their own nation would I have seen a comparison. Provided nothing in the governing documents did not Simply, Expressively and Categorically forbid it. Then it would have been a rebellion.

Btw. Naval importance would have nothing to do with how many ships were there. If the British navy is forbidden use of the canal it is imperative they have refueling stations. The Falklands are strategically located in that regard. Better than any other for getting around S America.







(Message edited by aphillbilly on August 20, 2004)

[unionblue]

Tommy,

Please reread my post to Bill and Hal. I do NOT espouse that the nation's prosperity is what it is about and not size. What I say is 'that it is not about the size of the nation, square footage or comparisons of the area of the other countries of Europe or Asia. It is not about how prosperous the USA would have been without a third of its present, physical mass.'

I wish I could experience this cultivated self-righteousness and self-adorned superiority, find out where the meetings are held or which party to join. Sorry, haven't seen it up here in Ohio at least lately. Spent twenty years with fellow Americans, North, South, East & West, and never recall spending ANY time lording it over the guys from the South. Served under a lot of Southern officers, some from West Point, some from VMI and a lot from ROTC programs in the South. Don't recall telling them how superior I felt being from the North and the results of the Late War. Had Black, Southern Drill Sergeants who were much more concerned with my bunk, my physical training and uniform gigs. Entirely slipped my mind to tell them to back off because MY side of the country won the Civil War and I was in some way superior.

What I have a tough time swallowing is the bitterness of NOW, this time, this place, this second. You and I can in no way feel that we experience the bitterness and hardship of those Southern soldiers who were defeated at war's end and endured the slings and arrows of Reconstruction, by any degree that comes close to what they suffered.

When all the WWII vets are gone, Tommy, will we forget their sacrifice, their service, their loss and pain of their lost youth they gave up for us? And can we know or feel the pain and loss that they suffered in their trials? I would not even attempt to claim 1/10th of their experiences and claim to 'understand' their time in service to their nation, even if I have been in the military.

You lament the loss of difference and the decline of those who claim 'Southern' as their heritage. That the Southern section of the United States is flooded with yankees and snow birds who now claim that area as there home. That this detracts from the region in some way, that it waters down its history. I wish I could do as your brother-in-law does, move with the seasons, but I am just one of those Americans who can't afford it.

I wonder just who are you mad at? History? The government? Old people who have worked all their lives who never fired a shot in anger at ANYONE South of the Mason-Dixion line and just want a little warmth and a chance to live out their remaining lives in some sort of warm comfort? People looking for a chance at a better life? Aren't you proud that your section of the nation attracts people, black and white, business, money and investments? Does this mean the war is over and reconstruction and its effects are long past? Is your present life so terrible in this nation, produced from historical conflict and pain, that you feel it would be markedly better in some other nation or place? Not that there are a heck of a lot of choices, but I am just comparing some of the places I have seen in my travels about the globe and no thanks, I'll gut it out here.

And after us, Tommy, there will always be some cause, some flag or issue to rally around. It is America after all and no matter how homogenized or blended we become, we are a peculiar people.

As for your view that there were two nations during the war and my own there was only one with a section in rebellion, yes it is how I believe, but I cannot offer comparisons or examples or try to cut through what I consider is the real heart of Bill's views on the South leaving the Union? By your lights, the South WAS invaded by a foreign power and it did request aid from other states/nations. I am trying to get Bill to understand that when he says 1/3 of your country can leave and you can just avoid all those nasty problems (death and war, destruction and pain) why can't the British let go of an island group not in anyway attached to the Mother country for the same reasons? They (The British) could not any more than the US/North could let go of the South, because there were just more than the notions of tariffs, States Rights and just mean, old, government oppression. That's just too simple and too easy and a great way to go to sleep at night without your conscious troubling you. I demand that folks have to WORK at it and not get off that easy with lazy inferences about the bad, old North, that somehow the reasons the men who fought for the North were evil, less worthy of memory and somehow tainted because of their sacrifices are somehow less than those who fought for the South.

And before the war in the Falklands, you would be hard-pressed to find a refueling station for exclusive military use as most of the British Navy was geared to fighting with NATO in the Atlantic at the time of the war, hence little reason to fuel ships going around the Horn/South America.

Until that time,
Unionblue

Neil,
NATO would not help British ships in every instance. Nor has it. Not to mention that for the British to help NATO it would likely need the strategic refueling depots if the canal were attacked.

Nor does one give up militarily strategic locations to an enemy just because you might have a treaty with others if one can help it. We have not given up our Air Bases in many lands just because they are in NATO. We planted out military there and it'd take a shoehorn to winkle us out.
Saying since we are part of NATO we do not desire the strategic locations for OUR military is not noteworthy....I know that for YEARS there were protesters around Greenham Common in the UK. 24/7 365 a year trying to get us out of there. They camped out and lived there.
Uk was a diehard member of NATO. No "need" for us there. And had the UK ousted us from there by force, they'd have not heard a complaint from me. Even though had it happened I might not be here. Since that is where my parents met.