Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Oops! I forgot to add this site: http://www.agoron.com/~furlanm/
I apologize and stand corrected on the Grant quote. I will try not to let that happen again, Neil. I do remember us having this conversation a while back. My only excuse is that we've discussed so Much stuff that my mind fairly reels sometimes with the entire blog! <grin>
"They do not know what they say. If it came to a conflict of arms, the war will last at least four years. Northern politicians will not appreciate the determination and pluck of the South, and Southern politicians do not appreciate the numbers, resources, and patient perseverance of the North. Both sides forget that we are all Americans. I foresee that our country will pass through a terrible ordeal, a necessary expiation, perhaps, for our national sins." --Robert E. Lee
In regard to his opinion of using the blacks as soldiers, you've already shown the entire letter, and these words stick in my head:
"My own opinion is that we should employ them without delay. I believe that with proper regulations, they can be made efficient soldiers. They possess the physical qualifications in an eminent degree..."
"But it is certain that the best foundation upon which the fidelity of any army can rest, especially in a service which imposes peculiar hardships and privations, is the personal interest of the soldier in the issue of the contest. Such an interest we can give our negroes, by granting immediate freedom to all who enlist, and freedom at the end of the war to the families of those who discharge their duties faithfully (whether they survive or not) together with the privilege of residing at the South. To this might be added a bounty for faithful service. We should not expect the slaves to fight for prospective freedom, when they can secure it at once by going to the enemy in whose service they would incur no greater risk than in ours. "
"Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand." --General Robt. E. Lee to Gove. Stockdale of Texas, August 1870.
__________________ Thea
No one has permission to use any material from any of my posts on any CWT forum, the archives, or any other forum without my express written permission.
Neil,
In regards to your #5. It was not "slickered." It was betrayal. A lie. Tantamount to a sneak attack. Read Anderson's opinion on the issue.
"I had the honor to receive, by yesterday's mail, the letter of the Honorable Secretary of War, dated April 4th, and confess that what he there states surprises me greatly - following, as it does, and contradicting so positively, the assurance Mr. Crawford telegraphed he was "authorized" to make. I trust that this matter will be at once put in a correct light, as a movement made now, when the South has been erroneously informed that none such would be attempted, would produce most disastrous results throughout the country...
I ought to have been informed that this expedition [to resupply the fort] was to come. Colonel Lamon's remark convinced me that the idea, merely hinted at to me by Captain Fox, would not be carried out.
We shall strive to do our duty, though I frankly say that my heart is not in this war, which I see is to be thus commenced. "
Letter from Major Anderson to Colonel Thomas, Adjutant-General United States Army
April 8, 1861,
Anderson wrote the letter on the same day South Carolina's governor was informed about the coming of the resupply mission, the day after Anderson himself learned of the mission.
Lincoln KNEW full well what he was doing and the only thing the South could have done. He KNEW the South would HAVE NO CHOICE but to fire. He calculated and engineered the war.
Think on this....The Republican party advocated war from the start. Immigrant Aid Society...Heck they sponsored the publication and distribution of the book whose rally cry was...
<font color="ff0000">"The Unconditional Abolition of Slavery,"
"Peaceably, if we can; Violently, if we must."</font>
I am fascinated with the idea that Davis, Lee, Forrest, and Jackson had the idea that emancipation was coming anytime in their lifetimes, let alone 'would be coming.' What do you base this idea on? The idea that late in the war when Lee was desperate and needed soldiers that somehow the South was changing its mind about Emancipation? I don't think so. Too much evidence points to the fact that slavery was NOT on the way out and was NOT going be dying out anytime soon.
And Tommy, Ft Sumpter being fired on by the South is just fact, whatever the reason, whatever the excuse. BOTH sides hoped that each would fire first and BOTH sides had their reasons for doing what they did. BOTH sides debated, discussed, plotted and then decided. For whatever reason, pride, advantage, proving to the Border States that the Deep South really meant it this time, whatever, the South pulled the trigger and then had to deal with that action the rest of the war. And the rest of history. The South had a choice, Tommy, they just made the wrong one.
Thea, I have two questions concerning quotes you have used. Thank you for your reply on the Grant quote and your correction concerning it. On your post above November 17, 2003 - 11:27 am, I have also been reliably informed that Robert E. Lee never made such a quote to Gov. Stockdale of Texas. I have this on authority from Ron Goodwin or Old Reb on this board. Seems like Gov. Stockdale might have told a tall tale on the General.
I also would like to know if you went to the Karl Marx page and read the entire article concerning his observations on what HE thought the Civil War was about. Just want to be sure you have all the facts on that one.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
No Neil, I didn't go to the Marx page and read it thoroughly. I will do that.
Have you heard of the letters recently found in a N.C. attic purportedly containing either correspondance between Lincoln and Marx or perhaps Marx writing to Lincoln? I would be very interested in how that turns out.
While surfing the net I ran across this site which proved most interesting (although off our topic here, but heck, we've certainly done that before!) http://www.adena.com/adena/usa/cw/cw164.htm
As to the Stockdale quote, I tend to believe that it is a true quote. Lee made the statement (shortly before his death in 1870) to Stockdale after being invited by the commanding Union generals to arrange a meeting with a number of leading ex-Confederates after the war. He was asked to make a statement, supposedly to indicate how happy he was to be back in the Union with the stars and stripes. Lee said no. He'd seen what defeat had brought and the ugliness of Northern occupation. He did, however, talk with the former Confederate governer of Texas, Stockdale. After the meeting , in conversation with Stockdale, he stated that he did not make Public statements because everything he said was distorted or misconstrued but would say this in private.
I use the sources:
The Life and Letters of Robert Lewis Dabney, Thomas C. Johnson (Edinburgh, Scotland, 1977, 497-500; also found in the Kennedy Brothers, The South was Right, (Gretna, 1994), 42-43,and When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession, Charles Adams (Rowman and Littlefield) 219.
I can certainly see though, why you would prefer to think that Lee was a happy camper and thrilled to be "Back in the USSA", to paraphrase the Beatles.
Why do I think that Davis, Lee, Jackson and Forrest believed emancipation was coming? Because Davis and Jackson taught Sunday school classes for blacks; I've read that Jackson taught blacks to read, which was against the law at the time. Forrest had them in his army and I've read his quotes on their bravery, that no one could have fought harder. I've also read that Davis and his wife even adopted a mulatto boy. And in a letter to his wife, Varina, he said that slavery was dead now whether the South won or lost. (Can't remember if that was two years into the war or earlier or later!) <grin>
The cotton gin was another factor. If the South could have built railroads, surely textile mills would have arisen too.
Finally, almost every other country in the world had either got rid of slavery by peaceable means or was in the process. The South was not allowed that luxury. Your statement in a previous writing that slavery would have continued into the next century I find ludicrous. (No offense..) Why was it so important that it happen precisely then? Northern greed, a lust for land and power, and jealousy of the South's wealth.
Till we meet again,
__________________ Thea
No one has permission to use any material from any of my posts on any CWT forum, the archives, or any other forum without my express written permission.
I am more apt to believe the public statements of Robert E. Lee than I am of Gov. Stockdale of Texas or sources named by the Kennedy Brothers in any of their publications. I did not say that Lee was happy to be 'back' in the Union, but he did recognize reality which is more than I can say about the Kennendy's and the books they write.
As for Jackson & Davis teaching blacks at Sunday school and Jackson teaching slaves to write, it is still a far ways to go from teaching to emancipation. And just because it was against the law to teach blacks to read, so what? The law was often ignored so I do not consider it a special indicator on ones feelings towards emancipating slaves.
I too have read about Forrest commenting on the bravery of his black soldiers and believe him. I have even seen Forrest's comments about race and blacks after the war and believe this man knew that change had happened.
But I also remember before the war, the way Forrest made his fortune was in the buying and selling of slaves. And I think that war is what shook everyone up into realizing that slavery was at an end.
You say that almost every other country gave up slavery peacefully and that the South was not given time to do so. Why didn't the South get rid of slavery before the war came? In fact, you have told me time and time again, the North did not go to war over slavery and I have told you time and time again that I agree with you. Here are some facts for you to mull over.
Southern slave owners were not experiencing any kind of financial problem with slavery towards the begining of the Civil War. The simple fact of the matter was that the institution of slavery paid. Cotton production was NOT declining, it was expanding, and was very profitable with no end in sight to its potential earnings.
Southern slave owners had also seen what had happened to British slave owners by British abolitionists between 1812 and 1833 when West Indian emancipation had abolished slavery. They plainly saw the economy of the West Indies was in a shambles, that the personal fortunes of the West Inidian planters had collapsed, and that the assurances made to these planters in 1833 to obtain their acquiescence to compensated emancipation were violated as soon as the planters were reduced to political impotency.
From the mid-1840s on, however, the slave economy of the South was vigorous and growing rapidly. Whatever the pessimism of masters during the economic crises of 1826-1831 and 1840-1845, during the last half of the 1840s and most of the 1850s they foresaw a continuation of their prosperity and, save for the political threat form the North, numerous opportunities for its expansion. The main thrust of recent research has demonstrated that this economic optimism was well-founded; it has also undermined the competing thesis that slavery was gradually expiring of its own internal economic contradictions.
You and Tommy have used the example of the panic of '57 as how strong the South was and suffered hardly at all, due to its wealth, which you say the North wanted. The wealth was being generated by slavery and there was no big indication that the South was on the verge of having an attack of conscience over it.
The truth of the matter was that Southern slave owners had seen what damage emancipation, even compensated emancipation, had done to slave owners in the West Indies and they wanted no part of it, not when everything was going so well. They were convinced that Northern hostility to slavery precluded a union that would promote the economic, political, and international objectives that had become predominant among politicians of the cotton South. The restriction and decline of slavery.
YMOS,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
I found the Karl Marx reference when I was thumbing through a hard copy of my notes on this board. It reads in part:
The North American Civil War by Karl Marx, 20 October 1861,
Die Presse No. 293, October 25, 1861
"For months the leading weekly and daily papers of the London press have been reiterating the sam litany on the American Civil War. While they insult the free states of the North, they anxiously defend themselves against the suspicion of sympathising with the slave states of the South. In fact, they continually write two articles: one article, in which they attack the North, and another article, in which they excuse their attacks on the North."
"In essence the extenuating arguments read: The war between the North and South is a tariff war."
The above is where you get the statement that Karl Marx contends that the Civil War is a tariff war. If one reads the entire article, and it is quite extensive, (six full 8 1/2 x 11 pages!) the main thrust of the article refutes the English press and its asserations that it is a tariff war. Marx even makes a comment about the Morrill tariff NOT being an issue for the war and that slavery is the main issue of the conflict. He defends the North and even states that the
"...war did not originate with the North, but with the South. The North finds itself on the defensive. For months it had quietly looked on while the secessionists appropriated the Union's forts, arsenals, shipyards, customs houses, pay offices, ships and supplies of arms, insulted its flag and took prisoner bodies of its troops. Finally the secessionists resolved to force the Union government out of its passive attitude by a blatant act of war, and solely for this reason proceeded to the bombardment of Fort Sumter near Charleston."
Makes for a good read and helps get the facts straight.
YMOS,
Unionblue
(Message edited by Unionblue on November 19, 2003)
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
I am still under the impression that the war was caused over politics and that the South had no choice but to seceed. They were barred from the western territories gained during the Mexican War. With the growing number of 'free' states, they were outnumbered in Congress which made them politically impotent. The Republican Party made anti slavery its platform knowing very well that slavery had become an integrated part of the South's economy and culture. It was well known to the politicians of the time that to remove slavery from the South would mean the destruction of the South both as a political unit and its culture altogether. When the Republicans gained control of both Congress and the White House, in order to preserve its way of life, the South had no choice but to withdraw from the Union. The war was caused by politicians hoping to increase their power base.
The South had no real choice? You mean when the South held power in the White House and Congress and the Supreme Court and the North had to sit still for Southern policy, it was OK to stay in the Union?
Even if the South had lost the White House, it still had power in the other two branches of government. The South did NOT lose control of the Congress and the Supreme Court with the election of Lincoln. Had the South NOT taken the secession road, it could have blocked any attempt by Lincoln to do harm to that institution and its political power.
And when you talk of the South leaving the Union, over what sort of politics did it leave? In each instance you list the cause as slavery, even when the North said it would not touch slavery where it already existed. In spite of all the anti-slavery sentiment expressed by abolition groups, slavery and its removal from the South was not the main goal of Lincoln and the Republican party, as my friends will attest that Lincoln was no friend to blacks in bondage before and part-way through the war.
The war was started by selfish men who wished to increase their power and wealth by the spread of slavery. Many politicians both North and South, struggled long and hard to prevent a war but were defeated by these very same men.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Slowly brings Enfield up,seeking target, ah, right there in shiny blue,take aim, careful now, just squeeze the trigger...
In reference to:
Posted by Neil R. Hamilton on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 06:35 pm: Unionblue states:
"Even if the South had lost the White House, it still had power in the
other two branches of government. The South did NOT lose control of
the Congress and the Supreme Court with the election of Lincoln."
I believe we have covered this area and as usual, have come to different conclusions.
I refer you to:
APHILLBILLY Causes of War Posted 5-27-03 (I kept this in my file because it is breathtakingly good. It may be found in Part 1, I'm not sure. But if you want me to re-print the entire article, I'll be happy to oblige.)
Personal Opinions Pt. II: Thea Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 12:14 am;
Thea, Personal Opinions Pt.I Posted on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - 04:41 pm
Thea Personal Opinions Pt.I Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 09:44 am
APHILLBILLY Personal Opinions Pt.1 Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 02:35 pm
Thea, Personal Opinions Pt. 1 Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 08:23 pm
More at another time. Hope you're feeling better, Neil. You too, Tommy.
Till we meet again,
__________________ Thea
No one has permission to use any material from any of my posts on any CWT forum, the archives, or any other forum without my express written permission.
Brief change of subject:
I've been reading some of the old stuff in "A Class War":
Posted on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 10:47 pm:
Thea & Tommy, I think we are on to something here. I too, would like to see more involvement from others here at this board. Let me suggest the following.
Why don't we start a new thread, with the starting subject with something like this: "What, in your PERSONAL opinion, was the cause of the Civil War and how did you come to your conclusion?"
Isn't this amazing? And now we're into Part TWO of Personal Opinions.
We've come a long way, haven't we!
__________________ Thea
No one has permission to use any material from any of my posts on any CWT forum, the archives, or any other forum without my express written permission.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
