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.
Whether or not slavery would have continued indefinitely or ended abruptly would include much presumtion of our 'modern' perspective.The political/economic isolation of the Southland from all other civilized & democratic nations due to any long-term continuence of the institution, would surely play heavily upon that decision. There is some documented evidence, as per several 'prominent' Southern leaders, military and/or political that lend credence to slavery being abolished. Last but not least, is the 'potential voice' of the vast majority of Southern whites not possessing a single slave.
The following individuals, publicly/privately or both, stated their position to end slavery in some manner:
Gen. Joseph E. Johnston, Gen. John H. Kelly, Gen. Daniel Govan, Gen. Mark P. Lowrey, Governor Wlliam Smith of Virginia, CS Sec. of State Judah P. Benjamin and CS President Jefferson Davis. (see__Patrick, Jefferson Davis and His Cabinet)
To the 'common' class Southerner, a full 3/4's did not own slaves. Votes on this issue from these people may have settled the decision, combined with the 'leadership roles' of the forementioned.
Southern whites who owned a small number of slaves decreased 5% in the period betwen 1850-1860. (Robt. Devine, T.H. Bren, Gorge Fredrickson and R. Hal Williams__America Past and Present, 5th ed. 1999.)
Jan. 11, 1865, Gen R.E. Lee wrote President Davis to (the) enlistment of slaves as soldiers with the "immediate freedom to all who enlist, and freedom at the end of the war to the families of those who dischage their duties faithfully." (The Civil War and Reconsruction, pg. 522) Gen. R.E. Lee called the institution of slavery "a moral and political evil" years before the war ended. (McPherson, The Battle Cry of Freedom) Certainly, serious students of the subject to hand must consider such documention and apply them with un-biased consideration.
If the Southern population followed the voices of their leaders and three-fourths of the same owned no chattel slaves, great odds are against the continuation of slavery. A 'post-war' Communistic Confederate society with hidden, leglized slavery would have been met with a second rebellion given the known stance of Southern people's rejecting 'too much' governmental interference in their private affairs. And the Southern people were very well armed...
You made some very valid points.It seems like many poeple on the Northern side of the Civil War argument always overlook that 70 percent of Southerners owned no slaves.If they looked into that then they're erroneous argument that they invaded the South to free the slaves is seen as it is a total lie.They also seem to overlook that the majority of Northerners were very racist in the 1860s as well.But the citizens of the North could change their racial views, but not the backward South.As I've said before a black shipbuilder was paid 3 times the salary of a white Confederate soldier.If the South was so evil why didn't they just force him to work for free.The famous Frederick Douglas said that if they were freed most of the slaves would fight for the South.That statement needs no elaboration.There are stories of numerous slaves who escaped to the north before the war and found conditions there to be a huge dissapointment.
My point on the immigrant labor issue was that with the paltry pay they received how would that not be just as profitable as slavery.I mean 7 to ten member family's living in one room shacks which by the way they paid for.Many slaves lived under better conditions than that.If you look it up the slaves even appear to have lived longer.
Bill thanks for your contribution as well.I agree with your post whole-heartedly.
…the new nation, built on the cornerstone of slavery, would have even more reason to be committed to the intellectual defense of chattel slavery, since it was the position and driving force of their Founding Fathers, much as it is unthinkable today that the United States would abandon its founding principle of taxation based on representation.
I’m not at all sure that comparing devotion to taxation based upon representation with an alleged devotion to slavery is reasonable. The former is clearly in the interests of all citizens and is hardly likely to be tampered with. But your constitution has undergone quite a number of amendments over the years, suggesting that what seemed right and proper to a bunch of 18th century farmers and merchants did not always strike subsequent generations as what they wanted. Which is the natural way of things, is it not?
The fact that many of the founders of the Confederacy were committed to the preservation of slavery does not, in any sense, guarantee that subsequent generations of Confederate citizens would have seen things in the same way.
Quote:
China uses slave labor and seems to get along quite well in the world.
Regardless of China’s status in 2005, the fact remains that British public opinion in the 1860s and afterwards would not have tolerated close links to a slave-based society. That is a matter of historical record. I have read the anti-slavery pamphlets and the newspaper editorials on the subject (at both local and national level) in some depth. I think I can reasonably claim a better acquaintance with the primary source material in this country than that enjoyed by any of my American friends on CWT.
Whether or not slavery would have continued indefinitely or ended abruptly would include much presumtion of our 'modern' perspective.The political/economic isolation of the Southland from all other civilized & democratic nations due to any long-term continuence of the institution, would surely play heavily upon that decision.
What isolation? Has China been isolated today because of its use of slave labor? What evidence is there they would be in any way isolated, especially since they had the cotton the world wanted to use?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabaman
The following individuals, publicly/privately or both, stated their position to end slavery in some manner:
Gen. Joseph E. Johnston, Gen. John H. Kelly, Gen. Daniel Govan, Gen. Mark P. Lowrey, Governor Wlliam Smith of Virginia, CS Sec. of State Judah P. Benjamin and CS President Jefferson Davis. (see__Patrick, Jefferson Davis and His Cabinet)
They were willing to do so if it helped them gain their independence. There is no evidence they would have done so if it were not needed to gain their independence. Davis and Johnston quashed Cleburne's plan to emancipate slaves to get them to fight for the confederacy, then later when the situation was far more desperate Davis came around. Remember that this thread is really talking about whether slavery was on its way out or not. You've shifted the argument a great deal. Absent a war, there is no evidence slavery was on its way out. Absent the war, I don't see any of these folks coming forward to propose the end of slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabaman
To the 'common' class Southerner, a full 3/4's did not own slaves. Votes on this issue from these people may have settled the decision, combined with the 'leadership roles' of the forementioned.
It's not that simple, Rob. 1/3 of the families were slaveowning families. That's a large chunk of population. Then we have to consider all those who didn't own slaves themselves but rented them. You can't assume all of them would vote to end slavery. It seems more likely the majority would keep slavery. Finally, there's the issue of racial subjugation. In many counties in the south blacks outnumbered whites. Whites were not going to vote to free blacks and take the system of social control off them and possibly risk another Haiti.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabaman
Southern whites who owned a small number of slaves decreased 5% in the period betwen 1850-1860. (Robt. Devine, T.H. Bren, Gorge Fredrickson and R. Hal Williams__America Past and Present, 5th ed. 1999.)
That statistic tells us nothing by itself. What about the total number of slaveholders in the population?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabaman
Jan. 11, 1865, Gen R.E. Lee wrote President Davis to (the) enlistment of slaves as soldiers with the "immediate freedom to all who enlist, and freedom at the end of the war to the families of those who dischage their duties faithfully." (The Civil War and Reconsruction, pg. 522)
It was not to Davis. It was to Andrew Hunter.
Again, driven by the desperate need for manpower at the end of the war, not an indication that slavery was on its way out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabaman
Gen. R.E. Lee called the institution of slavery "a moral and political evil" years before the war ended. (McPherson, The Battle Cry of Freedom) Certainly, serious students of the subject to hand must consider such documention and apply them with un-biased consideration.
Serious students have to use the entire letter in context and not just a small snippet.
"The steamer also brought the President's message to Cong; & the reports of the various heads of Depts; the proceedings of Cong: &c &c. So that we are now assured, that the Govt: is in operation, & the Union in existence, not that we had any fears to the Contrary, but it is Satisfactory always to have facts to go on. They restrain Supposition & Conjecture, Confirm faith, & bring Contentment: I was much pleased with the President's message & the report of the Secy of War, the only two documents that have reached us entire. Of the others synopsis [sic] have only arrived. The views of the Pres: of the Systematic & progressive efforts of certain people of the North, to interfere with & change the domestic institutions of the South, are truthfully & faithfully expressed. The Consequences of their plans & purposes are also clearly set forth, & they must also be aware, that their object is both unlawful & entirely foreign to them & their duty; for which they are irresponsible & unaccountable; & Can only be accomplished by them through the agency of a Civil & Servile war. In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy. This influence though slow, is sure. The doctrines & miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years, to Convert but a small part of the human race, & even among Christian nations, what gross errors still exist! While we see the Course of the final abolition of human Slavery is onward, & we give it the aid of our prayers & all justifiable means in our power, we must leave the progress as well as the result in his hands who sees the end; who Chooses to work by slow influences; & with whom two thousand years are but as a Single day. Although the Abolitionist must know this, & must See that he has neither the right or power of operating except by moral means & suasion, & if he means well to the slave, he must not Create angry feelings in the Master; that although he may not approve the mode which it pleases Providence to accomplish its purposes, the result will nevertheless be the same; that the reasons he gives for interference in what he has no Concern, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbors when we disapprove their Conduct; Still I fear he will persevere in his evil Course. Is it not strange that the descendants of those pilgrim fathers who Crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom of opinion, have always proved themselves intolerant of the Spiritual liberty of others?" [R. E. Lee to Mary Custis Lee, 27 Dec 1856]
Lee was not arguing for an emancipation. He was saying that at some point, in God's time, blacks would eventually be freed, but he was leaving it all in God's hands and would not take a hand in bringing about any emancipation. In fact, he agreed that slavery was best for blacks because they were better off here than in Africa and they were undergoing a discipline that would make them more civilized, in his view. He views slavery as necessary. Lee himself was a slaveholder, having inherited slaves from his mother. He rented one of these slaves, Billy Gardener, to his cousin, Hill Carter. To claim Lee was in favor of abolilition of slavery based on that one snippet is a prime example of a biased consideration.
In his 11 Jan letter to Andrew Hunter, Lee said, "Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country, I would deprecate any sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to avert a greater calamity to both. I should therefore prefer to rely upon our white population to preserve the ratio between our forces and those of the enemy, which experience has shown to be safe." [R. E. Lee to Andrew Hunter, 11 Jan 1865, OR, Series IV, Vol 3, p. 1012]
Lee is clearly saying he believes the relation of master and slave to be the best that can exist between white and black races intermingled in this country. That is not a man who would support abolition unless it were forced on him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabaman
If the Southern population followed the voices of their leaders and three-fourths of the same owned no chattel slaves, great odds are against the continuation of slavery. A 'post-war' Communistic Confederate society with hidden, leglized slavery would have been met with a second rebellion given the known stance of Southern people's rejecting 'too much' governmental interference in their private affairs. And the Southern people were very well armed...
Rob Adams
----------
Sorry, Rob, but I find that all wishful thinking and not in accordance with the evidence at all.
It seems like many poeple on the Northern side of the Civil War argument always overlook that 70 percent of Southerners owned no slaves.If they looked into that then they're erroneous argument that they invaded the South to free the slaves is seen as it is a total lie.
Since nobody claims that it's your strawman to deal with. In the first half of the war, the Federal war aim was solely to preserve the Union. It wasn't until the second half of the war that destruction of slavery became a Union war aim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
They also seem to overlook that the majority of Northerners were very racist in the 1860s as well.
Nobody's made the claim that Northerners in the 1860s were not racist, so that's another strawman you can dispose of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
But the citizens of the North could change their racial views, but not the backward South.
Nobody's claimed they changed their racial views. That strawman closet must be getting quite full by now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
As I've said before a black shipbuilder was paid 3 times the salary of a white Confederate soldier.If the South was so evil why didn't they just force him to work for free.
Then he would be a slave. A shipbuilder was a skilled laborer. You could take any kid off a farm and make him a soldier. There's quite a difference involved. There were slaves who did skilled labor, and their masters were paid quite well for their labor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
The famous Frederick Douglas said that if they were freed most of the slaves would fight for the South.That statement needs no elaboration.
Sure. If there were no slavery there would have been no war either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
There are stories of numerous slaves who escaped to the north before the war and found conditions there to be a huge dissapointment.
Stories. How many free blacks went south and offered themselves to be slaves?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
My point on the immigrant labor issue was that with the paltry pay they received how would that not be just as profitable as slavery.I mean 7 to ten member family's living in one room shacks which by the way they paid for.
Where's the evidence that there were large numbers of 7-to-10-member families living in one-room shacks?
And they had to be paid enough to afford to pay for their housing and pay for the meals for all the members of their families, otherwise their families would starve. Since the population looks to have increased quite rapidly over that time, it doesn't look like many were starving, so they were being paid enough to keep not only themselves alive but also their families. It only cost the average slaveholder about $20 per year to keep a slave alive. The slaves were the ones who grew the food and provided it for themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Many slaves lived under better conditions than that.If you look it up the slaves even appear to have lived longer.
I’m not at all sure that comparing devotion to taxation based upon representation with an alleged devotion to slavery is reasonable. The former is clearly in the interests of all citizens and is hardly likely to be tampered with. But your constitution has undergone quite a number of amendments over the years, suggesting that what seemed right and proper to a bunch of 18th century farmers and merchants did not always strike subsequent generations as what they wanted. Which is the natural way of things, is it not?
The fact that many of the founders of the Confederacy were committed to the preservation of slavery does not, in any sense, guarantee that subsequent generations of Confederate citizens would have seen things in the same way.
We're talking about the founding principles of the nation. Had the confederacy achieved its independence, they would have revered the sacrifices of their forefathers to give them a nation based on chattel slavery, and it would be seen as a betrayal to their forefathers to get rid of it, just as it would seem a betrayal to the Revolutionary Generation to get rid of taxation based on representation. It's more than a reasonable comparison, since they were both founding principles. In fact, what is not reasonable is discounting the comparison merely because it's inconvenient to your position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
Regardless of China’s status in 2005, the fact remains that British public opinion in the 1860s and afterwards would not have tolerated close links to a slave-based society. That is a matter of historical record. I have read the anti-slavery pamphlets and the newspaper editorials on the subject (at both local and national level) in some depth. I think I can reasonably claim a better acquaintance with the primary source material in this country than that enjoyed by any of my American friends on CWT.
What you read was in the context of a war between one side founded on the principle of perserving chattel slavery and the other side, after the EP, seen as fighting against chattel slavery. That is in no way comparable to what would happen had the confederacy become independent. The need for southern cotton would have asserted itself once again, and pragmatism would, as it usually does, overrule the high-sounding moral claims. How many nations refuse trade with China today based on its use of slave labor? Certainly not Great Britain and certainly not the United States. The history of trade relationships shows very clearly that moral indignation over slavery is fine and dandy in the abstract, but business is business and the economy must go on.
Cash,
Did I ever say that free blacks went South and offered to be slaves.Talk about a strawman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
As I've said before a black shipbuilder was paid 3 times the salary of a white Confederate soldier.If the South was so evil why didn't they just force him to work for free.
Then he would be a slave. A shipbuilder was a skilled laborer. You could take any kid off a farm and make him a soldier. There's quite a difference involved. There were slaves who did skilled labor, and their [u]masters were paid quite well for their labor.-Cash
Right Cash if someone is a skilled laborer then they have to be a slave.An expert such as yourself should know that there were many free blacks in the South before the Civil War.Or did you forget that fact because it doesn’t suit your anti-Confederate sentiments?Actually there was roughly the same number of free blacks in the North as their was in the South.Didn’t you ever question why these free blacks remained in the South?I guess they needed Northerners 145 years later to tell them the way they really were treated.
During the period of slavery, free blacks made up about one tenth of the entire black population. In 1860 there were almost 500,000 free blacks—half in the South and half in the North. The free black population originated with former indentured servants and their descendants. It was augmented by free black immigrants from the West Indies and by blacks freed by individual slave… www.britannica.com.library.unl.edu:80/ebi/article-197664>
Where's the evidence that there were large numbers of 7-to-10-member families living in one-room shacks?
People were crowded into rooms with often a whole family living in one room. In 1850, it was reported that in the Irish Fifth Ward in Providence, an average of nine people or 1.82 families lived in one or two rooms.4 The Five Points slum area in Manhattan was described by a witness as having 75 people living in 12 rooms and paying about $4 a month for rent. At this time, this was equivalent to about one week’s pay. In the back of the building were wooden hovels which rented for $3 a month. (W., pp. 65-66) Many tenements did not have indoor plumbing or running water. Sewage collected in outhouses and rats were prevalent, carrying and spreading disease, often to children. In 1857, 2/3 of New York City’s deaths were children under age 5, mostly Irish. (W., p. 67) There were also epidemics of typhoid, cholera, tuberculosis and pneumonia throughout East Coast cities.
Gutman, Herbert G. Who Built America. New York: Pantheon Books, 1989.
I’m not sure if it was you Cash but some poster made reference to some slaves being better off than they were in Africa.Of course some of them were.Look at the starving Africans on TV today it’s not hard to imagine slaves being better off.
Invalid comparison, MobileBoy:
"I’m not sure if it was you Cash but some poster made reference to some slaves being better off than they were in Africa.Of course some of them were.Look at the starving Africans on TV today it’s not hard to imagine slaves being better off."
Lee, among others, made reference to slaves being better off here. Such observations were made in total ignorance of black civilization in Africa -- the equivalent of saying that Indians are better off for the White, Christian influence.
Were they starving en masse in Africa during the 200 years when they comprised a major export?
I know Lee said it ,but how can that statement be discounted.I have been on two mission trips to Africa and what I saw would back up Lee's statement.Many African's clothing and housing I saw were worse than anything I read about slaves.You do make a valid point about how much did Southerners know about African life 200 years ago.On that count I'm not sure.I would assume whites visiting there talked and wrote about the place.I would think it would be safe to say life 200 years ago for Africans couldn't have been much better than it is now but maybe I'm wrong(Especially considering all the international aid which comes to Africa now).Then you go there and some poeple are still starving.In some parts of Africa I saw it was like poeple that time forgot.It was utterly fascinating but also sad.In the wilderness area where this tribe was there wasn't anything other than what we brought that had come along in the last 1000 years.The poeple seemed very happy though.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
