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.
Ashley:
My understanding is Gen. Jackson put the slavery issue into God's hands; Gen. Jackson being a very pious man. If it is God's will for emancipation it will be so, type of thing. I confess my lack of knowledge on the Army of Northern Virginia; the Army of Tennessee has been my primary focus due to my ancestor being a member of the AOT.
"Gods and Generals" (the movie) added/deleted many important matters IMHO. Hollywood never gets things right. I used to correspond with Jeff Shaara (the writer of the book which the movie was taken) and I urged him to write a book on the Army of Tennessee; he was busy writing the "American Revolution" book/books at the time but said he would consider my proposal. Hollywood will take a perfectly good book & totally trash the idea via a movie.
I've been in a Warner Bros. film as an extra, and saw how movies are really made. They always portray all the South as "dumb hicks" and such. "I'm fitin fer my rats", etc. Dang, I never heard anyone fight for a rodent before. The Southern accents are totally horrid. Southern soldiers/officers are 'the beast' and Union troops are Angels sent from heaven.
Gen. Lee did, in fact, do the "taking communion" with a black citizen. Again, I think Lee would have strove for emancipation and most Southern folk would have accepted his leadership/example. More evidence of an end to chattel slavery. I totally reject any suggestion that the South would have continued slavery until a "cataclysmic event" or "natural disaster" ended it for them (us.) Any such idea is purely presumptive; just as all I've said is preumptive. You, I, Bill and Thea have given our presumption backed with our evidence upon the demise of chattel slavery. Ditto our Northern members. Yet our Southern view is considered bogus. Can't we fairly call Northern view bogus?
Ashley, please read (if you haven't already) "The South Was Right" by the Kennedy bros. I am currently reading this book. This book is continuosly 'put down' by most Northerners' view. But McPherson, like all authors, has an agenda too! Northern, to be quite frank. So does Wiley Sword. So do the 'pointed-headed-professors' who dictate what should and should not be allowed for you to teach your school children. There is an agenda on removing the word "God" from our (very) vocabulary; you just might offend another religious belief or an agnostic. This is an agenda loaded with pure propaganda. So...while we still have the 'Right", read this book and all other Confederate viewpoint material and come to your personal conclusion as to the subject at hand.
The coming years, will in my humble opinion, put the Northern attitude/actions/angelic status, out in some clear light for future generations to ponder. The future may not be so 'bright' for the North as it appears today.
I have really appreciated your intellect and spirit upon this discussion, Ashley. Despite the odds! Never relent. Keep posting!! Keep your 'powder dry.' Alabama shall be heard!
Cash I don't see your point as to why did Confederate soldiers not write letters saying they weren't fighting for slavery.Are troops from Iraq now writing letters home saying that they're not fighting for gay rights overthere.Yea that's a bad example but the recipient of the letter would be very familiar with the author and they wouldn't waste time stating something probably already understood.Just a thought.States rights and independence shows up in tons of letters so clearly that was more important than slavery to most Confederate enlisted men.
Ashley,
The point is that about 20% of the confederate soldiers wrote about slavery. Every one of those particular soldiers said they were fighting to preserve slavery. No confederate soldier at all, in McPherson's study, wrote that he was not there for slavery. The conclusion is they all understood that slavery was one of the rights for which they were fighting, and most of them didn't feel the need to expressly state that. Had there been some soldiers who wrote to say they were not fighting to preserve slavery, then that would weaken the conclusion. But not a single one in the study wrote that.
To address your Iraq example, none may write home to say they are not fighting for gay rights, but in addition to that, none have written home that we know of to say they are fighting for gay rights. So it doesn't appear to be an issue at all. With the slavery issue, we have a substantial block of soldiers who felt strongly enough to expressly state they were fighting for slavery, and not a single contradictory letter in the study.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
I've read several books about Stonewall Jackson,but I haven't seen him make reference to freeing the slaves.In the movie Gods and Generals he talks about some in this government want for slaves to be free(paraphrasing)is there any historical documentation to that.
Jackson left it to God's will. He was a slaveowner himself, reasoning that God allowed slavery to exist so it must be okay to own slaves as long as one treated their slaves with kindness, which he did. In fact, at least one slave he owned had come to him and asked him to buy them from their previous master. The best book on Jackson is from my old professor, James I. Robertson. It's called Stonewall Jackson: The Man, the Soldier, the Legend. Prof. Robertson is the leading Jackson scholar in the world, and due to him I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for "Old Jack." We have to remember that Jackson died in May of 1863, before Cleburne's proposal and thus before the confederate government started talking about emancipation. What we saw in the movie was the result of a fictional movie made from a work of fiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Also I've read where Robert E. Lee supported emancipation, but I've always seen the quotes from another person referring to it not him directly.
Late in the war, Lee supported making slaves into soldiers and in return emancipating them and their families.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
There was a very interesting story after the war about a black guy coming to the altar beside Robert E Lee during church.This kind've freaked everyone out(blacks usually stayed in the balcony) but Lee just prayed as usual and then the Congregation followed his example.
True story, but just a bit different from what you have there. The black gentleman went up to the altar by himself. Lee went up and joined him at the altar.
"Gods and Generals" (the movie) added/deleted many important matters IMHO. Hollywood never gets things right. I used to correspond with Jeff Shaara (the writer of the book which the movie was taken) and I urged him to write a book on the Army of Tennessee; he was busy writing the "American Revolution" book/books at the time but said he would consider my proposal. Hollywood will take a perfectly good book & totally trash the idea via a movie.
Both "Gettysburg" and "Gods and Generals" were very faithful to the novels on which they were based.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabaman
I've been in a Warner Bros. film as an extra, and saw how movies are really made. They always portray all the South as "dumb hicks" and such. "I'm fitin fer my rats", etc. Dang, I never heard anyone fight for a rodent before.
That's not Hollywood, Rob. That's directly from the novel, The Killer Angels, on which "Gettysburg" was based.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabaman
The Southern accents are totally horrid. Southern soldiers/officers are 'the beast' and Union troops are Angels sent from heaven.
Apparently you haven't seen too many Civil War movies. My experience is that the majority of the movies, and I've seen a large number of them, show both sides to have men of good character as well as bad character. Here are a few examples.
"The Blue and the Gray" contains good men on both sides. There is one homicidal killer who happens to be a confederate officer, but earlier in the movie he was driven mad by witnessing the death of his sons. So his homicide comes not because he is a southerner but because of his mental condition. There are plenty of good, honorable southerners in that movie to balance him out. And it shows some Union soldiers about to rape a black slave woman who is saved by the appearance of a southerner.
"Alvarez Kelly" has southerners of good character and great skill pitted against some Union men who are arrogant, incompetent, and who bully black slaves who are loyal to the confederates.
"North and South" has its two main characters, both of them men of the highest moral character, on opposite sides. There are dishonest people on both sides as well as other folks of high moral character on both sides.
In "Shenandoah" the best characters are all southerners.
In "Gettysburg" there are men of good character on both sides--no villains. Same for "Gods and Generals."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabaman
Gen. Lee did, in fact, do the "taking communion" with a black citizen. Again, I think Lee would have strove for emancipation and most Southern folk would have accepted his leadership/example. More evidence of an end to chattel slavery.
Wishful thinking isn't evidence.
"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. But in view of the preparations of our enemies, it is our duty to provide for continued war and not for a battle or a campaign, and I fear that we cannot accomplish this without overtaxing the capacity of our white population." [Robert E. Lee to Andrew Hunter, 11 Jan 1865]
Lee was forced by desperation to support making soldiers from slaves. It wasn't out of any desire to see slavery abolished. He states clearly in the excerpt above that he's in favor of slavery as being the best relationship between black and white that could exist while the two races are intermingled in the same country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabaman
I totally reject any suggestion that the South would have continued slavery until a "cataclysmic event" or "natural disaster" ended it for them (us.) Any such idea is purely presumptive;
It's supported by all the evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabaman
You, I, Bill and Thea have given our presumption backed with our evidence upon the demise of chattel slavery. Ditto our Northern members. Yet our Southern view is considered bogus. Can't we fairly call Northern view bogus?
Wishful thinking isn't evidence. It's only wishful thinking. Calling it evidence doesn't make it evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabaman
Ashley, please read (if you haven't already) "The South Was Right" by the Kennedy bros. I am currently reading this book. This book is continuosly 'put down' by most Northerners' view.
Because it's garbage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabaman
But McPherson, like all authors, has an agenda too! Northern, to be quite frank. So does Wiley Sword. So do the 'pointed-headed-professors' who dictate what should and should not be allowed for you to teach your school children.
McPherson's and Sword's agenda is to tell the historical truth. Some people might consider that anticonfederate. I think it's pretty revealing that telling the truth about history is considered to be anticonfederate. And resorting to ad hominems about scholars who dedicate their lives to learning simply because they tell the historical truth is very revealing as well.
All the evidence points to a continued existence of slavery for as long as they could maintain it, absent some cataclysmic event. They looked at slavery as the reason for their own liberty; in fact, they defined their liberty and their rights in terms of the existence of slavery. There is no way they would give that up on their own, especially if they had won a war, with battlegrounds sprinkled with the blood of their dead patriotic forebears, to preserve slavery.
But people simply don’t think like that. They deal with issues on the basis of what seems to be right and/or in their interests at the present day. Battlegrounds sprinkled with blood do not enter into the equation for any reasonably-balanced individual. The question is: would the world have seemed a different place to the Confederate establishment of 1881, or 1901, to the one it had been in 1861? I think that, in general terms, the answer to that has to be “yes”. Whether it would have been sufficiently different for them to tamper with slavery is unknowable.
Quote:
And, assuming an independent confederate nation, people like Neil, Ole, you, and me would have very little problem accepting the existence of slavery in that independent confederacy as long as our country benefited from trade with them. Oh, we'd make the typical expressions of disapproval, but we wouldn't actually do anything about it because we would want to continue benefiting from that trade. I'm not claiming any type of moral degeneracy on southerners in particular, nor any type of moral superiority on anyone else. I'm just talking about the effect the institution of slavery itself has on human beings who live with that system and are not slaves themselves.
There comes a point where cynicism becomes a form of naivety…the gullible belief that people always act for the worst motives. I suspect that the willingness of the American population to tolerate their government trading with a slave-owning power has much to do with their inability to find China on a map and their complete ignorance of what goes on there (the same would be true of the British public, in the main) rather than any positive acceptance of doing business with slave-owners and mass-murderers.
Be that as it may, it has no bearing on European attitudes towards American slavery in the mid-19th century. Public opinion was well-informed on this subject and it is a matter of historical fact that this influenced the decision of the British government to withhold recognition of the Confederacy. It would undoubtedly have had an impact on any attempt to create an Anglo-Confederate alliance, and it might well have had an impact on Anglo-Confederate trade.
But the only actual, solid fact in this debate is that we are all guessing, and the best we can do is to come up with plausible hypotheses. Your hypothesis is perfectly cogent and plausible, although I do not agree with it. But it is nothing more than a hypothesis, and so I find your serene certainty on this issue both amusing and a little alarming. Mainly amusing, but alarming if you have any professional input into shaping American foreign policy. Forgive me for saying that I trust you don’t.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
Times change. Although human nature is fundamentally the same, in the western world we no longer burn witches;
Not literally, but we still have inquisitions against some types of "others." Remember McCarthy and the Red Scare? There were lives that were destroyed in the 1950s because people were merely suspected of being communists. I don't have to go into the Holocaust to show that people who were different could be burned, not necessarily as witches but demonized nonetheless.
Terrible as the McCarthy “witch hunts” were, the destruction of careers is not quite the same as burning people alive. One cannot claim that the civilising process in the western world has been a story of continual progress, with events like The Holocaust happening along the way, but one can claim that in the last couple of hundred years there has been a steady, overall progress. And I remain sceptical about the argument that slavery would have been immune to this.
Quote:
China is very much a superpower, and becoming more advanced every day. Sorry, but your simply waving your hand won't make it go away.
China is a military superpower and is well on the way to becoming an economic one. But in terms of its record on human rights it is one of the most primitive and brutal societies on earth. It is impossible to infer anything about the evolution (or otherwise) of Confederate society on the basis of events in China.
Bill
Last edited by bill_torrens; 09-28-2005 at 02:13 PM.
I know it's a pain in the patoot, but while you're reading "The South was Right," do take the extra time to evaluate every footnote -- if for no other reason than to sift out those that specify "she said he said" and "he said he said." Be particularly alert for claims that are not footnoted.
I'm certain there is worthy information in there, but it's a bit tedious when you make an honest effort to sort out the chaff.
Enjoy! Keep me posted on your progress as I'm trying to keep pace from here.
Ole
Ole:
With it put as you have done, with such civility, I will certainly do as per your kind request. I am sure my friend Ashley/Mobileboy will take notice and do the same.
Not to worry, my old "patoot" has developed very important caloused areas; in the vital places...;-) I'm up in the 70's in numbers of posts...didn't realize this until now!
But people simply don’t think like that. They deal with issues on the basis of what seems to be right and/or in their interests at the present day. Battlegrounds sprinkled with blood do not enter into the equation for any reasonably-balanced individual.
Yes, they do think like that.
"I have no misgivings about, or lack of confidence in the cause in which I am engaged, and my courage does not halt or falter. I know how American Civilization now leans upon the triumph of the government and how great a debt we owe to those who went before us through the blood and suffering of the Revolution. And I am willing - perfectly willing - to lay down all my joys in this life, to help maintain this government, and to pay that debt." [Sullivan Ballou to his wife, Sarah, 14 Jul 1861]
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
There comes a point where cynicism becomes a form of naivety…the gullible belief that people always act for the worst motives.
Self-interest is not necessarily the worst motives, but it's the primary reason most people act. Your simply making a claim with no evidence just doesn't hold water. China exists today with slave labor, and they are doing a booming trade business with the rest of the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
I suspect that the willingness of the American population to tolerate their government trading with a slave-owning power has much to do with their inability to find China on a map and their complete ignorance of what goes on there (the same would be true of the British public, in the main) rather than any positive acceptance of doing business with slave-owners and mass-murderers.
Nice try, Bill, but no cigar. Plenty of people can find China on a map and they know that China has slave labor. But self-interest triumphs again. Charity begins at home, and Maslow's Hierarchy tells us that our own survival needs must be met first before we look out for others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
Be that as it may, it has no bearing on European attitudes towards American slavery in the mid-19th century. Public opinion was well-informed on this subject and it is a matter of historical fact that this influenced the decision of the British government to withhold recognition of the Confederacy.
In fact it most certainly has a great deal of bearing on European attitudes toward American slavery. You are trying to compare apples and oranges, postulating that because the British government withheld recognition of the confederacy when it was engaged in warfare against the United States that they necessarily would have done so absent the conflict or even after the confederacy had won its independence. Once it was victorious, there was no longer a conflict between freedom and slavery. There was only the opportunity to get that cotton and to put those textile workers in Manchester back to work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
It would undoubtedly have had an impact on any attempt to create an Anglo-Confederate alliance, and it might well have had an impact on Anglo-Confederate trade.
Undoubtedly the opposite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
But the only actual, solid fact in this debate is that we are all guessing, and the best we can do is to come up with plausible hypotheses. Your hypothesis is perfectly cogent and plausible, although I do not agree with it. But it is nothing more than a hypothesis,
Backed up with historical facts and a modern day example.
[ad hominem deleted]
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
Terrible as the McCarthy “witch hunts” were, the destruction of careers is not quite the same as burning people alive. One cannot claim that the civilising process in the western world has been a story of continual progress, with events like The Holocaust happening along the way, but one can claim that in the last couple of hundred years there has been a steady, overall progress. And I remain sceptical about the argument that slavery would have been immune to this.
Nice try again, Bill, but just waving your hand doesn't make them go away. The Red Scare happened, the Holocaust happened. The Spanish Inquisition happened. Human nature has not changed one bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
China is a military superpower and is well on the way to becoming an economic one. But in terms of its record on human rights it is one of the most primitive and brutal societies on earth. It is impossible to infer anything about the evolution (or otherwise) of Confederate society on the basis of events in China.
Bill
Your making the claim doesn't make the claim true. We have a modern day nation that regularly employs slave labor and yet does a booming trade with the rest of the world. Periodically we have the requisite denunciations of the practice, and then it's back to business as usual--just like what would have happened with an independent confederacy.
Cash:
Fogive me if I implied Mr. McPherson's lifelong dedication was for nothing. I didn't mean it this way. Just as some men are good writers, I'm good at reading them and deciphering and sifting-out bias/prejudice; a.k.a. an agenda. But, he is a great writer. Does this make you feel better, hopefully?
I was in the movie "North and South" part 2, as an extra. I can be seen 4 times, according to a friend with good eyesight. I counted three.
To my original thought: the 'southern' accents were totally bogus. My "Commander" at Petersburg in N & S prt.2 Patrick Swayze (Gen. M.) was portrayed not quite-up to the angelic specs of his Union friend/enemy (Gen. H.). Hazzard was portrayed a notch better as is due course with all movies from generic Hollywood. I've watched all you listed except A. Kelly. My best pick, Shennendoah!
Why do you call the Kennedy bros. book, "The South Was Right" "garbage?" Are you suffering from the same "telling" disease which I was diagnosed by you, 'putting down authors' lifetime work-itis'...?
Re: the Kennedy bros. book: I can seperate the wheat from the chaff and the tares from the wheat. I promised Ole just that, only recently. I will do just that.
I am curious to know your WBTS views in a litle more 'personal & relaxed' manner, so to speak. Surely you have views 'from the heart' rather than strict regimentation of your wording. I am not criticizing you Cash, just relax and expound; treat us with an 'old fashioned' off-thetop-of-your-head viewpoint. Just a kind request. :-)
OK, my "patoot pad" is buckled.....
Cash:
Fogive me if I implied Mr. McPherson's lifelong dedication was for nothing. I didn't mean it this way. Just as some men are good writers, I'm good at reading them and deciphering and sifting-out bias/prejudice; a.k.a. an agenda. But, he is a great writer. Does this make you feel better, hopefully?
Rob, As I said before, his bias is toward the truth. If some regard that as favoring one side over another, then that says more about other things than it says about Prof. McPherson.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabaman
I was in the movie "North and South" part 2, as an extra. I can be seen 4 times, according to a friend with good eyesight. I counted three.
To my original thought: the 'southern' accents were totally bogus. My "Commander" at Petersburg in N & S prt.2 Patrick Swayze (Gen. M.) was portrayed not quite-up to the angelic specs of his Union friend/enemy (Gen. H.). Hazzard was portrayed a notch better as is due course with all movies from generic Hollywood.
I'll agree with you about some of the accents, but as to the portrayals, I thought the two were exactly the same. Orrie Maine was an honorable southern man, a slaveowner because he was from the planter class and it was a legal thing to do, yet he treated his slaves very well and defended them against the cruel overseer, and his slaves were loyal to him. He risked his life for his friend George Hazzard. The basic difference between George and Orrie was that Orrie owned slaves and believed southerners should work on ending slavery on their own with no interference. I don't see that as in any way portraying him as anything less than honorable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabaman
I've watched all you listed except A. Kelly. My best pick, Shennendoah!
"Alvarez Kelly" is a pretty good movie. It's about the Beefsteak Raid in 1864. Ever see "Drums of the Deep South?" Another one where two best friends are on opposite sides, both of them honorable men doing their duty and patriotically sacrificing for their respective "country."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabaman
Why do you call the Kennedy bros. book, "The South Was Right" "garbage?" Are you suffering from the same "telling" disease which I was diagnosed by you, 'putting down authors' lifetime work-itis'...?
The Kennedy Brothers have no loyalty to the truth. They are nothing more than propagandists who provide fabrications, quotes taken out of context, and similar false claims. I call it garbage because that's exactly what it is. I'd line the bottom of my cat's litter box with its pages, but that would make the litter box too unsanitary for the cat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabaman
I am curious to know your WBTS views in a litle more 'personal & relaxed' manner, so to speak. Surely you have views 'from the heart' rather than strict regimentation of your wording. I am not criticizing you Cash, just relax and expound; treat us with an 'old fashioned' off-thetop-of-your-head viewpoint. Just a kind request. :-)
I am very passionate about my views, but I have to write guardedly. There are times when my passion has seeped in, and others have been offended. That is not my intent, but my hot-blooded southern Mediterranean side sometimes rules over my cool Scandinavian side. If I relax too much, I may offend too many, which I sincerely do not wish to do.
I learned my Civil War history in a fine southern institution of higher learning, by the way, of which I am a proud graduate. I am in no way, shape, or form antisouthern. I am, however, anticonfederate. I draw a distinct line between the two, as confederate is not necessarily southern and southern is not necessarily confederate.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
