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.
Bama:
"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!"
It gets hard to stop when the excitement builds, doesn't it? A very wise guru once posted, "Be sure you stop short of the divorce." Or something like that.
Ole
Getting back to the original concept of this thread...,
With Confederate officers writing their wives in 1865 to buy more slaves and with the attitudes concerning race and social restrictions still in place until the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's and the fierce resistance it encountered in the Southern states at the time....
I am of the opinion without the severe shock of the Civil War, slavery could have well lasted into at least the 20th century. It seems that it sometimes takes what we in the military of my day called a 'significant emotional event' to change one's views and attitudes on a subject or idea or a way of life.
I submitt that the Civil War was the South's 'significant emotional event' on the subject of slavery, forcing it to give up the institution.
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
Keep in mind:
The Great majority of war-date Southern soldiers' letters are not present for consideration and subsequent basis for a positive statement on anything, including slavery. Any attempt to convince another person, chattel slavery would continue indefinitely, based on a 'selection' of CSA soldier letters claiming 'buy more slaves, Dear wife, by the way we just lost Vicksburg', is folly. I'm sorry. If we had 90-100% of ALL CSA Soldiers' letters, and a majority said 'buy slaves, Dear Wife, by the way we just lost Atlata,' I would agree with you. But....
All we can do, as modern 'onlookers' to that long-gone era, is to speculate; speculate with our sectional ideas and bits of evidence thereof, as our support. You nor I can state anything 'as fact or otherwise' upon the subject with any degree of certainty.
Respectfully, I disagree. Slavery would have died precipitously upon succesfully winning the war by the CSA. My hypothesis: emancipation was already on CSA soldiers/leaders/politicians/citizens minds, via "arming the slaves" for war duty & emancipation to colored soldiers & their families for honorable service, afterward. Gen. Lee would not have broken his word. My hypothesis only, just as your 'view' is...hypothesis.
Re Sullivan Ballou’s letter to his wife, I readily accept that people conjure up images of blood-soaked battlefields and the like when they are about to go to war. Stiffens the spine, don’t you know? But they don’t think in those terms in peacetime when dealing with prosaic domestic issues. Then they think about what is profitable and what is right, to infinitely varying degrees. But they don’t let their long-dead ancestors, or even their decrepit grandfathers, make their decisions for them.
Quote:
China exists today with slave labor, and they are doing a booming trade business with the rest of the world.
Yet again I repeat that this has nothing to do with the world of the 1860s.
Quote:
Once it [the Confederacy] was victorious, there was no longer a conflict between freedom and slavery.
Sorry? As far as British and German public opinion, at the very least, were concerned there would be a conflict between freedom and slavery as long as the latter existed in any part of America, regardless of the flag waving over it. The pieces of bunting were utterly unimportant; the ethical issue wasn’t.
Quote:
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.
But it’s still no more than intelligent guesswork. Your other-worldly certainty doesn’t change that basic truth.
Quote:
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.
So are you saying that there is no difference between the rights enjoyed by people in the western world in the 16th century and those enjoyed in the 21st?
Cash,
Re Sullivan Ballou’s letter to his wife, I readily accept that people conjure up images of blood-soaked battlefields and the like when they are about to go to war. Stiffens the spine, don’t you know? But they don’t think in those terms in peacetime when dealing with prosaic domestic issues. Then they think about what is profitable and what is right, to infinitely varying degrees. But they don’t let their long-dead ancestors, or even their decrepit grandfathers, make their decisions for them.
"These monthly Bill of Rights rallies across American can and will set a precedent for future generations to peacefully protest: by petitioning our government for the redress of grievances, by demanding the repeal of all unconstitutional laws, and by returning this country to the freedoms and the liberty our forefathers, and many other patriots since, have fought and died to preserve." http://www.stanley2002.org/editorial...ial1_10_02.htm
"This is the kind of America I believe in — and this is the kind of America I fought for in the South Pacific and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we might have a 'divided loyalty,' that we did 'not believe in liberty' or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened 'the freedoms for which our forefathers died.'" -- John F. Kennedy http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pub...tsof/roots.htm
"Our Forefathers died to be free of taxes but ever so slowly taxes have increased to the point that nearly 40% of every working hour goes to pay taxes." http://www.wyoag.com/Ingalls/the_inheritance.htm
"We should be celebrating our right to talk to whomever we worship openly and without fear of persecution. Our forefathers fought and died to protect these freedoms. Most other nations can only dream of our kind of religious liberties."
http://cal.jmu.edu/zemliansky/studentsites/GWRIT103/Fall%202003/Nachman,%20Pierce,Nevin,%20O'Brien/john's_paper.html
"This is America and our Constitution and Bill of Rights grants us the
right of free speech. In my own opinion it is every American's duty to see
that the freedoms our forefathers died for are preserved so that our
children can stay free." http://www.motley-focus.com/ccahist.html
There are about 650,000 more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
Yet again I repeat that this has nothing to do with the world of the 1860s.
Yet again I repeat human nature hasn't changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
Sorry? As far as British and German public opinion, at the very least, were concerned there would be a conflict between freedom and slavery as long as the latter existed in any part of America, regardless of the flag waving over it. The pieces of bunting were utterly unimportant; the ethical issue wasn’t.
Oh, I think you know what I meant. Britain withheld its recognition while there was a civil war going on in the United States because it was perceived to be a war of freedom on one side opposed to slavery on the other side. Absent the war, there would be no such conflict.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
So are you saying that there is no difference between the rights enjoyed by people in the western world in the 16th century and those enjoyed in the 21st?
You state in your above post that emancipation of the slaves was already on the minds of Confederate soldiers and the like because of Lee's efforts to enlist them in the army as of late 1865?
Have you read the debates in the Confederate congress on this very issue? Although Lee had expressed his desire that any slaves who served should be given their freedom, the Confederate congress disagreed? That their opinion was it was OK they serve, fight and die for the Confederacy, but that freedom was not an option, not especially desired, even for those who fought.
And, it went further with the idea that if even some were freed, the majority would remain in bondage.
Check out the American Memory site on the inter net. You can find the debates there.
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
I appreciate your link provided, as well as all others' links, and I do read them; ie..I don't disregard them as Union 'stuffing', &etc. Ihaven't read all the CS Congress arguments but will do so.
If I follow you correctly, the idea of arming slaves as soldiers was concepted in late-war 1865, out of desperation, not of sincerity?
For clarification, my implication and intent was that the idea on Gen. Cleburne's mind was in late 1863. A viable CS Army was there, intact and capable of winning despite the setbacks. Gen. Lee, indeed, was going against the wealthy slaveholders grain as per some CS Congress members being inhanced upon the suggestion to keep slavery intact by wealthy, influentional supporters. Point taken.
Upon a victory by the CSA, Gen. Lee and many other influential Southern leaders would have looked to the honorable service of the slaves and, as a new democratic nation with all other nations (non-slaveholding) looking on, would have freed all slaves. I'm trying to make my point, albeit humble opinion, but its hard to properly explain. Hopefully I have made some sense and you see my better clarification. I just can't see the CSA with perpetual slavery as its cornerstone, to this day or even one year after a Southern victory; despite the stalwart statements made by some members of the CS Congress. Too many places in the CS Congress would have been taken by CS Army military heroes (remember Gen. Grant & the North) wishing to end chattel slavery. Times change Neil, and the South would have changed its opinion upon keeping a portion of its population in bondage after this portion helped to achieve victory. The ending of slavery would have been soon after a CS victory. Human nature and its ideals, would have made this a certainty.
"The ending of slavery would have been soon after a CS victory. Human nature and its ideals, would have made this a certainty."
'Bama:
Agreed -- reservations. I believe, as did Lincoln, that slavery confined would eventually die out. However, I see its demise as more gradual than "soon after," and "certainty" is never in my vocabulary. (Oops, I said "never" and that's not in my vocabulary either.)
Thank you for your reply above. You are correct that in my opinion, the arming of slaves near the end of the life of the Confederacy was simply an act of desperation on the part of the Confederate government and General Lee.
I agree with you that in 1863 that Gen. Cleberne did bring up the idea of using slaves as soldiers, but will you not also agree that this suggestion was quashed as totally unacceptable by the leadership of both the military and Confederate government? And I further submit to you that Gen. Cleberne was bright enough to know the odds were against his side, due to rebel forces being defeated in Vicksburg and Gettysburg. The war in the West was very different than what Gen. Lee was conducting in the East. The Union was winning hands down in the West. The Confederacy was split and the string of Union victories was seriously drawing down Confederate military strength.
Will you not also agree that when the idea was brought forth on the floor of the Confederate congress, it was met with complete dismay? Most Southern newspapers responded with a negative voice over the idea as did some military units and politicians. That cannot be denied as the historical evidence is there for any to see.
I will concede that some papers admitted that Gen. Lee could be 'denied nothing' but the good General did not get even the full support from the Confederate congress or the nation in this regard. As I said, Lee wanted any slave that served well in the Confederate army to be freed at the end of his service.
The Confederate government could not bring itself to go this far. The mindset of the slave's place in the South was too strongly rooted and even with the Confederacy fighting its last gasp, could not let go of that place and admit that slaves could do such a thing or be given such a thing.
If you could point out these many Southern leaders who advocated the other view, I would be interested in viewing their comments on the matter. But I am pretty sure a review of the debate would give anyon the impression that they were a distinct minority.
As for the idea that times change, I agree with that statement. The trick of it is, one must recognize when they have changed. As I have told my friend Bill Torrens, the one thing people say they understand, but dread and fight the most, is CHANGE. You yourself have more than likely experienced this on the job or at work. People fear change and resist it. The South did too and in no way, except for the war, could those people stop on a historical dime and reverse 200 years of behavior and thought without such a significant event that forced them to do so.
In my own opinion.
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
A bit more I why I am so convinced that slavery was nowhere near being abolished in the South, even with men like General Cleburne advocating the emancipation of slaves if they served in the Confederate army.
From the book, The South vs The South, by William W. Freehling, who tells what happened after Cleburne his views known:
"Cleburne's critics occasionally defied Johnston's gag decree (a decree given so that the proposel to use and then free slaves who fought for the CSA). Brig. Gen. Clement H. Stevens, upon hearing about the secret conclave, typified Southerners' reaction. Cleburne, according to Stevens, lacked "a proper conception of the Negro, he being foreign born and reared." Our justification "is the inferiority of the negro." If we give that up, "I take no more interest in the fight."
Arguably, a full democratic debate on Cleburne's prescience would have, should have resulted in his defeat. But indisputably, a democratic system demanded that such a life-or-death issue must be debated, not repressed. Not one of Cleburne's critics doubted that the Confederacy was dying (after all, the oft-beaten Army of Tennessee had lately suffered the supposed Miracle at Missionary Ridge). Nor did soldiers doubt that blacks contributed to the imbalance of soldiers (and of spies). Yet routed soldiers could not tolerate extended consideration of their last conceivable lifeline.
...By burying Cleburne's proposal before discussion could even begin, silencers recalled prewar Republicans' great issue; The Slave Power, to protect slavery for blacks, shackled democracy for whites. The silencing of Cleburne stemmed from the same slaveholder impulses as the congressional Gag Rule, the proslavery Kansas legislature's repression of free discussion, South Carolina's strangled debate over secession in 1860, and the symbol of all these gags, Preston Brooks smashing Charles Sumner to the US Senate floor. The Cleburne incident showed again that the path to war was also the road to Confederate defeat...
...Nor were Confederate congressmen willing to issue the call. Instead, the solons called Davis (who finally took Cleburne's idea to that body) fanatical. "Even victory itself," warned Congressman Henry C. Chambers of Mississippi, "would be robbed of its glory if shared with slaves." Beyond Congress, Georgia's Howell Cobb intoned that "if slaves will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong--but they won't make good soldiers." The Charlestown Mercury added that South Carolina soldiers "will not fight beside a ni gger." To "hack at the root of...our institutions--our civilization"--is to "kill the cause as dead as a boiled crab."
...(the Confederate) Congress barred emancipation of any (black) troops asked for, unless both the slaveowner and his state agreed."
Only when Davis put the Confederate Congress to shame over its unwillingness to emancipate slaves serving in the army by stating only freed slaves could serve did a few dozen freed slaves don Confederate gray. Too little, and far too late. And mainly due to the fact that most Southern leaders and citizens could not change their minds over the place the institution of slavery held in their society.
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
