Robert E. Lee's view of secession, late 1860- early 1861

[trice]

Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Many Southerners had disagreed with his position here in the days before the Civil War, just as articulately and intelligently.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Not all that many. Even those that disagreed with secesion generally disagreed for reasons other than those you mention.

Since I didn't mention any, what are you referring to? You seem to constantly reply with od references to things not said, or interpretations that are clearly not what was said to you. How come?

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Untimately, most opposers sided with their states in the end. Relatively few didn't.

As I have said often enough. Once the radicals had started the panic, had thrown everything into an uproar, had begun the war, people were forced into choices they would not normally make. Much of this was intentional on the part of the radicals driving for secession. Rhett, Wigfall, and the rest sought to disrupt the election of 1860 and hopefully cause a Republican victory in order to further their own purpose, IMHO. Men like Pryor of Virginia harrangued crowds in South Carolina to "Strike a blow!" in order to further the cause of secession in Virginia (a clear case of treason by the US Constitution against Pryor).

But once the shooting has already started because of these radicals and schemers, the decision gets harder. Men like Robert E. Lee -- opposed firmly to secession and believing it wrong -- are stuck in the crossfire intentionally created by the Fire-Eaters and their like, intentionally put in an intolerable situation by the secessionists. Now their families are in danger; their property will be the battleground, their relationships shattered despite their own desires. No matter which way they turn, they must choose something they find wrong. What I notice about you is your deliberate refusal to examine what those men like Pryor, Rhett, Wigfall and the rest deliberately did to create the disaster. It appears to pain you to even cast your mind in that direction, so you avert your eyes and tell me you will not "address" such issues -- just as you have told me you are not in the habit of acknowledging what you do not believe. Truth often contains things we do not believe or wish to acknowledge, but it is only weakness not to face them.

Regards,
Tim

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by trice

Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Many Southerners had disagreed with his position here in the days before the Civil War, just as articulately and intelligently.



Since I didn't mention any, what are you referring to? You seem to constantly reply with od references to things not said, or interpretations that are clearly not what was said to you. How come?

If many Southerners "disagreed with his position", does that not mean that you believe what Evans claimed was the opposite of what those "many Southerners" you referred to believed? If I'm wrong, my apologies. Perhaps, you could make it clear what position you believe those "many Southerners" took.

Originally Posted by trice

As I have said often enough. Once the radicals had started the panic, had thrown everything into an uproar, had begun the war, people were forced into choices they would not normally make. Much of this was intentional on the part of the radicals driving for secession. Rhett, Wigfall, and the rest sought to disrupt the election of 1860 and hopefully cause a Republican victory in order to further their own purpose, IMHO. Men like Pryor of Virginia harrangued crowds in South Carolina to "Strike a blow!" in order to further the cause of secession in Virginia (a clear case of treason by the US Constitution against Pryor).

Tim, it's unfortunate that you have so little regard for the intelligence of the people of the seceeding states and that you place such confidence in the radicals. I realize it's convenient to believe so many Southerners couldn't possibly be united because they weighed the facts and chose secession. Yet, that is exactly what they did. It's not often that you don't find some radicals in every cause, but that doesn't mean they have the power to manage peoples minds. In fact, it often has the opposite effect if people think they are being bulldozed.

Originally Posted by trice

But once the shooting has already started because of these radicals and schemers, the decision gets harder. Men like Robert E. Lee -- opposed firmly to secession and believing it wrong -- are stuck in the crossfire intentionally created by the Fire-Eaters and their like, intentionally put in an intolerable situation by the secessionists. Now their families are in danger; their property will be the battleground, their relationships shattered despite their own desires. No matter which way they turn, they must choose something they find wrong.

Again, the South was far more united than not and the ones that would have chosen not to secede and simply got "stuck in the crossfire" soon became very angry at being invaded by the U.S.. They may have believed secession to be the wrong move for their state, but they believed the actions of the U.S. to be a greater wrong. The small minority that didn't rally to their state's causes mostly tried to get to the North. There were few exceptions. You have recently been harping on General Lee, claiming he believed secession was treason. You take a very narrow view of General Lee in particular and Southern people in general. After the war General Lee stated: "We could have pursued no other course without dishonour. And as sad as the results have been, if it had all to be done over again, we should be compelled to act in precisely the same manner." General Robert E. Lee, C.S.A.

That isn't the words of a man that believed the Union was right.

Originally Posted by trice

What I notice about you is your deliberate refusal to examine what those men like Pryor, Rhett, Wigfall and the rest deliberately did to create the disaster. It appears to pain you to even cast your mind in that direction, so you avert your eyes and tell me you will not "address" such issues -- just as you have told me you are not in the habit of acknowledging what you do not believe. Truth often contains things we do not believe or wish to acknowledge, but it is only weakness not to face them.

Tim, I don't wish to disturb your small, cut and dried version of secession, but I have to say that your version of truth is widely disputed and not just by me. You are right about one thing though, "Truth often contains things we do not believe or wish to acknowledge, but it is only weakness not to face them."

Regards,
Rose

[trice]

Originally Posted by trice

Many Southerners had disagreed with his position here in the days before the Civil War, just as articulately and intelligently.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Not all that many. Even those that disagreed with secesion generally disagreed for reasons other than those you mention.

Originally Posted by trice

Since I didn't mention any, what are you referring to? You seem to constantly reply with od references to things not said, or interpretations that are clearly not what was said to you. How come?

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

If many Southerners "disagreed with his position", does that not mean that you believe what Evans claimed was the opposite of what those "many Southerners" you referred to believed? If I'm wrong, my apologies. Perhaps, you could make it clear what position you believe those "many Southerners" took.

Look at the above and understand you are distorting things here. *You* said "Even those that disagreed with secesion generally disagreed for reasons other than those you mention." and I asked you what those reasons were, since I had mentioned none. Instead of an answer on-point, I get the usual Rose answer: avoid a direct question and attack on a tangent. This is not what you should do. Either simply acknowledge that you made an error, or say that you were referring to something I never said, and be done with it. Stop creating all this confusion.

Regards,
Tim

[trice]

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Again, the South was far more united than not and the ones that would have chosen not to secede and simply got "stuck in the crossfire" soon became very angry at being invaded by the U.S.. They may have believed secession to be the wrong move for their state, but they believed the actions of the U.S. to be a greater wrong. The small minority that didn't rally to their state's causes mostly tried to get to the North. There were few exceptions.

Some did; some didn't. The counties of West Virginia remained strongly opposed to secession, as did those of East Tennessee. There was a large massacre of Unionists in Texas who were merely trying to flee North (1862 or 1863, IIRR). NC produced the largest number of Confederate soldiers -- and also the largest number of Union volunteers in the seceding states, IIRR. We have those 100,000+ USCT who came from seceding states as well.

For many of these people "getting North" wasn't an option until the Union came to them. When Confederate conscription agents are waiting to scoop you up, it isn't all that easy to pack your family up and move several hundred miles through Confederate territory, passing the lines of the rebel armies, to "get north" On this issue, you are simply dreaming when you imagine those who wanted to leave could do so with impunity. Meanwhile, Jefferson Davis was suspending habeas corpus and using Confederate troops to put down the resistance and opposition that did surface in places like East Tennessee or certain areas of Alabama, and Confederate troops were moving into the counties of what became West Virginia.

Much of the ardor among military-age men in the Confederacy cooled as 1861 turned into 1862 and men began to see just what kind of mess they had landed in. The reason the Confederacy instituted conscription was that new enlistments were few and re-enlistments vanishingly small in the Winter of 1861-62. So the Confederacy decided, in the interest of the Cause, to force them to serve. The Union used a different approach, more carrot-and-stick: bonuses on one hand for volunteers, the threat of the draft looming in the distance -- but the Union had a larger population to draw from, and so could use that approach longer, while it failed early on in the Confederacy. As a result, about 6% of the total Union Army was actually drafted in 1861-65 (growing and would have been higher if the war went on) while essentially something close to 100% of the Confederate Army was conscripted at one time or another (essentially everyone who volunteered in early 1861 and lived being conscripted in 1862, followed by just about all new soldiers from 1862 on being conscripts).

Were they angry? Sure, most people who fight in wars are angry or frightened or both; my relatives who have fought were angry at the enemy, and are today. Union soldiers were angry during the Civil War, too. By the end of any war, the reasons it started often look silly or bizarre. One great expression of this is found in the (decidely anti-war and Libertarian) movie and play Shenandoah. John Cullum, playing the father (the Jimmy Stewart part), sings a song called "What was the dying for?" at his wife's grave just before intermission, part of which goes like this:

The dream has turned to ashes
The wheat has turned to straw
And someone asks the question
“What was the dying for?”
The living can’t remember
The dead no longer care
But next time it won’t happen
Upon my soul, I swear

After a while, the men are fighting because that's what they have to do, the war is started, it is on-going, and it needs to be ended. Of course they are angry. Naturally they are angry at the people who are trying to kill them, who are making their lives so miserable and both sides are angry about that more than anything else as time goes on. So you have disasters like the Thirty Years War and the Hundred Years War, or the American Civil War.

But the Confederacy didn't start the war because of a Union "invasion". No such claim can hold water, which is why all these secessionist arguments always try to justify the early bad behavior by the Confederates by referring to things that happened later, actions they caused by their own aggressive acts. That will not stand.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

You have recently been harping on General Lee, claiming he believed secession was treason. You take a very narrow view of General Lee in particular and Southern people in general. After the war General Lee stated: "We could have pursued no other course without dishonour. And as sad as the results have been, if it had all to be done over again, we should be compelled to act in precisely the same manner." General Robert E. Lee, C.S.A.

That isn't the words of a man that believed the Union was right.

Rose, this thread was started because you didn't wish to see Lee as he was. I presented many specific quotes showing how he felt about secession in December 1860 to April of 1861. You said I was misinterperting him and I showed you more. Lee himself used words like treason, revolution, and anarchy to describe the idea of secession in those days. In post #13 of this very thread *you* acknowledged that was how he felt about the idea, that it was nothing but treason, and said you simply didn't share his opinion.

Here we are 20 messages later and you are back to telling me I don't understand General Lee. I think this is merely more of the philosophy you have outlined for yourself: as you have said, you are not in the habit of acknowledging what you do not wish to believe. Every chance you get, you seem to erase the inconvenient facts from your memory.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Tim, I don't wish to disturb your small, cut and dried version of secession, but I have to say that your version of truth is widely disputed and not just by me. You are right about one thing though, "Truth often contains things we do not believe or wish to acknowledge, but it is only weakness not to face them."

I am always amused by this sort of logic. I include far more than secessionists want to see, so they claim my view is narrow. They can never acknowledge the abusive acts committed to get secession moving, so they say, as you do, that they were justified because they "felt" they were justified. The secessionists weren't stealing anything, they say, because they gave receipts for it when they seized it; why not just ask the owners if you could buy it first?

Whether secession as a right actually existed or not, we would have to conclude that the logic required to believe in the version tried in 1860-61 twists and turns and doubles back upon itself in an incredible fashion.

Regards,
Tim

[trice]

Originally Posted by trice

As I have said often enough. Once the radicals had started the panic, had thrown everything into an uproar, had begun the war, people were forced into choices they would not normally make. Much of this was intentional on the part of the radicals driving for secession. Rhett, Wigfall, and the rest sought to disrupt the election of 1860 and hopefully cause a Republican victory in order to further their own purpose, IMHO. Men like Pryor of Virginia harrangued crowds in South Carolina to "Strike a blow!" in order to further the cause of secession in Virginia (a clear case of treason by the US Constitution against Pryor).

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Tim, it's unfortunate that you have so little regard for the intelligence of the people of the seceeding states and that you place such confidence in the radicals. I realize it's convenient to believe so many Southerners couldn't possibly be united because they weighed the facts and chose secession. Yet, that is exactly what they did. It's not often that you don't find some radicals in every cause, but that doesn't mean they have the power to manage peoples minds. In fact, it often has the opposite effect if people think they are being bulldozed.

Actually, Rose, I have a fair enough impression of the "intelligence" of the Southern people. I believe that, if there had been no concerted effort by the radicals to stampede them into secession, they would not have done it. That is why the radicals deliberately pushed things as they did.

But the truth is that we know the radicals, the Fire-Eaters and their ilk, worked hard, long, and diligently to accomplish secession. They did so despite the repeated rejection of the concept by the people of the Southern states. That is why we have a thirty-year history of Rhett and those around him doing everything they could to create a furor about it. It is why we have clear evdience to support the thesis that the Fire-Eaters began working in 1858 to throw the election to the Republicans in 1860: we have the evidence because Rhett and Pollard and Yancy and Pryor and the rest openly discussed a Republican victory leading to secession.

It is easy enough to whip up a crowd and get them to follow you when you play on their fears. If you give them time to think it over, they tend to have second thoughts and begin to question what you stand for and how it will affect them. So the radicals pushed the pace as hard as they could, created conditions that forced choices to extremes, and tried to suppress all thought of compromise. That is just normal behavior for radicals and extremists of any stripe trying to attain the changes they desire. Southern radicals were no different; they were extremists trying to foist an extremist agenda upon their people.

I think it is you who wishes to avoid acknowledging these issues. You do not want to look at what secessionists actually did and why they did it. You constantly claim they were without reproach and justified in all that they did, no matter what it was. This is not a credible view of human politics unless you believe every one of them was a saint.

Regards,
Tim

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by trice

[/i]
Look at the above and understand you are distorting things here. *You* said "Even those that disagreed with secesion generally disagreed for reasons other than those you mention." and I asked you what those reasons were, since I had mentioned none. Instead of an answer on-point, I get the usual Rose answer: avoid a direct question and attack on a tangent. This is not what you should do. Either simply acknowledge that you made an error, or say that you were referring to something I never said, and be done with it. Stop creating all this confusion.

Ok. I'll rephrase my answer. But, I'd like to point out that I did answer your question when it was asked. Apparently you are not satisfied with my answer, but don't accuse me of avoiding a direct question because you don't like the answer.

BTW, that reminds me that you never answered my direct question:

Rose: If many Southerners "disagreed with his position", does that not mean that you believe what Evans claimed was the opposite of what those "many Southerners" you referred to believed?

Rephrasing my answer:

Original: "Even those that disagreed with secesion generally disagreed for reasons other than those you mention."

Amended: Some Southerners disagreed with General Evans' position on secession, but not generally because they disagreed with his theory that secession was legal. It was often for reasons other than the illegality issue.

Since you did say that "many Southerners" disagreed with him, I understood you to mean they disagreed with his position on the legality of secession. That was, after all, the gist of his essay. You mentioned "many Southerners" being in opposition with Gen. Evans' position. Since I disagree with that claim, I pointed out that those that disagreed generally did so for reasons other than those you mention, namely, General Evans' theory. Now, please, kindly answer my question that you ignored. Perhaps, we are just on different pages here and I've misunderstood you entirely.

Regards,
Rose

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by trice

[/i]

I think it is you who wishes to avoid acknowledging these issues. You do not want to look at what secessionists actually did and why they did it. You constantly claim they were without reproach and justified in all that they did, no matter what it was. This is not a credible view of human politics unless you believe every one of them was a saint.

First off I never use the words "saint" and "politician" in the same breath. Secondly, I don't know why you keep claiming that I am avoiding issues when I simply have different opinions than you about them. I haven't avoided anything you have presented to me.

Next, I'd like to get it straight for the record that I have never claimed the fire eaters were right in pushing for secession. I do champion their right to do so and the legality of secession.

Originally Posted by trice

Actually, Rose, I have a fair enough impression of the "intelligence" of the Southern people. I believe that, if there had been no concerted effort by the radicals to stampede them into secession, they would not have done it. That is why the radicals deliberately pushed things as they did.

So you believe they were led to secession like sheep to the slaughter. I can't buy that.

Originally Posted by trice

It is easy enough to whip up a crowd and get them to follow you when you play on their fears. If you give them time to think it over, they tend to have second thoughts and begin to question what you stand for and how it will affect them.

The notion of Southern secession had been toyed with for years. I don't think Southerners had to make the decision in a split second without having time to consider all the facts. Both sides of secession was publicly argued and the Southern people were fully aware of the risks and consequences if it failed, and they decided that independence was worth all the risk.

Regards,
Rose

[trice]

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Since you did say that "many Southerners" disagreed with him, I understood you to mean they disagreed with his position on the legality of secession. That was, after all, the gist of his essay. You mentioned "many Southerners" being in opposition with Gen. Evans' position. Since I disagree with that claim, I pointed out that those that disagreed generally did so for reasons other than those you mention, namely, General Evans' theory. Now, please, kindly answer my question that you ignored. Perhaps, we are just on different pages here and I've misunderstood you entirely.

Many people disagreed that secession was legal and they undoubtedly had many reasons for it. Many Southerners simply disagreed with the possibility of such a concept. They might have thought the entire idea poppycock (as Lee and others did) and seen secession as nothing but revolution. Others might have seen the legal reasoning of Evans as wrong, or merely the sort of involved argument sometimes given to confuse the issue. Some might have seen it as inappropriate, as in being an inappropriate and disproportionate remedy to the actions of the rest of the country even if the slave states had something to complain about (this again would be Lee's position, since he felt there were valid complaints). Some, highly educated lawyers themselves including a Supreme Court justice or two, opposed secession in 1861 and chose to remain with the Union -- clearly they found Evans legal argument insufficient.

Evans was a lawyer and an evangelist, of a particular belief that was a causitive factor in splitting his own church after the Civil War. Evangelistic and fundamentalist religious views in the South were closely associated with secessionist/states rights/slavery issues in that time; I have already pointed you to a recent book discussing the connections. People who did not share his strong beliefs on religion might easily not share his strong beliefs on secession.

It is also worth noting that once the Civil War was over, neither side would be likely to go back and criticize themselves. Natural tendency would be to say, as most did, that they were right all along. The quote you give is from a Confederate general writing a Confederate Military History thirty years after the war he fought in, for an audience composed largely of Confederate veterans and their families. Hard to imagine he would say he was wrong all along, or would have been published there if he did say it. You would find quite different views in the writings of Union veterans' publications. All of this is simply natural tendency and to be taken with a grain of salt.

As proof of his sentiment, Evans statement is well and good. As proof that secession was legal in 1860-61, it has all the standing of a batter or a pitcher protesting the decision of the umpire on a called strike after the game is over.

Regards,
Tim

[trice]

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

First off I never use the words "saint" and "politician" in the same breath. Secondly, I don't know why you keep claiming that I am avoiding issues when I simply have different opinions than you about them. I haven't avoided anything you have presented to me.

Next, I'd like to get it straight for the record that I have never claimed the fire eaters were right in pushing for secession. I do champion their right to do so and the legality of secession.

You have, however, told me that you believe all the seizures, the threats of force, the actual use of force, and the assault on Ft. Sumter were fully justified and legal because they "felt" they were. Were they wrong to seize all that property, equipment, money, bullion, all the buildings and vessels? Were they wrong to use armed force first and without provocation? Were they wrong to attempt to kill the US soldiers in Ft. Sumter? This is what "secession" came down to in their terms: taking what they wanted by force, without resort to the law. If you accept it, then that is where you stand. If you reject it, you must reject them. Waffle and you are caught in the crossfire, tugged on by the flood of events -- just as men like Lee were, forced into a situation with no good choice, until you finally are forced to pick between two evils you would never agree to otherwise. Lee, like many, chose to stay with his home state. George Thomas, Winfield Scott, and other Virginian soldiers chose to stay with the Union. All must have been horrified to the bottom of their souls by what they were forced into.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

So you believe they were led to secession like sheep to the slaughter. I can't buy that.

Like sheep? No. But I do note that very few of those who drove the secession effort in the 1850s were actually entrusted with the leadership of the Confederacy after things became real. The Rhetts and Yancies largely became back-bench opposition, shunted aside for others who seem to have been regarded as more reliable. Jefferson Davis, for example, was once regarded as a secession leader, the heir to Calhoun in 1850-51, but dropped his fierce avowal of that after his defeat for Mississippi governor in 1851 which turned on secession arguments. Yet it was this man who had spent most of a decade avoiding the limelight on secession that was chosen to lead them. Rhett was bitterly disappointed at seeing his plans ignored and set aside, although he had been the leader of the Fire-Eaters.

But I do not believe most Southerners had a realistic idea of what was coming in the aftermath of secession that winter. They didn't think it through. Jackson and Lee and Davis knew. But when Davis goes home in January 1861, he begins preaching about the coming war. Few believe him. The Governor of the state is startled by his views. As he leaves to take up the Presidency, an old political associate and foe comes to talk to him, to ask him if he really thinks war is coming. Davis says yes, and the man seems surprised. To a certain extent, all that silliness about one Southerner whipping three or ten or whatever number of Yankees really was talked about and at least half-believed.

So I believe you. I think these people charged off into "secession" because of the way they "felt". There were plenty of people willing to whip up their fears and paint colorful pictures of the new world they would boldly go into, to play on "states' rights" and "Southern honor" and all the other catch-phrases. They'd tell you it was necessary to seize all those things, and to use force, and of course once you have done those things, it gets harder to turn back. They would say you were in the "right", no matter what you did, and they would point to any sign that the rest of the nation was irritated and outraged by your actions as "proof" that you were "threatened". This is all fairly normal practice, and it doesn't matter whether we are talking about Americans or Arabs or Israelis or Nazis or French revolutionists like Robespierre or the Japanese or anyone else. The techniques are the same; the method is the same, although there are differences of degree. Get things stirred up, stampede the mass towards your goal, and try to manage it as the chaos swirls about you.

But IMHO the real reason no secessionist wanted a court case or a constitutional amendment or a legislative negotiation before secession was simply that it would take too long. Too much time would pass, too many people would have second thoughts. That ugly word compromise might rear itself up again, and that was the last thing an extremist would ever want. So they tried to give their people the bum's rush to a point where there was no turning back, and to pressure the states that would not agree by putting them into an uncompromising situation. That is why you have Upper South Fire-Eaters like Pryor harranguing South Carolina crowds to "Strike a blow!" in April, because they want to crowd the people of Virginia into an irrevocable choice. Davis obliged. The South got its' war, and the secession of the Upper South, and Virginia secessionists immediately pushed for irrevocable action to ensure little choice remained.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

The notion of Southern secession had been toyed with for years. I don't think Southerners had to make the decision in a split second without having time to consider all the facts. Both sides of secession was publicly argued and the Southern people were fully aware of the risks and consequences if it failed, and they decided that independence was worth all the risk.

No, not really. Secession had been discussed, and the South had been steadily rejecting it for decades. It was generally thought that people from South Carolina were not quite sane on the topic. Suddenly in 1860-61 they make a decision the other way. As I note, the governor of Mississippi in 1861 and other important Mississippi political leaders were stunned that war might be one of the consequences of what they had already done. They seem to have kept asking Davis if he really thought that.

These are the same people who believed that "King Cotton" ruled the world, who were unrealistic enough to vote to embargo their own cotton exports at the start of the war -- thus creating their own financial disaster. The same people who were sure England and France would intervene in their favor. The same people who were sure a North of grubby shopkeepers and mechanics would never fight, and could never beat Southerners if they did fight. The South of 1860 surely had not thought through all the ramifications of what they were doing.

Take the Confederate Secretary of State. In January as he resigns from the US Senate, he says in effect: "You want war? Bring it on!" To Davis and the Cabinet in April as they considered attacking Ft. Sumter he sings a vastly different tune: "War? Are you nuts? This will be fatal!" (You can have the real quotes if you insist, but they are well-known and widely available.) Bravado in January; sober thought in April. Toombs would have served his people better if he had thought of consequences more when he argued for secession in the Georgia convention.

Regards,
Tim

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by trice

Many people disagreed that secession was legal and they undoubtedly had many reasons for it. Many Southerners simply disagreed with the possibility of such a concept. They might have thought the entire idea poppycock (as Lee and others did) and seen secession as nothing but revolution.

I don't know what your concept of "many Southerners" is, but by my definition it would be a substantial amount of people...enough to put up a really good argument against secession. Since there were no large anti-secession rallys, no anti-secession conventions or any other means of "many Southerners" making their voices heard, I believe your position of "many Southerners" against secession is not accurate. The occasional anti-secession speech or editorial does not support your claim.

Originally Posted by trice

Evans was a lawyer and an evangelist, of a particular belief that was a causitive factor in splitting his own church after the Civil War. Evangelistic and fundamentalist religious views in the South were closely associated with secessionist/states rights/slavery issues in that time; I have already pointed you to a recent book discussing the connections. People who did not share his strong beliefs on religion might easily not share his strong beliefs on secession.

I missed any reference to a book, but from what little I've found on General Evans, he didn't have a church until after the war and any mention of a splitting in the congregation referred to his belief in a controversial religious doctrine as the cause, which seemed to have absolutely nothing to do with secession.

Originally Posted by trice

It is also worth noting that once the Civil War was over, neither side would be likely to go back and criticize themselves. Natural tendency would be to say, as most did, that they were right all along. The quote you give is from a Confederate general writing a Confederate Military History thirty years after the war he fought in, for an audience composed largely of Confederate veterans and their families. Hard to imagine he would say he was wrong all along, or would have been published there if he did say it. You would find quite different views in the writings of Union veterans' publications. All of this is simply natural tendency and to be taken with a grain of salt.

Taking that stand would have us negate all arguments over the legality of secession since the Constitution is silent on the matter and all we have to base our opinions on is the arguments of men.

Should we disregard the opinions of historians, also? Their opinions are, after all, formed after the war.

Originally Posted by trice

As proof of his sentiment, Evans statement is well and good. As proof that secession was legal in 1860-61, it has all the standing of a batter or a pitcher protesting the decision of the umpire on a called strike after the game is over.

Possibly, except that when you consider that it was probably his opinion before the war also (he organized a company of militia), it matters little when he wrote the essay.

Regards,
Rose