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.
Because when defeated by the protection of the Constition and laws of the land, they preached a higher law, that of Gods law. sadly they were just as wrong about that as well.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
yet to do so is to make the ten commandments an abomination. I believe it is said that the devil can quote scripture and verse as well Christ.
So only Christ and the Devil know the x commandments then.
slavery was sanctioned by the Deity in the case of Abraham, whose three hundred and eighteen bond-servants, born in his own house (Gen. 14:14), are mentioned along with those who were bought with his money, as proper subjects for circumcision (Gen. 17:12). His wife Sarah had also an Egyptian slave, named Hagar, who fled from her severity. And "the angel of the Lord" commanded the fugitive to return to her mistress and submit herself (Gen. 16:9). If the philanthropists of our age, who profess to believe in the Bible, had been willing to take the counsel of that angel for their guide, it would have preserved the peace and welfare of the Union.
The third that slavery was authorized by the Almighty occurs in the last of the Ten Commandments, delivered from Mount Sinai, and universally acknowledged by Jews and Christians as the moral law: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's" (Exod. 20:17).
you also mentioned exodus, "If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve, and in the seventh year he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself. If he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have borne him sons or daughters, the wife and the children shall be their master's and he shall go out by himself" (Exod. 21:2-4).
law of God proceeds: "If the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free; then his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall serve him forever" (Exod. 21:5, 6). With this law before his eyes, what Christian can believe that the Almighty attached immorality or sin to the condition of slavery?
The treatment of slaves, especially as it regarded the degree of correction which the master might administer, occurs in the same chapter as follows: "If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his money" (Exod. 21:20, 21). And again: "If a man smite the eye of this servant or the eye of his maid, that it perish, he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite our his man-servant's tooth, or his maid-servant's tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake" (Exod. 21:26, 27). Here we see that the master was authorized to use corporal correction toward his slaves, within certain limits. When immediate death ensued, he was to be punished as the judges might determine. But for all that came short of this, the loss of his property was held to be a sufficient penalty.
If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee, thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond servant, but as a hired servant and as a sojourner he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of Jubilee, and then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return. For they are my servants which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt, they shall not be sold as bondmen. Both thy bondmen and bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever; but over your brethren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule over another with rigor. For unto me the children of Israel are servants; they are my servants whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God (Lev. 39:40-46, with v. 55).
The distinction here made, between the temporary servitude of the Israelite and the perpetual bondage of the heathen race, is too plain for controversy. And this express and positive law furnishes the true meaning of another passage which the ultra-abolitionist is very fond of repeating: "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: he shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose, in one of thy gates where it liketh him best: thou shall not oppress him" (Deut. 23:15, 16). This evidently must be referred to the case of a slave who had escaped from a foreign heathen master, and can not, with any sound reason, be applied to the slaves of the Israelites themselves. For it is manifest that if it were so applied, it would nullify the other enactments of the divine Lawgiver, and it would have been an absurdity to tell the people that they should "buy bondmen and bondmaids of the heathen and the stranger, to be their possession and the inheritance of their children forever," while, nevertheless, the slaves should be at liberty to run away and become freemen when they pleased. It is the well-known maxim, in the interpretation of all laws, that each sentence shall be so construed as to give a consistent meaning to the whole. And assuredly, if we are bound to follow this rule in the legislation of earth, we can not be less bound to follow it in the legislation of the Almighty. The meaning that I have adopted is the only one which agrees with the established principle of legal construction, and it has invariable been sanctioned by the doctors of the Jewish law, and every respectable Christian commentator.
Such, then, is the institution of slavery, laid down by the Lord God of Israel for his chosen people, and continued for fifteen centuries
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
I do not believe that those taking a position dissimilar to yours are defending slavery.
They are just trying to get you to see that, at the time, slavery was, and for a long, long time had been a generally accepted institution... South, and North.
And racism (as bad as it sounds today) was the norm then... South, and North.
There is just too much evidence to argue otherwise*.
Those who then did condemn slavery were a very small minority and could be compared to those who now might espouse slavery (or one of its virulent cousins, see "outsourcing") who are also a very small minority. And whether they be right or wrong, now or then... they were/are the very small minority and do not represent and will not drive (although they may eventually affect the evolution of) the mores, motivations or morals of the majority.
To project today's morals into yesterday's reality clouds the true picture of that reality and therefore our understanding of that reality. Just as to project our morals into other cultures with which we concurrently exist clouds our understanding of those cultures.
And rest assured that there can be substantial differencences between "understanding of" and "judgement of". Don't confuse the two.
* - For some small example, Grant, who stated he had never been an abolitionist, "not even what could be called anti-slavery...". (Letter of Grant to Congressman Elihu Washburn, 8/30/63 in the Illinois State Historical Library, Springfield). Grant further stated elsewhere that (paraphrased), "... if I ever was led to believe that the War was about slavery, I would be obliged to turn in my sword to my superiors...".
Please produce a source where Grant ever made the statement he would turn in his sword if he fought for slavery. This has been disproven more than once on this board to be bogus and unproven.
Hanny,
It would do your cause a bit more good if you could slim down your posts and reduce your length of your replys. Length does not constitute proof and it has a good chance of being ignored or not being read at all.
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
Please produce a source where Grant ever made the statement he would turn in his sword if he fought for slavery. This has been disproven more than once on this board to be bogus and unproven.
Unionblue
"Disproven... to be... unproven"?
My card file does not have attribution. I did note that I recorded it from a SVC website while beginning research on the org's project to secure possession of Beauvoir and had it on my "to do" list to identify source. If it has already been researched and unattributable to Grant, then further, immediate research for the sake of discussion here would not be the best use of time would it? You got me! Mea culpa. My apologies sincerely offered.
However, this piece of faulty support does not change the premise does it? Grant, admittedly not abolitionist or anti-slavery at/during the time of the War, certainly might be considered in the contempory national mainstream in his opinions?
The point I was trying to make and to which your response did not touch upon was that the often-made statement that the War was fought to end slavery may be a bit of revisionism.
I tend to agree with Catton's fully-supported and attributed summary which says much in few words (which I've already used/paraphrased elsewhere today) that says (...wait a second, let me find and quote exactly....):
"...It was a long and painful process; a revolutionary change embraced reluctantly and from dire necessity. The nation had not been driven to war by its desire to free the slaves; instead it had been driven to free the slaves by its desire to win the war. (bolds, mine. JK) Now it had to change its thinking, and this was hard to do. Under the revolution involved in the act of changing slaves into free men... there lay a profounder revolution involving the way individual men looked at their fellow human beings." - Catton, Bruce - Never Call Retreat , 1965 - pp114-115.
Fortunately, we could and did meet those challenges... eventually.
But the general sentiment at the time that "we're fighting the War to abolish/protect slavery" was just not there. It grew from there. Even Grant by the 1880's had come firmly down on the anti-slavery side... as over time many others also did and up until today when, except for a radical super-minority, we all have.
I do not believe that those taking a position dissimilar to yours are defending slavery.
They are just trying to get you to see that, at the time, slavery was, and for a long, long time had been a generally accepted institution... South, and North.
And racism (as bad as it sounds today) was the norm then... South, and North.
There is just too much evidence to argue otherwise*.
Those who then did condemn slavery were a very small minority and could be compared to those who now might espouse slavery (or one of its virulent cousins, see "outsourcing") who are also a very small minority. And whether they be right or wrong, now or then... they were/are the very small minority and do not represent and will not drive (although they may eventually affect the evolution of) the mores, motivations or morals of the majority.
To project today's morals into yesterday's reality clouds the true picture of that reality and therefore our understanding of that reality. Just as to project our morals into other cultures with which we concurrently exist clouds our understanding of those cultures.
And rest assured that there can be substantial differencences between "understanding of" and "judgement of". Don't confuse the two.
Quite frankly, they are wasting their time as far as I'm concerned. I have no bone to pick with my ancestors over slavery as I understand slavery was an accepted institution of that time. The fact that I would not condone slavery today is not an indictment of immorality against my ancestors.
So, I reject your pontificating attempt at "educating" me.
Quite frankly, they are wasting their time as far as I'm concerned. I have no bone to pick with my ancestors over slavery as I understand slavery was an accepted institution of that time. The fact that I would not condone slavery today is not an indictment of immorality against my ancestors.
So, I reject your pontificating attempt at "educating" me.SamPos
The question becomes why the strident defense of slavery? ....
My post was aimed at the statement immediately above. Not to your response of "Precisely" although I am not sure what it refers to and which appears to be an agreement with Steele's premise that the institution of slavery is being defended here. It isn't... or at least I don't read it that way. My post was an attempt to discourage confusing a contemporary judgement of slavery and an accurate picture of the culture then when slavery and the obviously inherent racism was the norm and accepted as such... even if the winds of change had begun to blow.
If you feel my response was a "pontificating attempt at "educating"", then so be it. I'm sorry if you feel I've p#ssed on your boot. It was not my intent.
But, your most recent post ("The fact that I would not condone slavery today is not an indictment of immorality against my ancestors") shows me that, at least, you already understood what I was trying to say.
Jkeith, the Grant quote has been shown to be an invention on several threads... ironically darned if I can recall which; Neil likely has a better idea. I see where you are coming from and understand the points.
After a cursory look I do recall that the bible has precious few references condeming slavery and Christ himself never spoke out against slavery... that said did he own a slave? No he did not and if by inference we are to attempt to live our lives as Christ, free of sin... slavery verbotten.
As I said in an earlier post those who most often defend slavery have never suffered it... and of coarse are not willing to. If that is not hypocritical... what is?
Humanity in general is not the most moral critter out there and slavery does nothing to increase morality. The three most important documents of this nation are not exactly in line w/ the practice of slavery.
I may be grossly mistaken but my take upon Mr Hanny's statements on this thread is a strident defense of slavery; if not an outright push that it was/is moral. While I find such a premise repulsive I can understand said premise. Racism was rampant throughout the US & the world in the 19th century and it is still (though it has been largely eradicated in the US).
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Yes, he said so when delivering early darft of the EP, which is the source that contains that para and omitted latter in the final proclamation, for the effect Lincoln ascribbed it would have if issued in final form, and the below is what the Union Army come up with**, while the Fanaticaly pro Republican Gov Seymour said on hearing the first version in a speech, "The scheme for an immediate emancipation and general arming of the slaves throughout the South is a proposal for the butchery of women and children, for scenes of lust and rapine, arson and murder, unparalleled in the history of the world. Its effect would not be confined to the walls of cities, but there would be a widespread scene of horror over the vast expanse of great States, involving alike the loyal and the seditious. Such malignity and cowardice would invoke the interference of civilized Europe. History tells of the fires kindled in the name of religion, of atrocities committed under the pretext of order or liberty; it is now urged that scenes bloodier than the world has yet witnessed shall be enacted in the name of philanthropy.Horatio Seymour, quoted by Blackwood's Magazine, 1 November 1862 and General McClellan "it appeared to most observers to call for the arming of the negro population throughout the South. withe the farms and plantation in the charge of women and Juviniles and old Folks, the prospect of putting down the insurection was small indeed. Lincoln facing the wrath and disaproval of a large segement of civilised thinking, deleted from his early draft of the proclamation, a para calling for a violent uprising."
Lincoln himself said he ommited this para calling for, and promising aid in, a violent uprising, "because of the influence such an action would have on forgien attitudes", and instead repalced it with the part about the now free using force only in self defense and proper wages, Im using The life and writtings of A Lincoln, by A Lincoln, but its in all good biographys of the man.
**
General: A plan has been formed for a simultaneous movement to sever the rebel communications throughout the whole South, which has been sent to some General in each military department in the seceded States, in order that they may act in concert and thus secure success.
The plan is to induce the Blacks to make a simultaneous movement of rising, on the night of the 1st of August next, over the entire States in rebellion, to arm themselves with any and every kind of weapon that may come to hand, and commence operations by burning all the railroad and country bridges, and tear up railroad tracks, and to destroy telegraph lines, etc., and then take to the woods, swamps, or the mountains, where they may emerge as occasion may offer for provisions and for further depredations. No blood is to be shed except in self-defense.... This is the plan in substance, and if we can obtain a concerted movement at the time named it will doubtless be successful.
The main object of this letter is to state the time for the rising that it may be simultaneous over the whole South. To carry out the plan in the department in which you have the command, you are requested to select one or more intelligent contrabands, and, after telling them the plan and the time (night of the 1st of August), you will send them into the interior of the country within the enemy's lines and where the slaves are numerous, with instructions to communicate the plan and the time to as many intelligent slaves as possible, and requesting of each to circulate it far and wide over the country, so that we may be able to make the rising understood by several hundred thousand slaves by the time named.
When you have made these arrangements, please enclose this letter to some other General commanding in the same department with yourself, some one whom you know or believe to be favorable to such movement, and he, in turn, is requested to send it to another, and so on until it has traveled the entire round of the Department, and each command and post will in this way be acting together in the employment of negro slaves to carry the plan into effect.
In this way, the plan will be adopted at the same time and in concert over the whole South, and yet no one of all engaged in it will learn the names of his associates, and will only know the number of Generals acting together in the movement. To give the last information, and before enclosing this letter to some other General, put the numeral "1" after the word "approved" at the bottom of the sheet:
And when it has gone the rounds of the Department, the person last receiving it will please enclose it to my address, that I may then know and communicate that this plan is being carried out at the same time.
Yours respectfully, your obedient servant,
Augustus S. Montgomery.Augustus S. Montgomery, dispatch dated 19 May 1863; in Official Records: Armies, Series I, Volume LI, Part II, page 736
Does that help?.
No, that doesn't help. That is a transcript of an allegedly intercepted message from one Agustus B. Montgomery to General J. G. Foster at New Berne N.C.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the EP.
Who is Montgomery? Most likely some crackpot of the time aspiring to some importance. In effect, he proposes to circulate a sort of a "chain letter" to all Union generals to encourage his imagined uprising. I can only surmise that this letter was included in the ORs by someone with a ironic sense of humor.
"To give this last information, and before inclosing this letter to some other general, put the numeral I after the word "Approved" at the bottom of this sheet, and when it has gone the rounds of the department the person last receiving it will please reinclose it to my address, that I may thus know and communicate the fact that the plan is being carried out at the same time."
I can only imagine the look on General Foster's face.
I still would be interested to see any evidence that Lincoln called for a Negro/slave insurrection in any draft of the EP or elsewhere.
Otherwise, case closed.
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
