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.
He spends 2 or 3 pages trying to convince us that Cleburne and Lee were unrepentant pro-slavers.
In January of 1865, Lee said he regarded the master-slave relationship as the best that could exist between the white and black races while intermingled in the same country. That's a proslavery person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
Cleburne is "a tested upholder of bondage"/"firmly in the proslavery camp" because:
...of an association with Thomas C. Hindman
...and was a member of the "most proslavery wing" of the Democratic party.
His source: Craig Symonds' Stonewall of the West.
Levine fails to mention the reason Cleburne joined the Democratic party (which is also in Symonds' book)-
The only other significant political party in Arkansas in the mid to late 1850s was the anti-foreigner/anti-Catholic Know Nothings. (Hint: Cleburne was an Irish immigrant.)
You're mischaracterizing again. As you said, Levine said Cleburne and Hindman supported the most proslavery wing of the Democratic Party. Mere membership in the Democratic Party isn't the issue. Yes, Symonds stresses the anti-immigrant stance of the Know-Nothings after the demise of the Whigs; however, you leave out what Symonds said about the arguments used against the Know-Nothings and the issues Cleburne and Hindman spoke on.
"Their [Hindman and Cleburne] most effective weapon was the charge, frequently advanced and just as frequently denied, that the Know-Nothings were somehow associated with abolitionism. They could make this charge credible because in April the Know-Nothing Party reversed itself on the question of Congress's authority to legislate on slavery. The party's unwillingness to stand up foursquare for states' rights opened it up to the exaggerated charge of abolitionism. ... Hindman and others asserted that the political defense of slavery was crucial to Arkansans because slavery was a means of maintaining upward mobility for whites. The Know-Nothings openly advocated closing the door of opportunity to outsiders, and by charging them with abolitionist sentiment, Hindman made it appear that they sought to close that door to current residents as well. As Hindman explained it, the defense of slavery was intrinsic to the defense of social democracy." [Craig L. Symonds, _Stonewall of the West: Patrick Cleburne & the Civil War,_ p. 38]
On page 39 Symonds said that Cleburne attacked Know-Nothings for being anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant, and a front for abolitionism. True, he speculates that Hindman suggested the third point, but Cleburne said it.
I will grant that Cleburne's primary issue was immigration and the anti-Catholicism of the Know-Nothings, but supporting slavery was also an issue he identified himself with through his political speeches.
Symonds shows that Cleburne was a delegate to the 1860 state convention in Little Rock. There Hindman sponsored a resolution that called for Arkansas' delegates to walk out of the national convention if the Democrats didn't adopt a platform that included a call for a national slave code. Cleburne and Hindman supported the Breckinridge wing of the Democratic Party against the Douglas wing.
In writing to his half-brother, "Cleburne hoped that the Union could be preserved, but only if the federal government proved willing to grant the South what he called 'the full measure of her constitutional rights.' " [Ibid., p. 44] That, of course, was a reference to expansion of slavery into the territories and full rendition of fugitive slaves from Northern states.
Perhaps Symonds is right when he says that following Arkansas was most important to Cleburne, but the fact remains that he did use the proslavery code-term referring to the south's "constitutional rights."
A Detroit-based group in the mid-to-late 1970s, headed by Bruce Levine (aka Bruck Landau) and Shelley Kramer. Formed from a 1976 split from the [International So******ts]?. This group of about thirty to forty people had rethought the [International So******ts]?' theory of 'state capitalism', coming up with their own variant.
After discussions with then-So******t Workers Party member Tim Wohlforth, the group would merge with the So******t Workers Party in August 1977. They were then dispersed throughout the country, joining different party branches."
In January of 1865, Lee said he regarded the master-slave relationship as the best that could exist between the white and black races while intermingled in the same country. That's a proslavery person.
Also in the same letter he advocated gradual and general emancipation. General means ALL.
That is NOT a proslavery position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
You're mischaracterizing again. As you said, Levine said Cleburne and Hindman supported the most proslavery wing of the Democratic Party. Mere membership in the Democratic Party isn't the issue. [According to Levine it is.] Yes, Symonds stresses the anti-immigrant stance of the Know-Nothings after the demise of the Whigs; however, you leave out what Symonds said about the arguments used against the Know-Nothings and the issues Cleburne and Hindman spoke on. [...and Levine leaves out any mention of the Know Nothings]
"Their [Hindman and Cleburne] most effective weapon was the charge, frequently advanced and just as frequently denied, that the Know-Nothings were somehow associated with abolitionism. They could make this charge credible because in April the Know-Nothing Party reversed itself on the question of Congress's authority to legislate on slavery. The party's unwillingness to stand up foursquare for states' rights opened it up to the exaggerated charge of abolitionism. ... Hindman and others asserted that the political defense of slavery was crucial to Arkansans because slavery was a means of maintaining upward mobility for whites. The Know-Nothings openly advocated closing the door of opportunity to outsiders, and by charging them with abolitionist sentiment, Hindman made it appear that they sought to close that door to current residents as well. As Hindman explained it, the defense of slavery was intrinsic to the defense of social democracy." [Craig L. Symonds, _Stonewall of the West: Patrick Cleburne & the Civil War,_ p. 38]
On page 39 Symonds said that Cleburne attacked Know-Nothings for being anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant, and a front for abolitionism. True, he speculates that Hindman suggested the third point, but Cleburne said it.
I will grant that Cleburne's primary issue was immigration and the anti-Catholicism of the Know-Nothings, but supporting slavery was also an issue he identified himself with through his political speeches.
Symonds shows that Cleburne was a delegate to the 1860 state convention in Little Rock. There Hindman sponsored a resolution that called for Arkansas' delegates to walk out of the national convention if the Democrats didn't adopt a platform that included a call for a national slave code. Cleburne and Hindman supported the Breckinridge wing of the Democratic Party against the Douglas wing.
In writing to his half-brother, "Cleburne hoped that the Union could be preserved, but only if the federal government proved willing to grant the South what he called 'the full measure of her constitutional rights.' " [Ibid., p. 44] That, of course, was a reference to expansion of slavery into the territories and full rendition of fugitive slaves from Northern states.
Perhaps Symonds is right when he says that following Arkansas was most important to Cleburne, but the fact remains that he did use the proslavery code-term referring to the south's "constitutional rights."
Regards,
Cash
Cleburne, 1861: "I am with the South in death, in victory or defeat. I never owned a Negro and care nothing for them, but these people have been my friends and have stood up to me on all occasions. In addition to this, I believe the North is about to wage a brutal and unholy war on a people who have done them no wrong, in violation of the constitution and the fundamental principles of the government. They no longer acknowledge that all government derives its validity from the consent of the governed."
Levine tries to equate Cleburne with Hindman on the issue of slavery. This is absurd.
Also in the same letter he advocated gradual and general emancipation. General means ALL.
That is NOT a proslavery position.
Here's the letter in its entirety:
HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA,
January 11, 1865.
Hon. ANDREW HUNTER,
Richmond, Va.:
DEAR SIR: I have received your letter of the 7th instant, and without confining myself to the order of your interrogatories, will endeavor to answer them by a statement of my views on the subject. I shall be most happy if I can contribute to the solution of a question in which I feel an interest commensurate with my desire for the welfare and happiness of our people.
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.
Should the war continue under existing circumstances, the enemy may in course of time penetrate our country and get access to a large part of our negro population. It is his avowed policy to convert the able-bodied men among them into soldiers, and to emancipate all. The success of the Federal arms in the South was followed by a proclamation of President Lincoln for 280,000 men, the effect of which will be to stimulate the Northern States to procure as substitutes for their own people the negroes thus brought within their reach. Many have already been obtained in Virginia, and should the fortune of war expose more of her territory, the enemy would gain a large accession to his strength. His progress will thus add to his numbers, and at the same time destroy slavery in a manner most pernicious to the welfare of our people. Their negroes will be used to hold them in subjection, leaving the remaining force of the enemy free to extend his conquest. Whatever may be the effect of our employing negro troops, it cannot be as mischievous as this. If it end in subverting slavery it will be accomplished by ourselves, and we can devise the means of alleviating the evil consequences to both races. I think, therefore, we must decide whether slavery shall be extinguished by our enemies and the slaves be used against us, or use them ourselves at the risk of the effects which may be produced upon our social institutions. My own opinion is that we should employ them without delay. I believe that with proper regulations they can be made efficient soldiers. They possess the physical qualifications in an eminent degree. Long habits of obedience and subordination, coupled with the moral influence which in our country the white man possesses over the black, furnish an excellent foundation for that discipline which is the best guaranty of military efficiency. Our chief aim should be to secure their fidelity.
There have been formidable armies composed of men having no interest in the cause for which they fought beyond their pay or the hope of plunder. But it is certain that the surest foundation upon which the fidelity of an army can rest, especially in a service which imposes peculiar hardships and privations, is the personal interest of the soldier in the issue of the contest. Such an interest we can give our negroes by giving immediate freedom to all who enlist, and freedom at the end of the war to the families of those who discharge their duties faithfully (whether they survive or not), together with the privilege of residing at the South. To this might be added a bounty for faithful service.
We should not expect slaves to fight for prospective freedom when they can secure it at once by going to the enemy, in whose service they will incur no greater risk than in ours. The reasons that induce me to recommend the employment of negro troops at all render the effect of the measures I have suggested upon slavery immaterial, and in my opinion the best means of securing the efficiency and fidelity of this auxiliary force would be to accompany the measure with a well-digested plan of gradual and general emancipation. As that will be the result of the continuance of the war, and will certainly occur if the enemy succeed, it seems to me most advisable to adopt it at once, and thereby obtain all the benefits that will accrue to our cause.
The employment of negro troops under regulations similar in principle to those above indicated would, in my opinion, greatly increase our military strength and enable us to relieve our white population to some extent. I think we could dispense with the reserve forces except in cases of necessity.
It would disappoint the hopes which our enemies base upon our exhaustion, deprive them in a great measure of the aid they now derive from black troops, and thus throw the burden of the war upon their own people. In addition to the great political advantages that would result to our cause from the adoption of a system of emancipation, it would exercise a salutary influence upon our whole negro population, by rendering more secure the fidelity of those who become soldiers, and diminishing the inducements to the rest to abscond.
I can only say in conclusion that whatever measures are to be adopted should be adopted at once. Every day's delay increases the difficulty. Much time will be required to organize and discipline the men, and action may be deferred until it is too late.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
R. E. LEE,
General,
Lee's words were of a proslavery man who realized slavery was going to be destroyed anyway and wanted to salvage all he could of the institution and keep it for as long as he could.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
Originally Posted by cash
You're mischaracterizing again. As you said, Levine said Cleburne and Hindman supported the most proslavery wing of the Democratic Party. Mere membership in the Democratic Party isn't the issue. [According to Levine it is.]
No, you're mischaracterizing what Levine said. He specifically said it was membership in the "most proslavery wing" of the Democratic Party, not mere membership in the Democratic Party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
Yes, Symonds stresses the anti-immigrant stance of the Know-Nothings after the demise of the Whigs; however, you leave out what Symonds said about the arguments used against the Know-Nothings and the issues Cleburne and Hindman spoke on. [...and Levine leaves out any mention of the Know Nothings]
So? The linkage between Cleburne and the proslavery Democrats is there. He directs the reader to the relevant portions of Symonds so they can read for themselves about the effect of the Know-Nothings. The fact remains that Cleburne could have cleaved to the Douglas faction of the Democratic Party in 1860. He didn't. Cleburne could have left out any reference to abolitionism in his speeches. He didn't. Cleburne could have left out references to "southern constitutional rights," a code-term for expansion of slavery into the territories and repeal of Northern personal liberty laws, in his letter to his half-brother. He didn't.
Cleburne, 1861: "I am with the South in death, in victory or defeat. I never owned a Negro and care nothing for them, but these people have been my friends and have stood up to me on all occasions. In addition to this, I believe the North is about to wage a brutal and unholy war on a people who have done them no wrong, in violation of the constitution and the fundamental principles of the government. They no longer acknowledge that all government derives its validity from the consent of the governed."
Levine tries to equate Cleburne with Hindman on the issue of slavery. This is absurd.[/quote]
No, he doesn't. Cleburne and Hindman were close allies and associates. Cleburne followed Hindman's lead on the slavery issue. Levine says they both supported the most proslavery wing of the Democratic Party. They did. Cleburne attacked the Know-Nothings for, among other things, abolitionism. His own speeches put him in the proslavery camp.
Lee's words were of a proslavery man who realized slavery was going to be destroyed anyway and wanted to salvage all he could of the institution and keep it for as long as he could.
????????........wow.........
Thanks for posting the letter...
...but you apparently didn't bother to read it-
Lee:
"...the best means of securing the efficiency and fidelity of this auxiliary force would be to accompany the measure with a well-digested plan of gradual and general emancipation.
"...In addition to the great political advantages that would result to our cause from the adoption of a system of emancipation, it would exercise a salutary influence upon our whole negro population, by rendering more secure the fidelity of those who become soldiers, and diminishing the inducements to the rest to abscond..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
Yes, Symonds stresses the anti-immigrant stance of the Know-Nothings after the demise of the Whigs; however, you leave out what Symonds said about the arguments used against the Know-Nothings and the issues Cleburne and Hindman spoke on.
[...and Levine leaves out any mention of the Know Nothings]
So?
"So"...??????
Levine has that info but doesn't bother to tell us?
"The chances of the South to receive fair treatment from someone with this background is slim and none..."
Show me an exception to that rule.....
I don't normally pay attention to the political views of historians or anyone else. I judge their scholarship by their work, not by what they believe in.
Thanks for posting the letter...
...but you apparently didn't bother to read it-
On the contrary. I read the entire letter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
Lee:
"...the best means of securing the efficiency and fidelity of this auxiliary force would be to accompany the measure with a well-digested plan of gradual and general emancipation.
"...In addition to the great political advantages that would result to our cause from the adoption of a system of emancipation, it would exercise a salutary influence upon our whole negro population, by rendering more secure the fidelity of those who become soldiers, and diminishing the inducements to the rest to abscond..."
Lee:
"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."
Lee:
"Should the war continue under existing circumstances, the enemy may in course of time penetrate our country and get access to a large part of our negro population. It is his avowed policy to convert the able-bodied men among them into soldiers, and to emancipate all. The success of the Federal arms in the South was followed by a proclamation of President Lincoln for 280,000 men, the effect of which will be to stimulate the Northern States to procure as substitutes for their own people the negroes thus brought within their reach. Many have already been obtained in Virginia, and should the fortune of war expose more of her territory, the enemy would gain a large accession to his strength. His progress will thus add to his numbers, and at the same time destroy slavery in a manner most pernicious to the welfare of our people."
Lee: "Their negroes will be used to hold them in subjection, leaving the remaining force of the enemy free to extend his conquest. Whatever may be the effect of our employing negro troops, it cannot be as mischievous as this. If it end in subverting slavery it will be accomplished by ourselves, and we can devise the means of alleviating the evil consequences to both races."
Lee: "I think, therefore, we must decide whether slavery shall be extinguished by our enemies and the slaves be used against us, or use them ourselves at the risk of the effects which may be produced upon our social institutions. My own opinion is that we should employ them without delay. I believe that with proper regulations they can be made efficient soldiers. They possess the physical qualifications in an eminent degree. Long habits of obedience and subordination, coupled with the moral influence which in our country the white man possesses over the black, furnish an excellent foundation for that discipline which is the best guaranty of military efficiency. Our chief aim should be to secure their fidelity."
Lee: "There have been formidable armies composed of men having no interest in the cause for which they fought beyond their pay or the hope of plunder. But it is certain that the surest foundation upon which the fidelity of an army can rest, especially in a service which imposes peculiar hardships and privations, is the personal interest of the soldier in the issue of the contest. Such an interest we can give our negroes by giving immediate freedom to all who enlist, and freedom at the end of the war to the families of those who discharge their duties faithfully (whether they survive or not), together with the privilege of residing at the South. To this might be added a bounty for faithful service."
Lee: "We should not expect slaves to fight for prospective freedom when they can secure it at once by going to the enemy, in whose service they will incur no greater risk than in ours."
Lee: "The reasons that induce me to recommend the employment of negro troops at all render the effect of the measures I have suggested upon slavery immaterial, and in my opinion the best means of securing the efficiency and fidelity of this auxiliary force would be to accompany the measure with a well-digested plan of gradual and general emancipation. As that will be the result of the continuance of the war, and will certainly occur if the enemy succeed, it seems to me most advisable to adopt it at once, and thereby obtain all the benefits that will accrue to our cause."
This is without doubt a proslavery man who considered "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."
He saw the writing on the wall. It was time for a "Hail Mary" to stave off defeat. Free the slaves who fight, followed by their families. Then, once the war is over, take the time to think out completely before putting into place a plan that would gradually, as opposed to immediately (which would be the result of losing the war) emancipate the rest of the slaves in order to keep them in line. This is a last-ditch, desperation ploy designed to keep maximum control over blacks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
"So"...??????
Levine has that info but doesn't bother to tell us?
Huh?
Like I said, he points us to the information in Symonds. But the proslavery linkage is there.
What leaped off the screen to me, reading Lee's letter is the confirmation of the strange myopia afflicting Lee concerning the war and the Confederacy.
The letter war written on Jan. 11, 1865. yet he still can write that should the war continue....."the enemy MAY in course of time penetrate our country and get access to a large part of our negro population" The war has 3 mo's to go and he still does not see beyond the borders of Va. Union Forces HAD, over the course of time (at least since 1863), already penetrated his country (the CSA) and had Already got access to a large part of their negro population.
Lee did not favor emancipation to save the Confederacy, but he supported it, to save Virginia.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
