Poll: Many discount slavery as main cause of Civil War

[TheGallantPelham17]

Originally Posted by unionblue

ole,

No problem with "fair" old friend.

My problem is "the quick and the dead."

How quick some seem to judge the dead without doing any real research.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

The primary point I was trying to make is that not all northerners were against slavery; most weren't. Even leaders from the North had slaves such as Grant. Even James Getty's family owned slaves (this shocks the heck out of people who previously never knew this) and folks ended up naming Gettysburg, PA after him.

All I was saying was that the North wasn't fighting to end slavery, but fighting to keep the country from permanently breaking apart.

[ole]

All I was saying was that the North wasn't fighting to end slavery, but fighting to keep the country from permanently breaking apart.

And that's exactly my position. I suspect many others take the same stand, but they can speak for themselves.

You got the reaction because so many use the argument that slavery didn't figure into the equation because "Grant owned slaves and Lee did not." Some actually believe that and throw it out without having verified it to their own satisfaction. You were likely mistaken for one of those.

Lee did own slaves and declared that the black man was better off enslaved than free. I believe it to be true that he divested himself of his slaves and then got saddled with the estate of his father-in-law. Terms of the will required him to free those slaves within five years. Meanwhile, he had to work them to meet monetary expectations of the will.

There is a story, perhaps apocryphal, that Frederick Dent would put no slaves under Grant's ownership as he would likely free them. If true, Grant confirmed his suspicions in (I think) 1857 or '58; hence, the supposition that Julia's servants were not hers, but her father's.

The primary point I was trying to make is that not all northerners were against slavery; most weren't.

"Most" is a hard word to demonstrate, but I feel the same way. Most of the north was agriculturally based and didn't much care about what was happening besides the prices they got for their produce and the prices they paid for sugar, salt, coffee, flour, and cloth. I'll suppose that the antebellum, southern yeoman farmer held the same attitude. Yet every northerner is labelled (by some) as an abolitionist.

Abolitionism ranged from, "such a shame, tsk-tsk," to railing in the newspapers and halls of congress. Active abolitionism (the voting kind) never did get much more than five percent of the vote -- presumably less influence than the flower-children of a century later.

So you are quite right; pardon for the misreading.

ole

[unionblue]

Originally Posted by TheGallantPelham17

The primary point I was trying to make is that not all northerners were against slavery; most weren't.

To GallantPelham17, I caught where you were going with your reply and generally agree, as I have said, along with many others here at this forum, the North did NOT go to war with the South over the issue of slavery.

But would you grant me the same courtesy of historical honesty, and admit that the South DID secede over the issue of slavery?

Even leaders from the North had slaves such as Grant.

Again, I do not think the above statement is correct when it comes specifically to Grant, but at this exact moment I am not sure, so I will research it and get back to you and let you know one way or the other.

Even James Getty's family owned slaves (this shocks the heck out of people who previously never knew this) and folks ended up naming Gettysburg, PA after him.

Now here's the part I like when I read statements like this about James Getty. What's your source on this? Not that I doubt it, but as you can see, how do I know if this is a documented, historical fact, or just something you think is true?

All I was saying was that the North wasn't fighting to end slavery, but fighting to keep the country from permanently breaking apart.

I'll agree with you as far as this goes, that the North at the start of the war didn't really give one hoot about slavery, neither did Lincoln, when it came to keeping the Union together. This was the primary reason for the North taking action against the South.

But, as the war progressed, one of the war aims for the Union became the abolition of slavery. Whether it was to strike at a valuable military resource of the South or to prevent foreign intervention, slavery was put on the table by the North, and kept there until the 13th amendment. Without the Civil War, there would be a good chance of slavery surviving until the 20-21st century, IMO.

But again, I have yet to see you come across with a reason as to WHY the South seceded. In your opinion, WHY did the South secede? Takes two to tango, I've been told.

And I do wish to make clear, that when I made my post to ole about some being "quick to judge the quick and the dead", I was NOT referring to you.

If you took it that way, I wish to apologize for not being very clear about that.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[TheGallantPelham17]

Union,

My book is at work on my desk, so I can make another post about James Getty that will more accurately document where I got my information. However, so you'll have something to chew on tonight, I got this information from what I consider to be the Bible on all things Gettysburg. The name of the book is the History Buff's Guide to Gettysburg. It's written by two gentlemen (their names are Thomas Flagel and Ken Allers). You can get it from Amazon.com (I just checked and it's in stock right now online). In one particular chapter it specifically mentions that James Getty was a slave owner and how this made the battle at Gettysburg one of the more ironic moments of the War. Tomorrow, I'll give you the page number where this information can be found in the book.

[ole]

I'll suspect that James Getty owning slaves is likely true -- but when? If he owned them before 1822, it doesn't apply to the situation in 1850. That is, when did Getty live in the area. When was Gettysburg established. Looks like a fairly old town.

ole

[unionblue]

Originally Posted by TheGallantPelham17

Union,

My book is at work on my desk, so I can make another post about James Getty that will more accurately document where I got my information. However, so you'll have something to chew on tonight, I got this information from what I consider to be the Bible on all things Gettysburg. The name of the book is the History Buff's Guide to Gettysburg. It's written by two gentlemen (their names are Thomas Flagel and Ken Allers). You can get it from Amazon.com (I just checked and it's in stock right now online). In one particular chapter it specifically mentions that James Getty was a slave owner and how this made the battle at Gettysburg one of the more ironic moments of the War. Tomorrow, I'll give you the page number where this information can be found in the book.

I appreciate your efforts at digging out this information on James Getty.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
PS No comment on WHY the South left the Union?

[PvtClewell]

Maybe this will help:

http://www.emmitsburg.net/archive_li...est_family.htm

The first graph is probably the only one that's pertinent.

And this came out of a "Washington Weekend" article in 2002. It's only a partial story — I'd have to register to get the whole thing, but here is what I got:

"The town began in 1786, when James Gettys, the second son of a local farmer, laid out 210 lots. His choice was a shrewd one; located at a crossroads, Gettysburg quickly became a prominent agricultural transportation center. Light industry appeared early in the 19th century. Educational institutions were established as well, including the Lutheran Theological Seminary and Pennsylvania (now Gettysburg) College.

True, it was north of the Mason-Dixon line, but like many towns in Southern Pennsylvania in the early part of the 19th century, Gettysburg was divided by the slavery question. Some farmers, like James Gettys' father, had owned slaves. In the meantime, free black people, drawn to the area by the promise of employment in agriculture and industry, began to develop a presence of their own. According to the 1790 census, says local historian Betty Dorsey Myers, there were 600 black people in the Gettysburg area, half enslaved and half free.

By the time of the Civil War, there were no slaves left in Gettysburg..."

James Gettys died March 15, 1815 and his wife a few days later.

[ole]

James Gettys died March 15, 1815 and his wife a few days later.

Point made. That Gettys owned slaves is irrelevant.

Several northerners owned slaves in the early days of the Union. And a case can be made that many northerners made a good living off the illegal slave-trade after 1808 -- that can't be denied. But having a few greedy and uncrupulous ****** in the north does not mean that the Confederacy acted innocently in kicking off what might be the most self-destructive conflict in the history of mankind.

Or that the north bore some responsibility in the same conflict.

Of course, some inaccuracies and charges will fly back and forth. Let's not forget that this is a CW history discussion board.

ole

[unionblue]

PvtClewell,

Thank you for the information and the website.

It is appreciated.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

Originally Posted by ole

Point made. That Gettys owned slaves is irrelevant.

Several northerners owned slaves in the early days of the Union. And a case can be made that many northerners made a good living off the illegal slave-trade after 1808 -- that can't be denied. But having a few greedy and uncrupulous ****** in the north does not mean that the Confederacy acted innocently in kicking off what might be the most self-destructive conflict in the history of mankind.

Or that the north bore some responsibility in the same conflict.

Of course, some inaccuracies and charges will fly back and forth. Let's not forget that this is a CW history discussion board.

ole

ole,

I agree with pretty much you state above.

In central Ohio, just ten miles South of Columbus, I grew up in my hometown of Reese Station, Ohio. The town consisted of about 200 people, was two blocks wide, four blocks long, and was situated between two railroad tracks. The entire town was surrounded by corn, wheat, and hayfields and still is.

The town name was taken from an "Old Man Reese" and the fact the town used to have a railroad station back in the 1800s.

I thought that was the end of the story until I was much older. I found out, from local lore, that "Old Man Reese" had owned most of the land arouind the town and had a plantation that grew crops (never found out exactly what they grew, but pretty sure it wasn't cotton) and that he had owned slaves, it was claimed, to work the place.

This was way before the train station and the railroad came through, I think, but the old man's legacy was so strong, the town was named after him as was the train station when it was built in town.

The slaves, according to the story, were long gone by the time of the Civil War, but they, the locals believed, had once been there.

And the railroad station is also long gone, worse the luck!

Sincerely,
Unionblue