Lee Deification of Robert E Lee

[Martini-Henry]

I wouldn't go that far but many could certainly see the day in the not-so-distant future. Without new slave states, and with increasing populations in the north, they'd simply lose control of Congress and the Senate (which the 3/5 clause had allowed them to keep longer than they would have otherwise).

I've often wondered how the Confederacy would have got along as a separate country if they'd somehow been successful in separating. They'd still be dependent on northern industry and commerce since they didn't have much of their own and didn't seem inclined toward internal improvements. Also, they'd have had to fight somebody to expand slavery which they wouldn't have been much prepared to do. It's a sort of "what were they thinking" kind of thing and just saying they thought cotton was king doesn't really answer it for me.

McPherson is certainly right in his summary methinks.

Maybe they believed that they would have Britain & France along with their colonies as trading partners.

 

[Rebforever]

I am not sure what this means. Does it refer to the North changing their minds about slavery?

No. For helping them to keep their slaves by buying cotton and the votes they gave to help the South keep their slaves.
Called The Fugitive

 

[John Winn]

Maybe they believed that they would have Britain & France along with their colonies as trading partners.

Perhaps but they'd still have been dependent on northern businesses for all the services necessary to get their product to foreign buyers (just as they already were). To simply sidestep the north they'd have had to build more railroads, develop ports, build a banking and insurance industry with sufficient capitalization, develop a trans-Atlantic shipping industry, blah blah blah.

 

[Martini-Henry]

Perhaps but they'd still have been dependent on northern businesses for all the services necessary to get their product to foreign buyers (just as they already were). To simply sidestep the north they'd have had to build more railroads, develop ports, build a banking and insurance industry with sufficient capitalization, develop an trans-Atlantic shipping industry, blah blah blah.

Yes I do take your point. There were it seems a lot of erroneous conceptions on both sides.

 

[BillO]

Bee,

It refers to the slaveholding South being unable to changing their minds.

Unionblue

I would dare to ask " why would they?" As an economic system it appears to have worked well enough for them. I imagine that for whatever reason if it would have stopped working after awhile they would have tried to adjust it to where it did work and failing that they would have looked for something else to use.
We can beat the morality of the thing forever but when morality runs up against the wallet, historically, the wallet almost always wins.

 

[James N.]

An interesting "what if"-type article I remember from the Centennial called If the South Had Won the Civil War (by South Carolina writer Ashley Halsey, as I remember) postulates a South that goes to war with Spain to acquire Cuba for expansion (a' la the Knights of the Golden Circle) but voluntarily emancipates its slaves around the time Brazil also does in the 1880's. By the time of WWI the North and South are talking about reunification.

 

[unionblue]

Slavery was not illegal in that time frame.

Nope, it was just wrong to start a war over it to protect and expand the it.

It took 4 years for your today's conclusion.

And the United States is better off for it.

 

[unionblue]

I would dare to ask " why would they?"

Indeed. As Rebforever is fond of saying, it was legal.

As an economic system it appears to have worked well enough for them.

It was a sure-fire money maker.

I imagine that for whatever reason if it would have stopped working after awhile they would have tried to adjust it to where it did work and failing that they would have looked for something else to use.

That was the trouble, wasn't it. That never happened before they decided to rebel to protect it.

We can beat the morality of the thing forever but when morality runs up against the wallet, historically, the wallet almost always wins.

In this case, it seems that you are correct.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[unionblue]

You don't speak for me.

Wouldn't dream of it. I was speaking for me.

No. for helping the South to keep their slaves.

Find it hard to believe that if the South had wanted to be rid of slavery that anyone in the North would have fought for them to keep them.

 

[unionblue]

…from James McPherson's Pulitzer Prize-winning book, Battle Cry of Freedom…

"Thus when secessionists protested that they were acting to preserve traditional rights and values, they were correct. They fought to protect their constitutional liberties against the perceived northern threat to overthrow them.

"The South's concept of republicanism had not changed in three-quarters of a century; the North's had. With complete sincerity the South fought to preserve its version of the republic of the founding fathers---a government of limited powers that protected the rights of property, and whose constituency comprised an independent gentry and yeomanry of the white race undisturbed by large cities, heartless factories, restless free workers, and class conflict.

"The accession to power of the Republican party, with its ideology of competitive, egalitarian, free labor capitalism, was a signal to the South [that] the northern majority had turned irrevocably toward this frightening, revolutionary future."

By 1860, the South had lost all political power, and they knew it.

Regards,

From the same book, Battle Cry of Freedom, by James McPherson, chapter 8, The Counterrevolution of 1861, pg. 241:

"What were this rights and liberties for which Confederates contended? The right to own slaves; the liberty to take this property into the territories; freedom from the coercive powers of a centralized government. Black Republican rule in Washington threatened republican freedoms as the South understood them. The ideology for which the fathers had fought in 1776 posited an eternal struggle between liberty and power. Because the Union after March 4, 1861, would no longer be controlled by southerners, the South could protect its liberty from the assaults of hostile power only by going out of the Union..."

Unionblue

 

[Scott Bowden]

I wouldn't go that far but many could certainly see the day in the not-so-distant future.

When a political party gets their candidate (Lincoln) the electoral college votes needed while only garnering in the process 39% of the popular vote and not receiving a single popular vote from 10 states (out of the 33 states nationwide) that comprise one section of the country, that is indeed loss of all political power for that section of the country.

 

[unionblue]

When a political party gets their candidate (Lincoln) the electoral college votes needed while only garnering in the process 39% of the popular vote and not receiving a single popular vote from 10 states (out of the 33 states nationwide) that comprise one section of the country, that is indeed loss of all political power for that section of the country.

Scott Bowden,

What about Lincoln not even being permitted on the ballot of those 10 states? And are you sure Lincoln did not even receive any votes in any of those 10 states?

And Lincoln did receive the majority of the popular vote, as it was counted between the four candidates running for the office at the time, did he not?

The Presidential Election of 1860.



Unionblue

 

[Scott Bowden]

My point, as previously stated, is that an entire section of the country believed that their political power was completely gone.

 

[James N.]

... And Lincoln did receive the majority of the popular vote, as it was counted between the four candidates running for the office at the time, did he not?

Unionblue

You're right technically, but I think that's called a plurality as far as politics goes; the term majority indicates overall.

 

[unionblue]

My point, as previously stated, is that an entire section of the country believed that their political power was completely gone.

I understand, and my point in providing the results of the 1860 election was to show what they believed and what was fact was two different things entirely.

 

[Schwallanscher]

You're right technically, but I think that's called a plurality as far as politics goes; the term majority indicates overall.

nope it's the majority needed according to your constitution - brits call it first behind the post in germany we call it a relative majority, the french however demand a majority of all voters and thus a 2nd round where only the best two are allowed in - plurality means that you have a variety of candidates to choose from (whether they got a chance to win or not - you might have 53 or more candidates in a presidential election)

 

[unionblue]

You're right technically, but I think that's called a plurality as far as politics goes; the term majority indicates overall.

James N.,

Still a free and fair election and there had been other presidential elections with more than two candidates before, so the circumstances were not strange or unusual to the general population.

But I understand your definitions, I just disagree that somehow a minority of the population was somehow denied their political rights under the results of that election.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[John Winn]

When a political party gets their candidate (Lincoln) the electoral college votes needed while only garnering in the process 39% of the popular vote and not receiving a single popular vote from 10 states (out of the 33 states nationwide) that comprise one section of the country, that is indeed loss of all political power for that section of the country.

I understand their view - and your point - but the presidency isn't the whole deal and Congress can override or stalemate a president so if the south could get back control of Congress or even just keep the Senate (which they had) they would still have had plenty of power. That control, though, was being seriously eroded and the Republicans didn't look like business as usual to many in the south so they panicked. I think had they not seceded they could have had considerable power for a while longer and probably kept the Senate (although they'd have to wait another congressional election cycle or two to maybe get that back) but their days were, indeed, numbered without expansion of slavery (unless they elected to abandon such which they weren't about to do).

My argument is not that the south wasn't losing control, only that they weren't without any political power in 1860.

 

[C. Kelp]

This really isn't the place to argue Christianity or its virtues and shortcomings, but most Christians I know believe that we all sin and that if they confess their sins before God and truly repent that their sins are forgiven. To suggest Lee was not Christian or at least not Christian enough by your standards, seems to me to be an odd assertion.

i agree that this is for another forum except that it does play a part and is a major tenet of the lost cause. however you touched the root of my trouble with christiaity. "truly repent". most christians will confess their sins but they don't repent. it is convenient that all you have to do is believe in jesus and are forgiven. the roman cathaloic church even invented the confessional but how many walk out truly changed ? there are few that are "christian enough" by my standard. i see it as a crutch, excuse, and reason, to commit inhuman acts in the name of humanity. if people lived more like jesus what a wonderful world it would be !
i am not sure jesus would agree with lee.
i am going to try to avoid this aspect of the war if it doesn't come up but there were a lot of comments raving about what a good christian lee was.
and it occurs to me that the bible is basically and eariler version of the lost cause , in a sense.

 

[jackt62]

you are right. my comment was really meant for a previous comment. sorry. my issue was only that ...

he could have but chose not to, and did little else. i could be wrong but nobody has given any examples, nor have i found any. i agree with the rest of jack's post.

I believe that Lee being the gentleman that he was, and aside from his being fully engaged with his other commitments after the war, probably did not wish to fight the war all over again, albeit with the pen.