Southern unionism

[atlantis]

Would southern unionism have faded away if there had been no conscription? Is it not fair to view southern unionism as merely a reaction to conscription after the enactment of the first conscript law in contrast to the southern unionism that existed during the debates over secession.
Southern unionists also felt the harsh hand of union troops as they the ravaged the land, plundering/burning.

 

[rvbgrif]

I must be too literal minded to get the joke.

It is much more simple than you imagine. Mules aren't bred, they are the result of breeding. Which is why the first link says "breeding for mules" as opposed to "breeding mules".

Think puppy breeder vs dog breeder.

There wasn't anything wrong with what you wrote either. It just sounded funny. But mostly I am just being pedantic.

 

[Rhea Cole]

No, there's definitely a correlation between the predominance of slaveholding in a part of a slave state and the predominance of the confederate sympathies in that part of the slave state.

But nice try at deflection.

Agreed, it is passing strange to not base an argument on the 1860 Slave Census.

Here in Tennessee the counties that were pro secession are appropriately black. The population of Obion County north of Memphis was 80% enslaved people. Apart from the counties touching on Nashville / Davidson County there were very few slaves. Thus the white areas thus the white circle.

Bragg called Bedford County, one of the white counties in Middle Tennessee, " That Union Hole!"

What is being left out of this thread is that the enslaved people were not just looking on in benign toleration as the white folks slaughtered each other.

Governor Vance of North Carolina stated that north of Rockingham there were no enslaved men that had not left. The youth of Rockingham County paid a terrible price to make that freedom possible. 23rd NC 82% casualties at Gettysburg.

In Tennessee January - June 1863 Jim Key, who as Nathan Bedford Forrest's groom had a pass allowing him free passage, spirited whole families into Union lines.

We are all aware of the Barrier Islands Gulla / Gechee people's self liberation.

Virginia's economy was based on raising & selling human beings. Even on the last day, as the government was burning records & officials fleeing, a coffle of slaves chained together was marched through the city by a slave dealer.

Observers who documented what was once a commonplace sight going & coming from the Richmond slave markets said it was bizarre under the circumstances. The fate of the members of that last coffle is unknown.

As Patrick Cleburne cogently stated, across the South slaves that stayed "at home" were only waiting for the opportunity to be liberated.

My family was among the slaveholders of Rockingham NC who had a front row seat to the new reality.

The total destruction of the slaveholder's pretensions to nobility by their war to"…preserve the God given right to hold other human beings as property." is eerily familiar to the Götterämmerung that the imperial houses of Europe & the Ottoman Empire inflicted on themselves in 1914 -1818.

Not once in my lifetime beginning in 1949 has any war ended with the slightest resemblance to the declared purpose intact. You would think people would have learned that lesson by now ¿no?

 

[Piedone]

If you believe that both sides were the same on slavery, then you're living in a fantasy land.

Maybe that wasn't exactly what @archieclement wanted to say:

I understood his post saying that the stance toward african americans wasn't (broadly speaking) that much different between North and South -

as many people on both sides then found it hard to accept that african americans could be citizens on equal rights (which was a consequence of slavery being present in all of the american colonies until rather recently before the Civil War).

Hence
SOME enmity towards an expansion of slavery could have been driven by racism
(as people believed they couldn't accept african americans in their neighborhood) -

SOME support of a pro-slavery movement could have rooted in the same racist ideas
(as people believed they could only accept african americans in their neighborhood as slaves)

This doesn't take anything from the victory of the Union being a tremendous leap forward to liberty and equality.
This doesn't take anything from slavery being a deeply unjust system based on violence.

But it shows that maybe there wasn't always that much of a deep rift between North and South regarding their views on african americans.
More than often I read that it only was the Civil War itself that caused a broader shift in attitudes.

On a side note: I lastly read about the construction of Fort Neglev and was appalled how african american workers were sometimes treated by Union officers in 1862 constructing a fortification AGAINST the Confederacy….
(which could illustrate this point…)

 

[Rhea Cole]

It is much more simple than you imagine. Mules aren't bred, they are the result of breeding. Which is why the first link says "breeding for mules" as opposed to "breeding mules".

Think puppy breeder vs dog breeder.

There wasn't anything wrong with what you wrote either. It just sounded funny. But mostly I am just being pedantic.

Reading more than the title is always a good policy. It seems breeding vs bred is a distinction without a difference to me. One I never once heard any practitioners of mule husbandry make.

 

[JerryD]

If one wishes to refer to border states, certainly each side had states bordering the other.....as well both had crossover.

If one wishes to point to x percent from Confederate Tennessee going north or supporting north it's not in a vacuum. As there is also x percent from Union Kentucky doing the same to the south...........

That 75-125000 Kentuckians served Union and 25-40000 Confederate isn't that dissimilar to 135000 Tennessee serving Confederacy compared to 50k Union. 50k includes USCT or its 31K Union.

If referring to border states crossover, each sides border states certainly had it.......

Ok, got it. I've never seen a reference to Confederate border states before, that's all. But I get what you are saying. As is often the case, its a "unique" interpretation by you.

 

[JerryD]

Again both sides were slaveholding republics, so no different then loyalty in US slave states, or even free states as it was clear US was preserving slavery where it existed going to war, also again with EP exempting US states and territory.. It's pointless rhetoric as both sides had slavery, certainly if talking to secession events in 1861. Again why Lincoln was speaking precisely to its protection.

If wishing to rail against "slaveholding republics" the primary one certainly in our history was the United States, continuing through ACW as well. It certainly never only existed in only 11 states for only four years...........probably should go for the lions share if that's your desire.

I'll let Abraham Lincoln reply to you. He drafted this proposed resolution for adoption by pubic meetings in England on the proper British response to the war

"Whereas, while heretofore States and Nations have tolerated slavery, recently, for the first time in the world, an attempt has been made to construct a new Nation , upon the basis of, and with the primary and fundamental object to maintain, enlarge and perpetuate human slavery, therefore:

"Resolved: that no such embryo State should ever be recognized by, or admitted into, the family of Christian and civilized nations; and that all Christian and civilized men everywhere should, by lawful means, resist to the utmost, such recognition or admission. "

The point being, the USA was forced to tolerate slavery in order to preserve the union. But this new nation was treating slavery as a positive good and the cornerstone on which it would be established. Big difference.

At the founding of the USA the founding fathers who were slaveholders realized that slavery was an unfortunate evil that they hoped would eventually fade away. Jefferson's famous quote of slavery being like holding a wolf by the ears, necessary to continue but difficult to stop. But in the south there had arisen a feeling that slavery was not only necessary but actually a positive good! That is should be expanded as far as possible! And in the north the feeling was slowly growing that it needed to be limited and brought to an end. And to pretend that due to inherited laws that were difficult to abolish that there was no difference between the two sections on the issue of slavery is simply to deny reality. There is a reason why a man running for President on the issue of limiting slavery won the northern states and did not get a single vote in many southern states.

 

[archieclement]

I'll let Abraham Lincoln reply to you. He drafted this proposed resolution for adoption by pubic meetings in England on the proper British response to the war

"Whereas, while heretofore States and Nations have tolerated slavery, recently, for the first time in the world, an attempt has been made to construct a new Nation , upon the basis of, and with the primary and fundamental object to maintain, enlarge and perpetuate human slavery, therefore:

"Resolved: that no such embryo State should ever be recognized by, or admitted into, the family of Christian and civilized nations; and that all Christian and civilized men everywhere should, by lawful means, resist to the utmost, such recognition or admission. "

The point being, the USA was forced to tolerate slavery in order to preserve the union. But this new nation was treating slavery as a positive good and the cornerstone on which it would be established. Big difference.

At the founding of the USA the founding fathers who were slaveholders realized that slavery was an unfortunate evil that they hoped would eventually fade away. Jefferson's famous quote of slavery being like holding a wolf by the ears, necessary to continue but difficult to stop. But in the south there had arisen a feeling that slavery was not only necessary but actually a positive good! That is should be expanded as far as possible! And in the north the feeling was slowly growing that it needed to be limited and brought to an end. And to pretend that due to inherited laws that were difficult to abolish that there was no difference between the two sections on the issue of slavery is simply to deny reality. There is a reason why a man running for President on the issue of limiting slavery won the northern states and did not get a single vote in many southern states.

Indeed Lincoln did reply to me and everyone at the time with state of union, that he had no intention of interfering with slavery where it existed (which certainly included US States).

He stated it rather plainly......so certainly if referring to time of secession, both were certainly slaveholding............why he later counterparts Fremont ect.......no need to play games as it was stated and policy was rather clear.

 

[archieclement]

Ok, got it. I've never seen a reference to Confederate border states before, that's all. But I get what you are saying. As is often the case, its a "unique" interpretation by you.

Its hardly unique if one wished to refer to states bordering a boundry.....there obviously would be two groups of states bordering the line.

If implying it most often seems used to try to pretend Union or northern states weren't union or north, probally accurate but quite false as they were as Union or north as any other.

 

[damYankee]

Indeed Lincoln did reply to me and everyone at the time with state of union, that he had no intention of interfering with slavery where it existed (which certainly included US States).

He stated it rather plainly......so certainly if referring to time of secession, both were certainly slaveholding............why he later counterparts Fremont ect.......no need to play games as it was stated and policy was rather clear.

By the grace of God and the hand of man, Slavery was dissolved in this nation.
I'm sure there are some alive today who resent that fact, sadly.

 

[archieclement]

By the grace of God and the hand of man, Slavery was dissolved in this nation.
I'm sure there are some alive today who resent that fact, sadly.

I suppose you can speak to yourself or your friends, I haven't ever encountered anyone who resents that fact today. So I certainly don't think there would be many, if any at all. So certainly seems bit bizarre claim.

I agree at times it seems odd how many seem bitter over the south seceding, which simply hastened slavery's end, it was rather the end result. As I pointed out not aware of any historian who claims if the South had not seceded, slavery would not likely continued for decades under US.

So as far as slavery itself, the south seceding was rather a good thing, as it brought its end.

Slavery was indeed a tragic part of our history, but perhaps some should realize the majority of it was certainly under and condoned by the US and colonial powers, as it certainly was.

 

[JerryD]

Indeed Lincoln did reply to me and everyone at the time with state of union, that he had no intention of interfering with slavery where it existed (which certainly included US States).

He stated it rather plainly......so certainly if referring to time of secession, both were certainly slaveholding............why he later counterparts Fremont ect.......no need to play games as it was stated and policy was rather clear.

I see, so in your world the war ended in 1862. Very convenient but I understand that you prefer to freeze time and ignore reality. Pity.

You are too smart not to realize he said this because no matter how much he objected to slavery, he had no authority to do other than to defend others right to own slaves. Only someone really dense and ignorant would not realize that, and from what I have seen from you, that is not you.

 

[JerryD]

Its hardly unique if one wished to refer to states bordering a boundry.....there obviously would be two groups of states bordering the line.

If implying it most often seems used to try to pretend Union or northern states weren't union or north, probally accurate but quite false as they were as Union or north as any other.

Well, it is unique since I have never seen anyone else do that. That is what unique means.

 

[archieclement]

I see, so in your world the war ended in 1862. Very convenient but I understand that you prefer to freeze time and ignore reality. Pity.

I see in your world events that haven't happened did, indeed a pity and bizarre as certainly isnt reality. The timeline when southern states were seceding isn't that hard to follow, it's not in 1862 however.

Lefty was referring clearly to the time of secession when he states withdrawing to form a slaveholding republic....which was in 1861......not 1862......

So what Lincoln was saying at the actual time would be the rather relevant statements to 1861, he was clearly stating the US was also slaveholding in state of union, and had no intention of interfering with slavery in the US.......then in 1863 the EP even also exempted where it existed in US states or occupied territory.

So whether you prefer 1861 that lefty referred to or even 1863. Both the Union and Confederacy were in fact still holding slaves...

If condemning slavery, perhaps should recognize the US was still practicing it during ACW as well all our history prior.....

 

[damYankee]

I suppose you can speak to yourself or your friends, I haven't ever encountered anyone who resents that fact today. So I certainly don't think there would be many, if any at all. So certainly seems bit bizarre claim.

I agree at times it seems odd how many seem bitter over the south seceding, which simply hastened slavery's end, it was rather the end result. As I pointed out not aware of any historian who claims if the South had not seceded, slavery would not likely continued for decades under US.

So as far as slavery itself, the south seceding was rather a good thing, as it brought its end.

Slavery was indeed a tragic part of our history, but perhaps some should realize the majority of it was certainly under and condoned by the US and colonial powers, as it certainly was.

Blame the victims, blame the dead, blame anyone except for those responsible, I get it.
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt, but it runs a lot deeper.

 

[archieclement]

Blame the victims, blame the dead, blame anyone except for those responsible, I get it.
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt, but it runs a lot deeper.

Then get out of the river.

As I haven't denied anything, I just note everything which certainly includes both sides in a war. Nor should history be about trying to blame anyone, it's simply recognizing events.

Certainly historical events are guided by historical views.....that we don't like or share them doesn't change it was the views at the time that would decide historical events. I don't understand the wishing to ignore simple historical realities.

 

[JerryD]

I see in your world events that haven't happened did, indeed a pity and bizarre as certainly isnt reality. The timeline when southern states were seceding isn't that hard to follow, it's not in 1862 however.

Lefty was referring clearly to the time of secession when he states withdrawing to form a slaveholding republic....which was in 1861......not 1862......

So what Lincoln was saying at the actual time would be the rather relevant statements to 1861, he was clearly stating the US was also slaveholding in state of union, and had no intention of interfering with slavery in the US.......then in 1863 the EP even also exempted where it existed in US states or occupied territory.

So whether you prefer 1861 that lefty referred to or even 1863. Both the Union and Confederacy were in fact still holding slaves...

If condemning slavery, perhaps should recognize the US was still practicing it during ACW as well all our history prior.....

Ok, now you are just parroting my arguments like a mina bird. Get serious. I am looking at the war in its entirety, not through a small crack that fits your preferred pro-southern argument. Deal with the facts in their entirety, dude. You like to pretend there was moral equivalence between the sections, but the only ones fooling themselves into believing that are people like you who can't deal with what the war was really about and try to twist facts out of context to suit their preferred narrative. I note you ignore the argument about Lincoln not having the authority in 1861 to outlaw slavery, and thus why he said he did not plan to do so. You want to portray this as Lincoln being the moral equivalent of Jefferson Davis on the issue of slavery, and it requires a warped sense of history to reach that conclusion.

 

[archieclement]

Ok, now you are just parroting my arguments like a mina bird. Get serious. I am looking at the war in its entirety, not through a small crack that fits your preferred pro-southern argument. Deal with the facts in their entirety, dude. You like to pretend there was moral equivalence between the sections, but the only ones fooling themselves into believing that are people like you who can't deal with what the war was really about and try to twist facts out of context to suit their preferred narrative. I note you ignore the argument about Lincoln not having the authority in 1861 to outlaw slavery, and thus why he said he did not plan to do so. You want to portray this as Lincoln being the moral equivalent of Jefferson Davis on the issue of slavery, and it requires a warped sense of history to reach that conclusion.

No you are the only one fooling yourself if somehow refuse to accept people of other cultures and eras whose views may not align with ours.......believe themselves just as right and would acted accordingly

As well your propensity to tilt windmills, as never remotely compared Davis to Lincoln. Simply noted if lefty wished to opine they were leaving to form a slaveholding republic, they were leaving a slaveholding republic to do so. As they were, which Lincoln made clear in state of union.

I do certainly recognize terms like "moral" are undefined certainly in history. Why what passes as moral certainly varies by religion and culture, and most certainly through time.

I assume you have a personal sense of morality, hopefully majority in your community share it. But most likely not everyone does nationally as many political issues involve morality to some as religion might be attached....now fly to Saudi Arabia or China and again you'll find not everyone will share yours, certainly not if one time machined 150 years ago as well.......or 500, or 1000.......its actually rather evolving to time and place certainly collectively to cultures and society's.

 

[uaskme]

Something like this?

 

[archieclement]

Something like this?View attachment 575555

Funny thing is morality is a sense of right and wrong.........senses are just that feelings. Certainly no one else is obligated to have your feelings unless.......................

When it comes to right and wrong in law....one will find your individual sense likely won't trump the majority sense reflected in the actual laws and code. As well a jury of your peers having a different sense of moral might not bode well

 

[DanSBHawk]

Something like this?View attachment 575555

Sounds like a guy who's unhappy that other people aren't persuaded by his supposed "facts and analysis."