America's Caesar

[Elennsar]

I don't really mind if he wants to make a point of Calhoun, but the amount of the former is deeply disturbing. I don't sign on here to read people finding new ways to call each other twits, but the last few months have added to my understanding of just how many ways one can do that.

 

[matthew mckeon]

Stop the personal remarks. Its a sign of weakness.

 

[Elennsar]

Thank you, Mathew.

 

[JerseyBart]

Yes, that is the normal American narrative(excuse) that someone else has always started it, never mind the provocations, interference, and interventions.

Yes, historical events and facts are not on the south's side. Boo hoo.

 

[dvrmte]

I miss the days when the most contentious thing I heard from dvrmte was arguing that Longstreet was less aggressive than Stonewall Jackson.

At least that involved some nice talks about how From Manassas to Appomattox is a terrible, terrible book.

During your absence my sons and I visited several battlefields including standing where my g-g-grandfather was killed at Bristoe Station. His image is now on a battlefield marker there. We also did a self-tour of the Manassas battlefield and stood where our ancestors fought. It made me wonder why our(my wife and I) ancestors volunteered so readily and fought until the end. Those weren't young kids, they were married men for the most part in their late twenties and early thirties with several children at home. None of them owned slaves, and they were from areas of GA, NC, and SC that had few slaves.

That led me to read Lacy K. Ford's book, Origins of Southern Radicalism - The South Carolina Upcountry 1800-1860. That book and H. Lee Cheek's, Calhoun and Popular Rule, made me realize there was much more than slavery at stake. Cheek's book gave me an introduction into conservative thought(republicanism) and philosophy.

This forum is probably not the place for discussions on the different ideals of republicanism or philosophies(as it applied to the ACW), as there seems to be a certain misology at work here and among modern Americans in general. The discussion usually becomes a parade of clowns trying to disrupt the discussion.

The problem with not discussing the different types of republicanisms and philosophies that led up to the War is that you'll never truly understand.

 

[brass napoleon]

During your absence my sons and I visited several battlefields including standing where my g-g-grandfather was killed at Bristoe Station. His image is now on a battlefield marker there. We also did a self-tour of the Manassas battlefield and stood where our ancestors fought. It made me wonder why our(my wife and I) ancestors volunteered so readily and fought until the end. Those weren't young kids, they were married men for the most part in their late twenties and early thirties with several children at home. None of them owned slaves, and they were from areas of GA, NC, and SC that had few slaves.

That led me to read Lacy K. Ford's book, Origins of Southern Radicalism - The South Carolina Upcountry 1800-1860. That book and H. Lee Cheek's, Calhoun and Popular Rule, made me realize there was much more than slavery at stake. Cheek's book gave me an introduction into conservative thought(republicanism) and philosophy.

This forum is probably not the place for discussions on the different ideals of republicanism or philosophies(as it applied to the ACW), as there seems to be a certain misology at work here and among modern Americans in general. The discussion usually becomes a parade of clowns trying to disrupt the discussion.

The problem with not discussing the different types of republicanisms and philosophies that led up to the War is that you'll never truly understand.

The problem is that Lacy K. Ford says what we've been saying here all along, and yet you refuse to admit it:

By the 1850s, however, many South Carolinians were convinced that the community of independent producers which provided the foundation for republican government could, ironically, only survive in a slave society. "[N]o social state, without slavery as its basis," asserted Iveson Brookes, "can permanently maintain a republican form of government. " To Southerners, the marriage of republicanism and capitalism which seemed so natural at one time now threatened to pervert republicanism beyond recognition.

The good republican citizen had to maintain his personal independence, and it was crucial that that personal independence rest on a proper economic base. Since ownership of productive property was considered the best economic guarantee of personal independence, republican values were easily corrupted and destroyed in a society whose population included hordes of propertyless, and therefore dependent, citizens. Thus, as the process of industrialization slowly began to transfrom an economy of independent proprietorships into one of capitalists and labor, the economic foundation of republican values was threatened by invidious new dependencies and class distinctions. In a slave economy, however, the propertyless, dependent, laboring class was defined out of the body politic where it would remain forever beyond the reach of dangerous radicals, aspiring dictators, and scheming demagogues.

Throughout the sectional conflict, South Carolina leaders argued that the Southern experiment in slave-labor republicanism had better prospects for long-term success than did its Northern free-labor counterpart. As early as the writing of the Exposition and Protest, Calhoun argued that only slavery stood to prevent the conflict between labor and capital from destroying the Republic...

- Dr. Lacy K. Ford, Origins of Southern Radicalism - pp. 351-352
​

Although we can't know specifically why your g-g-grandfather fought, apparently a large majority of non-slaveholding South Carolinians fought to preserve the slave-labor republicanism that kept the "propertyless, dependent, laboring" 57% of the population enslaved and thoroughly and permanently removed from the body politic.

 

[DanF]

The problem with not discussing the different types of republicanisms and philosophies that led up to the War is that you'll never truly understand.

OH we understand the "republicanism" being promoted quite well. after all we have their own words in describing their Republican "paradise".

Lawrence Keitt, Congressman from South Carolina, in a speech to the House on January 25, 1860: "African slavery is the corner-stone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depopulation and barbarism."

Richmond Enquirer, 1856: "Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves . . . freedom is not possible without slavery."

"Domestic slavery is the only institution I know of which can secure the spirit of equality among freemen, so necessary to the true and genuine feeling of republicanism, without propelling the body politic into the dangerous vices of agrarianism, and legislative intermeddling between the laborer and the capitalist — GEORGE McDUFFIE, Governor of South Carolina, 1835.


"Slavery is the corner-stone of our Republican edifice. * * * It supersedes the necessity of an order of nobility." — GOV. McDUFFIE.

"I endorse, without reserve, that much-abused sentiment of Gov. McDuffie, that 'Slavery is the corner-stone of our Republican edifice'; while I repudiate, as ridiculously absurd, that much-lauded, but nowhere accredited, dogma of Mr. Jefferson, that 'all men are born equal'" — Gov. HAMMOND, of South Carolina.

"The Declaration of Independence is exuberantly false and arborescently fallacious. Life and liberty are not unalienable. Men are not born entitled to these rights. It would be far nearer the truth to say, that some are born with saddles on their backs, and others booted and spurred to ride them; and the riding doe them good; they need the reins, the bit, and the spur." — GEORGE FITZHUGH, of Virginia.


"Free society is a monstrous abortion, and slavery is the healthy, beautiful, and natural state of being." — "Sociology for the South; or the Failure of Free Society"; published at Richmond, Virginia, 1854, by George Fitzhugh.


"Free society! We sicken of the name. What is it but a conglomeration of greasy mechanics, filthy operatives, small fisted farmers, and moon-struck theorists? All the Northern States, and especially the New England States, are devoid of
society fitted for well-bred gentlemen. The prevailing class one meets with is that of mechanics struggling to be genteel, and small farmers, who do their own drudgery; and yet who are hardly fit for association with a gentleman's body servant. That is your free society!" — The Muscogee Herald, a Democratic paper in Alabama.

"We have got to hating every thing with the prefix free; from free negroes, down and up: through the whole catalogue. Free farms, free labor, free society, free will, free thinking, free children, and free schools, all belong to the same brood of damnable isms. But the worst of all these abominations is the modern system of free schools. The New England system of free schools has been the cause and prolific source of the infidelities and treasons that have turned her cities into Sodoms and Gomorrahs, and her land into the common nestling-places of howling bedlamites. We abominate the system, because the schools are free." — Richmond Examiner, Virginia, 1856.

 

[dvrmte]

OH we understand the "republicanism" being promoted quite well. after all we have their own words in describing their Republican "paradise".

Lawrence Keitt, Congressman from South Carolina, in a speech to the House on January 25, 1860: "African slavery is the corner-stone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depopulation and barbarism."

Richmond Enquirer, 1856: "Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves . . . freedom is not possible without slavery."

"Domestic slavery is the only institution I know of which can secure the spirit of equality among freemen, so necessary to the true and genuine feeling of republicanism, without propelling the body politic into the dangerous vices of agrarianism, and legislative intermeddling between the laborer and the capitalist — GEORGE McDUFFIE, Governor of South Carolina, 1835.


"Slavery is the corner-stone of our Republican edifice. * * * It supersedes the necessity of an order of nobility." — GOV. McDUFFIE.

"I endorse, without reserve, that much-abused sentiment of Gov. McDuffie, that 'Slavery is the corner-stone of our Republican edifice'; while I repudiate, as ridiculously absurd, that much-lauded, but nowhere accredited, dogma of Mr. Jefferson, that 'all men are born equal'" — Gov. HAMMOND, of South Carolina.

"The Declaration of Independence is exuberantly false and arborescently fallacious. Life and liberty are not unalienable. Men are not born entitled to these rights. It would be far nearer the truth to say, that some are born with saddles on their backs, and others booted and spurred to ride them; and the riding doe them good; they need the reins, the bit, and the spur." — GEORGE FITZHUGH, of Virginia.


"Free society is a monstrous abortion, and slavery is the healthy, beautiful, and natural state of being." — "Sociology for the South; or the Failure of Free Society"; published at Richmond, Virginia, 1854, by George Fitzhugh.


"Free society! We sicken of the name. What is it but a conglomeration of greasy mechanics, filthy operatives, small fisted farmers, and moon-struck theorists? All the Northern States, and especially the New England States, are devoid of
society fitted for well-bred gentlemen. The prevailing class one meets with is that of mechanics struggling to be genteel, and small farmers, who do their own drudgery; and yet who are hardly fit for association with a gentleman's body servant. That is your free society!" — The Muscogee Herald, a Democratic paper in Alabama.

"We have got to hating every thing with the prefix free; from free negroes, down and up: through the whole catalogue. Free farms, free labor, free society, free will, free thinking, free children, and free schools, all belong to the same brood of ****able isms. But the worst of all these abominations is the modern system of free schools. The New England system of free schools has been the cause and prolific source of the infidelities and treasons that have turned her cities into Sodoms and Gomorrahs, and her land into the common nestling-places of howling bedlamites. We abominate the system, because the schools are free." — Richmond Examiner, Virginia, 1856.

Naw, not even close.

If you are interested in the two forms of republicanism that existed early in our nations history, I'd suggest a reading of the Patrick Henry/Onslow debate carried on between your man John C. Calhoun and John Q. Adams. I'll just say that they were very similar but incompatible. I can't find the full text of the debate online but here is H. Lee Cheek's analysis.

http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2011/07/republicanism-and-liberty-patrick.html

I'll set the mood with a quote from the Dean of the Civil War, James McPherson, from his essay Ante-bellum Southern Exceptionalism: A New Look at an Old Question

"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, including slave 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 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 future."

 

[DanF]

You might notice the wording that McPherson uses. Not the version of the Founding Fathers Republic. Rather the Souths version of the Republic of the Founding Fathers.

As far as the desire of the South wanting limited govt. That was true when limited govt. Was to their benefit. When intrusive federal power better suited their needs they were the best friends of Federal supremacy.

Henry Brooks Adams

Between the slave power and states' rights there was no necessary connection. The slave power, when in control, was a centralizing influence, and all the most considerable encroachments on states' rights were its acts. The acquisition and admission of Louisiana; the Embargo; theWar of 1812; the annexation of Texas "by joint resolution" [rather than treaty]; the war with Mexico, declared by the mere announcement of President Polk; the Fugitive Slave Law; the Dred Scott decision—all triumphs of the slave power—did far more than either tariffs or internal improvements, which in their origin were also southern measures, to destroy the very memory of states' rights as they existed in 1789. Whenever a question arose of extending or protecting slavery, the slaveholders became friends of centralized power, and used that dangerous weapon with a kind of frenzy. Slavery in fact required centralization in order to maintain and protect itself, but it required to control the centralized machine; it needed despotic principles of government, but it needed them exclusively for its own use. Thus, in truth, states' rights were the protection of the free states, and as a matter of fact, during the domination of the slave power, Massachusetts appealed to this protecting principle as often and almost as loudly as South Carolina.

 

[brass napoleon]

You might notice the wording that McPherson uses. Not the version of the Founding Fathers Republic. Rather the Souths version of the Republic of the Founding Fathers.

As far as the desire of the South wanting limited govt. That was true when limited govt. Was to their benefit. When intrusive federal power better suited their needs they were the best friends of Federal supremacy.

Henry Brooks Adams

Between the slave power and states' rights there was no necessary connection. The slave power, when in control, was a centralizing influence, and all the most considerable encroachments on states' rights were its acts. The acquisition and admission of Louisiana; the Embargo; theWar of 1812; the annexation of Texas "by joint resolution" [rather than treaty]; the war with Mexico, declared by the mere announcement of President Polk; the Fugitive Slave Law; the Dred Scott decision—all triumphs of the slave power—did far more than either tariffs or internal improvements, which in their origin were also southern measures, to destroy the very memory of states' rights as they existed in 1789. Whenever a question arose of extending or protecting slavery, the slaveholders became friends of centralized power, and used that dangerous weapon with a kind of frenzy. Slavery in fact required centralization in order to maintain and protect itself, but it required to control the centralized machine; it needed despotic principles of government, but it needed them exclusively for its own use. Thus, in truth, states' rights were the protection of the free states, and as a matter of fact, during the domination of the slave power, Massachusetts appealed to this protecting principle as often and almost as loudly as South Carolina.

Indeed, even that great Southern "republican" himself, John C. Calhoun, made no bones about the fact that unlimited, repressive, brutal government was all fine and good as long as it protected slavery:

"...the subject of slavery is under the
sole and exclusive control of the states where the institution exists. It belongs
to them to determine what may endanger its existence, and when and how it
may be defended. In the exercise of this right, they may prohibit the intro-
duction or circulation of any paper or publication which may, in their opinion,
disturb or endanger the institution. Thus far all are agreed...

We have arrived at a new and important point in reference to the abolition
question. It is no longer in the hands of quiet and peaceful, but I cannot add,
harmless Quakers. It is now under the control of ferocious zealots, blinded by
fanaticism, and, in pursuit of their object, regardless of the obligations of religion
or morality. They are organized throughout every section of the non-slave-
holding states ; they have the disposition of almost unlimited funds, and are in
possession of a powerful press, which, for the first time, is enlisted in the cause
of abolition, and turned against tlie domestic institutions, and the peace and se-
curity of the South. To guard against the danger in this new and more men-
acing form, the slaveholding states will be compelled to revise their laws
against the introduction and circulation of publications calculated to disturb
their peace and endanger their security, and to render them far more full and
efficient than they have heretofore been."

- John C. Calhoun, April 12, 1836

Source: http://archive.org/stream/speechesofjohncc00calh/speechesofjohncc00calh_djvu.txt
​

But whereas in the above quote he says that the subject of slavery is under the "sole and exclusive control of the states", so that they may brutally repress all opposition, he had no qualms, whenever it suited him, about insisting that the federal government actively support its perpetuation:

"Resolved, That this Government was instituted and adopted by the several States of this Union as a common agent, in order to carry into effect the powers which they had delegated by the Constitution for their mutual security and prosperity; and that, in fulfillment of this high and sacred trust, this Government is bound so to exercise its powers as to give, as far as may be practicable, increased stability and security to the domestic institutions of the States that compose the Union..."

- John C. Calhoun, October 27, 1838

Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=Jz05AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118
​

Pure and utter hypocrisy. Republicanism was only valued as far as it was "slave-labor republicanism", built on the backs of an enslaved majority of the population who had absolutely no voice in their governance whatsoever. Any other kind of "republicanism", like any other kind of "states' rights", was thoroughly rejected.

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

I miss the days when the most contentious thing I heard from dvrmte was arguing that Longstreet was less aggressive than Stonewall Jackson.

At least that involved some nice talks about how From Manassas to Appomattox is a terrible, terrible book.

Hate to be so off thread; is it a terrible book? Been forcing myself to read it on the grounds maybe beginners just should, very dense going. ( sorry, promise back on thread, just will be a little horrified if I've been force feeding myself mashed turnips )

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

OH we understand the "republicanism" being promoted quite well. after all we have their own words in describing their Republican "paradise".

Lawrence Keitt, Congressman from South Carolina, in a speech to the House on January 25, 1860: "African slavery is the corner-stone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depopulation and barbarism."

Richmond Enquirer, 1856: "Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves . . . freedom is not possible without slavery."

"Domestic slavery is the only institution I know of which can secure the spirit of equality among freemen, so necessary to the true and genuine feeling of republicanism, without propelling the body politic into the dangerous vices of agrarianism, and legislative intermeddling between the laborer and the capitalist — GEORGE McDUFFIE, Governor of South Carolina, 1835.


"Slavery is the corner-stone of our Republican edifice. * * * It supersedes the necessity of an order of nobility." — GOV. McDUFFIE.

"I endorse, without reserve, that much-abused sentiment of Gov. McDuffie, that 'Slavery is the corner-stone of our Republican edifice'; while I repudiate, as ridiculously absurd, that much-lauded, but nowhere accredited, dogma of Mr. Jefferson, that 'all men are born equal'" — Gov. HAMMOND, of South Carolina.

"The Declaration of Independence is exuberantly false and arborescently fallacious. Life and liberty are not unalienable. Men are not born entitled to these rights. It would be far nearer the truth to say, that some are born with saddles on their backs, and others booted and spurred to ride them; and the riding doe them good; they need the reins, the bit, and the spur." — GEORGE FITZHUGH, of Virginia.


"Free society is a monstrous abortion, and slavery is the healthy, beautiful, and natural state of being." — "Sociology for the South; or the Failure of Free Society"; published at Richmond, Virginia, 1854, by George Fitzhugh.


"Free society! We sicken of the name. What is it but a conglomeration of greasy mechanics, filthy operatives, small fisted farmers, and moon-struck theorists? All the Northern States, and especially the New England States, are devoid of
society fitted for well-bred gentlemen. The prevailing class one meets with is that of mechanics struggling to be genteel, and small farmers, who do their own drudgery; and yet who are hardly fit for association with a gentleman's body servant. That is your free society!" — The Muscogee Herald, a Democratic paper in Alabama.

"We have got to hating every thing with the prefix free; from free negroes, down and up: through the whole catalogue. Free farms, free labor, free society, free will, free thinking, free children, and free schools, all belong to the same brood of ****able isms. But the worst of all these abominations is the modern system of free schools. The New England system of free schools has been the cause and prolific source of the infidelities and treasons that have turned her cities into Sodoms and Gomorrahs, and her land into the common nestling-places of howling bedlamites. We abominate the system, because the schools are free." — Richmond Examiner, Virginia, 1856.

I don't know where you found all of these with such ease, much less glued them together to form such a profoundly disturbing ' in a nutshell ' perspective. We tend to politely dance around ' What Happened' to cause an entire war all those years ago. It's the subject of innumerable threads here, most of them locked because it's such a heated topic. This collection of yours? I don't know. Maybe tells a story. If I were around 150 years ago ( and please nobody tell me how folks looked at our fellow citizens differently, it's just ' the way it was'. It's simply not true across the board. ), I think a factor leading to why so many left their homes in the North, since it came up- would have been revulsion. Racism plus elitism in one repugnant package, must have been a repulsive concept to an awful lot of people. Maybe scary. I know a lot of this is terribly frightening to read 150 years later, admittedly in far different circumstances but still- awfully disturbing.

Please excuse if I'm not quite putting my finger on it. Not knocking anyone here, it's the men who left these statements for History to remember them by. Thanks for this post, even if it'll keep me awake.

 

[DanF]

don't know where you found all of these with such ease, much less glued them together to form such a profoundly disturbing ' in a nutshell ' perspective.

That is the wonderful thing about ebooks, the ease of which you can bookmark and highlight passages of interest. I read alo and I bookmark and high light relevant material which I catagorize into seperate files like, "secession" "southern quotes on secession", "southern quotes on slavery" "founding Fathers on slavery" etc. Comes in very handy.

Also makes me qonder why I resisted ebooks for so long. I was always the kind of guy that preferred holding a physical book. (One room of my house is lined with book cases) but I am now to the point that it really aggravates me if I cannot get the book I want in ebook format.

Please excuse if I'm not quite putting my finger on it. Not knocking anyone here, it's the men who left these statements for History to remember them by. Thanks for this post, even if it'll keep me awake.

What is shocking is the callousness of their attitudes towards fellow human beings. And what is disturbing is the number of people that strive so hard to defend them and their actions.