Fighting for Slavery?

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
34,787
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#81
Bit of a problem. The Kenner Mission seems to be lacking credible evidence.

KENNER'S MISSION TO EUROPE

In an article, entitled "Breaking of the Light," published in Vol. XXI
of the QUARTERLY it, is stated on page 217 that in the instructions given
to Duncan F. Kenner, sent on a mission to Europe by President Davis towards
the close of the Civil War, Great Britain and France were to be
assured that the Confederate States would abolish slavery if their independence
was recognized. The authority for this was said in a note at
the foot of the page to be in "Kenner's own handwriting" preserved in his
correspondence in the Library of Congress. Unfortunately the Library
of Congress does not hold Kenner's correspondence, and the real authority
instead of being a manuscript of Mr. Kenner rests upon a manuscript in
the Library of Congress of William Wirt Henry reporting a conversation
held with Mr. Kenner a few years before he died. This manuscript is
now printed below, and according to Dr. Gaillard Hunt, chief of the
Division of Manuscripts of the Library of Congress, "there was or is confirmation
of it in the papers of Gen'l Brent, of Baltimore."
edit

This was a secret mission; only Davis knew of it, so if it was successful, then it has to be gotten through the CSA congress for slave statues and States for a constitutional ratification.

From the CSA constitution.


ARTICLE V

Section I. (I) Upon the demand of any three States, legally assembled in their several conventions, the Congress shall summon a convention of all the States, to take into consideration such amendments to the Constitution as the said States shall concur in suggesting at the time when the said demand is made; and should any of the proposed amendments to the Constitution be agreed on by the said convention, voting by States, and the same be ratified by the Legislatures of two- thirds of the several States, or by conventions in two-thirds thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the general convention, they shall thenceforward form a part of this Constitution. But no State shall, without its consent, be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate.

ARTICLE IV


Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

KLSDAD

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
1,322
Location
Fremont, MI
#82
Sorry, I just noticed you posted the same thing I did on page 3. I normally cannot read through the regurgitation of threads such as this, but couldn't help myself and just had to read the whole thing. Now I feel silly, because it seems like I've seen such threads about 8 million times before. And I keep posting....and reading....and......is this room circular???
I'm glad you posted it since I hadn't gone thru the entire regurgitation process myself. I hadn't seen Forrest's quote before in this thread or anywhere else.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,033
#83
Good point.

OTOH, any recognition would have been contingent on emancipation. I'd question if Davis actually gave any authority to Kenner and Polignac or just sent them off like the Hampton Roads Commissioners without any real authority and with the purpose of quieting political opponents.

I agree. Davis was trying to fish in troubled waters, seeing what nibbles he might get, on what kind of bait. On other threads posters have discussed how amenable Davis might really have been to emancipation of southern slaves, i.e., it is probable that he was not as favorable to it, as his last minute concessions at the end of the war, might seem to indicate.
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,484
Location
District of Columbia
#84
In the last year of the war at least two representratives (Duncan Kenner, General Polignac) were sent to Europe to propose emancipation in exchange for recognition. So the South was willing to give up slavery, but not independence.
Duncan Kenner.
General Polignac.
Deal with it.
Is that what the Confederate Congress believed? Did the CC pass legislation which emancipated the slaves in return for their military service?

- Alan
 
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
5,686
Location
Texas
#85
Once again these statements are from Officers, not the privates. Poor people have always been rich people's pawns.
"stand by your own countrymen and race, against the murder and arson, hanging and stealing' that were sure to accompany the 'liberation of the half-civilized cannibal.”
Pvt. Joseph Bruckmuller, 7 TX. Address delivered to other prisoners at Ft. Douglas Prison, Chicago, June 1862

"Confound the whole set of Psalm singing 'brethren' and 'sistern' too, if it had not been for them...preaching abolitionism from every northern pulpit...(I)...would never have been soldiering." Pvt. James Williams, 21 AL, to wife, Dec. 20, 1861, Fort Gaines, AL

Warning his wife of lying: "supinely upon our backs," while "the fair daughters of the South [are] reduced to a level with the flat-footed thick-liped Negro."
Pvt. John Street, 9th TX, to wife, Feb. 25, 1862, Tishomingo Co., MS.

“If the negroes are freed the country...is not worth fighting for.... We can only live & exist by that species of labor: and hence I am willing to continue to fight to the last."
Mississippi soldier William Nugent wrote to his wife Nellie.

Does that satisfy ya? Seems to me some of the rank and file were for the same goals of the government.

Kevin Dally
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
6,281
Location
Quinton, VA.
#86
Sorry, I just noticed you posted the same thing I did on page 3. I normally cannot read through the regurgitation of threads such as this, but couldn't help myself and just had to read the whole thing. Now I feel silly, because it seems like I've seen such threads about 8 million times before. And I keep posting....and reading....and......is this room circular???
It's a Polish firing squad and we seem to be doing this silliness more and more.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Messages
2,959
#87
Bit of a problem. The Kenner Mission seems to be lacking credible evidence.

KENNER'S MISSION TO EUROPE



edit

This was a secret mission; only Davis knew of it, so if it was successful, then it has to be gotten through the CSA congress for slave statues and States for a constitutional ratification.
Kenner couldn't even get back before the fall of Richmond.

It appears in reading some of what has been written about it that Davis was dangling emancipation in exchange for recognition. Of course, Davis had no real authority to emancipate slaves as the Confederate constitution expressly forbid it and the Confederate Congress was likewise powerless. Only the states in convention could vote to amend the Confederate constitution.

The amendment process per the CS constitution differs per Article V in that it is driven from the states.
(1) Upon the demand of any three States, legally assembled in their several conventions, the Congress shall summon a convention of all the States, to take into consideration such amendments to the Constitution as the said States shall concur in suggesting at the time when the said demand is made; and should any of the proposed amendments to the Constitution be agreed on by the said convention — voting by States — and the same be ratified by the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, or by conventions in two-thirds thereof — as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the general convention — they shall thenceforward form a part of this Constitution.
Of course, what are the chances that 2/3 of the states would accept this condition? How would emancipation take place? What then becomes of all the freedmen? The Confederate states had not even the slimmest inkling of how this might occur. Even in the northern slave states compensated emancipation was rejected in the face of passage of the 13th Amendment.

And by this time the CSA didn't have any major ports left...so such a Confederacy would be forced to trade cotton through U.S. authorities.

By 1865 there wasn't any chance the Britain would risk the almost certain loss of Canada through war with the massive, well armed U.S.--a fear it had in 1861 with negligible Federal forces.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
34,787
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#88
It's a Polish firing squad and we seem to be doing this silliness more and more.
The simple solution is to simply agree that slave grown cotton make the antebellum South fabulously wealth; there were the fire eaters that agitated for 20-30 years for Southern Independence; said fire eaters manipulated the Southern political establishment into secession; the motive for secession was to establish an independent slave nation where the right people would guide their lessers and the slaves with a gentle, enlightened but firm hand without all the pesky Washington DC politics, the ignorant poor, those despicable money grubbing Yankees mucking things up; that most Southern soldiers directly or indirectly support the institution of slavery and would have owned a slave if they could have; that the elites were as deceived as their lessers and died with them in great numbers in a democracy of the dead, the antebellum South ran things for 80 years, made a calculated gamble for independence and almost pulled it off; in the antebellum US, slavery was a economic advantage to the slave owners;it was Constitutionally protected, and while a philosophical evil, it was either socially accepted, a social good or simply morally ignored by the majority of citizens.

Just one sentence.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
34,787
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#89
Kenner couldn't even get back before the fall of Richmond.

It appears in reading some of what has been written about it that Davis was dangling emancipation in exchange for recognition. Of course, Davis had no real authority to emancipate slaves as the Confederate constitution expressly forbid it and the Confederate Congress was likewise powerless. Only the states in convention could vote to amend the Confederate constitution.

The amendment process per the CS constitution differs per Article V in that the


Of course, what are the chances that 2/3 of the states would accept this condition? How would emancipation take place? What then becomes of all the freedmen? The Confederate states had not even the slimmest inkling of how this might occur. Even in the northern slave states compensated emancipation was rejected in the face of passage of the 13th Amendment.

And by this time the CSA didn't have any major ports left...so such a Confederacy would be forced to trade cotton through U.S. authorities.

By 1865 there wasn't any chance the Britain would risk the almost certain loss of Canada through war with the massive, well armed U.S.--a fear it had in 1861 with negligible Federal forces.
One of the interesting things to think about is that States either conquered or mostly conquered by US forces were eligible to vote in the CSA. Now just how is the amendment process is going to proceeded if the legislatures of the States or the alternate conventions cannot meet.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Messages
2,959
#90
One of the interesting things to think about is that States either conquered or mostly conquered by US forces were eligible to vote in the CSA. Now just how is the amendment process is going to proceeded if the legislatures of the States or the alternate conventions cannot meet.
Even if the Confederate states were somehow in agreement on emancipation, and even if Kenner who arrived and consulted through March somehow got back, there was no time left to enact it even if the Europeans had supported the initiative.

Communication with the TM was already incredibly slow. It would have taken months just to get the first convention together and then get ratification of enough states even if there was agreement on what to do and how to do it.

The CSA was in such disarray that I'm not even sure where each of the state legislatures were meeting at the time.
 

matthew mckeon

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
13,326
#91
The simple solution is to simply agree that slave grown cotton make the antebellum South fabulously wealth; there were the fire eaters that agitated for 20-30 years for Southern Independence; said fire eaters manipulated the Southern political establishment into secession; the motive for secession was to establish an independent slave nation where the right people would guide their lessers and the slaves with a gentle, enlightened but firm hand without all the pesky Washington DC politics, the ignorant poor, those despicable money grubbing Yankees mucking things up; that most Southern soldiers directly or indirectly support the institution of slavery and would have owned a slave if they could have; that the elites were as deceived as their lessers and died with them in great numbers in a democracy of the dead, the antebellum South ran things for 80 years, made a calculated gamble for independence and almost pulled it off; in the antebellum US, slavery was a economic advantage to the slave owners;it was Constitutionally protected, and while a philosophical evil, it was either socially accepted, a social good or simply morally ignored by the majority of citizens.

Just one sentence.
Dude, that's a heck of a sentence.
 

AUG

Major
Forum Host
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
7,502
Location
Texas
#96
Go a little bit further up the rebel food chain. Why did the Confederate leadership launch their rebellion in the first place? To protect slavery. That was the reason why all those generals and colonels and lieutenant colonels and on down the line to the most junior private were sent to fight.
But your missing my point. The point is that most Confederate soldiers as individuals did not always fight for that cause, they fought for their own personal reasons. Yes, you could say that one of the main causes why the South seceded was for slavery, but their objective was to gain independence. The soldier's fight was something completely different, it was for whatever he may be fighting for, which were usually his home and family, his state, his land, the North or the South.
 
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
5,686
Location
Texas
#97
But your missing my point. The point is that most Confederate soldiers as individuals did not always fight for that cause, they fought for their own personal reasons. Yes, you could say that one of the main causes why the South seceded was for slavery, but their objective was to gain independence. The soldier's fight was something completely different, it was for whatever he may be fighting for, which were usually his home and family, his state, his land, the North or the South.
I would disagree. I think a lot in the ranks of the Confederate Army would too.

Kevin Dally
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
28,203
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
#98
But your missing my point. The point is that most Confederate soldiers as individuals did not always fight for that cause, they fought for their own personal reasons. Yes, you could say that one of the main causes why the South seceded was for slavery, but their objective was to gain independence. The soldier's fight was something completely different, it was for whatever he may be fighting for, which were usually his home and family, his state, his land, the North or the South.
AUG351,

I think another point is being missed.

No matter what the individual reasons soldiers fought for, those reasons were ALWAYS subordinate to the aims and goals of the government that employed them.

The main reason for secession was slavery and the protection of slavery. Can't be denied, hidden, ignored or minimized. You say that the soldier's fight was something completely different. It doesn't matter if he fought for what he thought was important just to him alone, as he was (and still is) part of a machine that is meant to carry out the goals and objectives of his government. He is employeed as a tool, never asked if he agrees with tactics, strategy, etc. He is marched to a particular spot, formed in ranks for the battle, and then ordered into that battle.

When I enlisted in 1971, I was of the opinion that our nation should not have been involved in Vietnam. Not once were me and my fellow soldiers ever asked our opinion on Vietnam. We were not asked to vote if we wanted to participate in fighting there or be assigned somewhere else more to our liking. In my entire 20 years of service, I was never officially asked my views on being deployed to the various places I had to serve or what I thought about the conflicts my nation was engaged in. I, like any Confederate soldier, had no choice, unless we decided to desert or stop enlisting in the army.

I can understand the comfort taken by the idea that one's ancestor did not personally fight for something we find distasteful or wrong today in this century. If you or others are of the opinion your ancestor did not personally believe in slavery and did not own slaves, I see no problem with that.

But his personal views or his lack of slave property did not prevent the fact that he and every other Confederate soldier fought, at the direction of his government, to preserve and defend that institution. He could not do otherwise when serving as a soldier for that government.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
34,787
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#99
Even if the Confederate states were somehow in agreement on emancipation, and even if Kenner who arrived and consulted through March somehow got back, there was no time left to enact it even if the Europeans had supported the initiative.

Communication with the TM was already incredibly slow. It would have taken months just to get the first convention together and then get ratification of enough states even if there was agreement on what to do and how to do it.

The CSA was in such disarray that I'm not even sure where each of the state legislatures were meeting at the time.
Looking at the online evidence, there is no evidence it actually happened outside of Kenner family tradition.

for example from #81 above.


according to Dr. Gaillard Hunt, chief of the
Division of Manuscripts of the Library of Congress, "there was or is confirmation
of it in the papers of Gen'l Brent, of Baltimore."
General Brent of Baltimore married Kenner's daughter.

JOSEPH L. BRENT PAPERS

Born in Maryland, Joseph Lancaster Brent studied law at Georgetown College, practiced in the Attakapas region of Louisiana, and then moved to Los Angeles, California in 1850, where he served two terms in the state legislature. In 1861 he joined the Confederate Army as a major, serving under Gen. John Magruder in the Peninsula, Wilderness and Richmond campaigns. He then served in Louisiana under Gen. Richard Taylor, attaining the rank of chief of artillery and ordnance.



In 1864 he was promoted to brigadier general of the cavalry and participated in the fighting in western Louisiana. After the war, he practiced law in Baltimore until his marriage to Rosella Kenner, the daughter of the prominent Louisiana planter and politician Duncan Farrar Kenner, in 1870.

He returned to Louisiana to administer her father's plantations (Hermitage, Houmas, Ashland, Oakland, Roseland, Fashion, Bowdon, and Tensas) until Kenner's death in 1887. He returned to Baltimore, where he practiced law and participated in state government. Joseph and Rosella Kenner Brent had a daughter, Nanine Brent, and a son, Duncan Kenner Brent.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
28,203
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
"The area of slavery must be extended correlative with its antagonism, or it will be put speedily in the 'course of ultimate extinction.'....The extension of slavery is the vital point of the whole controversy between the North and the South...Amendments to the federal constitution are urged by some as a panacea for all the ills that beset us. That instrument is amply sufficient as it now stands, for the protection of Southern rights, if it was only enforced. The South wants practical evidence of good faith from the North, not mere paper agreements and compromises. They believe slavery a sin, we do not, and there lies the trouble." -- Henry M. Rector, Gov. of Arkansas, March 2, 1861, from the Arkansas Secession Convention, page 4.
 



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top