Historical Ignorance and Confederate Generals

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
They had the alternative of joining the army. Some of them chose the army, my present SCV camp has a Lumbee member, my past camp had two. I know that is not many but it does indicate that a number of Lumbees chose the army over working on the Fort Fisher.

Nor was the holier than thou USA in the 19th century.
The Indians were never a monolithic group during the ACW that I agree.
Leftyhunter
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
This appears to be one of those highly unusual cases in the history of legislation that a detailed, 27 section statute (eancted by the NM Territory in 1859) has been drafted and enacted to address something that didn't and couldn't ever exist, with such provisions as:

Section 5: " Any person who shall hire, entice, persuade, or in any manner induce any slave to absent himself from the service or custody of his owner or master or who shall, upon any pretense, harbor or maintain any slave so absenting himself from such service or custody, shall, upon conviction thereof, suffer fine and imprisonment as prescribed in section four of this act, and shall besides be liable to the owner or master in a civil suit for damages";

or Section 7: "Any person who shall sell, lend, hire, give, or in any manner furnish to any slave any sword, dirk, bowie-knife, gun, pistol or other fire arms, or any other kind of deadly weapon of offence, or any ammunition of any kind suitable for fire arms, shall, upon conviction, suffer the penalties prescribed in section six of this act: Provided, that nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to prohibit the owner or master of any slave from temporarily arming such slave with such weapon and ammunition for the purpose of the lawful defense of himself, his family or property";

or Section 9: "Any free person who shall play with any slave at any game of cards, or other game of skill, chance, hazard or address, either with or without betting there[ ] shall be held guilty of a misdemeanor, and be fined in a sum not exceeding one hundred dollars, or imprisoned not exceeding three months, or both, at the discretion of the court.";

or Section 16: "If any person shall fail to maintain or properly provide food, lodging and raiment for any slave of which he is the owner, any judge of the district court, probate judge, or justice of the peace, may, and upon sworn information made before him shall cause such person by his warrant to be brought before him, and upon investigation and proof of such facts in a summary manner without appeal, such judge or justice may require such person to enter into bond with sufficient surety payable to the Territory in such sum as he shall require, and conditioned for the support and maintenance of such slave in the future, which bond may at any time thereafter be put in suit upon the affidavit of any person that the same has become forfeited."

Only a sampling. I guess this is equivalent to California enacting a law that details rights and liabilities with respect to the owner of a live Tyrannosaurus Rex. Such needless concerns and a waste of legislative energy.
The main purpose of the law was to "induce slave holders to immigrate to the territory....The number of slave owners was quite small, most of them military officers who came from the South and people with slaves passing through" (Politica, p.349). In other words - not permanent residents.
 

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Location
Georgia
The Act was to induce slave owners to immigrate to the territory. If there were any slaves the number was so small that the census made no notice of them as none were recorded in 1860.
There were never more than a handful of slaves in the entire NM Territory before the Civil War. The southern states realized that the western territories would eventually become free states which would upset the balance between slave & free states in Congress. The south knew they were losing their political power on the national level. This was one of the reasons they decided to secede.
 

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Location
Austin Texas
Also very few slaves in Mississippi territory prior to 1817, Arkansas Territory prior to 1836. Etc. The number of slaves in Texas tripled between 1850-1860. Westward expansion was big business to the slave power. The big Slaveowners on the east coast had profited for decades selling slaves to western customers.

NM was next. Legislation was in place. Sibley’s plan to enslave the native population, similar to Pollards plan to enslave the Chinese in CA, was just a start up. Like Apple Inc in a garage in the 1970s.
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Last edited:

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Location
Austin Texas
Sibley was a bit late. Enslavement of the native population had been going on for near 200 years.

"Special Indian Agent J.K. Graves visited [New Mexico] in June 1866, he found that slavery was still widespread, and many of the federal agents had slaves. In his report, he estimated that there were 400 slaves in Santa Fe alone."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_New_Mexico


Didnt you just say “No slaves in NM” like a minute ago?
 

ndnboy

Private
Joined
Dec 13, 2013
"See Battle of Round Mountain. I.T. November 1861"

There was no massacre. Opothleyahola's pro-Union band of Creek and Seminole were driven into Kansas where many died of starvation and disease.
Women, children and old folks the same that were killed at Sand Creek including my 3x Uncle. Splitting hairs my confederate friend.
 
Joined
Apr 8, 2018
Location
PA
So let's induce slave owners to come to the territory even though the territory isn't conducive to having slaves. And let's secede because the North is opposing the extension of slavery into territories where our slaves won't do us any good. 2+2 = 9. The lengths some posters will go to in order to maintain the "slavery had nothing to do with the war" myth is astonishing.
The problem with running out the "slavery had nothing to do with the war" myth or not, is that there are very few people who actually propose it today. There is of course the Southern Lost Cause myth that emphasizes states rights instead of slavery, but even these omit the idea that "slavery had nothing to do with the war".
On the other hand, there is a Northern myth that rarely comes under such close scrutiny -- that the Civil War was all about freeing the slaves. The Glorious Cause of Freedom or as Lincoln said, " a new birth of freedom". It clearly was not and this is equally false. The proximate cause of the war was the secession of the Confederate states. Ending slavery was never a war aim of the Federal Government. Even the Emancipation Proclamation was used as a war measure to weaken the South because to do more would have damaged the Federal war machine.
Today some of the pillars of the “Old Southern Culture” can make readers cringe: aristocracy, bigotry, secession, confederacy, and, of course, slavery. Importantly, uncomfortable antebellum characteristics were not confined to the South. The North, the Midwest, the Far West, and the Border States all evidenced their own unique characters in this period — many of them no longer acceptable to modern society and opinion: greed, exploitation, nativism, religious intolerance, and perhaps the worst — a lack of restraint. Most Northerners were racists, and they treated even black freeman with brutality when they did not ignore them. They did not want them in their communities except as servants, drudges, and laborers. By these standards many of the heroes of the last century were not very nice people.
Although the questions of slavery or abolition stood out at the time, Southern nationalism was fueled not only by the endorsement of continued slavery, but also by a growing contrast between a conservative Southern culture rooted in agriculture and a progressive Northern industrial society increasingly in favor of popular suffrage, a changing role for women, widening democracy, and social reform. While there remained a strong belief in American individualism, personal strength of character, and the ability of a man to overcome the handicaps of his environment, such concepts were identified more and more with Southern resistance to social reform. A tone of condescension and disdain even entered the rhetoric of the Northern reform movements. Failing to acknowledge any good in Southern society because it was tied to slavery, Northern reformers made no attempt to hide their universal disapproval of all things Southern.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
The problem with running out the "slavery had nothing to do with the war" myth or not, is that there are very few people who actually propose it today. There is of course the Southern Lost Cause myth that emphasizes states rights instead of slavery, but even these omit the idea that "slavery had nothing to do with the war".
On the other hand, there is a Northern myth that rarely comes under such close scrutiny -- that the Civil War was all about freeing the slaves. The Glorious Cause of Freedom or as Lincoln said, " a new birth of freedom". It clearly was not and this is equally false. The proximate cause of the war was the secession of the Confederate states. Ending slavery was never a war aim of the Federal Government. Even the Emancipation Proclamation was used as a war measure to weaken the South because to do more would have damaged the Federal war machine.
Today some of the pillars of the “Old Southern Culture” can make readers cringe: aristocracy, bigotry, secession, confederacy, and, of course, slavery. Importantly, uncomfortable antebellum characteristics were not confined to the South. The North, the Midwest, the Far West, and the Border States all evidenced their own unique characters in this period — many of them no longer acceptable to modern society and opinion: greed, exploitation, nativism, religious intolerance, and perhaps the worst — a lack of restraint. Most Northerners were racists, and they treated even black freeman with brutality when they did not ignore them. They did not want them in their communities except as servants, drudges, and laborers. By these standards many of the heroes of the last century were not very nice people.
Although the questions of slavery or abolition stood out at the time, Southern nationalism was fueled not only by the endorsement of continued slavery, but also by a growing contrast between a conservative Southern culture rooted in agriculture and a progressive Northern industrial society increasingly in favor of popular suffrage, a changing role for women, widening democracy, and social reform. While there remained a strong belief in American individualism, personal strength of character, and the ability of a man to overcome the handicaps of his environment, such concepts were identified more and more with Southern resistance to social reform. A tone of condescension and disdain even entered the rhetoric of the Northern reform movements. Failing to acknowledge any good in Southern society because it was tied to slavery, Northern reformers made no attempt to hide their universal disapproval of all things Southern.
Yet Southern state after the ACW offered incentives for Yankees to build factories in their states go figure.
Leftyhunter
 

Belfoured

Sergeant Major
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
The problem with running out the "slavery had nothing to do with the war" myth or not, is that there are very few people who actually propose it today. There is of course the Southern Lost Cause myth that emphasizes states rights instead of slavery, but even these omit the idea that "slavery had nothing to do with the war".
On the other hand, there is a Northern myth that rarely comes under such close scrutiny -- that the Civil War was all about freeing the slaves. The Glorious Cause of Freedom or as Lincoln said, " a new birth of freedom". It clearly was not and this is equally false. The proximate cause of the war was the secession of the Confederate states. Ending slavery was never a war aim of the Federal Government. Even the Emancipation Proclamation was used as a war measure to weaken the South because to do more would have damaged the Federal war machine.
Today some of the pillars of the “Old Southern Culture” can make readers cringe: aristocracy, bigotry, secession, confederacy, and, of course, slavery. Importantly, uncomfortable antebellum characteristics were not confined to the South. The North, the Midwest, the Far West, and the Border States all evidenced their own unique characters in this period — many of them no longer acceptable to modern society and opinion: greed, exploitation, nativism, religious intolerance, and perhaps the worst — a lack of restraint. Most Northerners were racists, and they treated even black freeman with brutality when they did not ignore them. They did not want them in their communities except as servants, drudges, and laborers. By these standards many of the heroes of the last century were not very nice people.
Although the questions of slavery or abolition stood out at the time, Southern nationalism was fueled not only by the endorsement of continued slavery, but also by a growing contrast between a conservative Southern culture rooted in agriculture and a progressive Northern industrial society increasingly in favor of popular suffrage, a changing role for women, widening democracy, and social reform. While there remained a strong belief in American individualism, personal strength of character, and the ability of a man to overcome the handicaps of his environment, such concepts were identified more and more with Southern resistance to social reform. A tone of condescension and disdain even entered the rhetoric of the Northern reform movements. Failing to acknowledge any good in Southern society because it was tied to slavery, Northern reformers made no attempt to hide their universal disapproval of all things Southern.
Fair points but as to this one - "There is of course the Southern Lost Cause myth that emphasizes states rights instead of slavery, but even these omit the idea that "slavery had nothing to do with the war" - you vastly underestimate those who refuse to acknowledge that secession (which, as you put it, was the "proximate cause" of the war) was itself driven far more by the perceived threat to slavery than it was by "state's rights" or the Morill Tariff", even though any objective analysis of the secession commissioners' correspondence and speeches proves the case. You see it all the time in these forums. Note also that I said "perceived" because the North did not actually go to war on any freedom mission - it went to war because Sumter was fired on. I respectfully suggest, however, that you are incorrect if you assert that by 1863-64 the North's war aims hadn't changed to include emancipation. It did not start out with emancipation in mind but it ended up there.
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
On the other hand, there is a Northern myth that rarely comes under such close scrutiny -- that the Civil War was all about freeing the slaves. The Glorious Cause of Freedom or as Lincoln said, " a new birth of freedom". It clearly was not and this is equally false.

Today some of the pillars of the “Old Southern Culture” can make readers cringe: aristocracy, bigotry, secession, confederacy, and, of course, slavery. Importantly, uncomfortable antebellum characteristics were not confined to the South. The North, the Midwest, the Far West, and the Border States all evidenced their own unique characters in this period — many of them no longer acceptable to modern society and opinion: greed, exploitation, nativism, religious intolerance, and perhaps the worst — a lack of restraint. Most Northerners were racists, and they treated even black freeman with brutality when they did not ignore them. They did not want them in their communities except as servants, drudges, and laborers. By these standards many of the heroes of the last century were not very nice people.
Regarding the first paragraph, can you provide any authors that push this myth? I've never heard anyone here claim the Union effort was "all about freeing the slaves."

The second quoted paragraph is 'whataboutism.' No one argues that racism didn't exist to some extent throughout the country, but there is a difference between being racist and being pro-slavery. And an even bigger difference with being so extreme pro-slavery as to fight a rebellion for slavery.

I'm curious what you mean by the "worst - a lack of restraint." What does this refer to?
 
Top