Thaddeus Stevens

[Rebforever]

The protection of slavery was worthy and right?

And you might want to read about the history of the US from 1865-1930 or so. Because the government that we have today is far more related to what transpired in the 1930s-40s than what happened from 1861-1865.

R

See, it happens. One person makes a statement when he was told to be truthful as you see it and now look what happens. He is objected to by someone that disagrees with him. So there might as well be a shutdown here because it is going to get worse. Especially those that say speak your piece. I think in this thread it appears to be just for Yankees and northern hotshots! IMO.

 

[rpkennedy]

See, it happens. One person makes a statement when he was told to be truthful as you see it and now look what happens. He is objected to by someone that disagrees with him. So there might as well be a shutdown here because it is going to get worse. Especially those that say speak your piece. I think in this thread it appears to be just for Yankees and northern hotshots! IMO.

I have no problem with someone speaking their piece but when it has little basis in reality, I'm going to say something. To espouse the idea that slavery was not the cause of Southern secession is just absurd. Heck, the Southerners at the time knew and said exactly why they were seceding, so why should we allow the myth that it was about "states' rights" or "independence from a tyrannical government" to stand?

R

 

[Rebforever]

I have no problem with someone speaking their piece but when it has little basis in reality, I'm going to say something. To espouse the idea that slavery was not the cause of Southern secession is just absurd. Heck, the Southerners at the time knew and said exactly why they were seceding, so why should we allow the myth that it was about "states' rights" or "independence from a tyrannical government" to stand?

R

You will find states rights in their conclusions. Maybe too many people lean on that a little to heavy but one cannot deny that what so ever.

 

[rpkennedy]

You will find states rights in their conclusions. Maybe too many people lean on that a little to heavy but one cannot deny that what so ever.

Where was this concern for states' rights when the South wanted to expand slavery across the entire nation, even over other states' objections? The South was only interested in states' rights so far as it was concerned with slavery.

R

 

[unionblue]

Thaddeus Stevens Speech of December 18, 1865.

The President assumes, what no one doubts, that the late rebel States have lost their constitutional relations to the Union, and are incapable of representation in Congress, except by permission of the Government. It matters but little, with this admission, whether you call them States out of the Union, and now conquered territories, or assert that because the Constitution forbids them to do what they did do, that they are therefore only dead as to all national and political action, and will remain so until the Government shall breathe into them the breath of life anew and permit them to occupy their former position.

In other words, that they are not out of the Union, but are only dead carcasses lying within the Union.

In either case, it is very plain that it requires the action of Congress to enable them to form a State government and send representatives to Congress. Nobody, I believe, pretends that with their old constitutions and frames of government they can be permitted to claim their old rights under the Constitution. They have torn their constitutional States into atoms, and built on their foundations fabrics of a totally different character. Dead men cannot raise themselves. Dead States cannot restore their existence "as it was." Whose especial duty is it to do it? In whom does the Constitution place the power? Not in the judicial branch of Government, for it only adjudicates and does not prescribe laws. Not in the Executive, for he only executes and cannot make laws. Not in the Commander-in-Chief of the armies, for he can only hold them under military rule untile the sovereign legislative power of the conqueror shall give them law. Unless the law of nations is a dead letter, the late war between two acknowledged belligerents severed their original compacts and broke all the ties that bound them together. The future condition of the conquered powe depends on the will of the conqueror. They must come in as new states or remain as conquered provinces. Congress...is the only power that cfan act in the matter.

Congress alone can do it....Congress must create States and declare when they are entitled to be represented. Then each House must judge whether the members presenting themselves from a recognized State possess the requisite qualifications of age, residence, and citizenship; and whether the election and returns are according to law. ...

It is obvious from all this that the first duty of Congress is to pass a law declaring the condition of these outside or defunct States, and providing proper civil governments for them. Since the conquest they have been governed by martial law. Military rule is necessarily despotic, and ought not to exist longer than is absolutely necessary. As there are no symptoms that the people of these provinces will be prepared to participate in constitutional government for some years, I know of no arrangement so proper for them as territorial governments. There they can learn the principles of freedom and eat the fruit of foul rebellion. Under such governments, while electing members to the territorial Legislatures, they will necessarily mingle with those to whom Congress shall extend the right of suffrage. In Territories Congress fixes the qualifications of electors; and I know of no better place nor better occasion for the conquered rebels and the conqueror to practice justice to all men, and accustom themselves to make and obety equal laws..

They ought never to be recognized as capable of acting in the Union, or of being counted as valid States, until the Constitution shall have been so amended as to make it what its framers intended; and so as to secure perpetual ascendency to the party of the Union; and so as to render our republican Government firm and stable forever. The first of those amendments is to change the basis of representation among the States from Federal numbers to actual voters....With the basis unchanged the 83 Southern members, with the Democrats that will in the best times be elected from the North, will always give a majority in Congress and in the Electoral college....I need not depict the ruin that would follow...

But this is not all that we ought to do before inveterate rebels are invited to participate in our legislation. We have turned, or are about to turn, loose four million slaves without a hut to shelter them or a cent in their pockets. The infernal laws of slavery have prevented them from acquiring an education, understanding the common laws of contract, or the managing the ordinary business of life. This Congress is bound to provide for them until they can take care of themselves. If we do not furnish them with homesteads, and hedge them around with protective laws; if we leave them to the legislation of their late masters, we had better have left them in bondage.

If we fail in this great duty now, when we have the power, we shall deserve and receive the execration of history and of all future ages."

Unionblue

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

Those last 2 paragraphs just give you chills, they're SOOO on point, you can just hear the various rowdies on both sides erupting after that. In my opinion we did fail badly in what Stevens saw as our moral imperative towards these folks who had been swiped out of their shoes and put to other people's work far from their own homes. It created a class of poverty stricken Americans for whom it took many more awful decades to sweat their way to a real foothold here.

I don't see where one has to be pro or anti anything at all to just label Thaddeus Stevens a plain old humanitarian who could see handwriting on the wall, so used his position to beat others over the head with it. I'm not sure where the contention lies 150 years later. He was just a man who was really angry at the unfinished business our Founding Fathers had sloughed off for another generation to deal with and I think could not quite believe we even had to HAVE the rest of it, so inhuman were the stakes- actual people in bondage. Don't anyone tell me all about how times were different, African Americans were considered society-wide as just not as 'good' as white people, this was normal. I'm not so sure. Thaddeus Stevens did not think so, voiced his truth with conviction ( if vitriol, but that crowd would make anybody cranky ) frequently and the thing is would not have been where he was if quite a number of folks did not feel the same way. I think a lot of it was simply a matter of not wishing to look at the truth since gosh, how much more convienient and profitable not to do so.

These threads tend to get twisted and torqued out of all recognition, when I just don't see where the contention lies. Why anyone would still be in seats in Congress 150 years later trying to shout down a man who is working to free folks with chains around their necks, makes no sense.

 

[unionblue]

Thaddeus Stevens, Speech in favor of black suffrage, House of Representatives, January 3, 1867. Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 2nd sess., Jan. 3, 1867, pp. 251-252:

"Unless the rebel States, before admission, should be made republican in spirit, and placed, under the guardianship of loyal men, all our blood and treasure will have been spent in vain. I waive now the question of punishment which, if we are wise, will still be inflicted by moderate confiscations....Impartial suffrage, both in electing the delegates and ratifying their proceedings, is now the fixed rule. There is more reason why colored voters should be admitted in the rebel States than in the Territories. In the States they form the great mass of loyal men. Possibly with their aid loyal governments may be established in most of those States. Without it all are sure to be ruled by traitors; and loyal men, black and white, will be oppressed, exiled, or murdered. There are several good reasons for the passage of this bill [Military Reconstruction Act]. In the first place, it is just. I am now confining my argument to negro suffrage in the rebel States. Have not loyal blacks quite as good a right to choose rulers and make laws as rebel whites? In the second place, it is a necessity in order to protect the loyal white men in the seceded States. The white Union men are in a great minority in each of those States. With them the blacks would act in a body; and it is believed that in each of said States, except one, the two united would form a majority, control the States, and protect themselves. Now they are the victims of daily murder....

Another good reason is, it would insure the ascendancy of the Union party...I believe...that on the continued ascendancy of that party depends the safety of this great nation. If impartial suffrage is excluded in the rebel States then every one of them is sure to send a solid rebel rebel representative delegation to Congress, and cast a solid rebel electorial vote. They, with their kindred Copperheads of the North, would always elect the President and control Congress. While slavery sat upon her defiant throne, and insulted and intimidated the trembling North, the South frequently divided on questions of policy between Whigs and Democrats, and gave victory alternately to the sections. Now, you must divide them between lyalists, without regard to color, and disloylists, or you will be the perpetual vassals of the free-trade, irritated, revengeful South....I am for negro suffrage in every rebel State. If it be just, it should not be denied; if it be necessary, it should be adopted; if it be a punishment to traitors, they deserve it."

Unionblue

 

[unionblue]

More on Thaddeus Stevens:

US Slave Blog on Thaddeus Stevens.

http://usslave.blogspot.com/2011/08/thaddeus-stevens.html

September 6, 1865 speech by Stevens.

http://history.furman.edu/benson/hst41/red/stevens2.htm

Unionblue

 

[unionblue]

To All,

In my search for all things Thaddeus Stevens, I came across this letter:

Halifax Aourt House, Va.
February 22, 1866

My Dear Thad:

Since you will not let our so-called representative get into your Circus, please do the clean thing and be good enough to send me a few Public Documents. I will thank you for a volume of U.S. Statutes, or of the Congressional Globe, or even some of our own colored speeches.

Now, Thad, I know you are a rum old chap and a "good hater', after Dr. Johnson's own heart, but I had no hand in the burning of your foundry and you must do me this little favor. Let me ask you a civil question. Which feeling is strongest & uppermost in your Abrahamic bosom -- love of the negro, or hatred of the white man of the South? Tell me truly, do you care a farthing for the negro, but don't you hate the white men of the South till you can't rest?

I will bet you a clean shirt (and lend you one to "put up") that, after all your rhodomontade & hysterics over this dark subject, you never gave one dollar in charity to the poor negro; that Mr. Henry Wilson never gave ten cents, and that Mr. Charles Sumner never gave one cent, out of their sensitive pockets, for his benefit. Bet me, dear Thad, if you dare!

I think you can afford to let our so-called representative into the show; he is a preacher and a plain man, who could not do you any harm, if he were to try. We had to hunt a long time for a man who could swallow the nauseous test oath, & we found him in a "corner obscure and alone."

Send me the Pub. Docs., my dear Thad, for I shall be looking for them most anxiously. I am a brother of Hon. Paulus Powell of this state, who once sat in Congress with you, I expect, and am more of a gentleman than the great majority of Southern men, according to your refined notions of them. Send me the documents, Thad, & I'll pay you for them. What's the figure?

Thompson Powell

P.S. For Heaven's sake, my dear Thad, let the Southern States alone for a little while, till they can catch their breath & go to work. They are not worth pillaging & persecuting yet -- awhile.

T.P.


Unionblue

 

[unionblue]

More from the speeches and quotes of Thaddeus Stevens.

"John Brown deserves to be hung for being a hopeless fool," Stevens said. "He attempted to capture Virginia with seventeen men when he ought to know that it would require at least twenty-five."

-- From, Thaddesu Stevens, Nineteenth-Century Egalitarian, by Hans Trefousse, pg. 97.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"There is a wrong impression about one of the candidates. There is no such person running as James Buchanan. He is dead of lockjaw. Nothing remains but a platform and a bloated mass of political putridity."

-- Campaign speech in 1856. The Selected Papers of Thaddeus Stevens, Vol. 1, by Beverly Wilson Palmer and Holly Byers Ochoa.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I know it has been suggested that the President [Buchanan] intentionally left those forts in a defenseless condition, that South Carolina might seize them before his successor [Lincoln} had time to take means for their safety. I cannot believe it; I will not believe it, for it would make Mr. Buchanan a more odious traitor than Benedict Arnold. Every drop of blood that shall be shed in the conflict would sit heavy on his soul forever."

-- Speech in Congress, January 29, 1861, The Selected Papers of Thaddeus Stevens, Vol. 1, by Beverly Wilson Palmer and Holly Byers Ochoa, pg. 193.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In his continuing battles with Andrew Johnson, friends of the President went to Stevens and tried to convince him that Johnson was not such a bad fellow. They particularly pointed out that, like Stevens himself, Johnson was a self-made man. Stevens answered:

"I never thought of it that way, but it does relieve God Almighty of a heavy responsibility."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Gentlemen on this floor [Congress], and in the Senate, had repeatedly, during this discussion, asserted that slavery was a moral, political, and personal blessing; that the slave was free from care, contented, happy, fat, and sleek. Comparisons have been instituted between slaves and laboring freemen, much to the advantage of the condition of slavery. Instances are cited where the slave, after having tried freedom, had voluntarily returned to resume his yoke. Well, if this be so, let us give all a chance to enjoy this blessing. Let the slaves, who choose, go free; and the free, who choose, become slaves. If these gentlemen believe there is a word of truth in what they preach, the slaveholder need be under no apprehension that he will ever lack bondsmen. Their slaves would remain, and many freemen would seek admission into this happy condition. Let them be active in propagating their principles. We will not complain if they establish societies in the South for that purpose -- abolition societies to abolish freedom. Nor will we rob the mails to search for incendiary publications in favor of slavery, even if they contain seductive pictures, and cuts of those implements of happiness -- handcuffs, iron yokes and cat-o'-nine-tails."

-- Selected Papers of Thaddeus Stevens, Vol. 1, by Beverly Wislon Palmer and Holly Byers Ochoa, pg. 117.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When a politician in the Pennsylvania legislature betrayed a promise to support Stevens for Senator, Stevens protested acidly:

"You must be a b*a*s*t*a*r*d for I knew your mother's husband and he was a gentleman and honest man."

-- Thaddeus Stevens, Scourge of the South, by Fawn Brodie, pg. 26.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unionblue

 

[rpkennedy]

More from the speeches and quotes of Thaddeus Stevens.

"John Brown deserves to be hung for being a hopeless fool," Stevens said. "He attempted to capture Virginia with seventeen men when he ought to know that it would require at least twenty-five."

-- From, Thaddesu Stevens, Nineteenth-Century Egalitarian, by Hans Trefousse, pg. 97.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Ther is a wrong impression about one of the candidates. There is no such person running as James Buchanan. He is dead of lockjaw. Nothing remains but a platform and a bloated mass of political putridity."

-- Campaign speech in 1856. The Selected Papers of Thaddeus Stevens, Vol. 1, by Beverly Wilson Palmer and Holly Byers Ochoa.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I know it has been suggested that the President [Buchanan] intentionally left those forts in a defenseless condition, that South Carolina might seize them before his successor [Lincoln} had time to take means for their safety. I cannot believe it; I will not believe it, for it would make Mr. Buchanan a more odious traitor than Benedict Arnold. Every drop of blood that shall be shed in the conflict would sit heavy on his soul forever."

-- Speech in Congress, January 29, 1861, The Selected Papers of Thaddeus Stevens, Vol. 1, by Beverly Wilson Palmer and Holly Byers Ochoa, pg. 193.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In his continuing battles with Andrew Johnson, friends of the President went to Stevens and tried to convince him that Johnson was not such a bad fellow. They particularly pointed out that, like Stevens himself, Johnson was a self-made man. Stevens answered:

"I never thought of it that way, but it does relieve God Almighty of a heavy responsibility."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Gentlemen on this floor [Congress], and in the Senate, had repeatedly, during this discussion, asserted that slavery was a moral, political, and personal blessing; that the slave was free from care, contented, happy, fat, and sleek. Comparisons have been instituted between slaves and laboring freemen, much to the advantage of the condition of slavery. Instances are cited where the slave, after having tried freedom, had voluntarily returned to resume his yoke. Well, if this be so, let us give all a chance to enjoy this blessing. Let the slaves, who choose, go free; and the free, who choose, become slaves. If these gentlemen believe there is a word of truth in what they preach, the slaveholder need be under no apprehension that he will ever lack bondsmen. Their slaves would remain, and many freemen would seek admission into this happy condition. Let them be active in propagating their principles. We will not complain if they establish societies in the South for that purpose -- abolition societies to abolish freedom. Nor will we rob the mails to search for incendiary publications in favor of slavery, even if they contain seductive pictures, and cuts of those implements of happiness -- handcuffs, iron yokes and cat-o'-nine-tails."

-- Selected Papers of Thaddeus Stevens, Vol. 1, by Beverly Wislon Palmer and Holly Byers Ochoa, pg. 117.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When a politician in the Pennsylvania legislature betrayed a promise to support Stevens for Senator, Stevens protested acidly:

"You must be a b*a*s*t*a*r*d for I knew your mother's husband and he was a gentleman and honest man."

-- Thaddeus Stevens, Scourge of the South, by Fawn Brodie, pg. 26.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unionblue

Ornery old SOB, wasn't he? But dang if I didn't enjoy reading these.

R

 

[TobyVonKanobi]

I have no problem with someone speaking their piece but when it has little basis in reality, I'm going to say something. To espouse the idea that slavery was not the cause of Southern secession is just absurd. Heck, the Southerners at the time knew and said exactly why they were seceding, so why should we allow the myth that it was about "states' rights" or "independence from a tyrannical government" to stand?

R

Because the reason Confederates fought is different than the reasons the deep south states seceded.

1. The upper south states seceded because Lincoln gave them no choice but to secede or supply troops to invade the Cotton States. About half the whites in all the Confederacy were in those four states.

2. Lincoln initially claimed to wage war to preserve the Union...not to end slavery. But nearly everyone gives Lincoln the privilege of changing his mind. When Davis is quoted as saying in July 1864 "we are not fighting for slavery, we are fighting for independence" few people seem willing to give him the right to change his mind. A GREAT many more are not even aware that he said it...they falsely and perpetually claim that such comments came only after the War. Instead I constantly read comments that the secession documents of the cotton states *alone* define why the south fought. It is an obvious flaw, infinitely ignored.

3. As for Stevens, he quickly worked to secure a 49% tariff to protect northern manufactures from overseas competition as soon as Southerners left the U.S. Congress. Americans were left with shoddy, overpriced merchandise because of Stevens. As an owner of iron production companies he was personally a major beneficiary. Those tariffs stayed in place until Woodrow Wilson was elected President 50 years later. Others may want to glorify a politician who bends the government to benefit his personal finances, but I do not.

 

[rpkennedy]

Because the reason Confederates fought is different than the reasons the deep south states seceded.

1. The upper south states seceded because Lincoln gave them no choice but to secede or supply troops to invade the Cotton States. About half the whites in all the Confederacy were in those four states.

2. Lincoln initially claimed to wage war to preserve the Union...not to end slavery. But nearly everyone gives Lincoln the privilege of changing his mind. When Davis is quoted as saying in July 1864 "we are not fighting for slavery, we are fighting for independence" few people seem willing to give him the right to change his mind. A GREAT many more are not even aware that he said it...they falsely and perpetually claim that such comments came only after the War. Instead I constantly read comments that the secession documents of the cotton states *alone* define why the south fought. It is an obvious flaw, infinitely ignored.

3. As for Stevens, he quickly worked to secure a 49% tariff to protect northern manufactures from overseas competition as soon as Southerners left the U.S. Congress. Americans were left with shoddy, overpriced merchandise because of Stevens. As an owner of iron production companies he was personally a major beneficiary. Those tariffs stayed in place until Woodrow Wilson was elected President 50 years later. Others may want to glorify a politician who bends the government to benefit his personal finances, but I do not.

1. Odds are, Virginia was going to leave the Union one way or the other. In fact, they were contemplating forming their own confederacy of the border states but that idea didn't get very far as Fort Sumter was attacked. In the end, even the Upper South had slavery on its mind when it came to deciding secession. It's not a coincidence that the states with a slave population of more than 20% were the ones that seceded.

2. Lincoln was always fighting the war to preserve the Union. Ending slavery was a means to that end. Ironically, prior to secession there wasn't very much Lincoln could do in regards to slavery but the war gave him the power to end it if he could win the war. Davis might have said that the South was not fighting for slavery but if you asked the Confederate Congress, they would probably have a very different answer. If slavery wasn't so big a deal, why was Cleburne's proposal to arm slaves to fight so controversial? Protecting slavery was the reason why the Deep South seceded and the Upper South was deeply concerned with perpetuating the institution.

R

 

[CSA Expat]

...in case anyone missed it.

Oh no, I didnt miss it.

 

[CSA Expat]

Because the reason Confederates fought is different than the reasons the deep south states seceded.

1. The upper south states seceded because Lincoln gave them no choice but to secede or supply troops to invade the Cotton States. About half the whites in all the Confederacy were in those four states.

2. Lincoln initially claimed to wage war to preserve the Union...not to end slavery. But nearly everyone gives Lincoln the privilege of changing his mind. When Davis is quoted as saying in July 1864 "we are not fighting for slavery, we are fighting for independence" few people seem willing to give him the right to change his mind. A GREAT many more are not even aware that he said it...they falsely and perpetually claim that such comments came only after the War. Instead I constantly read comments that the secession documents of the cotton states *alone* define why the south fought. It is an obvious flaw, infinitely ignored.

3. As for Stevens, he quickly worked to secure a 49% tariff to protect northern manufactures from overseas competition as soon as Southerners left the U.S. Congress. Americans were left with shoddy, overpriced merchandise because of Stevens. As an owner of iron production companies he was personally a major beneficiary. Those tariffs stayed in place until Woodrow Wilson was elected President 50 years later. Others may want to glorify a politician who bends the government to benefit his personal finances, but I do not.

Bravo Sir!

 

[CSA Expat]

Who else in history has been for equality? Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot...

Equality before the dictator.

 

[TobyVonKanobi]

Why w

1. Odds are, Virginia was going to leave the Union one way or the other. In fact, they were contemplating forming their own confederacy of the border states but that idea didn't get very far as Fort Sumter was attacked. In the end, even the Upper South had slavery on its mind when it came to deciding secession. It's not a coincidence that the states with a slave population of more than 20% were the ones that seceded.

2. Lincoln was always fighting the war to preserve the Union. Ending slavery was a means to that end. Ironically, prior to secession there wasn't very much Lincoln could do in regards to slavery but the war gave him the power to end it if he could win the war. Davis might have said that the South was not fighting for slavery but if you asked the Confederate Congress, they would probably have a very different answer. If slavery wasn't so big a deal, why was Cleburne's proposal to arm slaves to fight so controversial? Protecting slavery was the reason why the Deep South seceded and the Upper South was deeply concerned with perpetuating the institution.

R

Lincoln originally said repeatedly that he too was interested in perpetuating slavery when he said he had no desire to restrict it where it already existed. Lincoln changed and Davis changed. Both faced controversy about their changes...except today most observers falsely only will "permit" Lincoln to change his mind.

 

[John Hartwell]

Who else in history has been for equality? Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot...

Stevens said he was for equality, and his life proved it.

Those others said they were for equality, and their lives proved they were lying.

Your comparison suggests that you think that only those who oppose equality are righteous. I'm quite that's not so.

jno

 

[rpkennedy]

Why w


Lincoln originally said repeatedly that he too was interested in perpetuating slavery when he said he had no desire to restrict it where it already existed. Lincoln changed and Davis changed. Both faced controversy about their changes...except today most observers falsely only will "permit" Lincoln to change his mind.

No, he said that he had no power to end slavery where it existed. On the other hand, he argued that the federal government had every right to limit slavery's expansion into the western territories, something that the slave states could not allow. This was for several reasons: on one level, with slavery's limitation, it was perceived to be doomed to extinction by the South. And on another level, the South could not abide slavery's limitation because they would lose even more political power than they were already losing. Their domination of the federal government had been broken over the course of the 1850s and they feared what would happen if they were dominated by an anti-slavery North and West.

I agree with you about Davis. He was willing to give up slavery in order to achieve independence but his view was very much a minority opinion in the Confederacy. To paraphrase one Southern officer, if they weren't fighting for slavery, what were they fighting for?

R

 

[rpkennedy]

You are aware that Stevens was for equality long before the 1860s, yes?

R