Thaddeus Stevens

[TobyVonKanobi]

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

All Stevens proved was that he was for adopting a 49% tariff in order to line his own pockets.

His phony advocacy for African-Americans merely reflected an attempt to insure that his political party would remain in power for decades thereby insuring economic policies favorable to his companies and to the detriment of the American consumer.

 

[TobyVonKanobi]

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

R

You are aware that Stevens was for high tariffs long before the Civil War, yes?

I am aware that Stevens advocated any policy that would put his party in power so that economic programs favorable to his companies would be more likely adopted by the government.

 

[TobyVonKanobi]

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

A quote by one officer means, exactly that.

A more significant fact is that half the Confederate generals did not own slaves.

Moreover, Davis's response in July 1864 was likely a sign of delayed -- but stunningly fast -- agreement with Cleburne whose memorandum was announced only six months earlier. In that context, Davis was adapting more quickly than Lincoln. Finally, the Confederate Congress ultimately did agree to permit African-Ameican soldiers and Davis required those admitted be accompanied with manumission papers.

 

[rpkennedy]

You are aware that Stevens was for high tariffs long before the Civil War, yes?

That hardly makes him unique. Heck, there were Southern politicians who were in favor of high tariffs, as long as it was their interest that was being protected.

R

 

[rpkennedy]

A quote by one officer means, exactly that.

A more significant fact is that half the Confederate generals did not own slaves.

Moreover, Davis's response in July 1864 was likely a sign of delayed -- but stunningly fast -- agreement with Cleburne whose memorandum was announced only six months earlier. In that context, Davis was adapting more quickly than Lincoln. Finally, the Confederate Congress ultimately did agree to permit African-Ameican soldiers and Davis required those admitted be accompanied with manumission papers.

How about Alexander Stephens saying that the basis of the Confederacy was slavery? Is that any more relevant?

Half of the generals didn't own slaves? Where did you get that number?

The Confederate Congress permitted the arming of manumitted slaves just in time to surrender. It was a last gasp of desperation, far too little and far too late.

R

 

[TobyVonKanobi]

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

If the prime interest of Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, and North Carolina was perpetuating slavery, by your reasoning they should have seceded when the cotton states did. But they did not secede until Lincoln forced them to choose between providing soldiers to invade the deep south or declining to invade.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Random mention of Thaddeus Stevens in my great great grandfathers diary. It was in June 1863 while he attached to the staff of Gen Joesph Knipe who was leading some PA militia from Harrisonburg toward Chambersburg:

Sunday 21st ... Met Thad Stevens on the road who reported the Rebs South of Chambersburg. The Genl. invited him to return to C. but Thad "guessed not".​

​

 

[TobyVonKanobi]

How about Alexander Stephens saying that the basis of the Confederacy was slavery? Is that any more relevant?

Half of the generals didn't own slaves? Where did you get that number?

The Confederate Congress permitted the arming of manumitted slaves just in time to surrender. It was a last gasp of desperation, far too little and far too late.

R

The Alexander Stephens quote is less relevant that Davis's, and it is commonly pulled out by those who falsely contend that Southerns only said the War was not about slavery after the War.

Your questioning me on the validity of the statistic that half the Confederate generals did not own slaves* is a PRIME example of the selective knowledge that is being taught about the Civil War. Anything that fails to conform to "Confederates are evil" just simply does not get taught. As a consequence ignorance and Yankee revisionism takes center stage. Once Yankee revisionist take control of the narrative the future is more predictable than the past.

* Jefferson Davis, Confederate President by Herman Hathaway and Richard Beringer, University Press of Kansas, 2002

 

[TobyVonKanobi]

That hardly makes him unique. Heck, there were Southern politicians who were in favor of high tariffs, as long as it was their interest that was being protected.

R

Few stood to gain as much as Stevens.

Moreover, the overwhelming sentiment in the South was in favor of free markets and open competition with better manufactured and lower priced merchandise from overseas. In short, the South favored FREE markets whereas many Yankees, with Stevens foremost among them, favored ENSLAVED markets...enslaved to a 49% tariff that served Stevens's selfish financial interests.

 

[TobyVonKanobi]

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

It is simply untrue that the only state's right that interested Southerners was slavery. Such assertions are 200 proof Yankee revisionisms. They choke the Internet.

For example, with minor exceptions, the Confederate Constitution prohibited the central government from spending money on internal improvements. They considered public works to be a state responsibility consistent with the doctrine of states rights.

 

[rpkennedy]

Few stood to gain as much as Stevens.

Moreover, the overwhelming sentiment in the South was in favor of free markets and open competition with better manufactured and lower priced merchandise from overseas. In short, the South favored FREE markets whereas many Yankees, with Stevens foremost among them, favored ENSLAVED markets...enslaved to a 49% tariff that served Stevens's selfish financial interests.

Sure, overwhelming sentiment...except in Louisiana where they were in favor of tariffs on sugar and related goods. You are painting with far too broad a brush as neither the North, the South, nor the West were as monolithic as you are making them out to be.

R

 

[rpkennedy]

It is simply untrue that the only state's right that interested Southerners was slavery. Such assertions are 200 proof Yankee revisionisms. They choke the Internet.

For example, with minor exceptions, the Confederate Constitution prohibited the central government from spending money on internal improvements. They considered public works to be a state responsibility consistent with the doctrine of states rights.

What other states' rights were the Southern states concerned about? They had no problem with a large, intruding federal government when it was acting in their interest or when they were guiding it. Yet as soon as the pendulum started swinging against them, they suddenly became concerned with states' rights. It was all about protecting their interests and, in the case of the South, it was their interest in slavery (a $4 billion institution).

R

 

[John Hartwell]

All Stevens proved was that he was for adopting a 49% tariff in order to line his own pockets.

His phony advocacy for African-Americans merely reflected an attempt to insure that his political party would remain in power for decades thereby insuring economic policies favorable to his companies and to the detriment of the American consumer.

Are you suggesting that we should only support policies that are against our best interest? That's why anyone either supported or opposed it -- it was a political and economic issue, not a moral one. Why do you think southern planters opposed it? Do you really suppose they were thinking of "the American consumer"?

Thaddeus Stevens was a virulent hater, and hate was no more admirable then than it is now -- and I condemn it in him without hesitation. But, if we entirely exclude from our consideration everyone who has been guilty of blind prejudice and a misplaced lust for vengeance, our list of heroes would be small indeed. During the ACW, and after, there have been haters aplenty -- there still are.

Every word, every action in Stevens' life, public and private, speak for his sincere dedication to the principle of racial equality -- and in that (perhaps you might prefer to say "in that alone"), he takes place among the very few truly noble figures of the age.

jno

 

[TobyVonKanobi]

Are you suggesting that we should only support policies that are against our best interest? That's why anyone either supported or opposed it -- it was a political and economic issue, not a moral one. Why do you think southern planters opposed it? Do you really suppose they were thinking of "the American consumer"?

Thaddeus Stevens was a virulent hater, and hate was no more admirable then than it is now -- and I condemn it in him without hesitation. But, if we entirely exclude from our consideration everyone who has been guilty of blind prejudice and a misplaced lust for vengeance, our list of heroes would be small indeed. During the ACW, and after, there have been haters aplenty -- there still are.

Every word, every action in Stevens' life, public and private, speak for his sincere dedication to the principle of racial equality -- and in that (perhaps you might prefer to say "in that alone"), he takes place among the very few truly noble figures of the age.

jno

This is precisely what is wrong with Yankee revisionism...economic issues are often moral issues.

The self-righteous presumption of moral superiority evidently leaves Yankee revisionism blind to the fact that immoral economic policies and self-serving politics are bad morals.

While Yankee revisionism may choose to glorify as one of the "few truly noble figures of the age" a politician who lined his own pockets via legislation harmful to consumers and was a wellspring of "virulent" hatred, I prefer to look for role models with simple morality.

 

[rpkennedy]

This is precisely what is wrong with Yankee revisionism...economic issues are often moral issues.

The self-righteous presumption of moral superiority evidently leaves Yankee revisionism blind to the fact immoral economic policies and self-serving politics are bad morals.

Exactly how is it that the economic issues were moral issues? No real student of that time period is saying that the Union went to war over some moral issues with slavery or any other institution. They fought to restore the Union. Having said that, it is clear that the South seceded in order to protect and expand the institution of slavery. Again, nothing moral about it.

Immoral economic policies? Now who's making a self-righteous judgment? Can you name a politician who is not self-serving? Southern politicians were just as guilty of being self-serving as Northern or Western politicians. In this case, they were looking out for their interest in slavery. The South made it absolutely clear why they seceded, why should we ignore their own ordinances of secession just because we might not be comfortable with what they say? The institution of slavery, as a social, political, and economic power in the South, was the driving force behind secession. No moral judgment, it's just the way it was.

R

 

[TobyVonKanobi]

Exactly how is it that the economic issues were moral issues? No real student of that time period is saying that the Union went to war over some moral issues with slavery or any other institution. They fought to restore the Union. Having said that, it is clear that the South seceded in order to protect and expand the institution of slavery. Again, nothing moral about it.

Immoral economic policies? Now who's making a self-righteous judgment? Can you name a politician who is not self-serving? Southern politicians were just as guilty of being self-serving as Northern or Western politicians. In this case, they were looking out for their interest in slavery. The South made it absolutely clear why they seceded, why should we ignore their own ordinances of secession just because we might not be comfortable with what they say? The institution of slavery, as a social, political, and economic power in the South, was the driving force behind secession. No moral judgment, it's just the way it was.

R

Child labor laws were economic issues and also moral issues. The inability of Yankee revisionism to recognize that discloses a shameful misplaced presumption of moral superiority and a blindness for any facts that fail to conform to that presumption.

Many contemporary Americans believe that economic rewards to Halliburton, presumably at the behest of former VP Cheney, is an example of an economic issue and self-serving politics that signified a moral failure.

As far as why the "South" seceded, you are ignoring my earlier response, which I will only repeat this second time. This is a clarifying example of Yankee revisionism making the future more predictable than the past. In short, Yankee revisionism simply disregards the facts and can be predicted to repeat its false assertions...infinitely into the future.

(1) The four states of the upper south seceded because they declined to provide soldiers to Lincoln for the invasion of the cotton states. By your reasoning they would have seceded earlier simultaneously with the cotton states if their prime interest was perpetuation of slavery. The four that came later had half the white population of the Confederacy.
(2) You permit Lincoln to change his mind about why he is fighting the war, but you don't permit that to Davis. You hold Davis to the secession documents of early 1861 for only seven of the 11 Confederate states despite the fact that he later declared the South was fighting for independence and not slavery.

It's just the way it was.

 

[major bill]

If it is true that the southern State seceded primarily for tariff reasons then they must have been certain that upon being elected Lincoln would raise tariffs. The main thing the Southern States dislike about Lincoln being elected was his desire to stop the spread of slavery in the territories. The South probably did secede for economic reasons, but the economic concerns were the loss of the economic benefits derived from owning slaves.

Major Bill

 

[John Hartwell]

Exactly how is it that the economic issues were moral issues? No real student of that time period is saying that the Union went to war over some moral issues with slavery or any other institution. They fought to restore the Union. Having said that, it is clear that the South seceded in order to protect and expand the institution of slavery. Again, nothing moral about it.

Immoral economic policies? Now who's making a self-righteous judgment? Can you name a politician who is not self-serving? Southern politicians were just as guilty of being self-serving as Northern or Western politicians. In this case, they were looking out for their interest in slavery. The South made it absolutely clear why they seceded, why should we ignore their own ordinances of secession just because we might not be comfortable with what they say? The institution of slavery, as a social, political, and economic power in the South, was the driving force behind secession. No moral judgment, it's just the way it was.

R

With your last sentence, I will agree fully. As the late Stephen Jay Gould observed, (speaking of anti-Semitism) "though I hold no shred of sympathy with active persecution, I cannot excoriate individuals who acquiesced passively in a standard societal judgment. Rail instead against the judgement, and try to understand what motivates men of decent will." Acceptance of slavery was "standard societal judgment" in antebellum America. We should not condemn those who 'passively acquiesce" in the 'peculiar institution' -- but should recognize, and credit those with the foresight and moral intuition to see slavery as an objective moral evil, regardless of its economic implications.

 

[ForeverFree]

All Stevens proved was that he was for adopting a 49% tariff in order to line his own pockets.

His phony advocacy for African-Americans merely reflected an attempt to insure that his political party would remain in power for decades thereby insuring economic policies favorable to his companies and to the detriment of the American consumer.

TVK,

Many of the people who were against equality for African Americans wanted to insure that they would remain in power for decades, and keep African Americans in a state of political, economic, and social degradation. Was that a good and righteous thing? I hope you will say no...

Yes, Stevens' party did profit from the advocacy of black suffrage. But this does not take away from the righteousness of providing equality in all spheres for all Americans. Meanwhile, southerners/Democrats could just as easily have gotten the support of African Americans, by also advocating equality for all Americans. They chose not to do so, and we all know why they made that decision.

Meanwhile, let's stipulate that Stevens was acting is support of his economic interests. Question: who wasn't doing so? When the state of Georgia seceded, it stated that Republicans abolitionists endangered "$3,000,000,000 of our property." It seems that economic interests drove a lot of people to radical action.

The thing is, you are pushing the idea that people are motivated solely by economic interests, and have no moral idea of right or wrong. This is an unfortunate and cynical view of human behavior. Stevens pushed black abolition and suffrage when these ideas were politically unpopular. And as noted in wiki,

He (Stevens) defended and supported Native Americans, Seventh-day Adventists, Mormons, Jews, Chinese immigrants, and women. Until the abolition of slavery became his primary political and personal focus, however, the defense of runaway or fugitive slaves gradually began to consume the greatest amount of his time. He was actively involved in the Underground Railroad, assisting runaway slaves in getting to Canada. An Underground Railroad site has been discovered under his office in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.​

​

Thaddeus Stevens died at midnight on August 11, 1868, in Washington, D.C., less than three months after the acquittal of Johnson by the Senate. Stevens' coffin lay in state inside the Capitol Rotunda, flanked by a Black honor guard (the Butler Zouaves from the District of Columbia). Twenty thousand people, one half of whom were African American, attended his funeral in Lancaster, PA. He chose to be buried in the Shreiner-Concord Cemetery, because it was the only cemetery that would accept people without regard to race.​

​

Stevens wrote the inscription on his headstone that reads: "I repose in this quiet and secluded spot, not from any natural preference for solitude, but finding other cemeteries limited as to race, by charter rules, I have chosen this that I might illustrate in my death the principles which I advocated through a long life, equality of man before his Creator."​

If everybody who was looking out for their own economic interests did even half as much as Stevens did for the enslaved, the powerless, and the oppressed, the world would be a much better place. The only phony people I see in the Stevens story are those who might have claimed they wanted a free and fair society, but did nothing to create such a society.

- Alan

 

[ForeverFree]

Child labor laws were economic issues and also moral issues. The inability of Yankee revisionism to recognize that discloses a shameful misplaced presumption of moral superiority and a blindness for any facts that fail to conform to that presumption.

What is the point of this? You make it seem like "Yankees" were the only ones "working" children - are you saying that, for example, slave children did not work in the fields of the South? Are you saying that farm children of any race did not work on Southern farms?

As I recall, a coalition of people from all sections of America worked together to regulate child labor, including many "Yankees." I say hats off to all of them for their progressive advocacy in behalf of the young.

- Alan