Thaddeus Stevens

[TobyVonKanobi]

So why are you trying so hard to direct attention away from slavery?

Because it is tunnel vision and it dominates the discourse to the exclusion of other legitimate points.

Why are you trying so hard to ignore and deny that there could be other reasons for the typical Confederate to fight?

 

[rpkennedy]

Because it is tunnel vision and it dominates the discourse to the exclusion of other legitimate points and by extrapolation falsely characterizes why the typical Southern fought.

Why are you trying so hard to ignore and deny that there could be other reasons for the typical Confederate to fight?

Why a soldier fights and why two sides go to war might not necessarily have anything to do with another. A Confederate soldier might go to war for adventure, the pay, peer pressure, etc. but that doesn't negate the fact that he was being put into the field for the goals of his government which were primarily motivated by the protection and expansion of slavery.

R

 

[TobyVonKanobi]

I seem to recall that some of the worst epithets that could be used against Northerners during the war were "Abolitionists" and "Black Republicans." That's highly suggestive. If the uproar was about tariffs, why bring the Abolitionists into it?

Because Stevens enriched himself by promoting egregious tariffs that were damaging to the interests of American consumers. He violated the trust of his congressional office to enrich himself.

 

[TobyVonKanobi]

Neither I nor anyone with a whit of knowledge or common sense denies this. It's not anything new or shocking. No one is defending it or ignoring it! It's all been hashed over on these forums in the past. You are a recent member, and I don't fault you for not knowing that. But, many of us have done a great deal of study on these topics -- we are not easily "shocked" by 150-year-old facts.

jno

If such facts are well known around these parts, then nobody should be surprised that an industrialist like Stevens put his own pecuniary interests ahead of those of the American people considering that his Caledonia Iron works was a major beneficiary of the economic policies he advocated.

Although it may not be "anything new" around here that Yankee merchants traded weapons and other contraband for cotton, I do think it is "shocking" and immoral. But I realize we all have different ethical standards.

 

[ForeverFree]

Because Stevens enriched himself by promoting egregious tariffs that were damaging to the interests of American consumers. He violated the trust of his congressional office to enrich himself.

As put, this is extremely misleading. Tariffs were popular in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and the Republican Platform stated that an adjustment to tariffs was necessary "to encourage the development of the industrial interests of the whole country" and to "secure to the workingman liberal wages."

It's fair to say that changes in tariff policy especially benefitted Stevens' home state, perhaps even Stevens himself. But you make it seem like his policy had nothing to do with what his constituents wanted, which is false. And of course, those constituents saw themselves as American consumers who had every right to have their interests promoted by their elected officials.

Your argument amounts to saying that Stevens should have ignored the will of his constituents because it happened that the policies his constituents wanted were also of benefit to him. Well, if that's the case, then you condemn as corrupt all slaveholders in Congress who advocated for policies that protected and expanded slavery to effect their own enrichment... right?

- Alan

 

[ole]

There is a story, perhaps apochryphal, that Stevens' Caledonia furnace was not making money. (Such furnaces were fast becoming obsolete.) He kept it open to provide continued employment for his workers. This act was definitely not an act of self-interest.

Now, I have no doubt that some of the legislation he proposed and supported included motivations of self-interest which, by the way, includes getting reelected. What has not been presented is specific proof that he was morally corrupt. Examples, please.

 

[ForeverFree]

Reading is fundamental.

rpkennedy asked me to provide examples of economic issues that are also moral issues. He was questioning whether economic issues can be moral issues. I cited child labor as one example.

The practice of replying to posts without actually reading them is "simply wrong (not to mention impolite)."

OK, you're right - I did not do a good job of reading rpkennedy's comments.

- Alan

 

[ole]

Forever Free, you stepped on my line. But you said it better.

 

[rpkennedy]

OK, you're right - I did not do a good job of reading rpkennedy's comments.

- Alan

It was poor wording on my part. I meant to refer specifically to the Civil War and asking what serious student of the war was making economic issues into moral issues. I apologize for the confusion.

R

 

[James B White]

See. Here is another example of the false accusation that "we are fighting for independence not slavery" was merely a post-war theme.

I've said several times in this thread that Davis said it in July 1864. Those who don't know about it would benefit by researching the circumstances under which it was said.

Please point out where I said in my post that "we are fighting for independence not slavery" was only a post-war theme.

Since I didn't make that claim, a single example from July 1864 does nothing to refute my post, which was speaking in general terms, not absolutes.

In fact, there's a common area where one can find examples of secessionists claiming they were fighting for independence, not slavery, during the war: in their pleas to England for support, and the echoes of those pleas by Englishmen. The parallel is actually pretty similar, because the Confederates realized that England, having already gone through its own successful abolitionist journey, would be resistent to supporting a country fighting primarily for slavery, so they were motivated to downplay the importance of slavery and emphasize independence.

Presently it is obvious that some respondents simply are not reading what I write.

It would seem you didn't read what I wrote, and therefore refuted a claim I didn't make.

For what it's worth, I consider my viewpoint not Yankee revisionism, but a return to Southern accuracy. I don't want the memories of the fire-eaters and slavery advocates to be abandoned by modern southern historians whose primary goal is to make the Old South look good in the modern world, rather than to remember it accurately.

 

[ForeverFree]

See. Here is another example of the false accusation that "we are fighting for independence not slavery" was merely a post-war theme.

I've said several times in this thread that Davis said it in July 1864. Those who don't know about it would benefit by researching the circumstances under which it was said.

Presently it is obvious that some respondents simply are not reading what I write. The practice is yet another example underscoring how Yankee revisionism makes the future more predictable than the past. Specifically, Yankee revisionism can be reliably predicted to repeat infinitely into the future the same false assertions when confronted with facts contrary to the dogma.

It is correct to say that a secessionist theme was "we are seeking independence to protect slavery."

For example: the following is from the document "A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union." The text provides for the reasoning for Mississippi's desire to dissolve the Union:

In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.​

​

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.​

​

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove...​

​

It (anti-slavery) has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood...​

​

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.​

The state of Mississippi makes it unequivocal: the goal of dissolution was to protect the institution of slavery. Jefferson Davis spoke about this in his farewell address to the Senate, in January 1861:

…if I had not believed there was justifiable cause; if I had thought that Mississippi was acting without sufficient provocation, or without an existing necessity, I should still… because of my allegiance to the State… have been bound by her action. I, however, may be permitted to say that I do think she has justifiable cause, and I approve of her act.​

​

I conferred with her people before that act was taken, counseled them then that if the state of things which they apprehended should exist when the convention met, they should take the action which they have now adopted…​

​

It has been a conviction of pressing necessity, it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has brought Mississippi to her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races.​

It seems that Davis and his home state are unequivocal that the reason they sought independence from the Union was to protect the institution of slavery. FYI, there is no mention of tariff policy.

Why would Davis say something different from the above, post-secession winter? That is an interesting question to discuss in a separate thread, I think.

- Alan

 

[TobyVonKanobi]

Please point out where I said in my post that "we are fighting for independence not slavery" was only a post-war theme.

Since I didn't make that claim, a single example from July 1864 does nothing to refute my post, which was speaking in general terms, not absolutes.

In fact, there's a common area where one can find examples of secessionists claiming they were fighting for independence, not slavery, during the war: in their pleas to England for support, and the echoes of those pleas by Englishmen. The parallel is actually pretty similar, because the Confederates realized that England, having already gone through its own successful abolitionist journey, would be resistent to supporting a country fighting primarily for slavery, so they were motivated to downplay the importance of slavery and emphasize independence.



It would seem you didn't read what I wrote, and therefore refuted a claim I didn't make.

For what it's worth, I consider my viewpoint not Yankee revisionism, but a return to Southern accuracy. I don't want the memories of the fire-eaters and slavery advocates to be abandoned by modern southern historians whose primary goal is to make the Old South look good in the modern world, rather than to remember it accurately.

What did you mean when you said "secessionists had to change their story if they wanted their cause to be palatable in the post-war and modern world?" Did you mean they had to change their story during the war or after the war? Why should the care about "palatability" after the war while it was being waged?...unless they planned on losing, which is a stretch requiring a bungee cord.

If, you are saying they wanted to soften their message, then Davis following Lincoln's pattern. The Confederate President was on track toward emancipation in some form as evidenced by the fact that African-American's were granted freedom for military service in March 1865. Only in retrospect is it certain the War was at the end at that time. Lincoln, for one, felt the War would go on much longer when he attended the Hampton Roads conference and that is why he was still willing to consider compensated emancipation.

 

[rpkennedy]

What did you mean when you said "secessionists had to change their story if they wanted their cause to be palatable in the post-war and modern world?" Did you mean they had to change their story during the war or after the war? Why should the care about "palatability" after the war while it was being waged?...unless they planned on losing, which is a stretch requiring a bungee cord.

If, you are saying they wanted to soften their message, then Davis following Lincoln's pattern. The Confederate President was on track toward emancipation in some form as evidenced by the fact that African-American's were granted freedom for military service in March 1865. Only in retrospect is it certain the War was at the end at that time. Lincoln, for one, felt the War would go on much longer when he attended the Hampton Roads conference and that is why he was still willing to consider compensated emancipation.

You've shown that one man changed his story during the war. As I asked before, if the South would have ended slavery in order to achieve independence, why was there just a virulent reaction against armed manumitted slaves to fight for the South? It didn't happen until the war was effectively over as a last gasp desperate act. Why didn't Davis push for this in 1864? Well, he did and the Confederate Congress didn't go for it. Davis was willing to trade slavery for independence, the rest of the Confederate ruling class was not.

R

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

What I said was: "I seem to recall that some of the worst epithets that could be used against Northerners during the war were "Abolitionists" and "Black Republicans." That's highly suggestive. If the uproar was about tariffs, why bring the Abolitionists into it?"

Because Stevens enriched himself by promoting egregious tariffs that were damaging to the interests of American consumers. He violated the trust of his congressional office to enrich himself.

Reading is fundamental. What did your response have to do with my question?

 

[John Hartwell]

Because it is tunnel vision and it dominates the discourse to the exclusion of other legitimate points.

Why are you trying so hard to ignore and deny that there could be other reasons for the typical Confederate to fight?

(Though I hate to raise my voice) Nobody, but NOBODY here is doing this!

This is getting ridiculous.

jno

 

[OpnCoronet]

I agree. It's an example of the victors getting to write the history. The northern victors convinced the former secessionists that slavery was not only legally unacceptable, but morally wrong, so secessionists had to change their story if they wanted their cause to be palatable in the post-war and modern world.

I agree, but I do quibble over that word(convinced), IMO, it is more accurate to substitute "The northern victors taught the former secessionists... because many, if not most, southerners did not accept that slavery was unacceptable nor that it was morally wrong, even after losing the wrar.(taught as in the learning process that it was necessary to take into account that it was considered both unacceptable and morally wrong, in the larger world, even if not, in the south)

 

[ole]

Nobody, but NOBODY here is doing this!

This is getting rediculous.

jno

Yes. It is getting ridiculous.

What we have here, is a failure to communicate. What we have here is quite typical of Rutherford history without regard to real, factual history. With a liberal amount of sectional feelings mixed in.

May I expect sources for the claims?

 

[John Hartwell]

One of Thadeus Stevens' most cogent observations:


"Gentlemen on this floor [the House], 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."

jno

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

One of Thadeus Stevens' most cogent observations:

jno

You totally got that wrong. It was REALLY:

""Gentlemen on this floor [the House], and in the Senate, had repeatedly, during this discussion, asserted that tariffs were a moral, political, and personal blessing; that the tariff was free from care, contented, happy, fat, and sleek. Comparisons have been instituted between tariffs and laboring freemen, much to the advantage of the condition of tariffs. Instances are cited where the tariff, 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 tariffs, who choose, go free; and the free, who choose, become tariffs. If these gentlemen believe there is a word of truth in what they preach, the tariff-payer need be under no apprehension that he will ever lack bondsmen. Their tariffs 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 tariffs, even if they contain seductive pictures, and cuts of those implements of happiness -- handcuffs, iron yokes and cat-o'-nine-tails.""

 

[John Hartwell]

You totally got that wrong. It was REALLY:

""Gentlemen on this floor [the House], and in the Senate, had repeatedly, during this discussion, asserted that tariffs were a moral, political, and personal blessing; that the tariff was free from care, contented, happy, fat, and sleek. Comparisons have been instituted between tariffs and laboring freemen, much to the advantage of the condition of tariffs. Instances are cited where the tariff, 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 tariffs, who choose, go free; and the free, who choose, become tariffs. If these gentlemen believe there is a word of truth in what they preach, the tariff-payer need be under no apprehension that he will ever lack bondsmen. Their tariffs 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 tariffs, even if they contain seductive pictures, and cuts of those implements of happiness -- handcuffs, iron yokes and cat-o'-nine-tails.""

You really need a few smiley-faces after that one -- some people might actually think you are serious.

Hilaritas!

jno