The Blairs

[archieclement]

I'm trying to understand the Blairs who seem somewhat an enigma to me, Both seem diehard Republicans bordering on Radical Republican's before the war. Lincoln appoints Montgomery Postmaster General and seems to have gave Francis a free hand in Missouri

However both were rampantly racist and not in line with abolitionism at all, Montgomery argues for Lincoln to not go through with the emancipation proclamation, and postwar Francis flips democrat to fight reconstruction even warning of the rule of "a semi-barbarous race of blacks who are worshipers of fetishes and poligamists" and wanted to "subject the white women to their unbridled lust"

Was there a major difference between parties other then slavery that would account for the Blairs being diehard Republicians before the war?

I have a hard time believing they could have just been against the expansion of slavery, because to me that has always seemed a nonsensical position. If slavery is legal, all citizens should have the same right to go to the territories with all their legal possessions,. To ban one without the other made little legal sense.......

 

[archieclement]

"The territories should be reserved for free white men or surrendered to the slaves and their masters," he often thundered. "Freed blacks hold a place in this country which cannot be maintained. Those who have fled to the North are most unwelcome visitors. The strong repugnance of the free white laborer to be yoked with the negro refugee, breeds an enmity between races, which must end in the expulsion of the latter." Frank Blair

Seems an odd alliance between abolishionists and people such as Blair......Blair was a democrat up to about 1858 apparently, then went whole hog for Lincoln, then reverted back to democrat and opposed reconstruction, Was VP candidate for Seymour who ran probably the most racist campaign ever against Grant, even their campaign song was The White Mans Banner.........

Would have expulsion been the same as colonization?

 

[archieclement]

interesting piece on Blair and his statue

https://journalofthecivilwarera.org...te-men-legacy-frank-blair-jr-statue-st-louis/

 

[leftyhunter]

interesting piece on Blair and his statue

https://journalofthecivilwarera.org...te-men-legacy-frank-blair-jr-statue-st-louis/

Interesting about Francis Blair. I didn't know he eas so racist. Just go's to show that people are not all black and ehite do to speak.
Former Confederate General Thomas Hindman supported black voting rights during Reconstruction and was killed by the KKK. Towards the end of his life former Confederate General and Grand Dragon of the KKK Forrest came out in favor of black voting rights. Former Confederate General Longstreet commanded black milita that was battling the racist Red Shirts in Louisiana.
Maybe the folks in Missouri might want to take the Blair statute down but it's their call.
Leftyhunter

 

[mofederal]

Blair to me always seemed to one of those people had to very distinct sides to him. The one side of him being a savior to Missouri, a Union General, and wartime politician. Then his flip side he was a racist and he even switched parties after the war to "remake himself." To whom I do not know, unless it was to appeal to the defeated southerners in the state, and city of St. Louis. Despite the heavy German presence in the city. There was also a heavy democratic element, the Irish and other groups there. Missouri was unusual as some of the states more prominent lawyers in the state paired ex-confederate with Union officers. George Vest and John F. Phillips were partners and others. The Democratic party gained much of it's power back in Missouri after the war. I think Blair was just another politician, who saw this coming, and switched sides.

 

[Borderruffian]

The Blairs were related to the Louisville Gratz family , Jo Shelby was related by his mothers marriage to a Gratz after the death of his biological father. Shelby and one of the Gratz brothers owned large holdings complete with slaves in Lafayette County. Gratz became a Union Officer and Shelby a CS Officer. Wanting emancipation had very little to do with fighting for the Union in maany cases, it was disunion that was the cause especially in the border states.IMHO Frankie Baby Blair flip flopped for power more than anything.

 

[archieclement]

The only flip flop for power would seem to be the one to republican. The Blairs grew up with silver spoons and owning slaves, the Gratz's owned many, they came from a powerful Democrat family. Blairs start out politically as pro slavery democrats.

Would seem to me if any of the moves were purely politics it was the pro poor white labor/anti free blacks/slave one to play to the german/irish immigrant population in StL.. Have to be careful their position is a confusing one...they apparently didn't want emancipation, Montgomery argues against it as a cabinet member, they just didn't want expansion of slavery, however they didn't want free blacks either, Francis calls free blacks unwanted, and postwar calls for expulsion from the country of them.........Apparently they just didn't want any blacks here in any form.

 

[Lusty Murfax]

"The territories should be reserved for free white men or surrendered to the slaves and their masters," he often thundered. "Freed blacks hold a place in this country which cannot be maintained. Those who have fled to the North are most unwelcome visitors. The strong repugnance of the free white laborer to be yoked with the negro refugee, breeds an enmity between races, which must end in the expulsion of the latter." Frank Blair

Seems an odd alliance between abolishionists and people such as Blair......Blair was a democrat up to about 1858 apparently, then went whole hog for Lincoln, then reverted back to democrat and opposed reconstruction, Was VP candidate for Seymour who ran probably the most racist campaign ever against Grant, even their campaign song was The White Mans Banner.........

Would have expulsion been the same as colonization?

Blair saw emancipation as a remedy to the unfair labor competition with white workers. He proposed shipping America's freed blacks to Central America to establish their own colony. The Blairs knew Lincoln personally and shared his view of slavery and his desire to see it eradicated. Blair used his personal connections to the newly installed Lincoln administration to arm with government arms his secretly organized St. Louis Germans, including the Wide Awake faction into a private 'Home Guard'. None of this was legal, it was not authorized by either the Federal or State governments and was only rubber stamped after mid-1861. Blair worked to circumvent and remove military officers he deemed favorable toward Missouri's State government and used his political connections to replace them with officers whose views were aligned with his own. Blair did these things before war came to Missouri.

 

[archieclement]

Yes, Lincoln certainly wasn't the only one who favored colonization.

Sometimes it seems oft overlooked that anti-slavery views back then had little to do with equality or civil rights as we view them today.

 

[Don Dixon]

A little more on the extended Blair family, and the convoluted interpersonal relationships existing at the time of the Civil War, as well as the convoluted personal views of slavery.

Acting Rear Admiral Samuel Phillips Lee was born at Sully plantation in Fairfax, Virginia, in 1812, and was a third cousin of Robert E. Lee. He remained loyal to the Union, famously observing when his loyalty to Virginia was questioned: "When I find the word Virginia in my commission I will join the Confederacy." Lee was married to Elizabeth Blair. Elizabeth's father, Francis Preston Blair was a politically prominent Maryland slave owner who had opposed the expansion of slavery into the territories and eventually found a home in the Republican Party. The day after Virginia seceded, Blair invited Colonel Robert E. Lee to his home on Pennsylvania Avenue. Lincoln had asked Blair to raise with Lee the question of his assuming command of the Federal Army. Elizabeth's brother was Montgomery Blair, who as an attorney had represented Dred Scott in Dred Scott v. Sandford and was Postmaster General in the Lincoln administration [1861-4]. In an example of the complex personal relationships existing during the Civil War, Elizabeth had been a close friend of Varina Davis. Lee retired from the U.S. Navy in 1873 as a rear admiral. Lee's and Francis Preston Blair's Washington residences across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House now comprise Blair-Lee House, the official guest house of the president of the United States. With his ten percent share of the prize money from the blockade runners captured during his command of the North Atlantic Blockading Squadron, Rear Admiral Lee had done very well indeed.

Regards,
Don Dixon

 

[Louisiana Jayhawker]

I see no contradiction here with the Blair Family of Missouri. They were mostly clear wide-eyed ****s within the Democratic Party in pre-War times. The Kansas Crisis caused many Northern Democrats of switch over to the Republican Party solely due to the ban of expansion of southern slavery into the western territories by that said Party. One should never undervalue the explosive nature of the western expansion of slavery issue that had been burning since the Mexican War. The Democratic Party left the issue but the Blairs remained left behind therefore they went over to the Republicans. One need not raise the issue of negro rights at the onset of the Civil War as it was not the overarching issue therefore abolitionists and the Blairs could be in same Party. Note the wisdom of Lincoln of making the major issue the expansion of slavery so that these types of voters (Blairs and others of the Border States) would be attracted to the Republicans. Unionist slaveholders were found acceptable. Toward the end of the War and Reconstruction whereupon negro rights did raise up to be a national issue, now the Blairs have the Republicans (Radicals and moderates mostly) abandon the Blairs dearest issues. With slavery expansion now a dead issue and the War over, the Blairs can safely and happily go back to their old Democratic Party. The Blairs were conservative/reactionary types and they never abandoned their core beliefs. Lincoln played them like a fiddle!

 

[archieclement]

I see no contradiction here with the Blair Family of Missouri. They were mostly clear wide-eyed ****s within the Democratic Party in pre-War times. The Kansas Crisis caused many Northern Democrats of switch over to the Republican Party solely due to the ban of expansion of southern slavery into the western territories by that said Party. One should never undervalue the explosive nature of the western expansion of slavery issue that had been burning since the Mexican War. The Democratic Party left the issue but the Blairs remained left behind therefore they went over to the Republicans. One need not raise the issue of negro rights at the onset of the Civil War as it was not the overarching issue therefore abolitionists and the Blairs could be in same Party. Note the wisdom of Lincoln of making the major issue the expansion of slavery so that these types of voters (Blairs and others of the Border States) would be attracted to the Republicans. Unionist slaveholders were found acceptable. Toward the end of the War and Reconstruction whereupon negro rights did raise up to be a national issue, now the Blairs have the Republicans (Radicals and moderates mostly) abandon the Blairs dearest issues. With slavery expansion now a dead issue and the War over, the Blairs can safely and happily go back to their old Democratic Party. The Blairs were conservative/reactionary types and they never abandoned their core beliefs. Lincoln played them like a fiddle!

Not sure how one would conclude Lincoln played them like a fiddle, when his interests and views largely matched theirs.

The 14th and 15th amendments the Blair's were opposed to, were not Lincoln's policies.

The main difference between Blair's and Lincoln was the Blair's were more abolishionist.

 

[uaskme]

"The territories should be reserved for free white men or surrendered to the slaves and their masters," he often thundered. "Freed blacks hold a place in this country which cannot be maintained. Those who have fled to the North are most unwelcome visitors. The strong repugnance of the free white laborer to be yoked with the negro refugee, breeds an enmity between races, which must end in the expulsion of the latter." Frank Blair

Seems an odd alliance between abolishionists and people such as Blair......Blair was a democrat up to about 1858 apparently, then went whole hog for Lincoln, then reverted back to democrat and opposed reconstruction, Was VP candidate for Seymour who ran probably the most racist campaign ever against Grant, even their campaign song was The White Mans Banner.........

Would have expulsion been the same as colonization?

Not Really. Abolitionist wanted Slavery to end. Thought it corrupted Whites. Gave political and economic advantage to the South. More concerned about the 3/5th rule that the Negro. Abolitionist like northern whites were rabid anti black.

Post Lincoln dying of lead poisoning. Republicans evolved into something else. Grants linkage with the business community. Corrupt Southern Republican Party and carpetbagging Governments, were rebuffed by many. 76 Radical Republicans were kicked out of Congress. Northern Republicans rejected their policies.

 

[Louisiana Jayhawker]

I am recommending an excellent work by Hans L. Trefousse THE RADICAL REPUBLICANS: LINCOLN'S VANGUARD FOR RACIAL JUSTICE.

Lincoln managed to keep together a coalition of conservatives, moderates, liberals, abolitionists, and radicals together within the Republican Party. The Blairs of Missouri were hardcore racists and they want the Negro fenced off in the South and they were very indifferent to negro slavery where it existed. Lincoln convinced the Blairs truthfully that Lincoln supported the ban on slavery in the western territories which was the main interest to the Blairs. Lincoln agreed to leave slavery alone where it existed to the Missouri Blairs and others like them from the Border States so that they may support the Republican Party. Lincoln played the said Blairs by the fact that Lincoln was quietly seeking the destruction of slavery in the long term. They were played because the Blairs did not support this. Further, there is the historical record of Lincoln's evolution of position, in regards, to Negro rights that changed within the War and this certainly was in severe conflict with the Blairs of Missouri. Therefore, there were sharp differences between Lincoln and the Blairs; but Lincoln managed them through the crucial period of the War. To state that the 14th​ and 15th​ amendments were not Lincoln policies is very strange thing to post and is not comprehendible to my mind. Equally strange is to declare the Blairs of Missouri were abolitionists, and also more of an abolitionists than Lincoln.

 

[archieclement]

Not sure why, as both Blair's and Lincoln opposed the expansion of slavery. Both also supported colonization and both had clearly repeatedly made known while opposed to slavery, they didn't equate blacks as equals. Both also favored a quick reconstruction with getting southern whites being restored power. Both certainly also made concessions to the reality of the times politically. I would find them far more similar and in agreement, then opposed in views. If anyone got "played like a fiddle" it would seem it was Lincoln to what became the Radical wing of his party.

Personally I would say they leaned more abolitionist as they were more outspoken on their attacks on slavery it's always seemed to me. Your also comparing multiple people to one, as the Blair family I would include Preston, Montgomery, and Frances, and the Gratz's could also be an extension.

It's rather bizarre to attribute amendments or acts that weren't even proposed to after Lincoln's death to Lincoln, that would seem rather incomprehensible.........

 

[Louisiana Jayhawker]

One should not paint all Abolitionists in one color and that differences did not exist. There were clearly at least two types maybe more. The above description type existed but there was another type that was highly advanced for that day and time. I have read accounts of the latter type of abolitionists moving a group of former slave families into northern state communities and settling them there to be new members of those communities. Therefore, it is not historically correct to claim all northern abolitionists were equally as racist as the northern democratic Party pro slavery racist types.

 

[archieclement]

One should not paint all Abolitionists in one color and that differences did not exist. There were clearly at least two types maybe more. The above description type existed but there was another type that was highly advanced for that day and time. I have read accounts of the latter type of abolitionists moving a group of former slave families into northern state communities and settling them there to be new members of those communities. Therefore, it is not historically correct to claim all northern abolitionists were equally as racist as the northern democratic Party pro slavery racist types.

No one has claimed so, I agree neither the Blairs or Lincoln would somehow be synonymous or equate with a Thaddeus Stevens

However both Lincoln and Blairs were Republican, the Blairs and Lincoln were founders of the republican party, so can hardly be dismissed as northern democrat pro slavery types.......you seem confused with Stephen Douglas or a John Bell...

Edit added---Its hard to a do a post war comparison as Lincoln doesn't survive to post war, but most his known statements and views pre-war and wartime would more closely align to Andrew Johnson then the radical republicans. As would have the Blairs as well, which why they leave the republican party postwar

 

[Louisiana Jayhawker]

The things you propose as things the Blairs and Lincoln agree on are seemingly deceptive to me. First one colonization: in that the Blairs supported gun point forced program and Lincoln would accept only a volunteer entry because he foolishly believed most former slaves wanted to go to Africa. Second one: in that Lincoln's position of "opposed slavery" including a much further advanced goals that the Blairs opposed. Third one: in that Lincoln's concept of "Negro equality" was quickly evolving to more acceptance of a stronger support of that equality which was unacceptable to the Blairs. Fourth one: in that Lincoln was shot dead before anyone would know his position on Reconstruction as it played out after the War. I suspect with the later outbreak of white southern domestic terrorism Lincoln's position would be same as the Radical Republicans and Grant. As I posted above the Blairs were inflexible and consistent and made no concession in their position of racist militant outlook. Lincoln could and did evolve in some areas but the Blairs did not have that ability. Finally, the Blairs can't be called abolitionists simply because they were only hostile to slaveholders expanding further West and the slaveholder unfair influence on the government. Those said amendments were passed in the spirit of an assassinated Lincoln and that provided the force to pass Congress and the states. That understanding is easily comprehended to me.

 

[archieclement]

The things you propose as things the Blairs and Lincoln agree on are seemingly deceptive to me. First one colonization: in that the Blairs supported gun point forced program and Lincoln would accept only a volunteer entry because he foolishly believed most former slaves wanted to go to Africa. Second one: in that Lincoln's position of "opposed slavery" including a much further advanced goals that the Blairs opposed. Third one: in that Lincoln's concept of "Negro equality" was quickly evolving to more acceptance of a stronger support of that equality which was unacceptable to the Blairs. Fourth one: in that Lincoln was shot dead before anyone would know his position on Reconstruction as it played out after the War. I suspect with the later outbreak of white southern domestic terrorism Lincoln's position would be same as the Radical Republicans and Grant. As I posted above the Blairs were inflexible and consistent and made no concession in their position of racist militant outlook. Lincoln could and did evolve in some areas but the Blairs did not have that ability. Finally, the Blairs can't be called abolitionists simply because they were only hostile to slaveholders expanding further West and the slaveholder unfair influence on the government. Those said amendments were passed in the spirit of an assassinated Lincoln and that provided the force to pass Congress and the states. That understanding is easily comprehended to me.

No the only thing that would be deceptive is you seemingly try to imply I said things I didn't. I say both favored things, because they both said so, often repeatedly, does it mean they agreed on everything, wouldn't think so.... but they were certainly more aligned then the radical view which was a complete 180.

If anything is deceptive it would be trying to rewrite Lincoln into a radical republician when he wasn't.

And punishing the south, complete sufferage, or that blacks were complete equals would hardly be "in the spirit of Lincoln" as he hadn't advocated any of those things.

 

[archieclement]

I don't assume any historical figures would have done political flip flops from policies they had stated and supported while they were alive, if they had somehow lived longer. Besides being purely speculation, it would seem rather disengenious to what they had said and advocated.