Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: SoCal Pubbie

There were certainly some in the South who felt slavery of great importance. The CSA was a democracy and not a monolith.

Of course there were plenty who did not believe that.

In any case, I think slave property will be lost eventually.” Jefferson Davis 1861

Beginning in late 1862, James Phelan, Joseph Bradford, and Reuben Davis wrote to Jefferson Davis to express concern that some opponents were claiming the war “was for the defense of the institution of slavery” (Cooper, Jefferson Davis, American, pp. 479-480, 765). They called those who were making this claim “demagogues.” Cooper notes that when two Northerners visited Jefferson Davis during the war, Davis insisted “the Confederates were not battling for slavery” and that “slavery had never been the key issue” (Jefferson Davis, American, p. 524).

Precious few textbooks mention the fact that by 1864 key Confederate leaders, including Jefferson Davis, were prepared to abolish slavery. As early as 1862 some Confederate leaders supported various forms of emancipation. In 1864 Jefferson Davis officially recommended that slaves who performed faithful service in non-combat positions in the Confederate army should be freed. Robert E. Lee and many other Confederate generals favored emancipating slaves who served in the Confederate army. In fact, Lee had long favored the abolition of slavery and had called the institution a “moral and political evil” years before the war (Recollections and Letters of Robert E. Lee, New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 2003, reprint, pp. 231-232). By late 1864, Davis was prepared to abolish slavery in order to gain European diplomatic recognition and thus save the Confederacy. Duncan Kenner, one of the biggest slaveholders in the South and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the Confederate House of Representatives, strongly supported this proposal. So did the Confederate Secretary of State, Judah Benjamin. Davis informed congressional leaders of his intentions, and then sent Kenner to Europe to make the proposal. Davis even made Kenner a minister plenipotentiary so as to ensure he could make the proposal to the British and French governments and that it would be taken seriously.

“I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination.” - President Jefferson Davis The Atlantic Monthly Volume 14, Number 83

“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess

“No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.” Jefferson Davis

Davis rejects peace with reunion
https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/

“There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages” Robert E. Lee

“Slavery as an institution, is a moral and political evil in any Country”. Robert E Lee in an 1856 letter to his daughter Mary

“I love the Union and the Constitution,’’ he said, ``but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it.” Jefferson Davis

“Those who advocated the right of secession alleged in their own justification that we had no regard for law and that the rights of property, life, and liberty would not be safe under the Constitution as administered by us. If we now verify their assertion we prove that they were in truth fighting for their liberty, and instead of branding their leaders as traitors against a righteous and legal government, we elevate them in history to the rank of self-sacrificing patriots, consecrate them to the admiration of the works, and place them by the side of Washington, Hampden and Sidney.” President Andrew Johnson on Radical Reconstruction

“Candor compels me to declare that at this time there is no Union as our fathers understood the term, and as they meant it to be understood by us. The Union which they established can exist only where all the States are represented in both Houses of Congress; where one state is as free as another to regulate its internal concerns according to its own will, and where the laws of the central Government, strictly confined to matters of national jurisdiction, apply with equal force to the people of every section.” President Andrew Johnson 3rd annual message to the Union

In his book What They Fought For, 1861-1865, historian James McPherson reported on his reading of more than 25,000 letters and more than 100 diaries of soldiers who fought on both sides of the War for Southern Independence and concluded that Confederate soldiers “fought for liberty and independence from what they regarded as a tyrannical government.” The letters and diaries of many Confederate soldiers “bristled with the rhetoric of liberty and self government,” writes McPherson, and spoke of a fear of being “subjugated” and “enslaved” by a tyrannical federal government. Sound familiar?

“. . . it was clear from the actions of the Montgomery convention that the goal of the new converts to secessionism was not to establish a slaveholders’ reactionary utopia. What they really wanted was to recreate the Union as it had been before the rise of the new Republican Party, and they opted for secession only when it seemed clear that separation was the only way to achieve their aim. The decision to allow free states to join the Confederacy reflected a hope that much of the old Union could be reconstituted under southern direction.” (Robert A. Divine, T. H. Bren, George Fredrickson, and R. Hal Williams, America Past and Present, Fifth Edition, New York: Longman, 1998, pp. 444-445, emphasis added)

“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.” Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA, January 1864

We will never know what would have happened to Southern slavery if the North had allowed the South to go in peace. The Confederacy was never given the chance to outgrow slavery. There were plenty of people in the South who did not like slavery and/or who wanted to see the slaves freed, including Confederate generals Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Confederate Congressman Duncan Kenner, and James Spence, the Confederate financial agent in Europe, who criticized slavery in his book The American Union (Patrick, Jefferson Davis and His Cabinet, p. 196). There were also Confederate leaders who supported emancipating slaves who served in the Confederate army, such as Confederate generals Patrick Cleburne, Joseph E. Johnston, Daniel Govan, John H. Kelly, and Marc Lowrey, Governor William Smith of Virginia, Confederate Secretary of State Judah Benjamin, and the Confederate president himself, Jefferson Davis. As mentioned, at least some 75 percent of Southerners did not own slaves. I believe the Confederacy would have eventually abolished slavery. There is evidence that suggests slavery was beginning to die out on its own. For example, the percentage of Southern whites who belonged to slaveholding families dropped by 5 percent from 1850-1860 (Robert Divine, T. H. Bren, George Fredrickson, and R. Hal Williams, America Past and Present, Fifth Edition, New York: Longman, 1999, p. 389). Nevins noted that “slavery was dying all around the edges of its domain” (The Emergence of Lincoln, Volume 2, p. 469).

“But slavery was far from being the sole cause of the prolonged conflict. Neither its destruction on the one hand, nor its defence on the other, was the energizing force that held the contending armies to four years of bloody work. I apprehend that if all living Union soldiers were summoned to the witness-stand, every one of them would testify that it was the preservation of the American Union and not the destruction of Southern slavery that induced him to volunteer at the call of his country. As for the South, it is enough to say that perhaps eighty percent of her armies were neither slave-holders, nor had the remotest interest in the institution. No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.” —General John B. Gordon, from Reminiscences of the Civil War, page 19


395 posted on 04/22/2018 5:23:06 PM PDT by FLT-bird (..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies ]


To: FLT-bird; BroJoeK; x; rockrr

“Confederate soldiers “bristled with the rhetoric of liberty and self government,” writes McPherson, and spoke of a fear of being “subjugated” and “enslaved” by a tyrannical federal government. Sound familiar?”

Yeah, from revisionists like you. The idea that the South was “subjugated” is nonsense. Posters like BroJoeK, x, rockrr, and myself have demonstrated beyond any objective standard that the usual excuses don’t wash.

The South was NOT politically subjugated.

The South was NOT economically subjugated.

The federal government was not tyrannical.

Tariffs were NOT high in 1860.

The South was NOT overly taxed or tariffed.

Federal expenditures did NOT favor the North.

The main difference between regions of the country was slavery.

Slavery had been accommodated from the founding to the Corwin Amendment.

Southern Democrats were so obsessed the the Republican Party that they refused to work with it (sound familiar?). They were ready to walk out in 1856 if they didn’t get their way (sound familiar?).

The vast majority of Southern secession rhetoric in 1860/1861 listed the preservation of slavery as the main motivation for disunion.

You have no legs to stand on.


397 posted on 04/22/2018 5:57:11 PM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies ]

To: FLT-bird; SoCal Pubbie; x; rockrr
FLT-bird quoting: "Cooper notes that when two Northerners visited Jefferson Davis during the war, Davis insisted 'the Confederates were not battling for slavery' and that 'slavery had never been the key issue' (Jefferson Davis, American, p. 524)."

Your quote doesn't tell us who or when this happened, but it does support the idea that Lost Cause mythology began at the top, even during the war itself, with men like Davis.
Important to remember that by the time Davis resigned from the US Congress, January 21, 1861, five Deep South states had already declared secession: South Carolina, Florida, Mississippi, Georgia & Alabama, and Louisiana would soon.
So far as we know, Davis was involved in none of these secession conventions, but had been working in Congress on his own version of the Corwin amendment.
So, while Davis had no personal knowledge of what was going on in those secession conventions, his own efforts were devoted to the one issue they all said was most important: slavery.

FLT-bird quoting: "Precious few textbooks mention the fact that by 1864 key Confederate leaders, including Jefferson Davis, were prepared to abolish slavery."

But they weren't and certainly didn't.
When push came to shove, slave-holders would have none of it, since slavery was their reason for Confederacy, what sense did it make to abolish slavery?
Yes, sure, in the war's final days when handwriting was clearly on the Confederate wall, then some half-hearted efforts were made to enlist a few black army units.
But leadership did not treat well those who had long advocated for enlisting blacks in the Confederate army.
Patrick Cleburne comes to mind.

FLT-bird quoting Davis: "I tried all in my power to avert this war.
I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not."

Showing that Davis like any good Democrat could lie with passion.
In fact, Davis could easily have prevented civil war simply by not ordering a military assault on Fort Sumter.

FLT-bird quoting: " 'We are not fighting for slavery.
We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination.'
- President Jefferson Davis The Atlantic Monthly Volume 14, Number 83"

Again, no date given, but have to guess from late in the war when Davis was staring at the jaws of defeat and hoping to inspire yet more young Southerners to throw their lives away for an insane enterprise.

FLT-bird quoting: " 'And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.' Union Colonel James Jaquess

"'No, it is not, it never was an essential element.
It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination.
It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded."

So here we see one origin of Lost Causer "slavery was pretext, not reason" meme.
But note carefully Davis' metaphor, slavery was non-essential because it only "fired the musket".
And yet, in fact, trigger pulling is the essential act, which determines life or death, and yet here Davis claims it's "non-essential".

You know what it proves?
It proves that Davis was just your typical Democrat eager to blame the gun, not the shooter!!

So just don't tell me that Democrats today are any different than they've always been -- utterly insane.

FLT-bird quoting: "Those who advocated the right of secession alleged in their own justification that we had no regard for law and that the rights of property, life, and liberty would not be safe under the Constitution as administered by us.
If we now verify their assertion we prove that they were in truth fighting for their liberty, and instead of branding their leaders as traitors against a righteous and legal government, we elevate them in history to the rank of self-sacrificing patriots, consecrate them to the admiration of the works, and place them by the side of Washington, Hampden and Sidney.'
- President Andrew Johnson on Radical Reconstruction"

A remarkable (though questionable) quote which, if valid, reminds us how lucky we were to have President Lincoln sandwiched between two lunatic Democrats, Buchanan and Johnson.
Of course, impeached Johnson is now condemned by virtually everyone -- by Southerners for being too harsh in Reconstruction and by most everyone else for going too easy on them.
My complaint is not that Johnson was too harsh or too easy on defeated Confederates, but rather that, it appears here, he let them get away with their Lost Cause Big Lies and so set back the cause of freedom for the next 100 years.

FLT-bird quoting: " 'Candor compels me to declare that at this time there is no Union as our fathers understood the term...'
President Andrew Johnson 3rd annual message to the Union"

Thus revealing why Republicans were angry enough to impeach Johnson.

FLT-bird quoting: "...concluded that Confederate soldiers 'fought for liberty and independence from what they regarded as a tyrannical government.'
The letters and diaries of many Confederate soldiers 'bristled with the rhetoric of liberty and self government,' writes McPherson..."

Sure, especially as the war dragged on, year after year, and ever more Confederate territory fell under Union army control.
Nobody denies that Confederate soldiers were highly motivated to defend their homes & families.
But no reasonable person can accept that slavery was not essential to those Confederate leaders who, until the very end when all was certainly lost, refused to do the one thing which could have changed the war's course: offer slaves their freedom in exchange for army service.

FLT-bird quoting: "What they really wanted was to recreate the Union as it had been before the rise of the new Republican Party, and they opted for secession only when it seemed clear that separation was the only way to achieve their aim.
The decision to allow free states to join the Confederacy reflected a hope that much of the old Union could be reconstituted under southern direction.”
(Robert A. Divine..."

This re-posted quote is doubtless intended to suggest it was not "all about slavery", but it really says the opposite.
Consider, "before the rise of the new Republican party" actually means: before slavery could be openly debated.
But more glaring is the suggestion that "free states" were encouraged to join the Confederacy.
Well, theoretically, maybe, but certainly not before they adopted slavery 100% as it was understood in the South.
That was, after all, the whole purpose of secession & Confederacy.

FLT-bird quoting: " 'It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all.
Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for.
It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.'
Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA, January 1864"

This part of Cleburne's quote seems real, since we also find it here.
But the first sentences quoted sound fake and are not found confirmed elsewhere.

Regardless, Cleburne's words did not win him any friends in Confederate leadership, he was passed over for promotion three times and died in battle, in 1864.

FLT-bird quoting: "As mentioned, at least some 75 percent of Southerners did not own slaves."

Extraordinarily interesting, since it refutes FLT-bird's claim (i.e., post #394) that: "...slave owners comprised a total of 5.63% of the total free population in the states which seceded....meaning 94.37% did not own slaves."

Unlike FLT-bird, this author admits that 25% of Southerners owned slaves.
And that could easily be correct, overall, because it corresponds to statistics which say almost half of Deep South families owned slaves, about 25% in the Upper South and 15% in Border States, so sure, 25% on average.
My calculations say 26% overall, certainly close enough for this purpose.

FLT-bird quoting: "I believe the Confederacy would have eventually abolished slavery.
There is evidence that suggests slavery was beginning to die out on its own.
For example, the percentage of Southern whites who belonged to slaveholding families dropped by 5 percent from 1850-1860
(Robert Divine, T. H. Bren... "

It's most important to understand exactly what was going on here.
Yes, slaveholding families did decline measurable percents in some regions of the South.
Where & why?
In Border States especially where many new Northern anti-slavery immigrants settled, many slaves were "sold down the river" because high prices made them unprofitable, and because freedom via the near-by Underground Railroad made escape too easy.
Slave prices were soaring because cotton in the Deep South was booming, creating insatiable demand for more slaves.
So one reason slavery was declining in Border states was because it was booming in the Deep South.

FLT-bird quoting: " 'I apprehend that if all living Union soldiers were summoned to the witness-stand, every one of them would testify that it was the preservation of the American Union and not the destruction of Southern slavery that induced him to volunteer at the call of his country.
As for the South, it is enough to say that perhaps eighty percent of her armies were neither slave-holders, nor had the remotest interest in the institution.
No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.'

—General John B. Gordon, from Reminiscences of the Civil War, page 19"

So let's first notice that Gordon says 80% didn't own slaves, meaning 20% did, which contrasts to FLT-bird's claim it was only 5.63%.
And 20% is not so far from the 25% estimated earlier.
The difference could be fully accounted for by the home states of soldiers Gordon served with -- if more from Upper South & Border States, then yes, likely 20%.
But if from Deep South states like SC & MS, then no, it was closer to 50%.

Second, the reasons Confederates fought were not necessarily the same as the reasons their leaders declared secession.
In their Reasons for Secession documents, secessionists clearly said protecting slavery was their most important concern, if not their only reason.

Finally, Lincoln's first call for 75,000 troops was not to "free the slaves" or even "restore the Union," but rather to return the many Federal properties seized by Confederates -- forts, ships, arsenals, mints, etc.
"Preserve the Union" and "free the slaves" came later.
Indeed, if you review a list of Civil War era songs, which should tell us about soldiers' feelings, you do find:

But you don't find any which say, in effect, "let's fight to preserve the Union" or "let's fight to protect slavery".
Soldiers' feelings were more basic.



462 posted on 04/24/2018 8:28:24 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson