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:
"As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free, while God is marching on..."
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.
![]()
BroJoeK 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.
A whole bunch of blather trying to claim Davis was saying the exact opposite of what he clearly said. It was not about slavery. Deal with it.
BroJoeK 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.
They were prepared to do so and empowered the Confederate ambassador with plenipotiary powers (meaning he could sign a treaty and legally bind the CSA by doing so) which would have abolished slavery in return for European recognition/military aid. This was 1864 just one year after the EP. Thousands of Blacks did serve in the Confederate Army.
BroJoeK 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.
Its obviously just too inconvenient for you to admit it. Davis did not want war and did not start a war. Lincoln did.
BroJoeK 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.
Your usual BS and tapdancing. Davis says exactly the opposite of what you are claiming. He always did.
BroJoek 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.
Once again Davis says exactly the opposite of what you claim and you can’t handle it so you resort to your usual spin and BS.
BroJoeK 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.
Johnson’s views were consistent with even those of Chase as the quotes of Chase I provided amply demonstrate. His impeachment by the Radical Republicans was a joke. Johnson was a flawed man to be sure but he was a damn sight better than those corrupt lunatics.
BroJoeK Thus revealing why Republicans were angry enough to impeach Johnson.
Correct. He told the truth about them and they couldn’t stand it.
BroJoeK 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.
Except that thousands of Blacks served in the Confederate Army and had for years. So this line of BS falls apart.
BroJoeK 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.
No it doesn’t. Its very clear that it says the exact opposite of what you are claiming. That slavery was far from the most important issue....that what they really did not like or want was a sectional party hell bent on high tariffs to benefit one region at the expense of another and of government largesse to corporations. The Confederate Constitution went on at length with measures to control spending and prevent excessive spending.
BroJoeK 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.
There is no question the quote is genuine and has been cited numerous times. Its just inconvenient for you so holding to your usual pattern, you claim any quote that is inconvenient to your PC Revisionism must be fake. Cleburne was promoted to major general from a relatively low rank to begin with. Obviously his talent was recognized.
BroJoeK 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.
Firstly...no it doesn’t. He says AT LEAST 75% DO NOT own slaves. He put no upper limit on how many did not own slaves. He did not say 25% DID own slaves. Read more carefully.
Oh and he also pointed out slavery was not what the Confederates were fighting for and pointed out - once again - that they could have preserved it any time by simply laying down their arms. You seem to have skipped over that part. I wonder why.
BroJoeK 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.
LOL! Oh my god the BS! I really am laughing out loud upon reading it. The reason slavery started declining more in the Upper South was the exact same reason it declined in the Northern states, in the British Empire and in much of the rest of the Western world at this time. Its no secret. Its not magic. It was industrialization. Industrialization was steadily moving Southward and it was killing slavery slowly as it did. It wasn’t some previously unmentioned influx of Northerners in these states. Get real.
BroJoeK 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%.
He is guesstimating obviously. He says 80% the previous one says at least 75%. Whatever the exact percentage the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY did not own slaves or have the slightest interest in slavery. As to 5.63% those are the percentages of the total free populations in those states which owned slaves as of the 1860 US Census. If you don’t like the numbers take it up with the US Census bureau. Obviously there were families in which just one person - usually the father - would be listed as the sole owner of slaves. Obviously this comprised some % of the families. I doubt it was as much as 25% and the previous author said at least 75% WERE NOT...not that 25% were.....this guy says 80$ WERE NOT....not that 20% were. It remains an estimate. What we do know is that the overwhelming majority DID NOT.
BroJoeK 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.
Firstly this is simply false. 3 of the 4 states that listed reasons listed several including the economic grievances. Secondly, it was a democracy. Those who did not own slaves would not have willingly sacrificed their lives for something they did not own and/or had no interest in owning.
BroJoeK 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:
“As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free, while God is marching on...”
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.
It was a different time. People did not view slavery the same way we do today - that holds for the overwhelming majority. Racism was the norm throughout the world. It horrifies us today but it was a different world. The vast majority on both sides were not fighting over slavery and didn’t really care very much about slavery. No matter how much people would get worked into a lather today, they just didn’t then.