Replies

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.

FLT-bird: "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."

Certainly Davis did not mention slavery in his February 18, 1861 Inaugural address, but plenty of others did, and for them it certainly was about slavery.
Which you well know.

FLT-bird on Confederate abolition: "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."

No, it was December 1864, Davis sent Duncan F. Kenner who departed in January 1865 arriving in France, then Britain just weeks before Lee's surrender at Appomattox:

"By December 1864, Davis considered sacrificing slavery in order to enlist recognition and aid from Paris and London; he secretly sent Duncan F. Kenner to Europe with a message that the war was fought solely for "the vindication of our rights to self-government and independence" and that "no sacrifice is too great, save that of honor."
The message stated that if the French or British governments made their recognition conditional on anything at all, the Confederacy would consent to such terms.[141]
Davis's message could not explicitly acknowledge that slavery was on the bargaining table due to still-strong domestic support for slavery among the wealthy and politically influential.
European leaders all saw that the Confederacy was on the verge of total defeat.[142]"

"The three men met with French Emperor Napoleon III, who agreed to recognize the Confederacy under these terms if the British would follow suit.
The commissioners quickly sailed to London, where they met with the Prime Minister, Henry John Temple, who sternly rebuked their proposal, stating that Her Majesty’s government would never recognize the Confederacy under any condition.
Lee’s surrender dashed any lingering hopes..."

And that's it for me for now...

FLT-bird: "Its obviously just too inconvenient for you to admit it.
Davis did not want war and did not start a war.
Lincoln did."

Nonsense and blather all you wish, but Davis ordered a military assault on Union troops in Union Fort Sumter.
That's war.

FLT-bird re BJK comment on Atlantic Monthly volume 14 Number 83 quote of Jefferson Davis: "Your usual BS and tapdancing.
Davis says exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.
He always did."

No, it's your usual BS misinformation.
Here is the Atlantic Monthly you "quoted".
Note first the date is September 1864, which means the Confederacy was nearing its death throws.
Note second it doesn't include your quote from Davis.
Further looking suggests the quote is genuine, but in a letter to one James R. Gilmore, 1864.

But while we're talking Davis quotes, here's another:

"[P]roperty in slaves, recognized as such by the local law of any of the States of the Union, shall stand on the same footing in all constitutional and federal relations as any other species of property so recognized; and, like other property, shall not be subject to be divested or impaired by the local law of any other State, either in escape thereto or of transit or sojourn of the owner therein; and in no case whatever shall such property be subject to be divested or impaired by any legislative act of the United States, or of any of the Territories thereof."

This is Davis' version of the Corwin amendment which has our Lost Causers so energized.
They accuse Lincoln himself of "orchestrating" Corwin, even though still in Illinois.
They say it means Northerners were willing to grant slavery forever for sake of Union.
And they say Confederates "rejected" the Union "offer", so it wasn't about slavery!

Well, let's notice some things:

Davis himself proposed a version of Corwin's amendment, telling us clearly what Davis considered the "real reason" for secession, slavery -- not Morrill, not "unequal spending", etc..
The new Confederate constitution went far beyond what Corwin said, it made slavery irrevocable anywhere or any time in the Confederacy.
So, if Confederates "rejected" the Corwin "offer", it was because they already had a much better offer on slavery from the Confederate constitution (thanks DoodleDawg!).
Davis himself claimed the war was not for slavery, but for independence.
Fine, but defending slavery was the first reason for secession and a major reason Confederates refused to stop fighting short of Unconditional Surrender -- or in Davis' word, "extermination"!

More later...

FLT-bird referring to this Davis quote on slavery:

"...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."

FLT-bird: "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."

No, Davis said exactly what I reported, no "spin" necessary.
Davis said slavery "fired the musket" and that is the essential moral act in any murder, in this case the murder of the old Federal Union.
Davis implies that other issues "capped and loaded" the musket, but none of those by themselves could fire it.

I'd say that's pretty close to true, though slavery didn't just "pull the trigger", slavery built the musket in the first place, as was recognized decades earlier by Founders like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

FLT-bird "Johnson’s views were consistent with even those of Chase as the quotes of Chase I provided amply demonstrate."

Both were Democrats, Chase running for the Democrat nomination for president.
Naturally they said what their fellow Democrats wanted to hear.

FLT-bird: "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."

I won't defend either Johnson or the Congress which tried to impeach him.

FLT-bird: "He told the truth about them and they couldn’t stand it."

Or lied the way Democrats always lie, it's their nature, you know, and sometimes they even believe their own lies.
That's when they're most dangerous.

FLT-bird: "Except that thousands of Blacks served in the Confederate Army and had for years.
So this line of BS falls apart."

Sure slaves doing slave-work, nobody disputes that.
Somewhere I read that Lee's army at Gettysburg included tens of thousands of slaves:

"African American slave labor was used in a wide variety of logistical support roles for the Confederacy, from infrastructure and mining, to teamster and medical roles such as hospital attendants and nurses.[78][79]"

"...According to historian James M. McPherson in 1994, 'no black soldiers fought in the Confederate army, unless they were passing as white.'[12]
He noted that some Confederates brought along 'their body servants, who in many cases had grown up with them" and that 'on occasion some of those body servants were known to have picked up a rifle...
But there was no official recruitment of black soldiers in the Confederate army until the very end of the war', when it was brought about only by a 'desperate shortage of manpower.'[12]

FLT-bird quote from #395: "What they really wanted was to recreate the Union as it had been before the rise of the new Republican Party..."

FLT-bird: "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. "

Total nonsense and you well know it because the only new political element in the new Republican party (versus the old Whigs & Federalists) was abolitionism.
To say, "let's go back to pre-Republican days" meant only one thing: the days of no controversy over slavery.
Everything else -- tariffs, spending, etc., -- had been there from Day One.

FLT-bird: "There is no question the quote is genuine and has been cited numerous times.
Its just inconvenient for you... "

Naw, the internet is chock full of fake quotes and you well know it, including real quotes that are added to or subtracted from to make a different point.
The only protection we have against that, and it's far from perfect, is to see if we can find the same quote in multiple places which would have no reason to lie about it.
In this case I did find part of your quote elsewhere, but not the whole thing, and the missing part sounds "off" to me, as if somebody decades later wanted to put their own words in Cleburne's mouth.
Regardless, it doesn't change your main point, which is correct, about Cleburne's support for enlisting black soldiers.

FLT-bird "Cleburne was promoted to major general from a relatively low rank to begin with.
Obviously his talent was recognized."

Sure, but only before his support for black Confederate soldiers, not afterwards.

"Cleburne's proposal was vigorously attacked as an "abolitionist conspiracy" by General William H.T. Walker, who strongly supported slavery and also saw Cleburne as a rival for promotion.
Walker eventually persuaded the commander of the Army of Tennessee, General Braxton Bragg, that Cleburne was politically unreliable and undeserving of further promotion.
'Three times in the summer of 1863 he was passed over for corps commander and remained a division commander until his death'. "[16]"

FLT-bird disagreeing 25% were slaveholder families: "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."

Sorry, but you know very well that if he had meant to say "95% of families didn't own slaves", he would have said it.
He didn't, and "at least 75%" means that up to 25% did own slaves.
My calculations show on average 26% of families did own slaves, so I'm perfectly happy with that.
Your efforts to deny the obvious are... well... ludicrous.

FLT-bird: "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."

No, it's no problem, one man's opinion is just fine, others said otherwise.
Consider the quote above about Patrick Cleburne's fate.

What's certainly true is that slavery was more important to some Confederates than others, and generally, the wealthier & more powerful politically, the more important was slavery.
And the proof of it is that Davis himself never seriously moved to even consider black soldiers until the war's very end.

FLT-bird on reasons for Border States' declining slavery: "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."

Nonsense, you've reversed cause & effect.
Slaves were perfectly capable of working in factories, as Tredegar in Richmond amply demonstrates -- 50% slaves.
Industrialization didn't kill slavery, just the opposite, abolition created a greater need for labor-saving machines, hence industrialization.

And there was a huge influx of anti-slavery immigrants to the Border States -- Kentucky, Missouri and Maryland
They made a huge difference in first reducing slavery's political influence and then keeping those states Union.

Add to that the relative ease of escaping to the Underground Railroad and many Border State slave-holders promised their slaves lawful freedom in exchange for a set number years service.
One result, by 1860 half of Maryland's slaves were free.

Finally the matter of sky-high slave prices driven up by the booming Deep South cotton economy.
High prices made slavery unprofitable in marginal Border State regions and one result was actual (Maryland) or relative (Missouri & Kentucky) reductions in slave populations.

It had nothing to do with more factories in those states, except to the degree those factories employed anti-slavery immigrant voters.

FLT-bird "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."

Here's what's absolutely true:

The Deep South with the highest percentage of slave-holding families was the quickest to declare secession, took no special persuasion.
The Upper South with significantly fewer slaveholding families refused to secede when the issues were only slavery, tariffs & "unequal spending".
Only actual civil war convinced Upper South states to flip against the Union (which is why Davis wanted war and Lincoln didn't!), and even then large regions of all four Upper South states remained loyal and suffered from Confederates for it.
Border States had so few slaveholding families that even Civil War did not convince the majority to secede.
Yes, those Border State regions which did have large slaveholding populations did provide Confederate troops, but the vast majority (two or three to one) served the Union Army.

FLT-bird "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."

I have no problem with 5.63%, none.
The question is: how large was the average slaveholder's family?
A wife & two children with one on the way (2.5 children ;-)) makes the overall average about 25% which sounds right according to everything I've seen.
And you have no statistical evidence otherwise -- none, zero, nada statistics -- only your feeeeeling that some wives owned slaves.
Sure, and for every wife who owned slaves, another family had six or more children, so it balanced out.

FLT-bird: "What we do know is that the overwhelming majority DID NOT." [own slaves]

Sure, on average including Border States, absolutely.
But in the Deep South everyone who could afford to did, and nearly half could, & so did.
It explains why the Deep South was so quick to secede to protect themselves against the perceived threat from "Ape" Lincoln and his Black Republicans.
It explains why Border States never did and why Upper South states finally did secede, but with huge regions remaining Unionists.

FLT-bird: " 3 of the 4 states that listed reasons listed several including the economic grievances."

Wrong. All "Reasons for Secession" documents listed slavery as the major, if not only, reason.
Confederate VP Alexander Stephens perhaps said it best in his famous Cornerstone speech:

"...Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong.
They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races.
This was an error.
It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the 'storm came and the wind blew.'
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.
This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

Hard to argue slavery was not vital to Confederates, isn't it?

FLT-bird "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."

And they certainly did not willingly sacrifice themselves in Unionist regions with very few slaveholders.
Indeed, if you look at the ratio of Confederate state soldiers to slaveholders it averages roughly four-to-one suggesting every slaveholder, on average, provided one or two sons plus some neighbor lads.

A result you will see here.
McPherson studied hundreds of Confederate soldiers' letters drawing several conclusions, including:

"Although only 20 percent of the soldiers avowed explicit proslavery purposes in their letters and diaries, none at all dissented from that view."

McPherson also said: "...while about one-third of all Confederate soldiers belonged to slaveholding families, slightly more than two-thirds of the sample [429 letters] whose slaveholding status is known did so."

It suggests soldiers from slaveholding families were more literate than others.

And that's it for now.

FLT-bird: "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."

Despite your best efforts to minimize slavery, the data still says otherwise.
Slavery & abolition were very important to a large minority on both sides:

"[O]nly 20 percent of the sample of 429 Southern soldiers explicitly voiced proslavery convictions in their letters or diaries.
As one might expect, a much higher percentage of soldiers from slaveholding families than from nonslaveholding families expressed such a purpose: 33 percent, compared with 12 percent.
Ironically, the proportion of Union soldiers who wrote about the slavery question was greater, as the next chapter will show.
There is a ready explanation for this apparent paradox.
Emancipation was a salient issue for Union soldiers because it was controversial.
Slavery was less salient for most Confederate soldiers because it was not controversial.
They took slavery for granted as one of the Southern 'rights' and institutions for which they fought, and did not feel compelled to discuss it."

Reviewing many hundreds of Civil War letters McPherson found higher percent of Union soldiers concerned about abolition than Confederates.