New Understanding of the Civil War

C-SPAN ^ | JUNE 6, 2013 | Thomas Fleming

[Pelham]

Thomas Fleming talked about his book, A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War, in which he portrays the Civil War as a tragedy that American leaders foresaw and struggled to prevent.

He spoke about how public opinion and propaganda helped spark the war, and the longstanding tensions between the North and South. He also discussed events that heightened fear of a slave rebellion in the southern states. The Pritzker Military Library hosted this event.

[Kalamata]

>>Vermont Lt wrote (#194): “(You might want to work on your “old man on the porch” attitude. People might think you are a pompous ass.)"
>>Pelham wrote: "You were the one bitching at me for having posted the thread as if you are being forced to read it. I was minding my own business. Someone here may be acting like an ass, it’s just not me."

One of the most revealing statements from the book is this:

"The question becomes even more perplexing when we consider another startling fact. Only 316,632 Southerners owned slaves – a mere 6 percent of the total white population of 5,582,322. These figures become doubly baffling when a further analysis reveals only 46,214 of these masters owned 50 or more slaves, entitling them to the aristocratic-sounding term, "planter." Why did the vast majority of the white population unite behind these slaveholders in this fratricidal war? Why did they sacrifice over 300,000 of their sons to preserve an institution in which they apparently had no personal stake? "

[Thomas J. Fleming, "A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War." De Capo Press, 2013, Preface]

Perhaps the war was not so much about slavery, but rather about not wanting to be ruled [that is, "programmed"] by a bunch of progressive busybodies. Frankly, I cannot find a dimes worth of difference between the modern "progressive" busybodies, and the Yankee busybodies of the antebellum North.

Mr. Kalamata

[Vermont Lt]

You see, this is the reason we should stop this civil war shit.

[OIFVeteran]

By Jove, you’ve cracked the case Kalamata. Or maybe not.

State Total-Pop. Slaves %of slave owning families
Georgia 82,548 29,264 34.5
North Carolina 395,005 100,783 25.5
South Carolina 249,073 107,094 43.0
Virginia 747,550 292,627 39.1

This also doesn’t account for all the people involved in the slave business that might not of owned slaves. Overseers, auctioneers, etc.

It appears that slavery was deeply entrenched in the southern states.

[Kalamata]

Vermont Lt wrote: “You see, this is the reason we should stop this civil war shit.”

The belligerence of sanctimonious foul-mouthed punks, like you, are the reason we should continue the War-of-Northern-Aggression discussion.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

Don't be fooled by numbers from big-government-progressive Soros-bots. This is from a book by John Franklin Hope:

"The work of slaves was primarily agricultural. It is estimated that in 1850 only 400,000 slaves lived in towns and cities, whereas approximately 2.8 million worked on farms and plantations. Nor does the large slave population mean that the majority of southern whites owned slaves. In 1860 there were only 384,884 slave owners, out of a total white population of 8 million. Fully three-fourths of the white people of the South had neither slaves nor an immediate economic interest in the maintenance of slavery or the plantation system. Most slaveholders in 1860 were small farmers with five slaves or less. Fully 338,000 owners, or 88 percent of all masters of slaves in 1860, held less than twenty slaves. However, most slaves tended to be on farm units with larger holdings. This concentration of wealth in slaves in the hands of a small percentage of white southerners meant that more than 50 percent of all slaves lived on plantations with holdings in excess of twenty slaves, and at least 25 percent of slaves lived on plantations with holdings in excess of fifty in 1860."

"This concentration of slaves in the hands of the relatively few inevitably resulted in the bulk of staple crops being produced on the large plantations, the owners of which also dominated the political and economic thinking of the entire South. The tremendous labor productivity of the large plantations provided the slave-owning gentry with wealth and influence out of proportion to their number. In 1860 the southern states produced 5,387,000 bales of cotton. Of that total, more than 3.5 million bales were produced in just four states – Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, and Georgia. It is no accident that these same states were also at the top of the list in the number of large slaveholders. Of the states with individual holdings of more than twenty slaves, Mississippi led (just as it did in the productivity of cotton), followed by Alabama, Louisiana, and Georgia. The great majority of agricultural slaves grew cotton, while the remainder grew such staple crops as tobacco, rice, and sugarcane. The cotton farm or plantation was, therefore, the typical locale of the slave."

[Franklin & Higginbotham, "From Slavery to Freedom: A History of African Americans." McGraw-Hill, 2011, p.140]

No matter how you squeeze the numbers, only a small percentage in the South benefitted from slavery, according to both Franklin and Fleming.

So, why did the Southerners hate the Yankees? The same reason they despise the Yankees of today: Yankees are, as a rule, sanctimonious busybodies (my wife and I excepted :)

I didn't understand the significance of the term "Damn Yankees" until my wife and I retired to the South. It was then I learned that, to a Southerner, a "Yankee comes to visit; a Damn Yankee stays."

Mr. Kalamata

[OIFVeteran]

Let me translate what you just wrote into truth- don’t be fooled by facts, listen to my deranged ravings about the real reason the southern slavocracy rebelled against the duly elected government of America. Because I hate America and believe our country, and the world, would have been better off if America was broken in Two and a nation explicitly founded on slavery came into existence in 1860.

[DiogenesLamp]

Notice, there is no comma after the word equal that exempts negro slaves.

No, there isn't, and this is the flimsy structure on what this deliberate misleading of the law is built upon.

Anyone who believes that this language was intended to apply to slaves when it was written is lying to themselves. It is little different from declaring a transgender man to be a "woman", and then demand they get the privileges that a woman would get because they are a "woman."

Slaves were not equal in the understanding of that era and an attempt to claim the borrowed words from Thomas Jefferson created abolition in the state of Massachusetts is a lie.

That is not what the meaning was when that was written into the Massachusetts constitution. It was an after the fact effort to read into the words something that was never intended by the authors or those who approved the document.

My guess is that the Presiding Judge interpreted the Massachusetts Constitution exactly as the wording implied.

He interpreted it contrary to the intent of the framers by using a sophist tactic of wringing out the meaning he wanted out of the words, and deliberately ignoring the intent.

Yes, it's a noble idea to see things that way, but that is factually not the way the people of Massachusetts intended the words to be understood when they approved the Constitution. If it were so, it would have been called out to abolish slavery during the approval process.

[DiogenesLamp]

It appears that slavery was deeply entrenched in the southern states.

Which it would have remained had these states continued being part of the Union.

[Bull Snipe]

‘That is not what the meaning was when that was written into the Massachusetts constitution. It was an after the fact effort to read into the words something that was never intended by the authors or those who approved the document”

And you know this how?

[BroJoeK]

OIFVeteran: "It appears that slavery was deeply entrenched in the southern states."

In some, not so much in others.
For starters, there were large regions of every southern state with few to no slaves.
These regions first voted against secession then later supplied thousands of troops to the Union army.

Second, both slaves and slave ownership was highest in the Deep South -- around 50% of families in South Carolina and Mississippi -- then fell in further North states.
Upper South states like Virginia & Tennessee averaged about 1/4 slaveholding families and Border States like Maryland & Missouri about 1/8.

Bottom line: there was a critical mass of slaveholding families needed in 1861 for a state to vote on secession.
Before Fort Sumter that was roughly 1/3 of families.
After Fort Sumter it fell to about 1/4 of families.

[DiogenesLamp]

And you know this how?

Many reasons, not the least of which it had to go through a Judicial circus to overturn it. If that had been the intent of the framers, it would have been announced, and there would have been no need for a court case. Additionally, if that had been the intent of the framers, there would have been a hue and cry from those slaveowners who would have seen this effort as a backdoor attempt at depriving them of their rightful "property" under the then existing English and Common law.

Also, if it had been the intent of the framers, they would have said so in clear and plain language rather than couching it in flowery prose meant to elevate themselves rather than to make slaves their equals.

You are lying to yourself if you believe this bit of verbiage was intended to free the slaves. It is important to realize that what we wish to be true, and what is actually true are not always the same thing.

Wishful dreaming in the interpretation of law is malfeasance.

[woodpusher]

The given statistics are from J.F. Epperson on his site here. It is listed as Selected Statistics on Slavery at this link.

Methodology was "The figures given here are the percentage of slave-owning families as a fraction of total free households in the state." This is much like measuring velocity in furlongs per fortnight.

The data was taken from a now-inactive census archive site at the University of Virginia, but equivalent data may be found here.

The new link is:

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html?fref=gc

which redirects to

https://thegunzone.com/gun-reviews/

For actual 1860 census statistics see:

https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1864/dec/1860a.html

At the link are available, each as a seperate publication:

1860 Census: Population of the United States

1860 Census: Agriculture of the United States

1860 Census: Manufactures of the United States

1860 Census: Statistics of the United States

In the 1860 Agriculture Report, Slave Statistics appears a section entitled Recapitulation.

In the 1860 Population Report, appears a section entiled Recapitulation of the Tables of Population, Nativity, and Occupation. No slave statistics.

SLAVEHOLDER STATISTICS - 1860 CENSUS DATA

STATE	TOTAL POPULATION	# SLAVEHOLDERS	Families	% SLAVEHOLDERS	Fam size
AL	964,201	33,730	96,603	3.50%	8.86
AR	435,450	11,481	57,244	2.64%	7.61
FL	140,424	5,152	15,090	3.67%	9.31
GA	1,057,286	41,084	109,919	3.89%	9.62
LA	708,002	22,003	74,725	3.11%	9.47
MS	791,305	30,943	63,015	3.91%	12.56
NC	992,622	34,658	125090	3.49%	7.94
SC	703,708	26,701	58,642	3.79%	12.00
TN	1,109,801	36,844	149,335	3.32%	7.43
TX	604,215	21,878	76,781	3.62%	7.92
VA	1,596,318	52,128	201,523	3.27%	7.92
TOTAL:	9,103,332	316,602	1,027,967	3.31%	8.86

---

STATE	TOTAL POPULATION	# SLAVEHOLDERS	Families	% SLAVEHOLDERS	Fam size
DE	112,216	587	18,966	0.52%	5.92
KY	1,155,684	38,645	166,321	3.34%	6.95
MD	687,049	13,783	110,278	2.01%	6.23
MO	1,182,012	24,320	192,073	2.06%	6.15
TOTAL:	3,136,961	77,335	487,638	2.47%	6.43

---

[Vermont Lt]

Please take me off any of these posts.

[woodpusher]

[Bull Snipe #173] All true up until Jan 1863.

[DiogenesLamp #192] You can't post hoc justify an act you took.

[Bull Snipe #195] Besides your opinion, show me the case law, supported by court decisions that makes Lincoln’s actions illegal.

[woodpusher #229] In 1863, Congress raised the number of justices to ten (10), so Lincoln could pack the Court with a fifth Lincoln appointee to ensure against legal disaster. After Andrew Johnson took office, in 1866 Congress reduced the number of justices to seven (7) by attrition, although never fell below eight (8), ensuring Democrat Johnson never got to appoint anybody. After Johnson left and Grant took office, Congress returned the number of justices to nine (9) in 1869, and enabled Grant to make an appointment. That about took care of Court opinions condemning Lincoln administration actions for much of his administration.

[Bull Snipe #234] All well and good, but what does this have to do with the freeing of slaves when the Union army showed up after Jan 1 1863. This is what the original question was about.

In context, it still appears to consider up until Jan 1863, and DiogenesLamp argues that your post-1863 argument is post hoc justification for acts before Jan 1863.

I don't recall ever before encountering any argument based on show me the case law, supported by court decisions that makes Lincoln’s actions illegal, for years 1863-65, but the explanation for the paucity of such court opinions is fairly obvious. When Lincoln proclaimed the nation-wide suspension of habeas corpus, he stripped the U.S. Supreme Court of its appellate jurisdiction to hear such cases.

Habeas Corpus Act of March 3, 1863; 12 Stat. 755

The Habeas Corpus Act of 1863 provided, inter alia, that any order of the President to be a defence to any action for false arrest, etc.; actions against officers and others for torts in arrests may be removed to circuit court; and upon removal to Federal court the State court to go no further. Also, after final judgment in State court, action may be removed to circuit court by appeal.

Also, no appeal was allowed in a criminal action or prosecution where final judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant or respondent by the state court, and if any suit commenced by the plaintiff is nonsuited or judgment pass against him the defendant shall recover double costs.

No appeal allowed, and if you try and lose, you pay mandatory double costs.

The Act did contain a provision,

That the Secretary of State and the Secretary of War be, and they are hereby, directed, as soon as may to be practicable, to furnish to the judges of the circuit and district courts of the United States and of the District of Columbia a list of the names of all persons, citizens of states in which the administration of the laws has continued unimpaired in the said Federal courts, who are now, or may hereafter be, held as prisoners of the United States, by order or au­thority of the President of the United States or either of said Secretaries, in any fort, arsenal, or other place, as state or political prisoners, or other­wise than as prisoners of war.

The Lincoln administration never complied with that, making all such confinement contrary to said statute.

Political prisoners, described as such in the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, were held without being formally charged, and without benefit of trial. Absent the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus there was no judicial remedy available.

[Bull Snipe]

all well and good, but the original thread was talking about the Emancipation Proclamation. Show me case law that declared that act illegal.

[DiogenesLamp]

[woodpusher]

all well and good, but the original thread was talking about the Emancipation Proclamation. Show me case law that declared that act illegal.

All well and good if you can demonstrate that there was any opportunity to litigate the issue of the Emancipation Proclamation.

It was certainly moot and could not be litigated after the 13th Amendment. You seem to miss the point that I have been making about the absurdity of such requests for case law where there was no possibility for case law to be developed.

However, in a letter to Chief Justice Chase, Lincoln admitted that the proclamation had no legal or constitutional justification, except as a military measure. The only remaining question is the existence of justification as a military measure.

Hon. S. P. Chase.

Executive Mansion,
Washington, September 2. 1863.

My dear Sir:

Knowing your great anxiety that the emancipation proclamation shall now be applied to certain parts of Virginia and Louisiana which were exempted from it last January, I state briefly what appear to me to be difficulties in the way of such a step. The original proclamation has no constitutional or legal justification, except as a military measure. The exemptions were made because the military necessity did not apply to the exempted localities. Nor does that necessity apply to them now any more than it did then. If I take the step must I not do so, without the argument of military necessity, and so, without any argument, except the one that I think the measure politically expedient, and morally right? Would I not thus give up all footing upon constitution or law? Would I not thus be in the boundless field of absolutism? Could this pass unnoticed, or unresisted? Could it fail to be perceived that without any further stretch, I might do the same in Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri; and even change any law in any state? Would not many of our own friends shrink away appalled? Would it not lose us the elections, and with them, the very cause we seek to advance?

Lincoln justified the Proclamation as "warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity." Slavery existed based on law. Lincoln himself, on February 1, 1865, stated, "A question might be raised whether the proclamation was legally valid. It might be added that it only aided those who came into our lines and that it was inoperative as to those who did not give themselves up, or that it would have no effect upon the children of the slaves born hereafter."

Response to a Serenade [NY Tribune, Feb. 3, 1865, p.5]

February 1, 1865

The President said he supposed the passage through Congress of the Constitutional amendment for the abolishment of Slavery throughout the United States, was the occasion to which he was indebted for the honor of this call. [Applause.] The occasion was one of congratulation to the country and to the whole world. But there is a task yet before us---to go forward and consummate by the votes of the States that which Congress so nobly began yesterday. [Applause and cries---``They will do it,'' &c.] He had the honor to inform those present that Illinois had already to-day done the work. [Applause.] Maryland was about half through; but he felt proud that Illinois was a little ahead. He thought this measure was a very fitting if not an indispensable adjunct to the winding up of the great difficulty. He wished the reunion of all the States perfected and so effected as to remove all causes of disturbance in the future; and to attain this end it was necessary that the original disturbing cause should, if possible, be rooted out. He thought all would bear him witness that he had never shrunk from doing all that he could to eradicate Slavery by issuing an emancipation proclamation. [Applause.] But that proclamation falls far short of what the amendment will be when fully consummated. A question might be raised whether the proclamation was legally valid. It might be added that it only aided those who came into our lines and that it was inoperative as to those who did not give themselves up, or that it would have no effect upon the children of the slaves born hereafter. In fact it would be urged that it did not meet the evil. But this amendment is a King's cure for all the evils. [Applause.] It winds the whole thing up. He would repeat that it was the fitting if not indispensable adjunct to the consummation of the great game we are playing. He could not but congratulate all present, himself, the country and the whole world upon this great moral victory.

Lincoln had serious questions about the legality of the Proclamation.

Lincoln was at least a doubter of his own rhetoric, and constitutional expert J.I.C. Hare points how how ascertaining the legality of the proclamation and resulting actions is not as simple as declaring a military necessity.

J.I.C. Hare, American Constitutional Law, (1889) Vol. II, 745-48 [footnotes omitted]

The principle in every such case is that an order given in accordance with the laws of war, by virtue of the conqueror's right to he obeyed, will have the effect of law as to acts done under it while still in force.

The memorable proclamation of Mr. Lincoln, which will always mark an epoch in the history of the United States, may be referred to this principle. The Confederacy had been converted by the act of the inhabitants into hostile territory, and the slaves which it contained were either property or persons. If property, they might be taken from the enemy by capture; if persons, summoned to take part against him and with the government with which he was at war. The United States might therefore follow the example set by England during the Revolutionary War, which, though treated as a grievance iu the Declaration of Independence, may be regarded as a legitimate exercise of belligerent rights. In one repect the proclamation was an order to the land and naval forces of the United States to seize the slaves of the insurgents as prize of war; in another, it was an invitation to the disaffected subjects of a belligerent to throw off the yoke and join the invading army. Being a mere command, which wanted the force and effect of law, it could work no change in the legal status of the slave until executed by the hand of war; but if carried into execution it might, like other acts done jure belli, work a change that would survive on the return of peace. The slaves which came into the possession of the United States during the war may have owed their freedom to the proclamation; but it was wholly inoperative as to those who, remaining under the control and dominion of their masters, were finally liberated by the amendment abolishing elavery in the United States.

It is not easy to say how far the authority of a commanding officer over property extends during insurrection or invasion, but it clearly should not be exercised for the purpose of punishment, nor except in the course of warlike operations, or as a means of strengthening himself or weakening the enemy. As was said in Mrs. Alexander's case and reiterated in Young v. United States, "the right" (of capture or confiscation) "may now be regarded as substantially restricted to especial cases dictated by the necessary operations of the war, and as excluding in general the seizure of private property of specific persons for the sake of gain." The modern commentators on international law, including Kent and Hamilton, hold, for still stronger reasons, that debts, chases in action, and other property which has been brought into a country or acquired there during peace, cannot be confiscated on the occurrence of war consistently with the good faith which should be observed among nations; and the just inference from the authorities as a whole is that while the power must necessarily exist, unless it is withheld by the organic law, it can rarely be exercised without producing a distrust which will outweigh the temporary gain.

In the case of the Emulous, Story, J., said, referring to Hamilton's articles under the signature of Camillus: "I have been impressed with the opinion of a very distinguished writer of our own country on this subject. I admit in the fullest manner the great merit of the argument which he has adduced against the confiscation of private debts due to enemy subjects. Looking to the measure, not as of strict right, but of sound policy and national honor, I have no hesitation to say that the argument is unanswerable. He proves incontrovertibly what the highest interests of nations dictate with a view to permanent policy. But I have not been able to perceive the proofs by which he overthrows the ancient principle." The right is political rather than ex jure belli, and depends on the discretion of the government. Property within the limits of the United States is under the protection of the law even when it belongs to an enemy, and cannot, agreeably to the rule laid down in Brown v. United States, be taken by an individual as prize of war, or confiscated judicially, without the sanction of an act of Congress. If no such law is passed, the title of the owner remains unaffected, and may be asserted on the return of peace.

The Lieber Code, General Orders No. 100 : The Lieber Code INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD

Prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863.

Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, LL.D., Originally Issued as General Orders No. 100, Adjutant General's Office, 1863, Washington 1898: Government Printing Office.

The Lieber Code was the government policy on the law of armed conflict at the time. Articles 37 and 38 seem most applicable to slave seizure as property.

Art. 37.

The United States acknowledge and protect, in hostile countries occupied by them, religion and morality; strictly private property; the persons of the inhabitants, especially those of women: and the sacredness of domestic relations. Offenses to the contrary shall be rigorously punished. This rule does not interfere with the right of the victorious invader to tax the people or their property, to levy forced loans, to billet soldiers, or to appropriate property, especially houses, lands, boats or ships, and churches, for temporary and military uses.

Art. 38.

Private property, unless forfeited by crimes or by offenses of the owner, can be seized only by way of military necessity, for the support or other benefit of the army or of the United States. If the owner has not fled, the commanding officer will cause receipts to be given, which may serve the spoliated owner to obtain indemnity.

[Kalamata]

>>woodpusher wrote, “The Lieber Code was the government policy on the law of armed conflict at the time.”

The Lieber Code was completely ignored by the Union armies during their many terroristic campaigns of plunder, pillage, and burning of cities, towns and farmland across the South

Mr. Kalamata

[Bull Snipe]

Thanks, have seen these items before.

The Lieber Code was the government policy on the law of armed conflict at the time. Articles 37 and 38 seem most applicable to slave seizure as property.

After Jan 1 1863. There were no legal slaves in those areas in rebellion against the United States. Since their status had been changed from that of slave to freeman, they are not property. Once the Union Army took control of one of those areas in rebellion, the freemen could leave or stay as they wished, enlist in the Union army, or they could be hired to work for the army. They could also remain there and continue working for their former owners if they so desired. Since freemen were no longer “property” articles 37 and 38 are not applicable.

[BroJoeK]

woodpusher: "Methodology was "The figures given here are the percentage of slave-owning families as a fraction of total free households in the state."
This is much like measuring velocity in furlongs per fortnight. "

Clearly we have a case here of "figures don't lie but liars can figure."
Your calculations are self-evidently bogus.
Here's what they should say:

SLAVEHOLDER STATISTICS - 1860 CENSUS DATA

STATE	FREE POPULATION	FREE FAMILIES	SLAVEHOLDERS	SLAVEHOLDER FAMILIES	SLAVES
Mississippi	354,674	63,015	30,943	49%	436,631
South Carolina	301,302	58,642	26,701	45%	402,406
Georgia	505,088	109,919	41,084	37%	462,198
Alabama	519,121	96,603	33,730	35%	435,080
Florida	78,679	15,090	5,152	34%	61,745
Louisiana	376,276	74,725	22,033	29%	331,726
Texas	421,649	76,781	21,878	28%	182,566
North Carolina	661,563	125,090	34,658	28%	331,099
Virginia	1,105,453	201,523	52,128	26%	490,865
Tennessee	834,082	149,335	36,844	25%	275,719
Kentucky	930,201	166,321	38,645	23%	225,483
Arkansas	324,335	57,244	11,481	20%	111,115
Missouri	1,067,081	192,073	24,320	13%	114,943
Maryland	599,860	110,278	13,783	12%	87,189
Delaware	110,418	18,966	587	3%	1,798
Total/Averages	8,189,782	1,515,605	393,967	26%	3,950,551

So, the argument we've seen is that, well, there might have been more than one slaveholder per family, and if there were two, that would reduce those percentages by half.
The answer is: maybe, probably not, but even if true, that could in no way get the averages down to the 3% claimed in woodpusher's bogus statistics.

The key takeaway is that, especially in the Deep South, virtually everyone had family or neighbors who were slaveholders, and everyone clearly understood the importance of slavery to their economic well being.

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