Posted on 05/19/2015 10:33:26 PM PDT by iowamark
Even while the Civil War raged, slaves in Cuba could be heard singing, “Avanza, Lincoln, avanza! Tu eres nuestra esperanza!” (Onward, Lincoln, Onward! You are our hope!) – as if they knew, even before the soldiers fighting the war far to the North and long before most politicians understood, that the war in America would change their lives, and the world.
The secession crisis of 1860-1861 threatened to be a major setback to the world antislavery movement, and it imperiled the whole experiment in democracy. If slavery was allowed to exist, and if the world’s leading democracy could fall apart over the issue, what hope did freedom have? European powers wasted no time in taking advantage of the debacle. France and Britain immediately each sent fleets of warships with the official purpose of observing the imminent war in America. In Paris, A New York Times correspondent who went by the byline “Malakoff” thought that the French and British observers “may be intended as a sort of escort of honor for the funeral of the Great Republic.”
...the French forced Benito Juárez, the republican leader, to flee the capital and eventually installed the Austrian archduke Maximilian as emperor of Mexico.
European conservatives welcomed the dismemberment of the “once United States” and the bursting of the “republican bubble” that, beginning with the French Revolution, had inspired revolution and unrest in Europe. Republicanism had been in retreat in Europe since the failed revolutions of 1848, and some predicted that all the wayward American republics would eventually find their way back to some form of monarchy, or seek protection under European imperial rule. When Lincoln, in the darkest days of the war, referred to America as the “last best hope of earth,” he was hardly boasting...
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Yes, it was inevitable.
Nonsense, the war was about slavery in the south before it became about slavery in the north. It’s in the ordinances of secession for the various states of the CSA.
No argument there. I can only add the words of Robert E. Lee:
In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. —Robert E. Lee, to Mary Anna Lee, December 27, 1856
I don't know if further delay would have changed the outcome--unless Lincoln called for troops secession of the Lower South would have remained the de facto reality, and if he allowed Fort Sumter to surrender because of lack of provisions the demoralizing affect of that on the North might have caused the attitude of "let the erring sisters depart in peace" to become even more widespread. Whenever Lincoln showed his hand that he would use force to coerce the seceded states back into the Union the Upper South would have been forced to decide whether to secede. Besides the four which did secede, two others (Kentucky and Missouri) struggled with the possibility.
Why do you suppose Lee thought slavery was a greater evil for whites than for blacks? After all they weren’t the ones who were property being bought and sold.
Thomas Jefferson had thoughts along the same lines. He believed owning slaves necessarily corrupted the slave owner. I would look up some quotes, but I have to get to work...
He took the same position as some of the Founding Fathers. There were, however, several notable black slave owners at the time of the war.. His name escapes me at the moment but one notable one was in Louisiana.
We tend to look at The War Between The States in a 21st century context when we should look at it in the context of the 19th. Pre war Americans primarily considered themselves citizens of their respective states.
With that in mind why do you suppose Lee fought for the Confederacy? It certainly wasn't to preserve slavery.
Thomas Jefferson also wanted to ship all the freed slaves to Santo Domingo.
For example?
There were, however, several notable black slave owners at the time of the war.. His name escapes me at the moment but one notable one was in Louisiana.
And was this person also calling slavery an evil for whites?
With that in mind why do you suppose Lee fought for the Confederacy? It certainly wasn't to preserve slavery.
He fought because Virginia joined the rebellion. He chose state over country, which I think was a mistake.
For example?
It's interesting to note that Lee also supported his wife's efforts in setting up an illegal school for slaves at Arlington and freed his slaves in 1862 (about a year before Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.)
More examples of the Founders views on slavery:
There were, however, several notable black slave owners at the time of the war.. His name escapes me at the moment but one notable one was in Louisiana.
And was this person also calling slavery an evil for whites?
Not relevant. I include the example of black slave owners to shed some light on 19th century thinking.
With that in mind why do you suppose Lee fought for the Confederacy? It certainly wasn't to preserve slavery.
He fought because Virginia joined the rebellion. He chose state over country, which I think was a mistake.
You're applying 21st century thinking to the 19th century. I'll leave you with this thought from Walter Williams:
Did states have a right to secede?
At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, James Madison rejected a proposal that would allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. He said, "A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."
I'll be offline for a bit.
But as your article pointed out Jefferson linked the end of slavery with the need to remove all the freed slaves from the U.S.
It's interesting to note that Lee also supported his wife's efforts in setting up an illegal school for slaves at Arlington and freed his slaves in 1862 (about a year before Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.)
Lee freed the slaves in 1862 because his father-in-laws will required he do that. And I think the story that his wife set up an illegal school for slaves is just that, a story.
Not relevant. I include the example of black slave owners to shed some light on 19th century thinking.
I don't see how it accomplished that.
You're applying 21st century thinking to the 19th century. I'll leave you with this thought from Walter Williams:
And I'll leave you with another quote from Madison: "I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it."
"The reductions were too little for South Carolina. In November 1832 the state called for a convention. By a vote of 136 to 26, the convention overwhelmingly adopted an ordinance of nullification drawn by Chancellor William Harper. It declared that the tariffs of both 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional and unenforceable in South Carolina. While the Nullification Crisis would be resolved in early 1833, tariff policy would continue to be a national political issue between the Democratic Party and the newly emerged Whig Party for the next twenty years."
There is much revisionist history as in historical analysis that has confounded and confused many authors causing an ongoing debate. Lincoln would save the UNION at all costs...for about 3-4 years, the Southern States complained about unfair and unconstitutional tariffs levied on them by the Northern states causing South Carolina to withdraw from said UNION...what followed has been written and rewritten so that the UNCONSTITUTIONALITY has been lost and the more glamorous anti-slavery movement was used as the whip to stop a war weary UNION from quitting....emancipation was put into place, Secession by the South would not, could not be allowed....in this I agree but not by the bullheadedness of people in power to honor that CONSTITUTION. Here is history which come's closest to the truth if not the truth...I highly recommend both:
For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization - When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession
... by the way the author, Charles Adams is a Northerner.
"Lee's slaves" were in reality part of the estate of Lee's father-in-law, George Washington Park Custis.
George Washington Parke Custis stipulated that all the Arlington slaves should be freed upon his death if the estate was found to be in good financial standing or within five years otherwise. When Custis died in 1857, Robert E. Lee—the executor of the estate—determined that the slave labor was necessary to improve Arlington's financial status. The Arlington slaves found Lee to be a more stringent taskmaster than his predacessor. Eleven slaves were “hired out” while others were sent to the Pamunkey River estates. In accordance with Custis's instructions, Lee officially freed the slaves on December 29, 1862.The Emancipation Proclamation was issued on Jan. 1, 1863, three days after Lee freed those slaves. That was precisely five years after the death of Custis.Source: http://www.nps.gov/arho/learn/historyculture/slavery.htm
You’re welcome. In think there’s more material somewhere, because that ends before the secession convention concluded.
I agree with the gentleman from Richland, that the power of taxation is the central power of all governments. Put that power into my hands, and I care very little what the form of government it is; I will control your people through it. That is the question in this address. We have instructed the Committee to present a summary of the reasons which influenced us in the action we have now taken. My friend from Richland said that the violation of the Fugitive Slave Laws are not sufficient, and he calls up the Tariff. Is that one of the causes at this time? What is that cause? Your late Senators, and every one of your members of the House of Representatives, voted for the present tariff. [Mr. Miles. I did not.] Well, those who were there at the time voted for it, and I have no doubt you would, if you were in it. The question of the tariff did agitate us in 1832, and it did array this State against the Federal Government.The final declaration contains no mention of tariffs.I maintain, and do always maintain, that this State triumphed then. Mr. Clay said, before nullification, that the protective tariff system had been established for all time. After the Nullification Ordinance, Mr. Clay did say that the State had accomplished the destruction of that system, and that the State had triumphed. The history of that time has never been written. It is true, we were cheated in the compromise; and really, sir, in what single compromise have we not been cheated? My opinion is, that the State of South Carolina and every other Southern State have been dealing with faithless confederates.
But the Tariff is not the question which brought the people up to their present attitude. We are to give a summary of our causes to the world, but mainly to the other Southern States, whose co-action we wish, and we must not make a fight on the Tariff question.
The Whig party, thoughout all the States, have been protective Tariff men, and they cling to that old issue with all the passion incident to the pride of human opinions. Are we to go off now, when other Southern States are bringing their people up to the true mark? Are we to go off on debateable and doctrinal points? Are we to go back to the consideration of this question, of this great controversy; go back to that party's politics, around which so many passions cluster? Names are much -- associations and passions cluster around names.
I can give no better illustration than to relate an anecdote given me by a member from Louisiana. He said, after the election of Lincoln, he went to an old Whig party friend and said to him: We have been beaten -- our honor requires a dissolution of the Union. Let us see if we cannot agree together, and offered him a resolution to this effect --Resolved, That the honor of Louisiana requires her to disrupt every tie that binds her to the Federal Government. [Laughter.]
It is name, and when we come to more practicability we must consult names. Our people have come to this on the question of slavery. I am willing, in that address to rest it upon that question. I think it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it.
“You would not were you born a slave.”
Slavery would have died on the vine anyway, without costing 600,000 lives.
“About the only example of the latter who rises to real competence is Jeb Stuart.”
Ah, but where was he when General Lee really needed him?
H. L. Mencken wrote, “The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history...the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination—that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.”
The people who started the war didn't think slavery was going to die on the vine. They saw it as an institution that their children and grandchildren and their great-grandchildren would benefit from. So if the South had won then would you have thought the 600,000 lives were worth it?
“The people who started the war didn’t think slavery was going to die on the vine. They saw it as an institution that their children and grandchildren and their great-grandchildren would benefit from.”
Some, certainly. Sort of the mid-nineteenth century version of the Obama voter.
“So if the South had won then would you have thought the 600,000 lives were worth it?”
Of course not. What an insulting thing to say.
But even if they had won, slavery was already on its way out. The soil simply wouldn’t sustain agriculture at that pace with those crops, and the industrial revolution was making slave labor largely obsolete.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.