Posted on 07/22/2015 7:36:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
We call the war of 1861 the Civil War. But is that right? A civil war is a struggle between two or more entities trying to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more sought to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington sought to take over London in 1776. Both wars, those of 1776 and 1861, were wars of independence. Such a recognition does not require one to sanction the horrors of slavery. We might ask, How much of the war was about slavery?
Was President Abraham Lincoln really for outlawing slavery? Let's look at his words. In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, "I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists." In a Springfield, Illinois, speech, he explained: "My declarations upon this subject of Negro slavery may be misrepresented but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects." Debating Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."
What about Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation? Here are his words: "I view the matter (of slaves' emancipation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion." He also wrote: "I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition." When Lincoln first drafted the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union.
London and Paris were considering recognizing the Confederacy and assisting it in its war against the Union.
The Emancipation Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It specifically detailed where slaves were to be freed: only in those states "in rebellion against the United States." Slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion — such as Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri. The hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. Lincoln's own secretary of state, William Seward, sarcastically said, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."
Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been heartily endorsed by the Confederacy: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. ... Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." Lincoln expressed that view in an 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, supporting the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
Why didn't Lincoln share the same feelings about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our nation's history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What "responsible" politician would let that much revenue go?
typo; meant to say “Lee and Davis were criminals’’.
Thanks “Handy Dandy’. How about it Lenty old boy, care to venture an answer?
"Little man"? Then why are you looking up when you say it?
Done with you, midget.
Thanks for displaying your intellectual shoe size.
Agreed, but orders from the top did not always translate into good behavior by every soldier, especially when lower grade officers were willing to look the other way.
Allen Guelzo's recent book on Gettysburg discusses this question at some length.
The reality was, as reported by Confederates themselves, that once across the Potomac into Pennsylvania, troops were allowed to do pretty much what they wanted, with or without formal "requisitions".
You mentioned Early's 1864 burning of Chambersburg, PA, but that was only the last of three Confederate raids on Chambersburg, the second being Lee / Ewell's Corps in 1863, which Guelzo describes as quickly descending from huge "requisitions" to confiscations, to robbery & looting to finally simple vandalism (see chapter 5).
You know, I've long argued that in the greater scheme of things, especially when compared to other armies at other times in other wars, our ancestors on both sides were better behaved than any you can name.
For just one example, my estimate is that the number of civilians who died directly from the Civil War was in the neighborhood of one for every thousand soldiers killed.
Compare that with WWII where two civilians died for every soldier killed -- no comparison.
But there were some atrocities, looting and destruction, on both sides, neither remarkably more or less than the other, when opportunity and need were present.
Lee is a great hero but there are some things he did not tolerate and pillaging was one of them and punishments were severe. He also used file closers which was very controversial at the time. The way I understand it one of the duties of file closers was to stop pillaging. However once Lee started to use file closers the Union quickly followed suite.
Like I said the Army of the Potomac did little foraging ( the Shenandoah valley excepted) because it was the best equipped and supplied Army in the world. Logistics was its forte. The other Union Armies - not so much and we don't even need to discuss Sherman's' bummers.
The file closers were engaged more to deal with deserters than anyone pillaging.
http://civilwarhome.com/discipline.htm
Allen Guelzo's recent book, "Gettysburg, the Last Invasion" discusses the subject at considerable length, providing quotes from letters home, and examples, especially in chapter 5.
When I can figure out how to copy & paste some examples from Kindle, I will...
Looking at the larger picture, in past threads I've reviewed at length examples of Confederate misbehavior, not denying that Yankees also misbehaved, only to show that it did happen, on occasion, on both sides.
And I always say that, compared to other armies in other wars, our ancestors were gentlemen and Christian soldiers whose worst behavior in no way compares to much that was common elsewhere.
Consider again: the death rate among young Confederate men was as high as any country suffered in WWII, for example the Soviets.
And yet, in WWII, of the 75 million who died, 50 million were civilians.
By stark contrast, in the US Civil War, the documented deaths of civilians were a few hundred, at most.
You did mention the Army of the Potomac lived almost entirely from supplies shipped by rail from the north, but imply that other Union armies, not so much.
In reality, most Union armies lived off their own rail-heads most of the time, and it was the rare exception, often now exaggerated, when they "lived off the land".
The most common experience of southern farmers was that if they stayed to defend their homes, Union troops didn't molest them, but if they ran and abandoned their farms, they would often return to find them burned down.
Confederate troops always "lived off the land", taking what they needed, with "requisitions" or without.
central_va: "Military Targets i.e. RR and bridges were destroyed but not civilian."
Generally, yes, but the definition of what was "military" or "contraband" could be very loosely interpreted.
A prime example is horses for cavalry, always considered fair game, but also any food or clothing the troops might feel short of.
Gathering up such items was JEB Stuart's specialty, even when it could cost his commander, Gen. Lee, the loss of important intelligence.
And, iirc, the practice of burning homes began even before the war, in "bleeding Kansas."
No, it did not happen often, but did, on occasion, happen.
Anyway, this afternoon I'm still away from home, will make an effort later to cite passages from Guelzo to demonstrate the reality of "requisitions" and "contraband".
In light of Sherman's "behavior" you position is untenable. This is typical of liberals when the spout "they all do it". You cannot say minor infractions of the ArmyOfNoVa even comes close what happened in GA and SC. Its ridiculous, it is what alcoholics say to their spouses when the get totally drunk at a party and they use the excuse well "I saw you have a drink". So that covers their entire embarrassing drunk-ex.
As promised, here is part of Guelzo's description of Confederate forces at Gettysburg:
In years to come, this order would be the source of limitless satisfaction to Lee's veterans, who would point to it as evidence of the South's gentlemanly and civilized restraint in the making of war.
What was forgotten was that Lee's restraining order only offered Confederate paper money for the requisitions; that those who were disinclined to take Confederate paper would be offered receipts and the supplies taken anyway; and that anyone trying to "remove or conceal property necessary for the use of the army" would have it confiscated outright.
This did not provide as much security as it seemed for the farmers and shopkeepers whose inventories were thus rendered fair game.
But as the order was passed down from corps to division headquarters throughout the army, it did create a disciplined process which would keep the ordinary Confederate soldier from deputizing himself as his own chief provider.
It was not plundering that was undesirable, but uncontrolled plundering that led to uncontrollable soldiers sprawled across the countryside.
After all, Lee had already given orders to strip the Baltimore & Ohio workshops at Martinsburg of "tools, machinery, and materials much needed by the railroads of the Confederacy," and one of his principal rationales for coming north was to feed his army on the vast buffet of Pennsylvania farming.
Plunder could be good -- provided it was regulated. 12
Keeping up that caveat seems to have been harder than anyone expected.
"General Lee has issued orders prohibiting all misconduct or lawlessness and urging the utmost forebearance and kindness to all," wrote an Alabamian.
But no sooner had the army crossed the state line than the march descended dangerously close to a free-for-all.
After all, "the rebel officers and men" declared to anyone along the way who would listen that "they had been fighting this war long enough in the South, and they were going to Pennsylvania to make it the battle-ground" -- which included "taking what they pleased without paying for it."
An apprehensive Dorsey Pender wrote to his disapproving wife on June 28th, "Until we crossed the Md. Line our men behaved as well as troops could," but now "they have an idea that they are to indulge in unlicensed plunder."
Once encamped, rebel soldiers dispersed to "forage after chickens, eggs, butter, vegetables, apple butter, honey, etc."
Lee might issue "orders against... unauthorized taking," admitted one artillery lieutenant, but "our boys lay waste the land on the sly."
Jeremiah Tate marveled in a letter to his wife that "when we first arrived in Pennsylvania we saw a fine time we got evry thing to eat that hart cood wish, such as milk and butter apple butter chickens honey molases sugar coffee tea chease and Whiskey wines of all kindes, everything was cheap all it cost us was to go after it."
Soldiers could get away with this because all too many officers preferred to invent excuses for ignoring Lee's order rather than invite outright disobedience.
In Evander McIvor Law's Alabama brigade, "there were ninety-five sheep skins in Law's camp."
When "someone spoke to" Law about the suspicious skins, "he said that no man's sheep could bite his men without getting hurt."
John Bell Hood was even more indulgent: "Boys, you are now on the enemy's soil, stack your arms and do pretty much as you please." 13
Once Ewell's corps reached the town of Chambersburg, the pillaging became even easier, given the concentration of stores and warehouses in a town of 5,000 inhabitants.
At nine o'clock on the morning of June 24th, Robert Rodes' division pulled itself together sufficiently to parade into Chambersburg, with a band tooting a reprise of "The Bonnie Blue Flag."
Dick Ewell, who had been traveling in a carriage with his crutches and prosthesis, set up command at the town bank, where he presented his formal requisition for supplies: 5,000 jackets and trousers, 50,000 pounds of bread, 500 barrels of flour, 5,000 bushels of grain, and so forth.
A hastily assembled civilian committee tried to bargain with Ewell, but to no avail.
Squads of Confederate soldiers began breaking open locked-up stores, and Chambersburg's "grocery, drug, hardware, book and stationery, clothing, boot and shoe stores were all relieved of most of their remaining contents."
Ewell's stepson, Campbell Brown, and another veteran staffer did some private foraging of their own in Chambersburg's shops, since Brown's mother had sent him off with a list of goods to pick up in Pennsylvania.
Ewell's chief engineer also had a list thoughtfully provided by his wife, which included "about $ 100 worth of calico, wool delaine, bleached cotton, hoops, gloves, bread, gingham, pins &c &c" to be piled onto empty wagons heading south for resupply. 14
Confiscation soon degenerated into robbery.
"A group of Louisiana Tigers " stopped men on the streets and demanded their hats and boots; the pastor of the German Reformed Church, Benjamin Schneck, "one of the best citizens of the place," was stripped of his gold watch and $ 50 in cash.
Soon enough, the robberies turned into simple vandalism.
Several Confederates broke into the Odd Fellows Hall and "cut to pieces and destroyed a greater portion" of the lodge's regalia, "broke open several of the desks and drawers, and mutilated everything they could lay their hands on."
A "respectable" soldier in the 15th Georgia said "the streets of Chambersburg are strewn with gloves and fragments of goods." 15
From there, the vandalism veered into kidnapping of a very specific and lucrative sort.
In 1860, some 1,700 free black people lived in and around Chambersburg, Mercersburg, and Greencastle.
A few were fugitives from slavery, and "free" only in fact, and for them the descent of the Army of Northern Virginia on south-central Pennsylvania was the beginning of "a regular slave hunt."
But not even those blacks whose families had been free for generations in Pennsylvania expected the Confederate armies to spend any time distinguishing between who was legitimately free and who was not.
Free black civilians working under Union Army contracts, as well as "contrabands" who found refuge within Union Army camps, were all alike to the rebels, and when Harpers Ferry was overrun by Confederates in 1862, black fugitives "who thought... the hour of freedom" had come, and who "had gathered under the flag which to them was its starry symbol," were roughly lined up along with the garrison's black teamsters, cooks, grooms, and ostlers, while Confederate soldiers and officers strolled down the lines, free to claim any of them as "their property." 16
A year later, the same opportunity presented itself in Chambersburg.
When Albert Jenkins' rough-hewn cavalrymen made their initial foray into the Cumberland Valley in mid-June, "they took up all [the people of color] they could find, even little children, whom they had to carry on horseback before them" to be claimed or sold in the slave markets in Richmond.
One prosperous Chambersburg farmer, William Heyser, was shocked to discover that the Confederates had taken with them "250 colored people again into bondage."
The infantry of Ewell's corps who followed on June 24th were even less fastidious about sweeping up any black people they could lay their hands upon.
George Steuart's Maryland brigade, looping westward to Mercersburg and McConnellsburg, threatened to "burn down every house which harbored a fugitive slave, and did not deliver him up within twenty minutes," and in Mercersburg twenty-one blacks were rounded up and driven south, including "two or three" who "were born and raised in this neighborhood."
A local magistrate who protested taking "free negroes" was abruptly told, "Yes, and we will take you, too, if you do not shut up!"
This might, in the larger scheme of the campaign, have seemed a waste of military time, but slaves were a valuable commodity.
As one farmer was told by Confederates who were escorting "four wagon loads of women & children between Chambersburg & the Maryland line," even the children "will bring something."
This was, after all, an army whose cause was inextricably bound up with the defense of black enslavement.
To have left Pennsylvania's blacks in undisturbed freedom would have been tantamount to denying the validity of the whole Confederate enterprise. 17
Guelzo, Allen C. (2013-05-14). Gettysburg: The Last Invasion (Vintage Civil War Library). Chapter 5. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
So, perhaps you can cite examples where Union soldiers kidnapped Southerners for "sale" in Union slave markets??
How do unarmed men pillage and plunder. Every cracker Pennsiyltuckian had a shotgun and a rifle.
When some semblance of order was restored, the Texas Brigade straggled across the narrow neck of Maryland to the vicinity of Greencastle, Pennsylvania. That day, June 26, 1863, Hood's men performed a feat never again matched by any division in the war. They had breakfast in Virginia, lunch in Maryland, supper in Pennsylvania, and slept in a state of intoxication -- four states in 24 hours. That evening the Hood's Division went into camp near Greencastle. Hood himself precipitated some of the most intense foraging yet done by the Texas Brigade when he reportedly said to his headquarter's guard, ``Boys, you are now on the enemy's soil; stack your arms and pretty much do as you please...stay close by and prevent any stranger from coming here to kill me, and establish your camp here by my tent.''
There’s no record I’ve seen of any PA crackers shooting at Confederates who came to pillage their farms.
All the records we have say foraging Southern troops found whatever they wanted, and we’re most pleased with the prices they paid — zero.
So, I took your advice and searched under "Robert Rhett". I came up with the below. Is this the same Robert Rhett you are referring to?
Proponents argued that the Golden Circle would bring together jurisdictions that depended on slavery. The Knights of the Golden Circle was the U.S. organization formed to promote and help create the Pan-American union of states. It was organized in 1854 by George W. L. Bickley, a Virginia-born doctor, editor, and adventurer living in Cincinnati, Ohio. Membership increased slowly until 1859 and reached its height in 1860. The membership, scattered from New York to California and into Latin America, was never large. Some Knights of the Golden Circle active in northern states, such as Illinois, were accused of anti-Union activities after the Civil War began. Robert Barnwell Rhett, called by some the "father of secession", said a few days after Lincoln's election: "We will expand, as our growth and civilization shall demand - over Mexico - over the isles of the sea - over the far-off Southern tropics - until we shall establish a great Confederation of Republics - the greatest, freest and most useful the world has ever seen."
As far as I can tell from reading first hand accounts, Rebs were not allowed, by standing order, to take arms into any towns in PA the camped near. Unarmed men usually do not "pillage".
One irate farmer stamped into the tent of one of Hood's regimental commanders demanding that he discipline the men that had shot and taken one of his largest hogs. ``I heard a shot, followed by a loud squeal,'' related the farmer, ``and when I went out on the porch to investigate I noticed two soldiers carrying the hog away and they were headed for this area.'' When the colonel asked the man if he was sure that he heard a shot and then a squeal, the farmer responded affirmatively. The colonel then informed the farmer that he must be in the wrong camp, ``for when a Texan shoots a hog he don't squeal.''
http://4thtexascob.com/History.html
Look here:
http://www.civilwarcauses.org/rhett.htm
It's the most famous thing he ever did. You had to walk right past it to get to the Golden Circle stuff, which you concede was the transactions of a scattering of very small groups and ultimately insignificant to the course of history.
Thanks for the link.
That is the connection I recall. I wasn't aware of the wider ideology and transnational ambitions.
I don't understand how you could not have been aware of the wider ideology and transnational ambitions. You brought up Robert Rhett. Wider ideology and transnational ambitions is what he was all about. BTW, he did not make an address declaring S.Carolina's reasons for secession, he made an address to the other Slaveholding States (as to why they should follow S.Carolina) as the self designated spokesman and "father of secession". I have already mentioned what he said a few days after Lincoln's election: "We will expand, as our growth and civilization shall demand - over Mexico - over the isles of the sea - over the far-off Southern tropics - until we shall establish a great Confederation of Republics - the greatest, freest and most useful the world has ever seen."
Rhett's address to the other Slaveholding (southern) States ends like this:
United together, and we must be the most independent, as we are the most important among the nations of the world. United together, and we require no other instrument to conquer peace than our beneficent productions. United together, and we must be a great, free and prosperous people, whose renown must spread throughout the civilized world, and pass down, we trust, to the remotest ages. We ask you to join us in forming a confederacy of Slaveholding States.
One might come to the conclusion that Rhett was a mega-maniacal bigot who put a very clear and strict qualifier on the shangri la fantasy of his confederacy of states. Incidently, he owned two plantations, @two hundred slaves, and ran a newspaper. Do not forget for one minute that slaves were valuable property and the most efficient way to increase your "fold" was to keep your female slaves pregnant (whether by direct intervention of the Master, or by a handpicked stud).
I don't understand how you could not have been aware of the wider ideology and transnational ambitions.
I don't see how you could have been unaware of who is buried in Grant's tomb!
Robert Rhett was a congressman and known for his politicking, and NO, you will NOT find general knowledge in the body politick of his association with the Golden Circle, any more than anyone was aware Dr. Carson is a Seventh-Day Adventist (whose church was the mother stock of the Branch Davidian) until the Lamestream Media started making a big deal of it a few days ago in their cheesy campaign to score a few political points and drive Republicans toward another beatable RiNO nominee.
I came to Rhett via discussions in this forum of the causes and declarations of cause of the Civil War. Why should I have cared that Rhett was also a fly-fisherman, or a Woodman of the World? But you assign the responsibility to me retroactively, as if I'd missed a homework assignment. Which brings up another point: We don't accept homework assignments around here, especially not when some punk jumps up and announces that a) you didn't do your homework and b) the deadline was last week.
So don't do it.
As for your not finding Rhett's speech, well, I don't see how you could have missed it, since I told you to look for a speech (actually more of a pamphlet). But I believe he did give that address to the Georgia secession convention, at which fellow South Carolinian Robert Toombs also spoke, as well as (in opposition) Alexander Stephens, whose later "sense of the convention" speech on causes is very often quoted by Unionist aggrandizers and South-bashers without either context or nuance or any explanations of what the reader is looking at, which did not represent Stephens's own views, which were markedly different. Imagine the Declaration of Independence as it would look if written by a Tory dragooned to the Patriot cause by the weight of his loyalty to neighbors.
One might come to the conclusion that Rhett was a mega-maniacal bigot ....
You just stepped on your own crank, fella. Bigots are not visionaries. So which do you want, la-la fantasy or Archie Bunker bigotry?
As for "bigotry", I know a FReeper who got thrown off this board a few years ago for vigorously disputing the proposition that Lincoln was a race-relations visionary, by quoting him repeatedly and in extenso from the Lincoln-Douglas debates, in which Lincoln used vernacular to refer to the black race and explain his own belief in strict social and political inequality.
Many of these ACW threads have run 3000 posts and more, and the ground has been plowed many times over, on the basic claims and counterclaims about the political underpinnings of our subject. And oh, by the way, we did reach elenchus, claimed and proven by appeal to the black-letter words of the Constitution and to the Federalist, fons et origo of originalism, that the South had the right and power to leave the Union and that yes, the People, acting as a State, has the final power to dissolve all ties to either the Union or the British Empire and go their separate way.
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.