Posted on 06/13/2005 6:08:24 AM PDT by sheltonmac
Everywhere you turn it seems there is a concerted effort to erase part of America's past by stamping out Confederate symbols. Why? Because no one wants to take the time to truly understand history. The general consensus is that Abraham Lincoln saved the Union and ushered in a new era of freedom by defeating the evil, slave-owning South. Therefore, Confederate symbols have no place in an enlightened society. Most of this anti-Southern bigotry stems from an ignorance regarding the institution of slavery. Some people cannot grasp the fact that slavery was once a social reality in this country, and at the time of the War Between the States it was practiced in the North as well as the South. In fact, the slaveholding states of Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri remained in the Union during the war. It should also be pointed out that, in our history as an independent nation, slavery existed for 89 years under the U.S. flag (1776-1865) and for only four years under the Confederate flag (1861-1865). I have often wondered: If slavery is to be the standard by which all American historic symbols are judged, then why don't we hear more complaints about the unfurling of Old Glory? To begin to fully understand this volatile issue, it is important to keep a few things in mind. For example, Lincoln (a.k.a. the "Great Emancipator") was not an abolitionist. Anyone even remotely familiar with Lincoln's speeches and writings knows that freeing the slaves was never one of his primary objectives. In 1862, he said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery…" It wasn't until his war against the South seemed to be going badly for the North that slavery even became an issue for him. Contrary to popular belief, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was merely a public relations ploy. It was an attempt to turn an illegal, unconstitutional war into a humanitarian cause that would win over those who had originally been sympathetic to the South's right to secede. It was also meant to incite insurrection among the slaves as well as drive a wedge between the Confederacy and its European allies who did not want to be viewed as supporters of slavery. A note of interest is that the Proclamation specifically excluded all slaves in the North. Of course, to say that Lincoln had the power to end slavery with the stroke of a pen is to assign dictatorial powers to the presidency, allowing him to override Congress and the Supreme Court and usurp the Constitution--which he did anyway. Another thing to remember is that the Confederate states that had seceded were no longer bound by the laws of the United States. They were beyond Lincoln's jurisdiction because they were a sovereign nation. Even if they weren't--and most people today deny the South ever left the Union--their respective rights would still have been guaranteed under the Constitution (see the 10th Amendment), denying Lincoln any authority at all to single-handedly free the slaves. This is only reinforced by the fact that he did absolutely nothing to free those slaves that were already under U.S. control. Slavery had been around in the North for over two centuries, with the international slave trade, until it ended in the early 1800's, being controlled by New England. When abolition finally came to those states--mostly due to the growth of an industrial economy in a region where cooler climatic conditions limited the use of slaves in large-scale farming operations--Northern slaves were sold to plantation owners in the agrarian South. In essence, the North continued to benefit from the existence of slavery even after abolition--if not from free labor, then from the profits gained by selling that labor in areas where it was still legal. It should be noted that the abolitionist movement had little to do with taking a stand against racism. In fact, many abolitionists themselves looked upon those they were trying to free as inferior, uncivilized human beings. Yes, racism was rampant in the northern U.S. as many states had laws restricting the ability of blacks to vote, travel, marry or even own land. Joanne Pope Melish of Brown University, in her book Disowning Slavery: Gradual Emancipation and Race in New England, 1780-1860, points out that some militant groups even made a practice of "conducting terroristic, armed raids on urban black communities and the institutions that served them." This animosity exhibited toward blacks in the North may explain why the Underground Railroad, long before passage of the Fugitive Slave Act, ran all the way to Canada. Despite the wishes of a select few, slavery had already begun to disappear by the mid- to late-1800s. Even Southern leaders realized slavery wouldn't last. In language far more explicit than its U.S. counterpart, the Confederate Constitution included an outright ban on the international slave trade: "The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same." Clearly, there is no reason to believe that slavery wouldn't have died of natural causes in the South as it had in every other civilized part of the world. I'm sure we can all agree that there is no place for slavery in a nation founded on liberty and equality, but that doesn't mean that the South should be written off as an evil "slaveocracy." For one thing, the vast majority of slave owners were not cruel, a stark contrast to how slaves were treated in pagan cultures. In many cases, slaves were considered part of the family--so much so that they were entrusted with helping to raise their masters' children. This is neither an endorsement nor an excuse; it's just a statement of historical fact. Yes, one could argue that the act of one person owning the labor of another is cruel in and of itself, but the same could be said of indentured servitude and other similar arrangements so prominent in our nation's history--not to mention the ability of our modern government to claim ownership of over half of what its citizens earn. If we are to conclude that antebellum Southerners were nothing but evil, racist slave owners who needed to be crushed, then we must operate under the assumption that the Northerners fighting against them were all noble, loving peacemakers who just wanted everyone to live together in harmony. Neither characterization is true. Slavery, 140 years after its demise, continues to be a hot-button topic. Yes, it was a contributing factor in Lincoln's war, but only because the federal government sought to intervene on an issue that clearly fell under the jurisdiction of the various states. Trying to turn what Lincoln did into a moral crusade that justified the deaths of over 600,000 Americans is no better than defending the institution of slavery itself.
Change "McClellan" to "Meade" and you've just described Gettysburg. Was that a draw, too?
"And should RegulatorCounty be ashamed of his remarks?"
But HE started it, LOL.
I am rather shameless at times, and I honestly cannot say that I am ashamed of my descriptions of either Sherman or Grant. But, I'll say that I regret any offensiveness on my part, if you will first, LOL.
According to Madison, they never had it in the first place.
And as a matter of fact, R.E. Lee didn't think so either.
One of the biggest of the Lost Cause Myths that were generated in the decades after the Civil War was that most Americans agreed that there was some well understood "right" for states to withdraw unilaterally from their Constitutional obligations for any reason they chose. That was most surely not the case and to believe it, you also have to believe that the Framers of the Constitution were idiots.
Pick a war, most any war, and you can usually say the same. But the "arrogance and pride" have roots, and while I am not a default Economic Determinist', it is foolish not to look to economic roots for causes.
King Cotton, and the wealth it created, on the back of slave labor, is without a question the economic engine that drove the regions apart.
If either Grant or Sherman were in command at either Antietam or Gettysburg, the Army of Northern Virginia would have never made it back across the Potomac.
It would have been one hell of a fight, but the war would have ended that day, and tens of thousands on both sides would have bee spared.
This goes back to the points I was making earlier. Lee was the best of the Napoleonic commanders, and every other Napoleonic commander he faced in the first 2 years couldn't hold a candle to his genius. Grant and Sherman, transcended Napoleonic tactics and understood it was not a Napoleonic war. Modern war was not about "winning the field". It was about destroying your opponents ability to fight another day. They didn't get it all right, but the fact is they were each 50 years ahead of Lee in strategic thinking, and won the war as a result.
Perhaps the fact that their early military careers were short and relatively unremarkable indicates that they didn't completely accept the military orthodoxy of the day that Lee exemplified and his early opponent tried to compete with.
The constitutionally elected government of the United States was not a monarchy in either 1860 or 1861. Try again.
There is much truth in what you say. It also helped Grant to have greater resources of men and material than Lee. I am reminded of a passage in Attack and Die by Grady McWhiney and Perry Jamieson:
During the Atlanta campaign, Sherman said that he could not afford the losses that Grant had suffered on the offensive in Virginia. On May 22, 1864, he wrote of Grant's tactics, "Grant's battles in Virginia are fearful but necessary. Immense slaughter is necessary to prove that our Northern armies can and will fight."
I wonder what the outcome would have been if Lee had had the resources that Grant did. Maybe Lee would have simply ground down the other side expending manpower like Grant did.
Here is another perspective from Attack and Die:
Throughout the war Confederate leaders seemed to ignore the casualty lists and to mutilate themselves and their armies. A northern observer pointed out that "Southern leaders were, at least up to 1864, bolder in taking risks than their opponents, but also that they pushed their forces under fire very nearly to the limits of endurance." Such actions were justified, according to Confederate Colonel W. C. P. Breckinridge, because "it was the fate of the Southern armies to confront armies larger, better equipped, and admirably supplied. Unless we could by activity, audacity, aggressiveness, and skill overcome these advantages it was a mere matter of time as to the certain result. It was therefore the first requisite of a Confederate general that he should be willing to meet his antagonist on these unequal terms and on such terms make fight. He must of necessity take greater risks and assume grave responsibilities."
I agree with you to a point. If the South had won at Gettysburg, recognition would have occurred.
However, from a technical battlefield standpoint, it was a DRAW!
Well, according to the document I posted, apparently Patrick Henry, and the Virginia Legislature at the least, thought it important enough of a right to retain it, as the ratified the Constitution.
When I teach my students, I tell them that the war was caused by MANY things. Sectional differences, economic factors, and the fundemental issue of the Rights of States vs the Federal Government, the chief issue within THAT issue being slavery.
And if Lee had been in command at 1st Manassas, the war would have been over as well.
But your point is 100% correct. Lee would not stoop to the tactics that Sherman & Grant used, and that was his fatal error. Nevertheless, if Lee had the resources, men, etc. that Grant & Sherman had at their disposal, the outcome would have been different. What made Lee great, was what he did, with what he had.
I don't know, Abe did a pretty good job at trying to become a monarch.....:)
You mean Antietam?
However, from a technical battlefield standpoint, it was a DRAW!
From a strategic standpoint it was a colossal defeat. From a tactical standpoint, since Lee was forced to withdraw, a case can still be made that it was a confederate defeat.
No it wouldn't have. Second Bull Run, Chancellorsville, Fredericksburg are all cases where Lee decisively beat his opponent and did not pursue his defeated foe. There is no reason to believe that he would have done it if he was at First Bull Run, either. He would have been faced with the same problem that Johnston and Beauregard faced - the confederate army in victory was as disorganized as the federal army was in defeat.
Are you saying Madison's opinion of the Constitution was no longer "operable" in 1861? Does that mean you agree with the "living Constitution" advocates who say the Constitution's meaning changes over time?
And I agree the Founders spoke quite clearly about the right to Revolution. And you confuse the right to revolution from oppression with a fictitious right to secession without cause. Madison addressed you confusion very directly in 1833.
"I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.
The Civil War was a Revolution without cause -- unjustified since there was no "intolerable oppression" occurring. The Federal Government had every right to put it down. There were not being oppressed in any way. There was no right in the Constitution then, and there is no right today, to unilateral secession.
But in every war, one side always has greater resources than the other, but that advantage does not always equal success. Lee, and his early opponents, focused entirely on winning battles. But in every battle won, Lee lost a greater percentage of his resources than his opponents. It was a mathematical certainty that he would run out first. When Grant took command, he forced Lee's rate of expenditures even higher, eventually forcing Lee entirely off the field and into defensive trenches around Petersburg and a slow, certain last stand. Grant understood the math. Lee didn't, until it was too late.
Washington, at even much greater disadvantage than Lee, forced the enemy to spend resources in a higher proportion than he did. They were running out faster than him. I simply don't understand how Lee, a man who lived his life in the shadow of Washington, did not emulate his strategy better when faced with a similar situation.
At Fredericksburg, Lee lost 6% of his forces while Burnside lost 11% of his.
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.