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.
Perhaps I sould have qualified my "every" with "most". But the point remains valid. Of all commanders during the war, Lee had the highest overall percent of losses.
Allow me to introduce you to a document by the Founders that detailed, in specifics, the intollerable abuses they faced and why they were justified.
The Confederates never even attempted to claim abuse as the rational. Perhaps you can do it for them. I'd be interested to hear what abuses you think occurred.
But how about CSA Gen John C. Pemberton (Vicksburg, Champion's Hill, Chickasaw Bayou) who had 50% losses? (Source: Attack and Die)
What oppression? James Buchanan Democrat was still US President when the South started their rebellion in December 1860. Buchanan spent most of the prior four years appeasing his southern counterparts, and hoping the Supreme Court would fix the problem of expanding slavery.
Lincoln wouldn't ascend to his throne for another three months.
Whatever it was, it must have been totally unspeakable, because none of them ever mentioned being oppressed. ;~))
Lee lost about 20% of his men during the war. Grant lost about 18% of his. Not all that much different.
Now let's look at Lee versus Grant. Lee lost about 40,000 men against Grant, while Grant lost 60,000 against Lee. Grant had bigger armies (almost twice as large as Lee's) and the ability to call in more troops while Lee didn't.
Do you think that Lee, second in his class at West Point, could not figure out what Grant was doing, while Ditto the armchair general could?
Both of them suffered heavy losses attacking well entrenched foes. The lesson to be learned from both generals and the war in general is don't send your troops in charges against a well entrenched foe unless the objective is worth the cost.
I think you should call me a Monday Morning General, not an Armchair General. It's always easier to look back and call the shots.
None the less, Lee knew he was facing superior resources from the beginning. Why he allowed himself to get into slugfests that cost him more than he could afford to lose is a mystery to me.
I understand they went into the war thinking it would be short, and decided by some sort of set-piece Waterloo, but by the end of '62, it should have been obvious to all that there were no knockout punches to be thrown, and the winner would be the last able to field a force.
Grant understood that very well. Sherman even made this call early on when he ranted to anyone who would listen that it would be long, bloody and take far more men than were then in the field. They called him crazy then and tried to cashier him. A year later, they knew he was right.
I see that the Pemberton losses include troops captured.
Sounds cold, but killed or captured doesn't really matter to the math. They were "resourses" lost.
Good question. Lee certainly knew that. Perhaps the strategy was to cause large losses for the North and hold out until Lincoln lost the 1864 election because of those losses. Came close to working. I've read that until late that year Lincoln thought he might well lose in the fall. Lincoln even made Nevada a state before the election to help boost his chances. Nevada hardly qualified as a state at that point.
Lincoln didn't make anything a state, Congress does that. And Congress passed the enabling acts for three territories, Nebraska, Colorado, and Nevada, in March of 1864. If Lincoln was that worried about the results of the 1864 election then why didn't he 'create' the other two states as well?
bookmark
Lincoln was actually convinced he would not be re-elected in November and even had his cabinet sign a promise that in the months between November and March (when McCllean would be inaugurated,) they would do all in their ability to win the final victory so that the Peace Democrats would not sign a treaty, splitting the nation in half. Sherman's taking Atlanta in September swung the public mood back in Lincoln's favor and along with McCllean breaking with the Copperheads after Atlanta fell and promising to continue the war which broke the back of the anti-war Democrat factions.
Yep. It was unspeakable all right.
"In the Southern States there are two entirely distinct and separate races, and one has been held in subjection to the other by peaceful inheritance from worthy and patriotic ancestors, and all who know the races, well know that it is the only form of government that can preserve both and administer the blessings of civilization with order and in harmony.
And I thought you were of the school that claims slavery had nothing to do with the war.
And how about the fact that even your "source" only complaint relates to the institution of slavery? Does that mean you now agree that the South seceded over slavery?
Well it couldn't have been their [chattel] property rights being opressed, since the Supreme Court ruled in their favor [Dred Scott] three years prior. More likely it was all those scary black Republicans up in Washington [lol].
The rich deposits of gold and high-quality silver ore turned Virginny Town to Virginia City, the most important settlement between Denver and San Francisco. They also prompted President Abe Lincoln to make Nevada a state in 1864. Although it did not contain enough people to constitutionally authorize statehood he needed the Comstock to secure enough electoral votes to win the 1864 election.
I don't think there is a restriction in the constitution about the number of residents required to make a state, though there may have been some guidelines developed in one of the Congresses along the way (e.g., guidelines for the number of people to be represented by each representative in Congress).
I think a more correct characterization of Nevada at the time would have been that it only had about 15,000 residents and that was really too small to shoulder the burdens of state government, taxation, etc.
15,000 is about the present population of the city of Great Bend, Kansas. Hey, want to be a senator?
Others, such as Charles Dana who was in the War Department under Lincoln, said that Lincoln pushed for Nevada statehood to get the 13th Amendment through the Senate because a nose count at the time showed that the votes of senators from one more "state" was needed.
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.