Posted on 10/12/2012 11:00:08 AM PDT by BigReb555
America mourned the death of Gen. Robert E. Lee on Wednesday, October 12, 1870 and Friday, October 12th marks the 142nd anniversary of his death.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Can you elaborate?
I'm glad you said "ended slavery," not "freed the slaves." The dirty little secret of emancipation in the northern states is that it resulted in very few actual slaves being freed.
The states invariably had a considerable grace period before the law went into effect. So the slaveowners just sold their slaves south, resulting in a precipitate drop in the black population by the next census. And almost certainly inevitable instances of families being split up, etc.
It is true that slavery was prohibited federally by virtue of the Thirteenth Amendment.
Slavery was ended by state action in every Union state except KY before the end of the war. The 50,000 or so slaves in that state were the only ones freed by the 13th Amendment.
With the exception of freeing the slaves, and opposing the Southern rebellion, I can't think of an action Lincoln took that wasn't also taken by Jefferson Davis. Conscription? Both did it. Suspend habeas corpus? Both did it. Income tax? Both did it. Protectionist tariffs? Both again. Newspaper censorship? Ditto. Consolidate power in the central government? Both again. So considering that Davis was just as bid a despot in his way as you claim Lincoln was in his how can you make the blanket claim that the South would have developed into some sort of small government, state's rights paradise? The odds seem to be against that happening, given the start.
That is, of course, why the slaveowners kept bidding up the price of slaves, reaching a record in 1860. Because of course intelligent investors always sink their money into investments they know will be worthless in five years.
Just finished (another) Civil War history. It's fair to point out that Davis used this suspension a great deal less frequently than Lincoln. It is also fair to bring up that southern repression of armed resistance, as in eastern TN, was a good deal more harsh than the similar federal repression in MD.
Protectionist tariffs? Both again.
Don't think so. CSA Constitution specifically prohibited protectionist tariffs, though without defining them. Given the minimal trade that made it through the blockade, CSA tariffs never raised much money.
Newspaper censorship? Ditto.
Actually, I don't think Davis every actually censored newspapers. (Could be wrong.) Though southern social pressure served much the same purpose.
A dissertation by david (or donald...who GAS?) Livingston titled “Why the War Was Not About Slavery” is routinely trotted out as the holy grail of the “legitimacy of southron independence”. In truth it is a snipe hunt where the author attempts to point in every direction except the truth. Øboma would be so proud. Posted here: http://www.carolannwilson.net/Livingston.pdf
Open rebellion occurred early in Lincoln's administration. I occurred late in Jefferson's.
Not exactly. Very early in the war (fall of ‘61) there was a spate of bridge-burning and guerrilla attacks on CSA forces in E. Tennessee, precipitated by the report that a Union Army was advancing on the region. Very similar to the somewhat earlier actions of pro-southern Marylanders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Tennessee_bridge-burning_conspiracy
I read somewhere that there was a letter in the Vatican archives from Jefferson Davis where he acknowledged that slavery was on its way out and that he would certainly trade it for Southern independence.
I don't think that's fair at all because I don't agree it's true. Mark Neely, Jr. wrote a book on civil liberties in the Confederacy and he details the unfettered and arbitrary actions of the Confederate Habeas Corpus Commissioners and their ability to jail without trial anyone they chose to. Those commissioners operated throughout the South, throughout the war. Neely also details that on a per capita basis the Confederacy had more people jailed on the orders of the government than the Union did.
Don't think so. CSA Constitution specifically prohibited protectionist tariffs, though without defining them.
When the Davis government was first courting Virginia the secession commissioner sent to the Virginia Secession Convention promised that the Confederacy would set tariffs as high as Virginia wished, however high was needed to protect their industries. Later, in May 1861 IIRC, the Confederate Congress passed a tariff that placed duties on tobacco and other Southern products. Just because the Confederate Constitution mandated something doesn't mean that the Confederate government didn't do it.
Actually, I don't think Davis every actually censored newspapers. (Could be wrong.) Though southern social pressure served much the same purpose.
In his book Neely details that the first person on either side to be jailed without trial was a newspaper reported who printed information on Confederate forces in Pensacola that Braxton Bragg didn't like. McPherson also talks about the pressure applied to the press in his book, "Battle Cry of Freedom".
An...interesting dissertation. Very colorful. And somewhat one-sided.
They had plenty of opportunity to do so, and never took it.
In 62 or 63 if the CSA had agreed to emancipation, even delayed and compensated, the Brits would have fallen all over themselves recognizing and probably allying with them. The RN would have broken the blockade and the South wins the war.
This exact scenario was proposed by Patrick Cleburne, one of the very best southern generals, and caused a furor which was repressed by Davis himself. It also kept Cleburne from being promoted for the rest of his (cut short by being shot) career, despite the army's desperate need to competent senior leaders.
Basically, the South had a choice between losing the war in a desperate attempt to keep slavery going, or scheduling future emancipation and winning their independence.
They took option A. (They chose poorly.)
Slavery was "headed for extinction" in large part because the Confederacy lost the war. Had it won, things might have looked different.
Brazil wouldn't have felt isolated as a slave state and slavery might have lasted longer. The same would be true of the remaining Spanish colonies, Cuba and Puerto Rico. Slavery might even have been restored in some countries or territories.
Of course, nobody imagines that slavery might have endured down to the 21st century, but any "time table" of emancipation would be affected by the result of the war. Slavery could have endured until mechanization made hand-cotton picking unprofitable in the 20th century.
Maybe that's going too far, but actual slavery would have been replaced by forms of labor-force control that weren't radically different from slavery, as was indeed the case in the history we know.
I read somewhere that there was a letter in the Vatican archives from Jefferson Davis where he acknowledged that slavery was on its way out and that he would certainly trade it for Southern independence.
Of course, he would say something like that, since he was looking for foreign support. If he did in fact say it, it doesn't mean he was sincere.
Some 75 to 90 percent of federal revenue came from the Southern export trade.
Anyone even vaguely familiar with the period should know there was never a federal tariff or tax on exports.
The primary source of federal revenue during this period, along with land sales, was tariffs on imports.
These were paid by the importer and passed along of course to the eventual consumer. An Iowa farmer paid exactly the same tariff as an Arkansas planter.
As you know, many of the (delusional) southern extremists planned to expand their slave empire to the South, taking the Caribbean and (depending on the degree of delusion) everything to the Isthmus or Cape Horn. I’m unclear whether they planned to enslave the existing inhabitants or start the slave trade back up in a big way.
They were utterly delusional because the only way, at the time, to invade these areas was by sea, as the US found out during the Mexican War.
The RN, and for that matter the US Navy, would never have permitted such an expansion of the slave empire or a restart of the slave trade. And having no navy, the CSA would have been unable to do anything about it.
I will not dispute your claims, because I haven’t read the book in question. I do know that the CSA Congress authorized suspension of HC for shorter periods and smaller areas than the US Congress did.
It is, of course, entirely possible that the commissioners you mention often operated without congressional authorization.
No argument here. Though I don’t pretend to know Davis’s mind in his letter to the Pope. However even if he was sincere it certainly wouldn’t have survived getting it through the Confederate Congress.
Lots of bloviating in Congress and by anti-administration governors, especially in GA and NC, about the need to resist centralizing tyranny. This was based on the theory that if rights were once lost they could never be regained.
I've never understood this POV, and I doubt the Founders did either. If the South had cheerfully delegated absolute dictatorial authority to Davis for the term of the war, as the Romans did during periods of extreme crisis, he may or may not have been able to save the CSA.
But it's absolutely certain that the carping and resistance by the governors and others in defense of individual and states' "rights" significantly hindered the CSA war effort.
Here's the rub: Had the South handed over such power to Davis and won the war, they would have had some chance of getting their rights back. (Since I don't think Davis had any desire to be a permanent tyrant, I suspect the chance would have been excellent.)
Losing the war, as they did, in some degree because of refusal to bend on the "rights" issue, meant they lost not only the rights for which they fought, but also their independence.
I was asked my opinion and I gave it. This does not mean you have to agree with me, It is simply my opinion.
Get over it.
Wrong. When i say it that way i expose 100% of the truth that the union holds NO moral high ground on the issue of slavery. Thank you.
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.