Posted on 05/03/2019 7:54:25 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
Conventional wisdom of the moment tells us that the great war of 1861—1865 was “about” slavery or was “caused by” slavery. I submit that this is not a historical judgment but a political slogan. What a war is about has many answers according to the varied perspectives of different participants and of those who come after. To limit so vast an event as that war to one cause is to show contempt for the complexities of history as a quest for the understanding of human action.
Two generations ago, most perceptive historians, much more learned than the current crop, said that the war was “about” economics and was “caused by” economic rivalry. The war has not changed one bit since then. The perspective has changed. It can change again as long as people have the freedom to think about the past. History is not a mathematical calculation or scientific experiment but a vast drama of which there is always more to be learned.
I was much struck by Barbara Marthal’s insistence in her Stone Mountain talk on the importance of stories in understanding history. I entirely concur. History is the experience of human beings. History is a story and a story is somebody’s story. It tells us about who people are. History is not a political ideological slogan like “about slavery.” Ideological slogans are accusations and instruments of conflict and domination. Stories are instruments of understanding and peace.
Let’s consider the war and slavery. Again and again I encounter people who say that the South Carolina secession ordinance mentions the defense of slavery and that one fact proves beyond argument that the war was caused by slavery. The first States to secede did mention a threat to slavery as a motive for secession. They also mentioned decades of economic exploitation.
(Excerpt) Read more at abbevilleinstitute.org ...
How many times is the word “slave” or “slavery”ry mentioned in the confed constitution? How many times is it mentioned in the US Constitution? That’s why it isn’t enshrined - it’s barely even mentioned euphemistically. How can it be enshrined if they couldn’t even identify it by name?
read the Confederate Constitution. What is your interpretation of Davis’s power or the Confederate Constitutions power to outlaw slavery without amending the Constitution.
Of course without a Supreme Court, Davis may thought that he could do what ever he wanted, whether it was Constitutional or not.
The only reason they offered to end slaver was because it seemed as maybe the only last hope they may have had before the dissolution of the Confederacy.
“war was still very much ongoing and hordes of Yankees still got mowed down before it came to an end.”
Lee was penned up in Petersburg like a lamb waiting to be slaughtered. Johnson was trying to cobble together a force to slow Sherman in North Carolina. Yes the war would continue, but the issue had been decided. Within a few months the Confederacy would die. That outcome was not going to change. The only thing further resistance produced was more dead or wounded soldiers on both sides.
When it comes to secessionists, I prefer the Essex Junto.
No he offered it to the original 7 seceding states.
What a weak attempt at a semantic argument. Everybody knows the US Constitution acknowledged slavery and even had protections for it.
The Confederate Constitution allows the President to make and the Senate to ratify treaties does it not? Treaties have the force of constitutional law do they not?
So they did in fact offer to make a treaty that would have abolished slavery in the CSA while the war was still very much ongoing just as I said from the start.
Good to know.
He sent a copy the joint resolution of Congress, signed by Buchanan, under a cover letter to all the Governors of all of the states including those that had seceded. In his cover letter, he neither spoke for or against the joint resolution.
Less than 4 months before Lee surrendered at Appomattox. A hollow jester at best. Rejected by the Europeans, but yes, the war was still on.
A dying man will often offer the impossible to survive. The Confederacy offered up slavery to try and save itself from the fate that awaited it.
1703 is quite sometime before 1840 when the NY census listed no slaves in the state. For Christ’s sake, what is it with you Johnny Reb wanna be’s anyway? Are you sorry you lost the f’ing war? Why don’t you try again and maybe you’ll lucky this time.
Amen.
Can you suggest a couple of books to better understand this specific issue about the war?
Let's drop the pretense here. As the de facto leader of the Republican Party, everybody knew he had to have known of and approved of the Corwin Amendment at the very least. The Northern dominated Congress passed the proposed constitutional amendment AFTER the Southern delegation had withdrawn with the necessary 2/3rds supermajority. Buchanan signed it. Had he not, everybody knew Lincoln would have signed it. Lincoln then used his influence to get it passed by several states. Then in his inaugural address he said the Corwin Amendment was consistent with what he had always said - to wit that he was not an abolitionist - and that he would support it. Let's not even try to pretend that this was not the big offer to the original 7 seceding states. He wouldn't have mentioned it in his Inaugural Address if it weren't.
You as well as I know there were delays for the ambassador to be able to get to Europe due to the blockade. President Davis had obtained the consent of the Confederate Congress well before that.
except it was not impossible for the CSA government to agree to a treaty that would have abolished slavery within the CSA.
The purpose of this post is to defame this site.
This is like debating a delusional person who claims there are two suns in the sky, but only HE can see them?
and who was Buchanan's Vice President? John C. Breckenridge
The very leader of the rebelious Democrats.
Exactly what had the Buchanan Administration done to limit self Government in the South
How many accounts does this scalawag have?
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.