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 ...
“The great bulk of the legal voters of the South were men who owned no slaves; their homes were generally in the hills and poor country; their facilities for educating their children, even up to the point of reading and writing, were very limited; their interest in the contest was very meagre - what there was, if they had been capable of seeing it, was with the North; they too needed emancipation. Under the old regime they were looked down upon by those who controlled all the affairs in the interest of slave-owners, as poor white trash who were allowed the ballot so long as they cast it according to direction.”
Ulysses S. Grant
None of it is contemporary, all of it is post-war Lost Cause revisionism.
None of the accounts from the time indicate an over-arching concern with collecting tariffs at Charleston or elsewhere.
Of course tariff revenues mattered, but Lost Causers wish us to fantasize with them that in 1861 it was only tariffs that motivated Lincoln's actions, nothing else.
Words of warning from Sam Houston:
“Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, you may win Southern independence if God be not against you, but I doubt it. I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South.”
[you]: Second, you call it a "one hour long meeting" but I didn't see "one hour" in any of the articles.
Obviously you don't realize that two different Baltimore newspapers reported on the same day about the meeting with Lincoln. Those are the two reports of the meeting that I referred to in my post that you are responding to.
I'm happy to educate you about this. The second newspaper has been mentioned in posts on other threads that you may not have been privy to. Here is what "The daily exchange" of Baltimore published on the same day as the "Baltimore Sun" article (April 23, 1861) [my bold below]:
The committee proceeded to Washington yesterday morning, and had an interview with the President of about an hour's duration.
Please tell me you have more substantial comments than the length of the meeting. Here is what the "daily exchange" said that Lincoln said about the revenue:
If he [Lincoln] was to follow the advice of Dr. Fuller, he would have no Government at all. France and England would recognize the Southern Confederacy, and his revenue would be broken up, and the Government would be worth nothing.
[you]: Regardless, the news reports reduced that "one hour" conversation to just a few alleged words from Lincoln: "What is to become of the revenue? I shall have no government, no resources." This supposedly in response to one Dr. Fuller's advice that Lincoln should immediately recognize the Confederacy.
Hmmm. It was a fairly long article. How else is a newspaper supposed to report the contents of a one-hour meeting other that to summarize the main points of the meeting only part of which dealt with revenue?
[you]: Any other discussion is hidden behind the comment, "our informant could not follow the exact turn of remark.
You are being disingenuous. Between Lincoln's revenue comment and the "our informant" part came the following in the Sun article [in my bold]:
Dr. Fuller expressed the opinion that the United States would constitute an imposing government and furnish revenue, but our informant could not furnish the exact turn of comment.
The Sun reported on what their informant heard including Lincoln's revenue comment, not what the informant didn't hear. The other newspaper, perhaps using a different informant or reporter, reported the following after Lincoln's revenue comment [my bold]:
Dr. Fuller assured him that he thought differently himself, and believed that there could be a strong government in the South and another one in the North, who might live in alliance.
I'm sorry BJK, but I am going to have to leave the thread for the rest of this week. I have a big meeting with my financial advisor to prepare for and a long trip to make reservations for. See you later.
Thanks for the well-reasoned reply BroJoeK!
My thoughts...
1. First person testimony: “I said this to xxx.”
2. Second-hand testimony: “He said this to xxx.”
3. Third-person testimony: “They were talking and yyy said this to xxx.”
The references that were posted prior to the inclusion of this link: Baldwin’s testimony to Congress (http://valley.lib.virginia.edu/VoS/personalpapers/documents/augusta/p3baldwininterview.html#baldwin2) were 3rd-person accounts.
Before I comment directly on Baldwin’s testimony let me interject the words of another famous lawyer and judge. Judge Judy is famous for saying “If something doesn’t smell right it’s usually because it isn’t right”. People tend to follow routines and lean toward consistent and predictable. Their decision making tends to work in concert with their biases and predilections. When someone makes a statement that is totally out of character a reasonable reaction is to pause and conduct a reality check.
Isn’t it interesting that every pro-unionist sees that quote and immediately says, “That doesn’t sound like something Lincoln would say”? Isn’t it equally interesting that every pro-confederate gloms onto that quote as an absolute article of faith?
So, back to Baldwin. No, wait. let’s examine one other thing first.
I’ve noticed some similarities and a discrepancy between the links to the infamous “Conversation with Lincoln”. The North Carolina Standard and the Alexandria Gazette post the editorial as though it were their own composition. The Newbern Weekly Progress (correctly) attributes it to the Baltimore Sun. They all give essentially the same narrative - a conversation between the president and Dr. Fuller.
But wait a second - where’s John Baldwin?!
It turns out that there were two “Conversations with Lincoln”, one on April 4th, 1861 with Baldwin and one on April 23th, 1861 with Dr. Richard Fuller and representatives of the YMCA. In these two private conversations a fascinating thing happened - the interlocutor of each asked Lincoln identical questions and offered the same identical unsolicited advice. And (a total coincidence I’m sure!) Lincoln expressed AS HIS PARAMOUNT CONCERN some sort of lament about “his tariffs” (the actual phrase differs from account to account). At least according to the unverified accounts of each. In respect to all of this I say, isn’t it unfortunate that we can’t ask Lincoln what he actually said?
Rusty: Perhaps you could answer a question (or two) for me. Have you encountered any other similar quotes from Lincoln where his paramount interest was in maintaining the flow of revenues? If it was as important as Baldwin claims I’m sure that he must have mentioned it in some pronouncements, edicts, official communiques, or speeches?
Why do you suppose no other independent account of these meetings survive? If this was truly Lincoln’s thinking don’t you think the country would be interested to know about it?
If this was Lincoln’s paramount consideration why did he never speak of it again?
A War for Money wouldn't fire the Northern heart.
The term "Lead Balloon" comes to mind.
Why not? You claim them to be “all about the Benjamins”...
The evidence led me to that belief. Hundreds of Millions of dollars per year hanging in the balance? Yup. It was all about money, and nobody was telling the truth.
I went by the three links you provided in post #328and I reposted in #781 above.
Those three links seem to be precisely the same report, reprinted on April 24, April 30 and May 1.
I did not see a second report.
quoting BJK: "Any other discussion is hidden behind the comment, "our informant could not follow the exact turn of remark."
rustbucket: "You are being disingenuous.
Between Lincoln's revenue comment and the "our informant" part came the following in the Sun article [in my bold]: "Dr. Fuller expressed the opinion that the United States would constitute an imposing government and furnish revenue, but our informant could not furnish the exact turn of comment."
Each of the three links you posted replace the word "comment" with "remark", otherwise is word-for-word the same.
It suggests there were not really two reports, but just one with slight modifications.
And "both" reports hide Lincoln's views behind the same words: "our informant could not furnish the exact turn of comment/remark."
Out of time now, more later...
Shocking I know but people actually cared about money back then too.
Yankeefa can’t accept this. They so badly want to believe the morality play version of history their favorite Leftists in Academia have been pushing.....
To the handful of Lincoln worshipping Leftists here, news reports from the time, statements by the principal actors, etc do not matter. All that matters are the opinions of Leftist history profs 125+ years later (but not the opinions of earlier historians). They are completely immune to facts and reason.
So every man who wore the uniform and fought under the flag of the United States was a deluded dupe. Every man who died was a sucker.
Rich man's war. Poor man's fight.
And yes, it's tragic. It's all the more tragic because it destroyed our original constitutionally framed government and replaced it with one that claimed greatly expanded powers.
Thanks for saying that my ancestors were morons who had no idea what they were fighting for.
The fact that they had to go invade someone else ought to have been a clue, but Lincoln was locking up anyone who criticized or contradicted his claims, so people just generally shut up and obeyed.
Same thing with people they dragged off the boat and pressed into the army. It was made clear that they were expected to believe what they were told, and go fight and die in the South if necessary.
Same thing with people they dragged off the boat and pressed into the army. It was made clear that they were expected to believe what they were told, and go fight and die in the South if necessary.
You do know that never happened, right? For one thing, you couldn't be drafted unless you were a citizen, and people just docking in America aren't citizens, even in 1863.
In fact, even the idea of putting a recruiting station at the immigration point was shut down, as a letter written to the Office of Commissioners of Emigration indicates:
"the opinion of the Commissioners was decidedly adverse to granting such a request, on the ground that it would be injurious to the country in interfering with emigration, as would be the case as soon as known in Europe; and would be confirmatory, to a certain extent, of the charges made in the British House of Commons, as well as in France and Germany, by rebel emissaries and sympathizers, that the armies were being filled by the forced enlistments of arriving emigrants. "From that, it seems, the myth that poor deluded Irish were being impressed into the army straight off the boat seems to have been a bit of southern propaganda that, like all southern propaganda, finds a home in your "theories."
Now, that said, a fair number of Irishmen arriving in the United States did volunteer for the same reasons many young men have enlisted in armies throughout time--a job, an adventure, and all the rest.
Yes, you can toss out your emotion, but you can't make the economic numbers disappear by wishing. If the economic numbers went the other direction, there would be no case for what I am arguing, but they don't.
They clearly show the Northern portion of the Union was benefiting more from slavery than the Southern portion was. Most of the money produced by slavery ended up in both New York and Washington DC. Same bastards that are sucking the rest of the nation dry today.
Right, and the key point being there were several such warnings, including one by the Confederate Secretary of State, Robert Toombs directly to Jefferson Davis just before his order to "reduce" Fort Sumter.
All such warnings were ignored not only by Confederates of the time, but also by Lost Causers today.
"Irrelevant" they claim.
What matters, they tell us, is that Lincoln was warned, indeed knew ahead of time his "war fleet" to Fort Sumter would start war.
One problem with their argument is: there are no equivalent quotes of warning to Lincoln.
The draft riots were not about Irish immigrants being impressed into the army straight off the boats, since they were not citizens.
They clearly show the Northern portion of the Union was benefiting more from slavery than the Southern portion was. Most of the money produced by slavery ended up in both New York and Washington DC.
No amount of you repeating this is going to make anyone believe it.
Thanks for a great post and your amazing link to the post-war testimony of CSA Congressman & Col. John Baldwin regarding his meeting with Lincoln April 4. 1861.
The different testimonies make clear that what Confederates said about Lincoln was not what Lincoln himself said.
I highly recommend your link to anyone interested in the truth of what happened.
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.