Replies

Those are very convenient assumptions for him and for you, but they are totally unsupported by history. How exactly would slavery "melt away" when it was essentially adding the equivalent of about $100,000 (in today's dollars) on average to the wealth of each Southern family (and much more to the wealthiest and most politically powerful in the South)?<

Of each Souhthern family? Where do you come up with such a number when most Southern families could not afford to own slaves?

Slavery melting away in Western nations is unsupported by history? When the time came in 1888, the Brazilians passed the Lei Áurea and abolished slavery without the fire-eaters on both sides of the issue unleashing the dogs of war.

So, how are Christian men such as Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jackson supposed to acquire your 20/20, year 2003 moral and historical hindsight regarding the future of slavery in 1861?

All they had to do was read Tocqueville's Democracy in America, which was published in 1840.

You did not answer my question. My question was: If Mr. Lincoln was actively promoting the first version of the 13th Amendment that would have protected slavery within the Constitution, how could Lee and Jackson know in 1861 that defending Virginia from an Army raised by Mr. Lincoln had anything to do with the abolition of slavery in Virginia?

My copies of Tocqueville's Democracy in America never mention a single word about someone named Abraham Lincoln or what wheels were turning in his political mind.

And, even if they did know what was in Lincoln's future mind, why would they agree to have the law of the land changed through the bayonet from the North rather than through the ballot box in the South?

If he didn't want to fight against his neighbors and relatives, he could have chosen to remain neutral by sitting out the war.

Lee, indeed, did not want to fight his "neighbors", be they Southern or Northern. When he was offered command of the Union Army, Lee declined and resigned his U.S. commission. He then went back to Virginia and wrote that he "would never again raise his sword except for the defense of his native Virginia."

There is a huge difference between not fighting your family and neighbors and sitting idly by and not raising a finger to protect them when they are attacked by outsiders.

Of each Souhthern family? Where do you come up with such a number when most Southern families could not afford to own slaves?

I stated "on average" slavery was worth $100,000 per family. Here are my calculations:

$3,000,000,000 (the economic value the Confederates put on their slaves) / 1,000,000 Confederate state white families = $3000 per family in 1860 dollars = $56825 in current dollars. I would double that number to include the social value that keeeping negroes at the bottom of the social ladder meant to Confederate families. (Incidentally, Northern Democrats also placed a huge value on maintaining slavery to keep negroes at the bottom of the social ladder).

When the time came in 1888, the Brazilians passed the Lei Áurea and abolished slavery without the fire-eaters on both sides of the issue unleashing the dogs of war.

Brazil had a huge percentage of free blacks and people of mixed race, and nevertheless slavery was not quickly abolished there either.

If Mr. Lincoln was actively promoting the first version of the 13th Amendment that would have protected slavery within the Constitution, how could Lee and Jackson know in 1861 that defending Virginia from an Army raised by Mr. Lincoln had anything to do with the abolition of slavery in Virginia?

All they had to do was read the Confederate Constitution and consider the growing influence of abolitionists and Radical Republicans.

...why would they agree to have the law of the land changed through the bayonet from the North rather than through the ballot box in the South?

Lee could have helped to dissuade Virginians from taking up arms to support a Confederation dedicated to preserving slavery, even if he was unwilling to fight his neighbors to preserve the Union through force in order to help abolish slavery. Lee lacked the courage to become a political leader (as opposed to merely being a military leader).

Lee, indeed, did not want to fight his "neighbors", be they Southern or Northern.

Yet he did.

There is a huge difference between not fighting your family and neighbors and sitting idly by and not raising a finger to protect them when they are attacked by outsiders.

Virginia was not attacked -- Virginia rebels were. Had Lee remained neutral his family would have been protected unless they joined the Rebel cause (even as it was his family and their property received a great deal of respect from the Union forces due to his wife's Washington lineage). Lee apparently (and with good reason) feared social reprisals (and perhaps violent ones) from rebel Virginians should he choose to remain neutral. He chose social standing over his mildly anti-slavery political views. More courageous anti-slavery Southern military men left their Southern homes to fight for the Union.