Replies

You need to continue to read General Gordon’s definition of the causes of the war. His definitive statement is: Neither its [slavery’s] destruction on the one hand, nor its defense on the other, was the energizing force that held the contending armies to four years of bloody work.

You seem to place a great deal of importance on the timing of this war (‘why the war came when it did,’ ‘why the war between these two sections broke out when it did’). And, in doing so, you infer that the desire to abolish slavery logically would have been the primary catalyst at this particular juncture of our history. That argument is not cogent.

Slavery began on this continent in early colonial times. It was practiced, and entirely legal, in all thirteen colonies. Although it had pretty much faded out in the North by the late eighteenth century because of industrial demands and climatic conditions, it was still Constitutionally protected, and supported by Northerners (whose shipping industry still made a good deal of money as a result of the slave trade) as well as the South.

Then in the early nineteenth century, both the North and South voted in Congress to stop the importation of slaves. And by the mid nineteenth century, slavery was well on its way to dying a natural death. Most Northerners, even mid-century, though, philosophically condoned slavery because abolishing it would have affected Northern business as well (a decrease in cotton production, for one, would severely adversely affect Northern textile mills). But the expense of keeping slaves, and other economic considerations, was beginning to sound slavery's death knell.

So why, at such a point (when slavery was largely diminishing) would a war to abolish it logically be considered necessary? Your theory that the timing of the war supports the abolition of slavery causation doesn’t add up.

Percy Greg, a respected nineteenth century English poet, novelist and historian wrote:

________________

'The cause [of the war] seems to me as bad as it well could be; the determination of a mere numerical majority to enforce a bond, which they themselves had flagrantly violated, to impose their own mere arbitrary will, their idea of national greatness, upon a distinct, independent, determined and almost unanimous people .... The North fought for empire which was not and never had been hers; the South for an independence she had won by the sword, and had enjoyed in law and fact ever since the recognition of the thirteen 'sovereign and independent States,' if not since the foundation of Virginia. Slavery was but the occasion of the rupture, in no sense the object of the war. Let me add a statement which will be confirmed by every veteran before me -- No man ever saw a Virginia soldier who was fighting for slavery.'

________________

From the Richmond Times, Oct. 22, 1889:

________________

'On the 22d of September, 1862, after the war had been in progress for a year and a half, Mr. Lincoln issued his proclamation, in which he declared that the slaves held in the States, or portions of States which should be still in rebellion on the 1st of January, 1863, following, would be, by a subsequent proclamation, emancipated. His justification was found in the fact that, as a war measure, it would deplete the strength of the Confederacy and augment the forces of the Union.

In all other portions of the Union where slavery was legalized, to-wit: Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, and portions of Louisiana and Virginia, the institution would remain unaffected by the proclamation. More than that, by the very terms of the proclamation, the people of the States in which it was made to apply could escape its effects by laying down their arms. Surely if the preservation of the institution of slavery in the seceding States furnished the incentive for their conduct, these States had simply to ground their arms and the institution would have remained.

On the 1st of January, 1863, the final proclamation was made, in which it was recited, because of the failure of the people of the States and portions of States above mentioned to lay down their arms, the slaves within those designated localities were declared free, and the President pledged all the powers of the Union to make good this declaration.

Thus, and thus only, did the emancipation of the slaves become involved in the war. Mr. Lincoln only justified his proclamation as a war measure to help the cause of the Union, for he said: If he could save the Union by freeing the slaves, he would do it; if he could save it by freeing one-half and keeping the other half in slavery, he would take that plan; if keeping them all in slavery would effect the object, that would be his course.

________________

The slavery issue entered the war (and year and a half) belatedly, and primarily as a wartime strategy. It was not a question of morality, but a matter of strategic convenience.

As for your quote 'How much weight does a political opinion have, when you express it only in a letter to your wife? If we found a letter from Richard Nixon to Pat in which he declares that war is evil, would we call him antiwar?'

Lee’s political opinion regarding slavery is well documented – as was his genuine compassion, honor, and decency, even during wartime. If there were one man in the history of this country who epitomized goodness in the face of trial and tragedy, Robert E. Lee was that man. I don’t believe he ever harbored hatred for, or looked down upon, any man (even those who betrayed or countermanded him), or any group of men. And -- your Mr. Blount's skepticism aside -- if he wrote something to his wife regarding his views on any political issue, he no doubt would have written the same to anyone else.

I have a letter that Lee wrote to his son in 1852, during the Mexican War, in which he says:

You must study to be frank with the world. Frankness is the child of honesty and courage. Say what you mean to do on every occasion, and take it for granted you mean to do it right. If a friend asks a favor, you should grant it, if it is reasonable. If not, tell him plainly why you cannot. You will wrong him and wrong yourself by equivocation of any kind. Never do a wrong thing to make a friend or keep one. The man who requires you to do so is dearly purchased at a sacrifice .... Do not appear to others what you are not .... There is no more dangerous experiment than that of undertaking to be one thing before a man’s face and another behind his back. We should live, act, and say nothing to the injury of anyone. It is not only best as a matter of principle, but it is the path to peace and honor.