Posted on 05/23/2003 1:15:02 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
Years later, the Whig party collapsed. Those in the Whig party then had a choice to make: was the issue of slavery, which they abhorred, enough to make them join forces with the radicals who had been pushing the abolitionist movement forward? Or was slavery not the primary thing?
The fact that many of them chose to join the Republicans is what gives the answer- slavery was the issue. When war broke out, the ones for who slavery was not the primary issue were
They made up a minority. The majority view at the time was that slavery was the issue.
Yes, that was an out of context cut and paste from Wlat which he likes to quote in order to slander Lee. Lee was stating the reality of the times. But the full reasoning behind it can be shown in IN CONTEXT
People also like to downgrade Lee's freeing of slaves by saying "but he inherited them!" (as if it would have been more moral if he had bought them).
As for mores, I am not aware of a single confederate leader, civil or military, who believed that slavery was doomed in 1861. I am not aware of a single confederate leader, civil or military, advocating for it's end in 1861. Southern mores were firmly behind slavery and as far as they were concerned the rest of the world could stick their disapproval where the sun didn't shine.
Not sure about that - I will have to research that, as much of what I have read from the anti's on this board have been revisionist BS (lies, if you will). They also claim that Southerners supported slavery because "1/3 of southerners came from a slave owning family" the claim being invented by a university.
And I also need to point out that Lincoln was quite in agreement with his opinion of blacks that is attributed to Lee (colony, etc.). The only reason the north went to war was to preserve the union. Slavery was a secondary issue. Those who refer to the Confederacy as the so called "slave power" would have to refer to the north as such as well (but they are not honest).
There is a lot of revisionist history going on in regards to trashing the South. Historians with a political bent have decided that the south has had an easy break in the civil war, and have used their power to influence the spin. The allies of the NAACP and the democrat party on this board do much the same.
Go after GOP capitalists, he, he.
This is not really a proper Straussian question, is it? But perhaps on this point (as general_re remarked what should be done with certain sorts of knowledge by those who hold it? politicos who feel parties to the club interfere with the proper task of the philosopher for the regime: independent criticism.
Havel, emphasizing in his Summer Mediations "the moral basis of all true politics" would tell you that dragons will never be slain once and for all.
For such an enterprise as politics, the Straussian vision is indispensible, and the question for them--whether the order is new or old--will always be what it was for Socrates: how is it better?. And that is not answered without recourse to the gods.A heaven on earth in which people all love each other and everyone is hardworking, well-mannered, and virtuous, in which the land flourishes and everything is sweetness and light, working harmoniously to the satisfaction of God: this will never be. On the contrary, the world has had the worst experiences with utopian thinkers who promised all that. Evil will remain with us, no one will ever elminiate human suffering, the political arena will always attract irresponsible and ambitious adventurers and charlatans. And man will not stop destroying the world. In this regard, I have no illusions.
In parts of the country, sure. But not in the south. The social support for slavery was as strong as ever. In some states almost half the population lived in families that owned slaves. The belief that the black man was suited only for bondage was pretty much universal throughout the south, and in some parts of the North to be fair. Unless they gave in to outside pressure, something they showed that they were loath to do, southern society could have easily supported slavery for another generation or more.
Your link doesn't work, so here is the letter in full.
HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA,
January 11, 1865.
Hon. ANDREW HUNTER,
Richmond, Va.:
DEAR SIR: I have received your letter of the 7th instant, and without confining myself to the order of your interrogatories, will endeavor to answer them by a statement of my views on the subject. I shall be most happy if I can contribute to the solution of a question in which I feel an interest commensurate with my desire for the welfare and happiness of our people.
Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country, I would deprecate any sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to avert a greater calamity to both. I should therefore prefer to rely upon our white population to preserve the ratio between our forces and those of the enemy, which experience has shown to be safe. But in view of the preparations of our enemies, it is our duty to provide for continued war and not for a battle or a campaign, and I fear that we cannot accomplish this without overtaxing the capacity of our white population.
Should the war continue under existing circumstances, the enemy may in course of time penetrate our country and get access to a large part of our negro population. It is his avowed policy to convert the able-bodied men among them into soldiers, and to emancipate all. The success of the Federal arms in the South was followed by a proclamation of President Lincoln for 280,000 men, the effect of which will be to stimulate the Northern States to procure as substitutes for their own people the negroes thus brought within their reach. Many have already been obtained in Virginia, and should the fortune of war expose more of her territory, the enemy would gain a large accession to his strength. His progress will thus add to his numbers, and at the same time destroy slavery in a manner most pernicious to the welfare of our people. Their negroes will be used to hold them in subjection, leaving the remaining force of the enemy free to extend his conquest. Whatever may be the effect of our employing negro troops, it cannot be as mischievous as this. If it end in subverting slavery it will be accomplished by ourselves, and we can devise the means of alleviating the evil consequences to both races. I think, therefore, we must decide whether slavery shall be extinguished by our enemies and the slaves be used against us, or use them ourselves at the risk of the effects which may be produced upon our social institutions. My own opinion is that we should employ them without delay. I believe that with proper regulations they can be made efficient soldiers. They possess the physical qualifications in an eminent degree. Long habits of obedience and subordination, coupled with the moral influence which in our country the white man possesses over the black, furnish an excellent foundation for that discipline which is the best guaranty of military efficiency. Our chief aim should be to secure their fidelity.
There have been formidable armies composed of men having no interest in the cause for which they fought beyond their pay or the hope of plunder. But it is certain that the surest foundation upon which the fidelity of an army can rest, especially in a service which imposes peculiar hardships and privations, is the personal interest of the soldier in the issue of the contest. Such an interest we can give our negroes by giving immediate freedom to all who enlist, and freedom at the end of the war to the families of those who discharge their duties faithfully (whether they survive or not), together with the privilege of residing at the South. To this might be added a bounty for faithful service.
We should not expect slaves to fight for prospective freedom when they can secure it at once by going to the enemy, in whose service they will incur no greater risk than in ours. The reasons that induce me to recommend the employment of negro troops at all render the effect of the measures I have suggested upon slavery immaterial, and in my opinion the best means of securing the efficiency and fidelity of this auxiliary force would be to accompany the measure with a well-digested plan of gradual and general emancipation. As that will be the result of the continuance of the war, and will certainly occur if the enemy succeed, it seems to me most advisable to adopt it at once, and thereby obtain all the benefits that will accrue to our cause.
The employment of negro troops under regulations similar in principle to those above indicated would, in my opinion, greatly increase our military strength and enable us to relieve our white population to some extent. I think we could dispense with the reserve forces except in cases of necessity.
It would disappoint the hopes which our enemies base upon our exhaustion, deprive them in a great measure of the aid they now derive from black troops, and thus throw the burden of the war upon their own people. In addition to the great political advantages that would result to our cause from the adoption of a system of emancipation, it would exercise a salutary influence upon our whole negro population, by rendering more secure the fidelity of those who become soldiers, and diminishing the inducements to the rest to abscond.
I can only say in conclusion that whatever measures are to be adopted should be adopted at once. Every day's delay increases the difficulty. Much time will be required to organize and discipline the men, and action may be deferred until it is too late.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
R. E. LEE,
General,
That is the letter of a man who, reluctantly, supports the use of slaves as soldiers. If the south was not in such dire straits, if the south wasn't going to lose the slaves to the North anyway, there is no reason to believe that Lee would be supporting this plan. It was not a new idea. The suggestion to enlist and arm slaves was made as early as December of 1863 by Patrick Cleburne. The idea went nowhere, and there is no evidence at all that Lee supported the plan at that time. It is not the letter of a man strongly supporting the end of slavery, just the use of slaves in this time when the south was scraping the bottom of their barrel, when the army was melting away by the hundreds every day. It is a letter of desperation, not support for manumission.
They also claim that Southerners supported slavery because "1/3 of southerners came from a slave owning family" the claim being invented by a university.
Southern society supported slavery for many reasons. First and foremost was the fact that such a large part of the population directly benefitted from slave ownership - approaching 50% in some state and that claim is supported by census data of the time, not by invention. For the non-slave owning white, the dirt farmer and average laborer, slavery provided them a status in society. Someone who they at least were better than.
You are right, it does not (bad on me). Thank you for re-posting, but I (tried) to use a link as to not use huge cut-n-pastes. What I was trying to show is that Lee was dealing with the reality of the times.
Hey, if massive cut-n-pastes are good enough for Walt and if they are good enough for GOPcapitalist then they're good enough for me.
Doubtful. The south was completely dependent on slaves for the source of most of her wealth. What alternative source of labor existed? What would have caused such a massive change as to destroy slavery within 10 years?
It was the slaves value that made them wealthy. By all accounts slave labor is not the most productive, but there were few, if any, alternatives available.
Had they all been on the market, the price would have plummeted because there was plenty of supply.
That can be said for any product. The fact that the average price of a prime slave was around $1000 is an indication of not only a restricted supply but of a strong demand.
So, even uncompensated for their "property," plantation owners would have continued pretty much as before.
Except that their personal net worth would have declined to a fraction of what it was before. You still haven't answered what would cause the slave owners to happily accept and embrace that change in the short period you predict.
Try as you might, it looks inescapable that Lincoln threw a generation into a meat grinder for a questionable return.
Lincoln accepted the war because he believe his duty required that he preserve the Union. He didn't set out to end slavery. If anyone sent a generation into the meat grinder over slavery it was Jefferson Davis.
There are other reasons slaves would have declined in value: Unlike South America, where slaves died in droves, slaves in the Southern states increased largely through population growth among slaves already here - from one million to four million. Native Africans were rare by the end of slavery, and the slave trade was a resale market.
Lincoln accepted the war because he believe his duty required that he preserve the Union. He didn't set out to end slavery. If anyone sent a generation into the meat grinder over slavery it was Jefferson Davis.
It isn't quite right to say Lincoln "accepted" the war. Either he fought a war over slavery, which you disavow, or he fought a war analogous to Canada fighting to keep Quebec. Either way the price we paid was so high that only a sanctified Lincoln would possibly withstand scrutiny. It is entirely rational to be sceptical of Lincoln's stature.
What is so special about the United States that, unlike Canada, Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, Indonesia, Yugoslavia, perhaps even China, etc., that it is worth all that blood and treasure to keep all our states? Some states like Texas could claim explicit treaty and constitutional obligations of a choice to leave the Union.
I think it would be a salutory experience for a state to claim the federal government has itself met the "King George test" on so many issues that it is time to leave.
If I remember my economic classes correctly, a decline in supply with no corresponding decline in demand would increase value not decrease it. And as prices increased then more and more people would get into the business until supply and demand found their equilibrium price. Slave imports had legally ended before 1810 yet the slave population between 1850 and 1860 grew at a rate that exceeded the growth in free population in some state. That would indicate to me that demand was high and supply was available to meet it. By any measure you may choose to use slavery was thriving in the south in 1860, not declining.
It isn't quite right to say Lincoln "accepted" the war. Either he fought a war over slavery, which you disavow, or he fought a war analogous to Canada fighting to keep Quebec.
Lincoln's oft-stated purpose was to preserve the Union and not to end slavery. Since he did not initiate hostilites then stated that he 'accepted' the war, as opposed to 'started' the war, is correct. You analogy between Canad and Quebec is not accurate since both sides agreed to abide by the results of a referendum and therefore any separation between the two will happen with the agreement of both parties. The southern action were unilateral and violated the Constitution. The confederate government resorted to bombarding Sumter to get what they demanded. The blood that was shed is on the hands of Jefferson Davis and the confederate leadership more than Abraham Lincoln and his administration
Good one :)
I tend to think that huge cut and pastes are for the most part ignored - links work better for those who are truly interested. Guess I need to bone up on HTML
The fact that mores were changing. Secondly, because of international pressure - slavery was one of the reasons the south could not gain an alliance with England.
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.