Posted on 07/15/2011 9:27:19 AM PDT by GrootheWanderer
See post #7.
additional (omits Cleburne’s question):
Civil War anniversary: Cleburne’s proposal to arm, free slaves (for the Confederacy)
Dalton Daily Citizen | July 10, 2011 | Robert Jenkins
Posted on 07/10/2011 1:17:20 PM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2746473/posts
/bingo
|
· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe · |
|||
Antiquity Journal & archive Archaeologica Archaeology Archaeology Channel BAR Bronze Age Forum Discovery Dogpile Eurekalert LiveScience Mirabilis.ca Nat Geographic PhysOrg Science Daily Science News Texas AM Yahoo Excerpt, or Link only? |
|
||
|
· Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword · |
|||
Clearly a man with great vision. His prophecy correct in every detail.
I’ve responded to the link about the Cleburne historical marker and to the comments of Stephens about slavery in another thread about this topic (three long posts starting at post 78). Rather than repost what I wrote over here too, I’ll just add a link to that thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2746473/posts?q=1&;page=51
> “...to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision...” Maj. Gen Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA
Yes, as I explained in the other thread, it appears that even the occasion of the dedication of his monument was used in an attempt to further discredit those who fought for the Confederacy (by presenting a false alternative, and simplistically reducing what they did to a defense of an evil institution). I don’t know that they all deserve to be called “gallant” but they do deserve something better than that.
|
|
|
| Secession Timeline various sources |
|
|
|
|
| [Although very late in the war Lee wanted freedom offered to any of the slaves who would agree to fight for the Confederacy, practically no one was stupid enough to fall for that. In any case, Lee was definitely not fighting to end slavery, instead writing that black folks are better off in bondage than they were free in Africa, and regardless, slavery will be around until Providence decides, and who are we to second guess that? And the only reason the masters beat their slaves is because of the abolitionists.] Robert E. Lee letter -- "...There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right nor the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master..." |
December 27, 1856 |
|
|
|
| Platform of the Alabama Democracy -- the first Dixiecrats wanted to be able to expand slavery into the territories. It was precisely the issue of slavery that drove secession -- and talk about "sovereignty" pertained to restrictions on slavery's expansion into the territories. | January 1860 |
|
|
|
| Abraham Lincoln nominated by Republican Party | May 18, 1860 |
|
|
|
| Abraham Lincoln elected | November 6, 1860 |
|
|
|
| Robert Toombs, Speech to the Georgia Legislature -- "...In 1790 we had less than eight hundred thousand slaves. Under our mild and humane administration of the system they have increased above four millions. The country has expanded to meet this growing want, and Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri, have received this increasing tide of African labor; before the end of this century, at precisely the same rate of increase, the Africans among us in a subordinate condition will amount to eleven millions of persons. What shall be done with them? We must expand or perish. We are constrained by an inexorable necessity to accept expansion or extermination. Those who tell you that the territorial question is an abstraction, that you can never colonize another territory without the African slavetrade, are both deaf and blind to the history of the last sixty years. All just reasoning, all past history, condemn the fallacy. The North understand it better - they have told us for twenty years that their object was to pen up slavery within its present limits - surround it with a border of free States, and like the scorpion surrounded with fire, they will make it sting itself to death." | November 13, 1860 |
|
|
|
| Alexander H. Stephens -- "...The first question that presents itself is, shall the people of Georgia secede from the Union in consequence of the election of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency of the United States? My countrymen, I tell you frankly, candidly, and earnestly, that I do not think that they ought. In my judgment, the election of no man, constitutionally chosen to that high office, is sufficient cause to justify any State to separate from the Union. It ought to stand by and aid still in maintaining the Constitution of the country. To make a point of resistance to the Government, to withdraw from it because any man has been elected, would put us in the wrong. We are pledged to maintain the Constitution." | November 14, 1860 |
|
|
|
| South Carolina | December 20, 1860 |
|
|
|
| Mississippi | January 9, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Florida | January 10, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Alabama | January 11, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Georgia | January 19, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Louisiana | January 26, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Texas | February 23, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Abraham Lincoln sworn in as President of the United States |
March 4, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Arizona territory | March 16, 1861 |
|
|
|
| CSA Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, Cornerstone speech -- "...last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.' He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact." | March 21, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Virginia | adopted April 17,1861 ratified by voters May 23, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Arkansas | May 6, 1861 |
|
|
|
| North Carolina | May 20, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Tennessee | adopted May 6, 1861 ratified June 8, 1861 |
|
|
|
| West Virginia declares for the Union | June 19, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Missouri | October 31, 1861 |
|
|
|
| "Convention of the People of Kentucky" | November 20, 1861 |
|
|
|
I’m not sure what that timeline is supposed to prove. My contention is that people on both sides fought in the war for various reasons (persons who were both good and bad, though I don’t deny that slavery itself was evil), and that something as complex as that major conflict should not be simplistically reduced to fighting for or against slavery.
Where did Lee write “And the only reason the masters beat their slaves is because of the abolitionists”? In my earlier post I myself provided a link to the letter from which my Lee quotation was taken, and it isn’t present there. I wouldn’t be surprised if he believed that abolitionists were contributing to the beatings, but I would be if he believed that they were the “only” reason masters beat their slaves.
I’m repelled myself by Lee’s references to Providence, and to his mentioning that the influence of the “mild and melting influences of Christianity” is slow (it having taken “nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race”). I can understand some delay in the emancipation of the slaves, but to speak in those terms (when emancipation had already taken place in a good many places) is absurd.
Still, unlike Stephens, Lee wasn’t putting forward slavery as a natural state for blacks. He was condemning it as evil. Jefferson had done likewise, and a good many other Southerners, then and before.
The timeline shows that the secessions began before Lincoln was in office, and the reason for the secession was a perceived threat to slavery. The Civil War was fought over slavery, it was about slavery in the South before it was about slavery in the North. The main reason initially people volunteered in the northern states was because of the attacks on federal installations and the illegality of secession. In the South it was about slavery all the livelong day. There are those even today who argue that the war was about sovereignty, and yet there were no such issues, apart from slavery. The only threat to slavery (and to sovereignty for that matter) was the rather mild plank in the Republican platform of 1860, to prevent slavery’s further spread. The main threat to sovereignty prior to 1861 was the slavers’ armed invasion of Kansas territory.
Lee: for the abolitionist “to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master...” — so yes, Lee did indeed say that it was the abolitionists who made slaveholders angry enough to beat their slaves. Usually when that letter is quoted it is said to “prove” that Lee was against slavery, and of course, it shows exactly the opposite. My view is that he had a “wolf by the ears” attitude about slavery, a la Thomas Jefferson. But to say (as even Ken Burns does) that Lee was personally opposed to slavery is analogous to saying that Cat Stevens didn’t want Salman Rushdie murdered. During Lee’s invasion of Maryland he had blacks rounded up and sent south in bondage.
> “...so yes, Lee did indeed say that it was the abolitionists who made slaveholders angry enough to beat their slaves.”
No, not only did Lee not “say” that, but if that’s the passage you had in mind, I believe you’ve missed the point he was making. He’d just been speaking of ending slavery, and his point appears to be that abolitionist attempts to impose an end from the outside were likely to make the slaveholders angry, thus decreasing the number who would be inclined to emancipate slaves.
“While we see the Course of the final abolition of human Slavery is onward, & we give it the aid of our prayers & all justifiable means in our power [a vague phrase, but he’s not just leaving it to “prayers”], we must leave the progress as well as the result in his hands who sees the end; who Chooses to work by slow influences; & with whom two thousand years are but as a Single day. [I think his argument is fallacious there, because persons like Wilberforce, whom I would classify as abolitionists, did help speed its end in some other places by their efforts, despite the greater opposition that they may have aroused in some slaveholders.] Although the Abolitionist must know this, & must See that he has neither the right or power of operating except by moral means & suasion, & if he means well to the slave, he must not Create angry feelings in the Master...” Nothing about beating slaves, a lot about ending slavery.
> “There are those even today who argue that the war was about sovereignty, and yet there were no such issues, apart from slavery.”
I just quoted some of those issues from the speech by Stephens himself (e.g., tariffs). Also they appeared in official documents such as the various secession declarations (which mention slavery too, of course, because as I said, more than one thing was involved).
Also Confederates had good reason to believe that they were fighting to defend their homes. The war was fought mostly in the South, and if the Confederates lost, there was a genuine risk that their homes would be plundered and their loved ones put at risk (as Sherman’s March demonstrated).
A minor scholarly note about Lee’s letter (which affects the exact wording but not the substance): I see two versions of your quotation on the net: “to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master” and (the one I just quoted) “if he means well to the slave, he must not Create angry feelings in the Master”. Both have about the same meaning, but the latter is probably the correct one. It appears in full copies of the letter, and it’s the more common version in printed sources (Google Books).
Cleburne was a great man. So was General George H. Thomas, who won the West for the Union at the Battle of Nashville. He was incidentally, the ONLY successful Union general in offense. Meanwhile, the trio of Sherman, Schofield, and the drunken and tactically inept butcher Grant, spun the news their way and ran up horrendous casualties. As President, Chief of Staff, and Secretary of War, they kept spinning and CYA-ing for each other for 30 years in their postwar memoirs. Schofield, famous for leading from behind and avoiding orders to attack, even gave himself the Medal of Honor after the war! Sherman's "March to the Sea?" Poppycock. An expensive trip to the beach, allowing Johnston, Hood, and Hardee to keep their armies intact!
Everyone knows Custer. Who knows Wilson, who led the largest cavalry action of the war, and pioneered the use of cavalry as mobile infantry? Rosecrans? Admiral Foote? The East continued in costly stalemate, while the Union took the West.
Slightly revisionist Ping
Not only did Hood take horrible casualties (including 6 generals) but he screwed up his advance on Nashville, his original goal and allowed Schofield to slip away. (Twice) To give Schofield his due, he knew how to conduct a skillful retreat. (He was, however, despised by his staff for his concern for his personal safety and unconcern for his men. In fact he abandoned the Union wounded at Franklin.)
Battle of Franklin ping!
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.
