Deal Johnny Reb Adendum

Oh, I forgot a couple more arguments used by the “The Civil War wasn’t about slavery” crowd: The “The North had slaves”, “The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t free the salves in the North” and finally the “The South freed the salves”/”The Slaves fought for the South” arguments.

The first two refer of course to the border states of Delaware, Maryland, the newly formed West Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri, since very northerly states such as Massachusetts had done away with slavery in 1780 and the like. (The last Northern state to abolish slavery was New Jersey in 1804.)

Once again, so?

Just because these four states had slavery when the Civil War started and did not chose to secede doesn’t negate the evidence that the fight was started by and about slavery. Lincoln handled these states very carefully because of their strategic value and so did not force any changes on them lest he create an anti-union backlash. As it was he didn’t need to. Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia and Missouri did away with slavery during the Civil War on their own. Kentucky was the only state to hold out until the 13th Amendment and since the population there was very hotly (occasionally violently) divided between Unionism and Secessionism, Lincoln was not about to force the issue.

Yes, the South freed the slaves and there were slaves that fought for the South, but that only came at the very tail end of the war when the Confederacy was running out of men. They promised freedom to any slave that served in the Confederate forces. They had of course been using slaves for “grunt work”, as laborers, during the entire war, but there was no more choice for them in that than working on a plantation. The fact is the Constitution of the Confederate States of America is nearly identical to the United States Constitution with one notable exception. It protected the right of people to own black people (and that is spelled out: "negro") slaves.

Yes, there were some tariff issues between the Northern and Southern states but it was slavery that was the one issue neither side could compromise on.

"The anti-slavery party contend that slavery is wrong in itself, and the Government is a consolidated national democracy. We of the South contend that slavery is right, and that this is a confederate Republic of sovereign States." ~ Congressman Keitt of South Carolina, 1860

Deal Johnny Reb Part II EDITED

Yes Virginia, It Was About Slavery...

Now, another common argument I hear it’s “Well, it was only a small percentage of the population that were slave owners. All those foot soldiers didn’t own slaves!”

Quite right, the majority of those (often bare)foot soldiers did not own slaves.

But their leaders did. Their senators, congressmen, members of their state assemblies, their governors did. And remember folks, this is a time before internet, before CNN, before TV, before radio, before telephones. Newspapers. That was it. And newspapers were blatantly biased. Most of the time in a big town you had two newspapers: one written and edited by those sympathetic to the Whig or Republican party and one written and edited by those sympathetic to the Democratic Party (which BTW, is the oldest of two major parties active today, though it has gone through much metamorphosis).

It would be as if you had two news sources: the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee. How “fair and balanced” do you think the coverage would be?

Many poor or middle class people in the south didn’t like slavery, but were scared what would happen if all the slaves were freed. They were scared of how the blacks would retalliate if given legislative power. After the Nat Turner rebellion, some were scared of violence. Many of the poor whites were scared of the flood of freed slaves on the job market. Some hoped slavery would end but wanted it to end on it’s own rather than a federal power legislating it. (They ignored the fact that it was being actively transported to newly formed states and not showing much signs of dying a quiet & peaceful death.)

Throw into the mix a pack of leaders who have a vested interest in keep the slaves on their plantations and the hefty rhetoric of guys like John C. Calhoun …

Very different would be the circumstances under which emancipation would take place with us. If it ever should be effected, it will be through the agency of the Federal Government, controlled by the dominant power of the Northern States of the Confederacy, against the resistance and struggle of the Southern. It can then only be effected by the prostration of the white race; and that would necessarily engender the bitterest feelings of hostility between them and the North. But the reverse would be the case between the blacks of the South and the people of the North. Owing their emancipation to them, they would regard them as friends, guardians, and patrons, and centre, accordingly, all their sympathy in them. The people of the North would not fail to reciprocate and to favor them, instead of the whites. Under the influence of such feelings, and impelled by fanaticism and love of power, they would not stop at emancipation. Another step would be taken--to raise them to a political and social equality with their former owners, by giving them the right of voting and holding public offices under the Federal Government. We see the first step toward it in the bill already alluded to--to vest the free blacks and slaves with the right to vote on the question of emancipation in this District. But when once raised to an equality, they would become the fast political associates of the North, acting and voting with them on all questions, and by this political union between them, holding the white race at the South in complete subjection. The blacks, and the profligate whites that might unite with them, would become the principal recipients of federal offices and patronage, and would, in consequence, be raised above the whites of the South in the political and social scale. We would, in a word, change conditions with them--a degradation greater than has ever yet fallen to the lot of a free and enlightened people, and one from which we could not escape, should emancipation take place (which it certainly will if not prevented), but by fleeing the homes of ourselves and ancestors, and by abandoning our country to our former slaves, to become the permanent abode of disorder, anarchy, poverty, misery, and wretchedness.

...and you have a non-slave owning public ready to fight so you can keep your slaves. They thought the Union was going to come down and destroy their way of life.

Kinda in the same way there are tens of thousands of troops in Iraq “fighting for American freedom” right now. (Well, maybe not so many of them believe that now.)

Sorry, couldn’t resist.

So the South was fighting for State's Rights.

Unfortunately, the Right they chose to take a stand on and fight over was slavery.

EDIT: What amuses me was that people say they were "fighting for states rights!", yet when those states rights interfered with slavery, it was another story altogether. The Fugitive Slave Act and the Dredd Scott decision both put the rights of slave owner over state laws in order to return the slave to the owner or for the owner to keep the slave as propoerty, despite his residence in a non-slave state. Hell, not only did the Fugitive Slave Act allow roving bands of slave hunters through non-slave states, the Act stated that the local citizens of a non-slave owning state *must* assist in the capture of runaway slaves no matter what the laws of the state maybe.

Where are the rights of the States in that?

Now as for the “Lincoln started the war” crap...

The fact is the South was so paranoid about keeping their slaves that Lincoln didn’t even appear on the ballot in many southern states. They were so scared of his abolitionist views they started seceding as soon as he was elected, before he even took office. He was elected in November of 1860, South Carolina succeeded in December. Before he took office in March of 1861, eight states had left the Union.

He didn’t even have the power to do anything yet.

Now when South Carolina succeeded, they had a slight problem: The federally owned fort on the federally owned island in Charleston Harbor.

"Federally owned" which means that when the Confederate army took it over they were invading Federal territory, months before Lincoln sent the troops to Bull Run.

And the fact is April of 1861 is not the first time the Confederates had opened fire on a federal ship. Buchanan had attempted to resupply and reinforce the Fort Sumter in January of that year with the steamship The Star of the West. (BTW- Very interesting source there.) The Rebels shot at that one too, driving it out of the bay. The Commander of the Fort refrained from opening fire on the Confederate batteries for fear of starting a war.

The truth is the South seceded first and they fired first, before Lincoln had a chance to do squat.

Now it is probably true that Lincoln wanted an opening to bring the Confederate states back into the Union by any means necessary.

And it is quite probable that Lincoln knew that sending a ship into to resupply Ft. Sumter was going to cause a war.

But quite frankly the Confederates were spoiling for one so bad he could have just sneezed in a general southerly direction and they would have been firing the forward batteries.

So he sneezed, so to speak.

And what choice did he have really? Anderson had told him that they either had to be re-supplied or they had to surrender the fort. I find it amusing that so many people who so loudly proclaim America’s sovereignty and national defense as paramount in today’s political climate feel that Lincoln should have been more mellow handing over a federal fort to a state full of traitors.

Was Lincoln ready to call up 75,000 troops the day after the Fort fell to Confederate cannon fire…and send them into Maryland in July? Hell yes. But the South fired first. Twice.

Now having said all this, the South put up one hell of a fight and the descendants of those soldiers should be proud of their ancestors service, if not for the reasons why. The fact is no one ever out-thought Lee except perhaps Lee himself (at Gettysburg), and even when those troops were starving they were prepared to fight on. Grant & Sherman weren’t smarter, they just beat them into submission. They were the first set of Union commanders to walk out of a battle in which they lost 30,000 men to say, “I still have 70,000 men. We’ll break camp and persue at day break.”

I always find the Civil War a fascinating piece of American history because…well, for one it was the last “gentlemen’s war”. All the commanding officers knew each other on the other side of the battle field and so there are these almost romantically chivalrous moments of friendship that shine through this horrific amount of bloodshed. Shelby Foote, God rest him, once said that the most bloody, nasty fist fights he had ever witnessed had been between brothers and so it is with Civil Wars of all nations. It brings out the best and the worst in a people.

I mean as a Historian I cannot read the account of Chamberlain’s salute to the Confederate soldiers at Appomattox without tears in my eyes.

And that fact that when Americans were pushed to throw the hammer down, they didn’t do it over resources (well, one could say the South defined it as being over resources) or money, they did it over ideals of “All men are created equal…”

It’s a tremendously interesting and poignant point in our history.

For further into, here is a timeline of the American Civil War.

And a place to get started with some of the most interesting people involved in the Civil War.

Addendum: Deconstructions of Lincoln

The recent trend in popular history is to deconstruct major historical figures. Delve into their nasty underbellies and if their underbellies are not nasty enough, project something onto them. What is always amusing is how someone will write a best seller about how George Washington was a lecher (or something similar) like they are revealing the Ark of the Covenant and all the Historians are sitting around saying, “Well, yah. So?”

Not news to us.

(I once had a friend call me up, very excited from having read Holy Blood, Holy Grail. "OhmiGawd, Jen! Did you know the ruling family of England isn't even English!"

"Uhm, Yeah. The German family that took over changed their names to Windsor during World War I because of the anti-German sentiment runing around."

She was very disappointed.)

Lincoln in particular has become the focus of this trend from theorizing he is a homosexual to his being a racist.

There isn’t anything wrong with homosexuality. The problem is there is simply no proof to support our 14th president being so inclined. Nada.

Often the language of the time used among family and close friends confuses our skittishly homophobic and sexually obsessed modern society. When I was doing my research last semester on the Blockade of Wilmington, I came across a series of letters written between one of the confederate officers stationed in Wilmington and someone he addressed every letter to as “My Darling” with very banal and fatherly content. It took me a few very confusing minutes to figure out he was exchanging letters with his nephew. Forms of address and expressions of friendship in that time were not hung up on our modern concepts of machismo.

Besides, even if Lincoln was a homosexual, he was so far in the closest it’s impact on history is non-existent.

Was Lincoln a racist? Yes. He was. So was everyone else. It would be very, very hard to find anyone in that time that did not qualify as a racist to our modern values. I’m sure there were some, but they were few and far between. It doesn't make racism right, but you do have to evaluate the man, or any historical figure, while taking his time and the society in which he lived into account. Lincoln believed that slavery was inherently evil but he was unsure of the black man’s intellectual equality with the white. For his time he was considered radically progressive by much of the population.

I think this is best summed up by Fredrick Douglas’ comments at the anniversary of Lincolns Death.

I have said that President Lincoln was a white man, and shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race. Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict. His great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful cooperation of his loyal fellow-countrymen. Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless. Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible. Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.

Though Mr. Lincoln shared the prejudices of his white fellow-countrymen against the Negro, it is hardly necessary to say that in his heart of hearts he loathed and hated slavery. The man who could say, "Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war shall soon pass away, yet if God wills it continue till all the wealth piled by two hundred years of bondage shall have been wasted, and each drop of blood drawn by the lash shall have been paid for by one drawn by the sword, the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether," gives all needed proof of his feeling on the subject of slavery. He was willing, while the South was loyal, that it should have its pound of flesh, because he thought that it was so nominated in the bond; but farther than this no earthly power could make him go.

Deal Johnny Reb - Part I

As I said, we are going to take a break from the political scene while the popular media whips itself into an frenzy. My sister in law just sent out an e-mail saying they had started to screen their calls because of the constant barrage of “vote for me” telemarketing calls.

Though I will note that I did receive a letter from Senator Dole’s Office about troop withdrawal from Iraq…which means there is some confused soul out there getting a letter about warrentless wiretapping. But from her. “The president is protecting us from the Terrorists!” tone of the letter I got, I can imagine what she said in the letter someone else got.

So…let take a break shall we.

The Civil War - Lincoln and Slavery.

One of the most common arguments I encounter on the internet is the “The Civil War wasn’t about slavery!”. I love this one. That combined with the “Lincoln started the civil war!” is always good for a pleasant hour or two of spearing-fish-in-a-barrel fun.

Usually the Confederate Wannabe begins by whipping this quote out:

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.” ~Abraham Lincoln.

And that’s fine. Yes. As President, Lincoln’s main focus was preserving the Union lest a young struggling divided nation fall prey to the European powers they had struggled so hard to be free of.

BUT…

Would you like to read the entire letter from which this quote was drawn?

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable [sic] in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

Can you imagine President Bush even attempting such a letter?

When the founding fathers created this country, they left the issue of slavery alone for fear of alienating the southern states, which were the colonies’ bread basket. One observer at the time of the Constitutional Congresses noted that slavery, “was the serpent coiled up beneath the table.” The elephant in the room no one wanted to deal with head on for risk of destroying the fragile foundations they were laying down. While their reasoning is understandable, it remains their biggest shame.

The fact is almost everything in American politics leading up to Lincoln’s election had become about slavery. The Missouri Compromise in 1820. Nat Turner rebellion in 1831. The murder of Abolitionist Lovejoy in 1837. The wild popularity of the inflammatory “Uncle Toms Cabin” published in 1852. The Dredd Scott decision. John Brown. In 1856, Congressmen Sumner of Massachusetts gave a speech against the pro-slavery elements in Congress, three days later he was beaten unconscious by Congressman Brooks of South Carolina...on the Senate floor. The Mid-West was already being ripped about in violence as pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions fought over “Bleeding Kansas”. And these are just the some major events. It was the one issue the northern and southern states simply could not compromise on, though gawd knows saner heads had tried to prevail throughout the 1800’s

By 1858, slavery was the Iraq War/Terrorism of it’s time. It was *The* topic. During his campaign for president in 1858, Lincoln engaged his opponent Stephen Douglas in a series of debates across his home state of Illinois. (These were very different affairs than the debates we see on TV now. The candidates traded off speeches of an hour or more. On one occasion Dougals would give a speech, then Lincoln would give a speech, then Douglas would give a rejoinder/reply. The next time they would trade off who went first and got to reply last.) The seven debates were almost exclusively about slavery and topics relating to slavery such as racial equality and the Dredd Scott decision.

Prior to his run for president, Lincoln had served in the House and was noted for opposing Polk’s Mexican American war and opposing the Kansas-Nebraska act. Politically, while straddling the fence on the abolition of slavery, he had always stood firmly against the expansion of slavery into new territories. His private feelings on the matter were even more clearly defined.

“How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be take pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy [sic]. ~ (Letter to Joshua Speed, 1855)

(No offense Irina.)

Now, Lincoln's feelings about slavery and what he acted on politically can be a muddle of things that either side can draw isolated acts and quotes from to support their argument, but I think his letter to Horace Greely was very representative of where he was coming from. Privately he abhorred slavery as a stain on American principles. He may have had doubts as to the full biological/intellectual equality of blacks, but he believed as Christians of mercy and charity the enslavement of another man was inherently wrong and as Americans, extremely hypocritical. But as President, he realized his duty was to the country as a whole, not his private principles. And 1/2 the country was slave states. Somehow he had to make it work. If he could find someway to eliminate slavery without ripping the nation to pieces, peachy keen. But he wasn’t about the destroy the nation to do so.

But then, someone made that choice for him…

To Be Continued later today with How The Civil War Started, to be followed by Yes, You Can Fly That Flag and The Real Steampunk - Civil War Stealth Technology.