Maryland Division SCV honors USCT Veteran with gravestone dedication

[RebelBugler]

Just where have you read anywhere that the cause of the Civil War was due entirely to slavery? I think the PC argument runs both ways. The Confederate apologist version goes something like this: slavery was bad; the Confederacy was noble; ergo, the Confederacy could not have been created to protect slavery - slavery was just something the South was stuck with for the short term. Sheesh, talk about PC.

Have you visited the recently opened Gettysburg Visitor Center yet? Apparently, that is their latest take on the war. I paid $8.00 to view a half hour presentation entitled "A New Birth of Freedom" that discussed nothing but slavery and is full of historical inaccuracies.

[Malingerer]

Have you visited the recently opened Gettysburg Visitor Center yet? Apparently, that is their latest take on the war. I paid $8.00 to view a half hour presentation entitled "A New Birth of Freedom" that discussed nothing but slavery and is full of historical inaccuracies.

I have to confess I haven't made the trip yet - Gettysburg is a bit of a drive from western North Carolina. I do think that most leading historians today would cite slavery as the primary cause for the war - that it's protection was what Southern leaders had in mind when they decided to exercise their 'states rights'. Here's some support for that argument in the words of contemporary Southern leaders.
Henry L. Benning, Georgia politician and future Confederate general, writing in the summer of 1849 to his fellow Georgian, Howell Cobb: "First then, it is apparent, horribly apparent, that the slavery question rides insolently over every other everywhere -- in fact that is the only question which in the least affects the results of the elections." [Allan Nevins, The Fruits of Manifest Destiny pages 240-241.] Later in the same letter Benning says, "I think then, 1st, that the only safety of the South from abolition universal is to be found in an early dissolution of the Union."
Stephan Dodson Ramseur, future Confederate general, writing from West Point (where he was a cadet) to a friend in the wake of the 1856 election: "...Slavery, the very source of our existence, the greatest blessing both for Master & Slave that could have been bestowed upon us."
Albert Gallatin Brown, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, speaking with regard to the several filibuster expeditions to Central America: "I want Cuba . . . I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States; and I want them all for the same reason -- for the planting and spreading of slavery." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 106.]
Senator Robert M. T. Hunter of Virginia: "There is not a respectable system of civilization known to history whose foundations were not laid in the institution of domestic slavery." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 56.]
Richmond Enquirer, 1856: "Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves . . . freedom is not possible without slavery."
Atlanta Confederacy, 1860: "We regard every man in our midst an enemy to the institutions of the South, who does not boldly declare that he believes African slavery to be a social, moral, and political blessing."
Lawrence Keitt, Congressman from South Carolina, in a speech to the House on January 25, 1860: "African slavery is the corner-stone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depopulation and barbarism." Later in the same speech he said, "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." Taken from a photocopy of the Congressional Globe supplied by Steve Miller.
Keitt again, this time as delegate to the South Carolina secession convention, during the debates on the state's declaration of causes: "Our people have come to this on the question of slavery. I am willing, in that address to rest it upon that question. I think it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it." Taken from the Charleston, South Carolina, Courier, dated Dec. 22, 1860. See the Furman documents site for more transcription from these debates. Keitt became a colonel in the Confederate army and was killed at Cold Harbor on June 1, 1864.
Methodist Rev. John T. Wightman, preaching at Yorkville, South Carolina: "The triumphs of Christianity rest this very hour upon slavery; and slavery depends on the triumphs of the South . . . This war is the servant of slavery." [The Glory of God, the Defence of the South (1861), cited in Eugene Genovese's Consuming Fire (199.]
From the Confederate Constitution:
Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 3: "The Confederate States may acquire new territory . . . In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and the territorial government."
From the Georgia Constitution of 1861:"The General Assembly shall have no power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves." (This is the entire text of Article 2, Sec. VII, Paragraph 3.)
From the Alabama Constitution of 1861: "No slave in this State shall be emancipated by any act done to take effect in this State, or any other country." (This is the entire text of Article IV, Section 1 (on slavery).)
Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy, referring to the Confederate government: "Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery . . . is his natural and normal condition." [Augusta, Georgia, Daily Constitutionalist, March 30, 1861.]
On the formation of black regiments in the Confederate army, by promising the troops their freedom:
Howell Cobb, former general in Lee's army, and prominent pre-war Georgia politician: "If slaves will make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
A North Carolina newspaper editorial: "it is abolition doctrine . . . the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." [North Carolina Standard, Jan. 17, 1865; cited in Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?"
Alfred P. Aldrich, South Carolina legislator from Barnwell: "If the Republican party with its platform of principles, the main feature of which is the abolition of slavery and, therefore, the destruction of the South, carries the country at the next Presidential election, shall we remain in the Union, or form a separate Confederacy? This is the great, grave issue. It is not who shall be President, it is not which party shall rule --- it is a question of political and social existence." [Steven Channing, Crisis of Fear, pp. 141-142.]
John C. Calhoun, Senator from South Carolina: "The defence of human liberty against the aggressions of despotic power have been always the most efficient in States where domestic slavery was to prevail."
James H. Hammond, Congressman from South Carolina: "Sir, I do firmly believe that domestic slavery, regulated as ours is, produces the highest toned, the purest, best organization of society that has ever existed on the face of the earth."
Hammond again, from later in the same speech: "the moment this House undertakes to legislate upon this subject [slavery], it dissolves the Union. Should it be my fortune to have a seat upon this floor, I will abandon it the instant the first decisive step is taken looking towards legislation of this subject. I will go home to preach, and if I can, practice, disunion, and civil war, if needs be. A revolution must ensue, and this republic sink in blood."
Henry Wise, Congressman (and future governor) from Virginia: "The principle of slavery is a leveling principle; it is friendly to equality. Break down slavery and you would with the same blow break down the great democratic principle of equality among men."
From the diary of James B. Lockney, 28th Wisconsin Infantry, writing near Arkadelphia, Arkansas (10/29/63): "Last night I talked awhile to those men who came in day before yesterday from the S.W. part of the state about 120 miles distant. Many of them wish Slavery abolished & slaves out of the country as they said it was the cause of the War, and the Curse of our Country & the foe of the body of the people--the poor whites. They knew the Slave masters got up the war expressly in the interests of the institution, & with no real cause from the Government or the North." [This diary is on-line at: http://userdata.acd.net/jshirey/cw186310.html.]

[hanktrent]

Of course, most of us are familiar with Mr. Lincoln's plan to find ships to return the emancipated individuals back to Africa.

It seems odd to refer to it as "Mr. Lincoln's plan."

So far as I know, the colonization movement was founded when Lincoln was only a boy, grew and thrived long before he had any national influence, and he was only one of many who considered it a possible positive solution.

By the time he had the most power, the movement had already peaked, and though Uncle Tom's Cabin gave it a new shot in the arm for a while, it never revived to its glory days of the 1830s-1840s era when all the ships were sailing and Liberia was being settled.

He supported the colonization society of course, the same as most any typical northerner uncomfortable with slavery in the antebellum era, but it wasn't his original idea nor was he even the most vocal or active of the many supporters who'd gone before.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[tompritchett]

The problem arises when 21st Century supporters of political correctness claim that slavery had everything to do with secession

In regards to the secession of the first 7 states of the Confederacy, I would suggest that you read Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War by Charles Dew (University of Virginia Press) and read the secession resolutions for those states. You will find that, for these states, slavery was very much a major factor in their decision to leave the Union. As for the remaining 4 states, things get a little more complicated.

[Malingerer]

Tom, please read my quote from Governor Letcher from Virginia that I posted above. These guys were proud to defend slavery and cited it as their chief cause for disunion.

[firstmdes]

The problem arises when 21st Century supporters of political correctness claim that slavery had everything to do with secession or the war.

For starters, secession was not prohibited by the Constitution and several states required, as a condition of ratifying the Constitution, their right to secede. A textbook by Rawles, used at the US Military Academy, even acknowledged this right.

Yes, the South was indeed concerned about the abolitionist movement. After all, there had been the Nat Turner incident and the attempt to incite a slave insurrection, orchestrated by John Brown. Interestingly, the terrorist Brown murdered a Black railroad employee, Haywood Shepherd, in his failed attempt at Harpers Ferry. So much for Brown's claim of the moral high ground

There was also the issue of shifting political power, if new states admitted to the Union were designated as Free states.

Another issue was how to deal with and establish the necessary support for the substantial number of individuals who would suddenly be freed. Considering that the vast majority of slaves were in the South, and that many of the Northern states had laws refusing admission to people of color, there were realistic public safety concerns as to how to deal with a largely uneducated population of former slaves. Of course, most of us are familiar with Mr. Lincoln's plan to find ships to return the emancipated individuals back to Africa.

Looks like you all but argued that slavery was the cause of the war. Except for the point that secession was not prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, all of the other reasons and fears had to do with slavery or the lack of slavery in states.

I am not writing 21st Century PC, I am writting what your ancestors wrote:

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other —though 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 among 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. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. --Alexander H. Stephens, March 21, 1861 in Savannah, Georgia

So, when the Vice President of the newly formed C.S.A says that, and I am paraphrasing, we broke away from the Union because we want to guarantee slavery, it is not about slavery? If the leaders of the C.S.A. said it was about slavery in 1861 during the heat of the moment, then it was about slavery. I don't care what they said in the 1870s, 1880s or 1890s and I certainly don't care what the opposite of PC SCV say in the 21st Century!

[Blockade Runner]

Looks like you all but argued that slavery was the cause of the war. Except for the point that secession was not prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, all of the other reasons and fears had to do with slavery or the lack of slavery in states.

I am not writing 21st Century PC, I am writting what your ancestors wrote:


So, when the Vice President of the newly formed C.S.A says that, and I am paraphrasing, we broke away from the Union because we want to guarantee slavery, it is not about slavery? If the leaders of the C.S.A. said it was about slavery in 1861 during the heat of the moment, then it was about slavery. I don't care what they said in the 1870s, 1880s or 1890s and I certainly don't care what the opposite of PC SCV say in the 21st Century!

You know, you're right regarding the emancipation of the slaves in the Confederacy. If the Confederacy would have listened to the enlightened voices of General Patrick Cleburne and some others, prior to the closing moments of the war, than the South may have ultimately won the conflict. As an aside, early in the war Louisiana raised a regiment of black soldiers who were not permitted to fight for their homeland. Many slaves felt that the war was also their fight. It's a shame that a plan for their service in the Southern army, in exchange for their ultimate freedom, was not adopted.

[Malingerer]

You know, you're right regarding the emancipation of the slaves in the Confederacy. If the Confederacy would have listened to the enlightened voices of General Patrick Cleburne and some others, prior to the closing moments of the war, than the South may have ultimately won the conflict. As an aside, early in the war Louisiana raised a regiment of black soldiers who were not permitted to fight for their homeland. Many slaves felt that the war was also their fight. It's a shame that a plan for their service in the Southern army, in exchange for their ultimate freedom, was not adopted.

So....let's see if I've got this straight. You're suggesting that the slaves of the South would have been willing to fight to keep themselves in bondage? Wait, that can't be right - you must mean something else. Something less ... well, less thoughtless.

[tompritchett]

Tom, please read my quote from Governor Letcher from Virginia that I posted above. These guys were proud to defend slavery and cited it as their chief cause for disunion.

My response was for RebelBugler. Yes Virginia primary motivation for ultimately leaving was slavery combined with Lincoln's muster call. But it took the muster call to ultimately drive VA out. In the case of Tennessee, there had been a vote on secession during the first wave and TN voted to stay in the Union. However, as soon as Lincoln issued his muster call, the governor of TN called a special session of the legislature specifically to re-open the secession issue. I am not as up on the status of Ark and NC secessions except they too did not leave until after the muster call. Thus, I would hesitate to state that slavery had as much an influence in the secession of the last four states as it did with the first seven. I am also not saying that slavery was not a factor, as no one can read Virginia's Secession Resolution and still claim that slavery was not a major factor in her secession, but rather that prior to the muster call, these states were willing to stay within the Union and find a solution to the conflict over the election of the new Republican administration. Unfortunately, the firebrands on both sides would not let happen.

[firstmdes]

As an aside, early in the war Louisiana raised a regiment of black soldiers who were not permitted to fight for their homeland. Many slaves felt that the war was also their fight. It's a shame that a plan for their service in the Southern army, in exchange for their ultimate freedom, was not adopted.

As I recall from reading The Louisiana Native Guards: The Black Military Experience During the Civil War by James G. Hollandsworth, Jr., most of these gentlemen quickly switched sides and joined up for the Union cause. I believe it happened not long after Butler rolled into town. Oh, and by the way, these gentlemen were not slaves. They were rather wealthy land and slave owners with a mixed ethnicity. By today's standards they would not be recognizable as African Americans. Their driver's licenses would probably identify them as white.