Posted on 10/16/2010 4:28:16 AM PDT by mainepatsfan
Which actions of the north during the decade preceding secession are you referring to?
If you have evidence of such during the 1850s or 60s, I'd sure like to see it.
I'm rereading Shelby Foote's history of the War. Just read the section about Pat Cleburne calling in 1864 for the enlistment of blacks in the army and a promise of gradual emancipation.
He was one of the very best CSA commanders. He arguably saved the North Georgia army from annhilation on at least two occasions.
His presentation of this idea to his fellow generals was met with "polite silence," as he was very well liked in the army.
Davis and other pols were utterly appalled at the very notion, and Davis took special care to find out whether other officers were infected with this notion and was greatly relieved to find out they were not.
Despite Cleburne's great competence and the CSA's desperate need for such, after this event he was never promoted or given greater responsibility. When Johnston was canned, Hood was promoted over Cleburne and promptly proceeded to nearly destroy his own army.
While it is highly unlikely Cleburne would have been able to defeat Sherman at Atlanta, it is even more unlikely he could have done worse than Hood.
My point is that the very notion of eventually freeing slaves was treated (in 1864!) roughly as if he was proposing the sacrifice of firstborn children to Moloch. That doesn't sound like a lot of support for abolition to me.
Abolitionists did not rise to leadership positions in the Confederacy, obviously. Henry Clay’s nephew was a leading abolistionist, antebellum. Southern abolitionists were neither as numerous, nor prominent as the Northern variety. My reading of history (which could be wrong) was that they were future. Southerners were obviously uncomfortable with slavery. I think the Civil War was the worst way to end slavery, it left white Southerners aggrieved, (some) Northerners even more insufferably self-righteous, especially New Englanders, the entire country poorer, hundreds of thousands dead and heightened racial animosity in the South.
Of course it is.
Troll doesn’t count because many that I called a troll were trolls and are now banned.
And even more that you called trolls are still here to laugh at you.
I can assure you Bobby Jo, this is one contest you will win..... all the way back to to 2001.
OK, Shirley. Have at it.
I quite agree.
Although I suspect we differ on who was primarily responsible for the war.
Southerners were obviously uncomfortable with slavery.
I agree. Although I believe their discomfort increasingly took the form, during the 1850s, of putting their hands over their ears and hollering, "I can't hear you."
IOW, southern whites were mostly in the final stages of that deadly disease, denial. The potential consequences of the end or even decline of slavery were so appalling to them that they responded by denying the obvious fact that the institution was on its way out. They refused to even think about it, much less talk about it or allow others to do so.
Given that we are still dealing with these consequences, almost 150 years later, it's difficult to not feel considerable sympathy for those who felt this way. This does not change my opinion that they were utterly wrong in their reaction to this anxiety.
History records accurately that the old Northern Whigs and Constitutional Union party never opposed slavery.
In 1860 Northern Democrats did not oppose slavery.
In 1860 the Southern Democrats not only favored slavery, but it's legal enforcement in non-slave territories and states.
In 1860 Southern Democrats split from their Northern Democrat party -- thus guaranteeing victory to the only remaining minority party which was truly anti-slavery: northern Republicans lead by Abraham Lincoln.
Had all the pro-slavery forces remained politically united, as they did in previous elections, there is no way the anti-slavery Republican Lincoln could have been elected in 1860.
Within a few weeks of Lincoln's election, the Deep South began to secede -- not waiting for Lincoln's inauguration, much less any changes in Federal policy he might have made.
The historical lesson for the South should have been clear: when you split up your own side, you guarantee victory to your opposition.
I actually think most of the South has actually learned that lesson, and voted accordingly (i.e., reluctantly supporting "mavericks" like John McCain).
But obviously, some didn't get the memo... ;-)
Actually he would have anyway. Lincoln won in 1860 with about 40% of the popular vote but with about 60% of the electoral vote. With the exception of California and Oregon, Lincoln took all his states with an absolute majority of all votes cast. So even if the Democrats had stayed united and had taken the west coast states Lincoln would still have won with 173 electoral votes.
Good posts, but your emphasis here is slightly off.
The issue from the Southern slave-owning perspective was pure and simple: the price of slaves.
Many southerners made their fortunes by raising and selling slaves for a profit.
In 1860 slave prices were as high as they had ever been, meaning there was on-going strong demand from new slave-states like Texas.
To keep prices high required ever-increasing demand, meaning ever-expanding slave-owning territory, and that, not a possible abolition of slavery, was the real issue for Southerners in 1860.
Only a small minority in 1860 (the Republicans) advocated abolishing slavery.
Everyone else was willing to tolerate it, but toleration could not possibly be enough for the South.
Southern slave-owners needed slavery to continue expanding, maintaining high demand and higher prices for their slaves.
And this is what makes our Lost Causers' claims that "slavery was about to die out all by itself, if the South had just been left alone" so ludicrous.
You're correct, of course, at least in theory.
But elections, then as now, are like military battles in that they sometimes depend as much on the enthusiasm and devotion of their troops to turn out the vote as on raw political calculations.
I'm saying that when the South split up the Democrat party, they dispirited those who could have helped them the most, and thus suppressed the pro-slavey vote.
After all, in 1860 the anti-Republican popular vote totaled 60%.
If you ask, "why would they commit such political suicide?"
the answer is: because that was actually preferable to the economic suicide which would result from remaining in the Union -- while even the Northern Democrats favored slowly, slowly, slowly strangling slavery in its cradle, so to speak.
Didn’t Brown lose two sons as well as most of his men when Lee marched in retook the armory? Isn’t that strange, a white man dying for the want to end slavery...Hmmmm Mr BOzo
Obama.
I do not disagree. Just trying to be a little more polite to the Lost Causers.
In 1860 the price of slaves was not just “as high as it had ever been,” it was higher. “Peak slaves” was achieved in 1860.
A popular southern delusion was that they could secede, then invade and conquer the Caribbean and Latin America, turning it into a slave empire. Totally ludicrous and delusional, of course, as the British, in particular the RN would never have allowed them to do so. Any such conquest would have had to be largely seaborne. Not to mention that the rump USA might have also had something to say.
But I still believe much of the anger, hatred and bitterness so obvious in the fire-eaters was related to a desperate attempt to avoid looking at the fairly obvious truth that “the southern way of life” was doomed. If they insisted on defining it as a way of life based on slavery, which they most certainly did.
You are a bitter, self absorbed, egotistical Pansy.
I was told when I first came to FR that he/she was a huge defender of Islam and someone sent me links to the old posts. I long ago lost the links but got them again. It’s appalling how he/she was defending Muslims and Islam right after 9/11. I also found it odd that he/she knows so much about the Koran, quoting passages in it, etc. I thought I was on DU when reading NS’s posts.
And you're a hate-filled, whiny, psychotic stalker.
This I'd love to see. How about posting them for us?
Been thinking about your post, and decided I agree more than I had thought initially.
The Upper South, in particular Virginia, had existed financially for decades primarily on the sale of slaves to the Deep South. Virginia crops, particularly those raised by plantations, had been financial losers for a long time.
I have always found the insistence on their “honor” of VA aristocrats somewhat disgusting, as most of them made their living by ranching human beings, then selling them off to the horrors of cotton and sugar plantations. With, of course, the best-looking of the females winding up in brothels in New Orleans and other cities.
Some significant but unknown percentage of those sold were the biological sons and daughters, or brothers and sisters, of the sellers.
The southern response when this was pointed out was to demand that nobody say such a thing. The southern sense of “honor” seemed to rest more on what others were allowed to say about what they did than about what they actually did. This reminds me strongly of two groups in today’s society: ghetto thugs and their response to being dissed, and the Muslim reaction to an insult to Islam.
This type of honor was of course a holdover from the decaying aristocracy of Europe. The southern way of life, in its ideal, was an aristocracy, with the “aristocrats” existing without work on the labor of inferiors. As such, it was utterly in conflict with the true American ideal of every man earning his own living.
IMO, true honor comes from what one does, not what others say about you. This is the Christian ideal. The Romans thought Christ was dishonored, because he was executed in what they considered a dishonorable way. Christians, OTOH, believe his death ennobled crucifixion.
Thanks.
I was trying not to exaggerate, and didn't have those numbers in front of me.
Also, you have to wonder about such things as inflation -- might that account for rising prices of slaves before 1860?
Here is a summary of data on antibellum slavery, including:
Well, you might wonder, how much of that increase was caused by inflation?
Answer: just the opposite, rising productivity and prosperity drove overall prices down between 1810 and 1860.
According to the Consumer Price Index, in 1860 you needed only $609 to purchase what would have cost $900 in 1810.
At the same time, a production worker wage of $900 in 1810 would be worth $1,510 in 1860.
In other words: over those 50 years of 1810 to 1860, average production worker wages increased by 2/3 while prices declined by 1/3.
And the price of slaves doubled.
"Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on..."In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on..."
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.