Confederate Veteran John Mosby Knew the Lost Cause Was Bull

War is Boring ^ | May 1, 2017 | Kevin Knodell

[C19fan]

John S. Mosby, known as the “Gray Ghost,” was a Virginian who became legendary for his leadership of Mosby’s Rangers—a band of Confederate guerrilla fighters that harassed the Union Army and went toe-to-toe with George Armstrong Custer in the Shenandoah Valley.

Mosby is still highly regarded as a strategist and tactician and is studied to this day by practitioners of unconventional warfare. He lived a long life, dying early in the 20th century, and was also a lawyer, a diplomat and author who wrote about his experiences during the war.

[rockrr]

Which “states rights” specifically? The only one the rebel states ever mentioned was the “right” to own other human beings.

[pierrem15]

Regarding the legal right of secession:

a) the Articles of Confederation were articles of perpetual union;

b) the states did not ratify the Constitution of 1789-- it was approved by electors chosen by the people of each state. The state governments simply agreed to abide by the ratification process and accept the new, national government the ratification process created.

So I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that there was no states' right to secede.

That said, it is also clear that the Republican Party platform, which embraced abolition, embraced an end for which there was no Constitutional means.

The only way the Federal government could end slavery would have been through abusive means (such as a tariff on cotton exports) intended to bankrupt the plantation system or through the outright usurpation of unconstitutional powers.

Given Lincoln's election, the South had quite legitimate fears about such a process of usurpation.

Lee's actions are quite instructive in this regard, insofar as he remained an officer of the USA and strongly counseled against secession until it became clear that Virginia would secede and Lincoln would use force to maintain the Union.

The war that followed was a tragedy precisely because in many (if different) respects, both sides were right.

[DoodleDawg]

The war wasn’t about slavery. It was about State’s rights and the War of Northern Aggression. The South ended slavery before the North. The South simply had more plantation and farming slaves than the North.

You are late to the party. Scroll up the 450-plus posts and see just how wrong those two claims are.

[rockrr]

The only way the Federal government could end slavery would have been through abusive means (such as a tariff on cotton exports) intended to bankrupt the plantation system or through the outright usurpation of unconstitutional powers.

The United States Constitution provided the means to end slavery - the amendment process. But there was no pressure to abolish slavery. The new president said that he had no intention to change the status quo.

By the way, tariffs on exports are unconstitutional.

[jeffersondem]

“”Fascinating but appalling.” My feelings exactly toward most Lost Causer posts.”

It is rewarding to know I have been able to capture your feelings accurately and succcintly. Thank you for the testimonial.

It is only modesty that prevents me from suggesting that you authorize me to draft all your comments for this site.

If I could draft your comments - without having to consult your gratifications - there would be must less need for your backing and filling, and for you to have to explain away so many messes.

[BroJoeK]

pierrem15: "So I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that there was no states' right to secede."

It depends on your definition of "secession".
Some people say our Founders "seceded" first from Britain in 1776 and again from the Articles of Confederation in 1788.
So, if you define those as "secession" and consider our Founders' words on related topics (i.e., "disunion"), then clearly they considered it legitimate & acceptable under two, and only two, circumstances:

1. By mutual consent, as Founders did in 1788 "seceding" from the Articles of Confederation, or

2. After "a long train of abuses and usurpations" such as those spelled out in their 1776 Declaration of Independence.

Secession outside those two conditions was disunion "at pleasure" which our Founders considered little more than treason & rebellion which they strongly opposed.

For examples consider President Jefferson's response to Vice President Aaron Burr's attempted secession in 1807 and President Washington's response to the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791.

pierrem15: "That said, it is also clear that the Republican Party platform, which embraced abolition, embraced an end for which there was no Constitutional means."

No, the 1860 Republican platform did not call for nation-wide abolition, far from it.
It did call for letting territories themselves vote on whether to be free or slave, and that was enough restriction on slavery to drive Deep South Fire Eaters to declare secession.
Yes, allowing territories to vote themselves whether to be free or slave was a new idea, but hardly unconstitutional.

pierrem15: "The only way the Federal government could end slavery would have been through abusive means (such as a tariff on cotton exports) intended to bankrupt the plantation system or through the outright usurpation of unconstitutional powers."

You know, of course, there never was a tariff on exports of any kind, nor was any ever proposed.
But it's astonishing how often you Lost Causers bring up that canard.

Can anyone explain why?

pierrem15: "Given Lincoln's election, the South had quite
legitimate fears about such a process of usurpation."

Well... there's no doubt Deep South Fire Eaters' fears were real, but they were hardly legitimate given the actual facts.
What those fears truly were is self serving propaganda, flames fanned to justify actions Fire Eaters had pushed for years before there were any Republicans -- secession.

Republican anti-slavery views just made it easier for Fire Eaters to sell what they wanted anyway.

pierrem15: "The war that followed was a tragedy precisely because in many (if different) respects, both sides were right."

Poor Southern farmers who owned no slaves but served their Confederacy loyally certainly cannot be blamed for the actions of their slavocratic leaders.
But leaders who start a war they cannot win are universally judged foolish and, well, wicked.

[jeffersondem]

“Which “states rights” specifically? The only one the rebel states ever mentioned was the “right” to own other human beings.”

It was only a matter of time before it was again claimed that Lincoln’s War was fought to “free the slaves”.

And, there is some evidence, that in fact, Lincoln started the war over a pretext in order to destroy those who would not agree to vote to abolish slavery peacefully using the constitutional process.

I’m not convinced it happened just that way, but for those that insist “Lincoln fought to free the slaves”, there is evidence to support the theory.

[DoodleDawg]

And, there is some evidence, that in fact, Lincoln started the war over a pretext in order to destroy those who would not agree to vote to abolish slavery peacefully using the constitutional process.

What evidence is that?

I’m not convinced it happened just that way, but for those that insist “Lincoln fought to free the slaves”, there is evidence to support the theory.

I don't think anyone who has studied the war seriously, be they supporters of the Union or the Confederacy, would think that the Union fought the war to end slavery. It was fought first, last, and only to preserve the Union.

[rockrr]

It was only a matter of time before it was again claimed that Lincoln’s War was fought to “free the slaves”.

You would have to be a complete mouth-breathing imbecile to get that from what I said.

[rockrr]

I think I’ve figured out why our communications with demojeff aren’t getting through to him...

[jeffersondem]

“I don’t think anyone who has studied the war seriously, be they supporters of the Union or the Confederacy, would think that the Union fought the war to end slavery.”

Well, if that’s true we can dismiss forever the notion that the North fought the war for some high moral cause like “freeing the slaves.”

[pierrem15]

Republic Platform, 1860:

8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom: That, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that "no persons should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.

Pretty bold statement, don't you think? And if such a party should prevent the introduction of slavery into any new territories, then the South would have found itself in a permanent minority in the Senate due to the entrance of more free states, and the House due to immigration to the North.

The Colonies prior to 1776 had used the original colonial charters to create governments largely free from British interference, and did not consent to the British re-interpretation of the colonial arrangement and so chose to secede and form and independent state.

Some Southern states looked at the inexorable political domination of the free states and decided to secede before any "long train of abuses" was commenced. Is that a fault, or simply poor political judgment?

Regarding tariffs, I was mistaken and you are right. However, you can just call it an excise tax and then it's legal. We now know very well how the Federal government can strangle the economic base of the political opponents of the governing party. Why would the South decide to stick around when it was clear that its economic and political interests would always be subordinated to those of its opponents?

It's one thing to be an ephemeral minority, to rule and be ruled in turn. It's quite another to face the prospect of becoming a permanent political minority.

[BroJoeK]

DoodleDawg: "I don't think anyone who has studied the war seriously, be they supporters of the Union or the Confederacy, would think that the Union fought the war to end slavery.
It was fought first, last, and only to preserve the Union."

jeffersondem: "Well, if that’s true we can dismiss forever the notion that the North fought the war for some high moral cause like 'freeing the slaves.' "

Slavery can easily be called a "root cause" for Civil War even though slavery did not drive Jefferson Davis to order assault on Fort Sumter, nor drive Abraham Lincoln to call up 75,00 troops for putting down rebellion.
However, freed slaves did help end war with Union victory.
So for those hundreds of thousands of freed slaves who served, it certainly was all about "freeing the slaves".

And they were not the only ones who fought to free the slaves.
Yes, some Unionists (especially Democrats) threatened to quit the war if it was to "free the slaves".
But many more joined the cause which they felt was now made holy, for example in Julia Ward Howe's Battle Hymn of the Republic

"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*,[14]
While God is marching on."

Those words still stir many of us today.

Finally, once Lincoln announced his Emancipation Proclamation then regardless of what people had felt before it certainly did become all about "freeing the slaves".
Yes, as late as early 1865 Lincoln was willing to offer Confederates a buy-out plan for slaves, but by that time slavery itself was non-negotiable for the Union.

[DoodleDawg]

Well, if that’s true we can dismiss forever the notion that the North fought the war for some high moral cause like “freeing the slaves.”

I like to think that preserving the country that our Founding Fathers bequeathed to us, whole and intact, was high moral cause enough.

[HandyDandy]

Jefferson Davis claimed the high moral ground. He said:

"African slavery, as it exists in the United States, is a moral, a social, and a political blessing."~~~ Jefferson Davis

[BroJoeK]

pierrem15 quoting the 1860 Republican platform: "...we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States."

pierrem15: "Pretty bold statement, don't you think? "

Yes, but what Republicans meant by it was territories themselves on applying for statehood would decide to be slave-state or free.
I agree that's a new idea, but nothing could make it unconstitutional.

pierrem15: "And if such a party should prevent the introduction of slavery into any new territories, then the South would have found itself in a permanent minority in the Senate due to the entrance of more free states, and the House due to immigration to the North."

You mean "immigration from the North" to southern territories, like Kansas, turning them into Southern free states.
I agree that might prove a problem for people 100% devoted to their "peculiar institution" of slavery.
However, there's more to this story, and a key element is that from Day One Southerners dominated the Democrat party and Democrats dominated in Washington, DC -- not only in both Houses of Congress but also the Presidency, Supreme Court (i.e., Dred-Scott) and the US military.

So, as of 1860 there was no possible "long train of abuses" since Southerners ruled.
Their fears then were over what might happen someday under "Black Republican" administration.

pierrem15: "The Colonies prior to 1776 had used the original colonial charters to create governments largely free from British interference, and did not consent to the British re-interpretation of the colonial arrangement and so chose to secede and form and independent state."

Sir, I wish to congratulate you, commend you and recognize you for something I've never seen on these threads before: somebody who understands that the root cause of American extreme dissatisfaction with Britain was the British May of 1774 abrogation of the 1691 colonial charter of self-government and replacement of the old charter with new, less democratic rules.
Brits followed abrogation with open warfare and a July 1775 Proclamation of Rebellion.

So the "long train of abuses and usurpations" listed in the Declaration of Independence were not just fears and fantasies, but actual warfare of the British government on its own people.

It made our Founders' Declaration of Independence "necessary", a word that you'll see again in their future discussions.

pierrem15: "Some Southern states looked at the inexorable political domination of the free states and decided to secede before any "long train of abuses" was commenced.
Is that a fault, or simply poor political judgment?"

By definition, your word "before" makes it secession "at pleasure" which our Founders considered nothing more than treason, rebellion, insurrection, etc.
No Founder ever condoned secession "at pleasure".

pierrem15: "However, you can just call it an excise tax and then it's legal.
We now know very well how the Federal government can strangle the economic base of the political opponents of the governing party."

Excise taxes (i.e., on whiskey) were never significant and were eliminated entirely in the 1830s.
In 1860 there was no threat by any party to return excise taxes on domestic manufactures.
Rather the debates concerned tariffs on imports, which in 1860 were at historically low levels.
Republicans wanted to increase them to more normal levels, but making sure they also protected American producers from foreign competition.
Southern Democrats especially opposed higher tariffs on imports and were successful in blocking increases until early 1861, after Southerners seceded and walked out of Congress.

So tariffs are not mentioned in the earliest "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession... from the Federal Union."

pierrem15: "It's one thing to be an ephemeral minority, to rule and be ruled in turn.
It's quite another to face the prospect of becoming a permanent political minority."

Sure, I know, then you'd have to learn to win more friends and influence more people, and if you're a Snowflake Democrat, more accustomed to bossing people around than being nice, well... you know, it can be hard, and snowflakes melt easily, right?
Isn't that just what we still see today? </sarc> ;-)

[OIFVeteran]

Excellent point on the difference between the American rebellion and the Southern rebellion. There were no long train of abuses. They lost power and decided to destroy the union.

[WVMnteer]

Do you spend the rest of your free time fighting off other 2nd grade history short-hand lessons?

1. Columbus knew the world was round. So did nearly every other learned person of his age.
2. The American Revolution was not fought soley for “Freedom”
3. George Washington did not chop down a cherry tree against his father’s wishes.

One tin soldier rides away.

[x]

There was a lot of small boat traffic to Bermuda, the Bahamas and Cuba.

Some of them may have been smuggling even before the war.

Then there were some ships in Southern ports seized by state governments.

In addition, Confederate agents bought older ships in the British Isles and outfitted them as blockade runners.

The top of the line blockade runners were commissioned by the Confederate government to be built in Britain and Scotland.

I don't know how many there were, but it looks to me that if you come across the name of a ship that had some renown in its day, odds are it was specially ordered by the CSN to be built in Britain.

Before the war, ownership was a lot more fluid than one might think.

Fraser & Trenholm operated on both sides of the Atlantic. Were they Southerners or just Americans or some mix of Anglicized Southerners or Americans?

Charles Morgan controlled railroads and shipping in Louisiana and Texas, and he started regular steamer service between New York and Charleston, but this great Southern tycoon was from Connecticut. I don't know where he lived or where his headquarters were or what he did during the war. Both sides commandeered his boats for their own use.

I don't know if people actually in business with each other before the war were particularly hostile towards each other. Cotton planters might be very suspicious of shippers and bankers, but that represented landowners' traditional prejudice against trade, something that those actually involved in commerce didn't share.

[pierrem15]

We are arguing about two different sets of points:

a) the cause of secession by the Southern states;
b) the legality of secession.

I think the proximate cause was not slavery but more precisely who was going to make the decision about slavery: the states (or people of a territory) individually; or, the Federal government. Seen in this light, the Republican denial that slavery could be extended to new territories was itself an assault on states rights or the rights of the people of a territory.

I don't necessarily agree with this argument, but I recognize its force at the time.

Regarding the legality of secession, that really depends on how you understand the Articles of Confederation and what was accomplished by the Constitution of 1789. I don't think the Southern argument about the Union being a confederation was correct. But I do find it reasonable; and I do see how many could believe it.

So I wouldn't call all the secessionists traitors: that's too facile a response for an issue that tore even particular families apart and sometimes set brother against brother, father against son.

Finally, viewed with hindsight, it appears to me that Jeff Davis was right (in the long run) about everything except slavery.